The guy doesn't budge on anything, ever, for decades on end. I'm honestly not even sure if that's good or bad.
Just remember -- the president can't do a lot of things without the cooperation of congress. The things he can do are mostly limited to foreign policy; so if he is elected, the things you can expect to *actually* happen are troops being brought home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the rest of our (cough) police actions, etc.; foreign bases being closed (the president is the commander in chief, after all) and aside from sending a bunch of paper to congress which they will ignore at the behest of the lobbyists, that's about it.
Well, and some interesting "fireside chats" which frankly I think need to happen anyway.
He can't cancel the nascent healthcare bill; he can't change the way the fed acts towards the states, or states rights in any way... he can't change how our currency is handled, he can't affect how the bill of rights is treated... heck, he can't even get someone into the supreme court when a member dies or retires without the cooperation of congress. He can't change Roe v. Wade, etc. And he can't push his crazy religious nonsense on anyone, either, any more than Bush could with his batshit insane "atheists aren't citizens" attitude.
And most of that, frankly, is why he's worth electing. We really need to be done with making war all over the map. But we don't have to worry about most of Paul's other positions unless (and this will NEVER happen) a like-minded and similarly honest congress is *also* elected.
I'm not "fighting" anything, or trying to get rid of anything. I'm just observing that I feel that people who steal music and software are, IMHO, the same kind of people doing the same kind of thing, which is stealing something of value, and harming those they are stealing from in the process.
I exited both the music and the software industries because I was tired of creating things and having others take them without recompense. Those who enjoy that lifestyle can continue it all they want, but what they won't have is my stuff to take any longer. Regardless of how you want to characterize it, no matter if you believe with all your heart that "software wants to be free", you sure as hell can't "make" any of my ideas free if I refuse to implement them -- or even tell you about them -- any longer. My music never leaves my studio now, and my software remains on my desktop. And you can thank your "nuanced understanding" for that. And of course, the risk isn't my piddly little corner of the music and software worlds; the risk is that these same people cause some genius to throw up their hands before contributing something important. I'm sure you have a fine excuse for that being "nuanced", and yeah, that's fine too. You go on with your bad self. I'm done. Once I get to a certain level of pissed off, I find something new to do. Luckily, there are still plenty of viable sectors of the economy where one can make a living without worrying about over-entitled ethical simpletons undermining every step you try to take.
Ah. So it's not works created for the public domain at all; it is works that transit to the public domain. Well, that's (likely temporary) good news for my little PD projects, anyway.
Yeah, copyright law is pretty crazy right now. But like the other ways our system is out of control, there's no fixing it... the government is completely past doing what it is authorized to do, and well into simply doing what it wants to do. Barring revolution -- which definitely isn't happening -- I expect we're going to be living in a corporate oligarchy, which in turn will last until they make an economic mistake significant enough to crash the system all by itself.
You've been misled. The US attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan so the public would think they were doing something worthwhile (they weren't) while pumping the military industrial complex and not threatening our oil supply. You also don't understand that schools are not the proper attack vector when members of the student body get out of hand; that distinction belongs to the employer of the student, unless the students were acting on their own -- which is not the case here. The Saudis were the employers.
As for the prisoners in Guantanamo, most are simply guilty of defending their homes. And again, you completely ignore this fact. Hysteria is all you have behind your argument. They are no more "guilty" than you would be if you shot at a bunch of invading Cuban troops who were attacking your home in Florida.
Responsibility here lies with the cult of Islam; and with the sponsors of the cult. Until or unless the cult is dealt with, this problem will in no way be ameliorated.
Our leaders know this; but they aren't interested in solving the problem, as it is a direct means to accrue power here through erosion of citizen's rights and freedoms, and a highly effective way to funnel very large amounts of funds through the military industrial complex.
Piracy of entertainment product and piracy of production software are two entirely different things.
No, they're exactly the same thing. Both cost the producer something to create (time... resources... funding...); both belong to the producer; both are offered to others on a you-pay/you-use basis; both can be easily copied without the producer's cooperation with the goal of circumventing recompense to the producer while still using the product for the purpose it was designed to be used.
