In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> Would there be any interest in having a Facebook group for food photos
> that encompasses people from RFC, ABF, AFB, ACC-C (dead?), and other
> food related groups on Usenet?

What Barb said.

> There is one aspect I don't like about this idea (well, there is a
> few, but they are minor) is that Facebook resizes pictures to be
> fairly small. My standard posting photo size is 1280x960 so you can
> see all the creamy goodness in detail, while Facebook likes to 800x600
> or so. Does anybody know how to defeat that?

Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people. Post a URL to a
place with higher resolution. Sometimes people (not from rfc, of
course) post fifty crappy pictures all at once, only two of which I have
any interest in. It takes forever to load them all (especially when my
son is playing WoW), and then I wish I hadn't.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2011-01-17, Dan Abel > wrote:

> Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people.

Apparently not enough detail for the creators of Facebook, who are now
going to allow apps makers ....read marketing ppl..... even MORE
access to your privacy, if there is such a thing on Facebook.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/tech...ebook_privacy/

It's Creeping Meatballism all over again. Wait till they reverse it
so it's up to you to opt out, if you have a "clue", another commodity
seemingly in short supply on Facebook.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2011-01-17, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
> > Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people.
>
> Apparently not enough detail for the creators of Facebook, who are now
> going to allow apps makers ....read marketing ppl..... even MORE
> access to your privacy, if there is such a thing on Facebook.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/tech...ebook_privacy/
>
> It's Creeping Meatballism all over again. Wait till they reverse it
> so it's up to you to opt out, if you have a "clue", another commodity
> seemingly in short supply on Facebook.

Although I like using FB, I'm not happy with some things. Back when
they got the bright idea of making you only list things on your profile
that they could link to a web page, I just deleted almost everything
that I had there. The only interest I have left is:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?...of-interests-w
hich-I-used-to-list-here-but-Facebook-deleted-them-and-I-cant-put-them-ba
ck-because-Facebook-will-make-me-link-to-some-bogus-community-page-that-h
as-nothing-to-do-with-me

I refuse to use any "apps" on FB.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2011-01-17, Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> Just let it be. That's enough detail for most people.
>
> Apparently not enough detail for the creators of Facebook, who are now
> going to allow apps makers ....read marketing ppl..... even MORE
> access to your privacy, if there is such a thing on Facebook.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/17/tech...ebook_privacy/
>
> It's Creeping Meatballism all over again. Wait till they reverse it
> so it's up to you to opt out, if you have a "clue", another commodity
> seemingly in short supply on Facebook.
>

People freely and willingly put more information about themselves on
Facebook than an identity thief could ever dream of but they refuse to send
in an anonymous mailer about how many people live in their house, to the US
Census Bureau. Just because it was built by a kid who wears sandals and
T-shirts does not mean your data is not being used in a million ways to make
money by those who do not have your interests at heart.

I am not even on Facebook yet they get me. Recently I did a Google search
on the prices of 1980s vintage French wines since I was curious about
something an online poster claimed. Sure enough, I am now receiving in my
snail mail, fliers and price lists from specialty online wine shops. To my
HOME address and all from ONE Google search.

That's how Google became a 60 billion dollar company. Facebook is not far
behind.

Paul