No, he is head of security, AKA 'chief rent-a-cop' for Microsoft. He's an obvious law enforcement type, and the interview doesn't evince any technical knowledge at all.
By what specious reasoning did you come to the conclusion that it's either FBI in your bedroom rifling through your underwear drawer or terrorists in the mall?
The guy stated: "I like spam" not "I like my spam". And there's no mention of liking spam that he signed up for. Do you read the posts before you reply, or just pick out one or two random words then write a response to what you think the person meant?
p.s. Look up threat in the dictionary. I didn't make any kind of a threat, only suggested that if he likes spam, I have plenty i can share with him, if he's not just being contrarian.
If you like spam so much, why don't you post your personal email address--the one you care about and can't change--and I'll be happy to forward every piece of spam i get to you.
I'm sure you could get spam forwards from hundreds of/.ers too if you like it so much. Just think, if it's ever outlawed, you'll have years worth of your own personal spam so you can still look at a hundred fresh ones every day.
I don't like spam, but I don't want any laws against it. If you want freedom, you have to support everyone's freedom... even if you hate them. The only law I would support is one that mandated a way to get off a spammers list... AND the remove must work.
Spam is not a freedom that people should be able to exercise, no more than direct marketers should be able to send out a pound of junk mail per household per day.
A real remove does not come close to being a solution. People shouldn't have to 'opt out' of spam; spammers should only be able to spam those who have opted in. Yeah, I know they wouldn't be able to spam anybody in that case, but that's the point. Spam is forcing something on an individual and making him or her pay for it. Consider that ISPs (i'm in the US) are looking into ways of charging high-bandwidth users more--AT&T has plans for this in the future (their 1.5 mbps bandwidth cap was their first step towards that; if you want more, you pay for it). Should I have to pay for Spam? Should the ISP have to pay for it?
Saying that people should be able to opt out of spam is a bit like saying Microsoft should be able to install spyware on your hard drive that monitors all the software you have installed, whether all your MP3s are legally ripped or downloaded, and tracks your every click online--unless you find the small print that says you can request to be put on the please don't f*ck me, bill, list.
Wait, that's WinXP, but there's no such opt-out option.
My point is that a remove list does not cut it. A small database containing the email addresses of all those who are willing to pay for and receive spam should be consulted by spammers first. If they insist on sending unsolicited email, they should be fined enough that it no longer is a profitable pursuit, however much the fine has to be.
Who are we to make, and take, life at our own will? The same specious rhetorical argument has been made against medicine in general. A famous Protestant theologian of this century argued that since god is all powerful, any use of medicine at all belied a lack of faith in god and hubris in assuming that we can do the work of god in preserving life. It's an utterly stupid argument, but it is the natural conclusion of all the "who are we" arguments.
We are people, and we have the right to take control of our destinies. You wouldn't be talking to us here if people had listened to your argument, for who are we to intervene in the divine order that the deity has imposed on the electrons of the universe.
If it's OK to do this, what keeps us from killing every other person on earth that doesn't do what we say? If it's ok to engage in therapeutic cloning, what keeps us from launching all of our nukes and decimating the planet? My leap is just about as coherent as yours.
It just isn't right. Plus, our president has already given other ways to get stem cells. Saying it isn't right doesn't make it so. As for what our president has done, the original topic was not about stem cells, but even so, the number of viable stem cells is almost certainly not enough for real research, and what do we do if they all turn out not to be viable?
As with my standings with abortion, I believe this is hightly unethical and not moral. Are your arguments for abortion also "who are we to..."? I ask you, who are we to intrude on the natural way of things and try to save life, when clearly death, disease, and suffering are a part of life, and are we not committing sins in usurping god's place of sustaining life?
Slashdot Mirror
No, he is head of security, AKA 'chief rent-a-cop' for Microsoft. He's an obvious law enforcement type, and the interview doesn't evince any technical knowledge at all.
Yes. Hawking, singular, and Stephen, not Steven.
Ever heard of a 'false dilemma'?
One word: J. Edgar Hoover.
The guy stated: "I like spam" not "I like my spam". And there's no mention of liking spam that he signed up for. Do you read the posts before you reply, or just pick out one or two random words then write a response to what you think the person meant? p.s. Look up threat in the dictionary. I didn't make any kind of a threat, only suggested that if he likes spam, I have plenty i can share with him, if he's not just being contrarian.
I'm sure you could get spam forwards from hundreds of /.ers too if you like it so much. Just think, if it's ever outlawed, you'll have years worth of your own personal spam so you can still look at a hundred fresh ones every day.
I don't like spam, but I don't want any laws against it. If you want freedom, you have to support everyone's freedom... even if you hate them. The only law I would support is one that mandated a way to get off a spammers list... AND the remove must work.
Spam is not a freedom that people should be able to exercise, no more than direct marketers should be able to send out a pound of junk mail per household per day.
A real remove does not come close to being a solution. People shouldn't have to 'opt out' of spam; spammers should only be able to spam those who have opted in. Yeah, I know they wouldn't be able to spam anybody in that case, but that's the point. Spam is forcing something on an individual and making him or her pay for it. Consider that ISPs (i'm in the US) are looking into ways of charging high-bandwidth users more--AT&T has plans for this in the future (their 1.5 mbps bandwidth cap was their first step towards that; if you want more, you pay for it). Should I have to pay for Spam? Should the ISP have to pay for it?
Saying that people should be able to opt out of spam is a bit like saying Microsoft should be able to install spyware on your hard drive that monitors all the software you have installed, whether all your MP3s are legally ripped or downloaded, and tracks your every click online--unless you find the small print that says you can request to be put on the please don't f*ck me, bill, list.
Wait, that's WinXP, but there's no such opt-out option.
My point is that a remove list does not cut it. A small database containing the email addresses of all those who are willing to pay for and receive spam should be consulted by spammers first. If they insist on sending unsolicited email, they should be fined enough that it no longer is a profitable pursuit, however much the fine has to be.
Who are we to make, and take, life at our own will?
..."? I ask you, who are we to intrude on the natural way of things and try to save life, when clearly death, disease, and suffering are a part of life, and are we not committing sins in usurping god's place of sustaining life?
The same specious rhetorical argument has been made against medicine in general. A famous Protestant theologian of this century argued that since god is all powerful, any use of medicine at all belied a lack of faith in god and hubris in assuming that we can do the work of god in preserving life. It's an utterly stupid argument, but it is the natural conclusion of all the "who are we" arguments.
We are people, and we have the right to take control of our destinies. You wouldn't be talking to us here if people had listened to your argument, for who are we to intervene in the divine order that the deity has imposed on the electrons of the universe.
If it's OK to do this, what keeps us from killing every other person on earth that doesn't do what we say? If it's ok to engage in therapeutic cloning, what keeps us from launching all of our nukes and decimating the planet? My leap is just about as coherent as yours.
It just isn't right. Plus, our president has already given other ways to get stem cells. Saying it isn't right doesn't make it so. As for what our president has done, the original topic was not about stem cells, but even so, the number of viable stem cells is almost certainly not enough for real research, and what do we do if they all turn out not to be viable?
As with my standings with abortion, I believe this is hightly unethical and not moral. Are your arguments for abortion also "who are we to