Claiming that one has rights to someone else's intellectual product without any need to provide recompense is childish, foolish, and in the long run, counterproductive for society. Product producers who find that their work is taken without recompense are being actively discouraged; they are likely to stop production; society loses.
Perhaps you lack a love of music and so might imagine that a loss of a particular artist is, in effect, no loss. I, however, disagree. Or perhaps you lack an appreciation of tools and/or products and so might imagine that a loss of a particular software producer is, in effect, no loss. Again, I disagree.
From where I sit, such takings appear to have most harms in direct common with garden-variety theft. And while duplicating intellectual product does not permanently consume duplication resources, it does constitute a direct threat to our limited intellectual resources, and this is, in my opinion, actually the greater threat to society.
Free use and the public domain have largely been shredded.
How so? I offer software in the public domain, and I've not noticed any degradation at all of my intent, which is simply that anyone can use software so released for any purpose they like. Curious what you mean by "shredded."
IMO, yes, it is. And yes, I paid for my copy. Whether I would pay for your software depends upon if it enables me sufficiently to balance out the asking price. Photoshop does that quite well. The fact that you've intentionally placed your software on piracy sites is somewhat unlikely to affect me one way or the other, because I never go to them. I did look at the blog linked in your signature, and found no obvious link to any software you might be offering. Seems to me you're missing a bet or two.
Why should people who were defending a country that was invaded be vilified for defending that country? If Cuba rolled into the USA, perhaps bombing your home in the process, would you stand by and let them do whatever they liked to you and yours just because you're not wearing a uniform? Because if that's the case, you're a worthless human being.
We had exactly *one* justification subsequent to 9/11; that would have been to address Saudi Arabia in some fashion, where 15 of the 9/11 cultist fanatics came from, where the funding came from, and where the cult that supplied the initial and supporting ideology -- and which the country is based upon -- makes its state-supported home. Those issues combine to make 9/11 the directly obvious (blatantly obvious, in fact) responsibility of the Saudi Arabian nation.
But we didn't respond properly. Instead, we attacked Iraq for entirely fabricated reasons, and Afghanistan using reasoning that is the approximate equal of attacking England because an enemy's officer was educated at the War Studies Department of King's College London.
In the end, we have addressed neither the root of the problem -- which is the cult of Islam -- or the specifics -- which is the wealthy Saudi Arabian state promoting and funding the utterly reprehensible actions of that very cult.
And in the meantime, those people currently in Guantanamo... they can be, as described above, either criminals (and therefore should be on a fast track to a courtroom) or prisoners of war. There is no other valid reason for holding them, and each of those possibilities comes with a well defined understanding and rules of how they should be treated on a day to day basis. And before anyone screeches "terrorist", terrorism is a crime, end of story.
Not to mention the damage we have done to our own system by inflicting various cripplings on our liberties and freedoms, expending huge amounts of treasure for no useful result, and deceiving our own citizens.
It's been like watching idiots and children trying to solve a problem that is completely beyond them. Or congress. But I repeat myself.
I submitted bitcoin as a tag, and I used the word in the submission. Once. I didn't select the avatar; it appeared immediately when I pressed "submit." Something in the slashcode. Tak e your meds.:)
theism: belief in a god or gods. a-theism: without belief in a god or gods. theism is religion. atheism is not. atheism encompasses no dogma. No "holy" books; no lists of thou shall/shall nots; no historical tales; no morals; no ethics... all it is, is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Anything else you get from a person who has declared themselves atheist is added on from some other philosophical corner of their outlook, because atheism literally brings nothing to the table.
Human rights are what might be referred to as universal truths.
There is no such thing as a universal truth in the context of rights. Human rights are either legal rights, or they don't exist except as wishful thinking, exactly in the same class as light-sabres and religion.
GooglePlus which has better privacy model than facebook
no... Google+ has the same privacy model as Facebook: "Give us your real name so we can sell it to third parties, and of course use it ourselves, and link you to external databases, and hand your butt to your government (and possibly other governments as well.)"
The only real difference is that Facebook hasn't been very diligent in enforcing the real name policy, while Google+ came screaming out of the gate, deleting people's accounts left and right.
