Because a social network's primary value to a user increases with its size.....so using fb even knowing that it's selling your data is the same kind of cost/benefit thinking people make all the time to try and optimize in situations in which they only have partial control.
Hi, I've never commented on your blog before, though I've read it for several years and found the learned perspective on Middle East affairs to be quite intelligent and enlightening.
Do you know if this practice would involve a literal breast-feeding lips to nipple, or would drinking breast milk from a glass be symbolically sufficient?
@N : Whether another country does something has no bearing on whether we should do the same, i.e. 'two wrongs don't make a right,' or so I remember hearing way back when.
Your second statement is basically jargon - what does 'clandestine' mean? 'Our network against theirs?' What does that mean with regards to the intelligence agencies that actually exist? They're not really networked. Speaking of networks, did the FBI ever get their super-expensive computer network to work? My own jargonistic statement would be that terrorists should be essentially treated as criminals, and handled by the appropriate authorities - primarily ones other than the military.
Sorry to be so polemic, but you appeared to have missed the point of the article.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Who says? š
Because a social network's primary value to a user increases with its size.....so using fb even knowing that it's selling your data is the same kind of cost/benefit thinking people make all the time to try and optimize in situations in which they only have partial control.
Hi, I've never commented on your blog before, though I've read it for several years and found the learned perspective on Middle East affairs to be quite intelligent and enlightening.
Do you know if this practice would involve a literal breast-feeding lips to nipple, or would drinking breast milk from a glass be symbolically sufficient?
@N : Whether another country does something has no bearing on whether we should do the same, i.e. 'two wrongs don't make a right,' or so I remember hearing way back when.
Your second statement is basically jargon - what does 'clandestine' mean? 'Our network against theirs?' What does that mean with regards to the intelligence agencies that actually exist? They're not really networked. Speaking of networks, did the FBI ever get their super-expensive computer network to work? My own jargonistic statement would be that terrorists should be essentially treated as criminals, and handled by the appropriate authorities - primarily ones other than the military.
Sorry to be so polemic, but you appeared to have missed the point of the article.