Go read the terms of service for the two social networks; they aren't really that different.
Is there anybody that is really going to fight this point at all?
Actual "rights" exist only in the context where some entity is willing to enforce them on behalf of others using sufficient power to overcome those who would violate those rights. Outside of that context, they are no more than wishful thinking.
Here, we have a corporate entity that has no obligation to provide anyone with anything in particular for free. On top of that, we have a government that is tasked such that it is enjoined from violating such rights, and somewhat vaguely, to extend that reach to the actions of the states... but that reach does not go as far as corporations or individuals.
Rights are not given by some fellow in the sky wearing a pure white nightshirt; nor are they inherent to humans or any other specie. They are arbitrary, and to the extent they evidence consistency across societies, they're simply signs of a similar willingness to exercise power, not indications that the rights themselves magically arise out of nowhere.
If you don't want your name on a public record, don't do anything wrong to begin with!
Also, don't get falsely accused of doing anything wrong. Also, don't do anything right that the idiots in the various legislatures have decided to make illegal.
In any case, our society has specifically implemented public shaming in the form of violent and sexual offender websites for some time now. No point whining about twitter at this late date; the precedent was set some time ago, has been to the supreme court, and found not wanting (by complete idiots, but hey, when has *that* ever mattered?)
Not sufficient, because it isn't just your ISP that uses these lists. Say a domain, 'foobar.com', is incorrectly listed. Perhaps spammers have used their domain as a return address. Spamhaus or someone like them blacklists them. Now people who should be receiving email from foobar.com aren't; foobar.com's ability to do business or simply communicate is impacted; and they can't fix this by changing ISPs -- they may not even be aware of it, all they may see is an unexplained decline in sales or responses. But even if they ARE aware of it, it is very difficult to fix: there IS spam with their return address on it out there, though they aren't sending it.
General blacklists are bad ideas. They can't be made to work well in the general case, and further, they are wide open to targeting error and abuse. If someone is abusing the mail system, they need to be positively id'd using forsenic techniques beyond a reasonable doubt, and then brought to justice. And "justice" is not, and will never be, a bunch of geeks running rampant, exerting lynch mob mentality upon anyone they decide will be convenient for their cause.
I should be able to decide who makes it into my mailbox, and who I want to mail. If I abuse that somehow (stalking, advertising w/o opt-in, etc.), the law should be brought into it. Not Spamhaus. And in the meantime, the user should be empowered to use whitelist or blacklist or both at the level of their *own* mailbox. That's one of the most important jobs of every mail client author there ever was or ever will be. There are people I always want to hear from; there are people I never want to hear from; and there are people I've not made a decision about. But it is MY decision to make. Not anyone else's, barring actual legal issues.
Press one if you'd like to continue in English; 8 if you'd like to continue in Spanish [press]
Please listen to the following menu. Our menu options have recently changed. [a menu that does include anything you want to do is presented] You choose one out of desperation.
Please enter your social security number. [presses...]
Please enter your account number [presses...]
Please select from the following menu, which, wonder of wonders, includes "speak to an account representative" [happy press!]
I'm sorry, that number is no longer in service. Please dial our technical support at 1-YOU-ARE-CSOL. [click... dialtone]
The problem is legislation written by idiots, abused by lawyers (but I repeat myself), and then the dance of arbitrary abuse performed by the judiciary. There is nothing so dangerous as poorly written law, and in my experience, almost all law is poorly written.
If you don't like spamhaus, don't use their blocklist. How hard is that?
The problem is, when entities upstream from users (both senders and receivers) are deluded into using Spamhaus, and that in turn screws up those user's email -- the users themselves have zero recourse. So it isn't a matter of simply "deciding not to use a list." Spamhaus and every operation like them are exercising power over people who are defenseless, and who never authorized any such interference.
FTFY: What you're actually saying is that Spamhaus should be allowed to destroy multiple senders and receiver's email capability without law enforcement intervening.
The thing is, they have no right to do this, and nowhere to GET a right to do this -- and THAT is why law enforcement should be provided with a means to show up at Spamhaus's door and arrest the lot of them.
I never signed up for Spamhaus to be my "Internet Mommy." They're presumptuous abusers of other people's rights. Just as bad as spammers, and for the same reason: direct interference with my email.
Whatever, it's good to see some kickback here. I never asked for Spamhaus to be my Internet Mommy. As far as I'm concerned, they're no more than a bunch of low-lives, just as bad as the spammers themselves, and for *exactly* the same reason -- they're screwing with my inbox without my permission.
The correct way to deal with spam is legislation, legal enforcement, and more secure operating systems. Not by screwing with the mail system mechanism itself.
Also, he thinks G+, a privacy nightmare and corporate well-of-shame, is nonetheless something worthy of support, and Facebook, the same thing -- only worse -- is something to emulate. Pitiful. Simply pitiful.
Slashdot Mirror
Just remember -- the president can't do a lot of things without the cooperation of congress. The things he can do are mostly limited to foreign policy; so if he is elected, the things you can expect to *actually* happen are troops being brought home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and the rest of our (cough) police actions, etc.; foreign bases being closed (the president is the commander in chief, after all) and aside from sending a bunch of paper to congress which they will ignore at the behest of the lobbyists, that's about it.
Well, and some interesting "fireside chats" which frankly I think need to happen anyway.
He can't cancel the nascent healthcare bill; he can't change the way the fed acts towards the states, or states rights in any way... he can't change how our currency is handled, he can't affect how the bill of rights is treated... heck, he can't even get someone into the supreme court when a member dies or retires without the cooperation of congress. He can't change Roe v. Wade, etc. And he can't push his crazy religious nonsense on anyone, either, any more than Bush could with his batshit insane "atheists aren't citizens" attitude.
And most of that, frankly, is why he's worth electing. We really need to be done with making war all over the map. But we don't have to worry about most of Paul's other positions unless (and this will NEVER happen) a like-minded and similarly honest congress is *also* elected.
I'm not "fighting" anything, or trying to get rid of anything. I'm just observing that I feel that people who steal music and software are, IMHO, the same kind of people doing the same kind of thing, which is stealing something of value, and harming those they are stealing from in the process.
I exited both the music and the software industries because I was tired of creating things and having others take them without recompense. Those who enjoy that lifestyle can continue it all they want, but what they won't have is my stuff to take any longer. Regardless of how you want to characterize it, no matter if you believe with all your heart that "software wants to be free", you sure as hell can't "make" any of my ideas free if I refuse to implement them -- or even tell you about them -- any longer. My music never leaves my studio now, and my software remains on my desktop. And you can thank your "nuanced understanding" for that. And of course, the risk isn't my piddly little corner of the music and software worlds; the risk is that these same people cause some genius to throw up their hands before contributing something important. I'm sure you have a fine excuse for that being "nuanced", and yeah, that's fine too. You go on with your bad self. I'm done. Once I get to a certain level of pissed off, I find something new to do. Luckily, there are still plenty of viable sectors of the economy where one can make a living without worrying about over-entitled ethical simpletons undermining every step you try to take.
Ah. So it's not works created for the public domain at all; it is works that transit to the public domain. Well, that's (likely temporary) good news for my little PD projects, anyway.
Yeah, copyright law is pretty crazy right now. But like the other ways our system is out of control, there's no fixing it... the government is completely past doing what it is authorized to do, and well into simply doing what it wants to do. Barring revolution -- which definitely isn't happening -- I expect we're going to be living in a corporate oligarchy, which in turn will last until they make an economic mistake significant enough to crash the system all by itself.
You've been misled. The US attacked both Iraq and Afghanistan so the public would think they were doing something worthwhile (they weren't) while pumping the military industrial complex and not threatening our oil supply. You also don't understand that schools are not the proper attack vector when members of the student body get out of hand; that distinction belongs to the employer of the student, unless the students were acting on their own -- which is not the case here. The Saudis were the employers.
As for the prisoners in Guantanamo, most are simply guilty of defending their homes. And again, you completely ignore this fact. Hysteria is all you have behind your argument. They are no more "guilty" than you would be if you shot at a bunch of invading Cuban troops who were attacking your home in Florida.
Responsibility here lies with the cult of Islam; and with the sponsors of the cult. Until or unless the cult is dealt with, this problem will in no way be ameliorated.
Our leaders know this; but they aren't interested in solving the problem, as it is a direct means to accrue power here through erosion of citizen's rights and freedoms, and a highly effective way to funnel very large amounts of funds through the military industrial complex.
No, they're exactly the same thing. Both cost the producer something to create (time... resources... funding...); both belong to the producer; both are offered to others on a you-pay/you-use basis; both can be easily copied without the producer's cooperation with the goal of circumventing recompense to the producer while still using the product for the purpose it was designed to be used.
Claiming that one has rights to someone else's intellectual product without any need to provide recompense is childish, foolish, and in the long run, counterproductive for society. Product producers who find that their work is taken without recompense are being actively discouraged; they are likely to stop production; society loses.
Perhaps you lack a love of music and so might imagine that a loss of a particular artist is, in effect, no loss. I, however, disagree. Or perhaps you lack an appreciation of tools and/or products and so might imagine that a loss of a particular software producer is, in effect, no loss. Again, I disagree.
From where I sit, such takings appear to have most harms in direct common with garden-variety theft. And while duplicating intellectual product does not permanently consume duplication resources, it does constitute a direct threat to our limited intellectual resources, and this is, in my opinion, actually the greater threat to society.
Gee, just like Slashdot moderation. Imagine that. :)
How so? I offer software in the public domain, and I've not noticed any degradation at all of my intent, which is simply that anyone can use software so released for any purpose they like. Curious what you mean by "shredded."
IMO, yes, it is. And yes, I paid for my copy. Whether I would pay for your software depends upon if it enables me sufficiently to balance out the asking price. Photoshop does that quite well. The fact that you've intentionally placed your software on piracy sites is somewhat unlikely to affect me one way or the other, because I never go to them. I did look at the blog linked in your signature, and found no obvious link to any software you might be offering. Seems to me you're missing a bet or two.
Why should people who were defending a country that was invaded be vilified for defending that country? If Cuba rolled into the USA, perhaps bombing your home in the process, would you stand by and let them do whatever they liked to you and yours just because you're not wearing a uniform? Because if that's the case, you're a worthless human being.
We had exactly *one* justification subsequent to 9/11; that would have been to address Saudi Arabia in some fashion, where 15 of the 9/11 cultist fanatics came from, where the funding came from, and where the cult that supplied the initial and supporting ideology -- and which the country is based upon -- makes its state-supported home. Those issues combine to make 9/11 the directly obvious (blatantly obvious, in fact) responsibility of the Saudi Arabian nation.
But we didn't respond properly. Instead, we attacked Iraq for entirely fabricated reasons, and Afghanistan using reasoning that is the approximate equal of attacking England because an enemy's officer was educated at the War Studies Department of King's College London.
In the end, we have addressed neither the root of the problem -- which is the cult of Islam -- or the specifics -- which is the wealthy Saudi Arabian state promoting and funding the utterly reprehensible actions of that very cult.
And in the meantime, those people currently in Guantanamo... they can be, as described above, either criminals (and therefore should be on a fast track to a courtroom) or prisoners of war. There is no other valid reason for holding them, and each of those possibilities comes with a well defined understanding and rules of how they should be treated on a day to day basis. And before anyone screeches "terrorist", terrorism is a crime, end of story.
Not to mention the damage we have done to our own system by inflicting various cripplings on our liberties and freedoms, expending huge amounts of treasure for no useful result, and deceiving our own citizens.
It's been like watching idiots and children trying to solve a problem that is completely beyond them. Or congress. But I repeat myself.
I submitted bitcoin as a tag, and I used the word in the submission. Once. I didn't select the avatar; it appeared immediately when I pressed "submit." :)
Something in the slashcode. Tak e your meds.
theism: belief in a god or gods. a-theism: without belief in a god or gods. theism is religion. atheism is not. atheism encompasses no dogma. No "holy" books; no lists of thou shall/shall nots; no historical tales; no morals; no ethics... all it is, is the lack of belief in a god or gods. Anything else you get from a person who has declared themselves atheist is added on from some other philosophical corner of their outlook, because atheism literally brings nothing to the table.
There is no such thing as a universal truth in the context of rights. Human rights are either legal rights, or they don't exist except as wishful thinking, exactly in the same class as light-sabres and religion.
no... Google+ has the same privacy model as Facebook: "Give us your real name so we can sell it to third parties, and of course use it ourselves, and link you to external databases, and hand your butt to your government (and possibly other governments as well.)"
The only real difference is that Facebook hasn't been very diligent in enforcing the real name policy, while Google+ came screaming out of the gate, deleting people's accounts left and right.
Go read the terms of service for the two social networks; they aren't really that different.
Actual "rights" exist only in the context where some entity is willing to enforce them on behalf of others using sufficient power to overcome those who would violate those rights. Outside of that context, they are no more than wishful thinking.
Here, we have a corporate entity that has no obligation to provide anyone with anything in particular for free. On top of that, we have a government that is tasked such that it is enjoined from violating such rights, and somewhat vaguely, to extend that reach to the actions of the states... but that reach does not go as far as corporations or individuals.
Rights are not given by some fellow in the sky wearing a pure white nightshirt; nor are they inherent to humans or any other specie. They are arbitrary, and to the extent they evidence consistency across societies, they're simply signs of a similar willingness to exercise power, not indications that the rights themselves magically arise out of nowhere.
Also, don't get falsely accused of doing anything wrong. Also, don't do anything right that the idiots in the various legislatures have decided to make illegal.
In any case, our society has specifically implemented public shaming in the form of violent and sexual offender websites for some time now. No point whining about twitter at this late date; the precedent was set some time ago, has been to the supreme court, and found not wanting (by complete idiots, but hey, when has *that* ever mattered?)
Not sufficient, because it isn't just your ISP that uses these lists. Say a domain, 'foobar.com', is incorrectly listed. Perhaps spammers have used their domain as a return address. Spamhaus or someone like them blacklists them. Now people who should be receiving email from foobar.com aren't; foobar.com's ability to do business or simply communicate is impacted; and they can't fix this by changing ISPs -- they may not even be aware of it, all they may see is an unexplained decline in sales or responses. But even if they ARE aware of it, it is very difficult to fix: there IS spam with their return address on it out there, though they aren't sending it.
General blacklists are bad ideas. They can't be made to work well in the general case, and further, they are wide open to targeting error and abuse. If someone is abusing the mail system, they need to be positively id'd using forsenic techniques beyond a reasonable doubt, and then brought to justice. And "justice" is not, and will never be, a bunch of geeks running rampant, exerting lynch mob mentality upon anyone they decide will be convenient for their cause.
I should be able to decide who makes it into my mailbox, and who I want to mail. If I abuse that somehow (stalking, advertising w/o opt-in, etc.), the law should be brought into it. Not Spamhaus. And in the meantime, the user should be empowered to use whitelist or blacklist or both at the level of their *own* mailbox. That's one of the most important jobs of every mail client author there ever was or ever will be. There are people I always want to hear from; there are people I never want to hear from; and there are people I've not made a decision about. But it is MY decision to make. Not anyone else's, barring actual legal issues.
You dial tech support at 1-YOU-ARE-CSOL:
Press one if you'd like to continue in English; 8 if you'd like to continue in Spanish [press]
Please listen to the following menu. Our menu options have recently changed. [a menu that does include anything you want to do is presented] You choose one out of desperation.
Please enter your social security number. [presses...]
Please enter your account number [presses...]
Please select from the following menu, which, wonder of wonders, includes "speak to an account representative" [happy press!]
I'm sorry, that number is no longer in service. Please dial our technical support at 1-YOU-ARE-CSOL. [click... dialtone]
Was the person who told you that a prince? I know that guy too. We maintain a regular correspondence; he has consistent banking problems, poor fellow.
The problem is legislation written by idiots, abused by lawyers (but I repeat myself), and then the dance of arbitrary abuse performed by the judiciary. There is nothing so dangerous as poorly written law, and in my experience, almost all law is poorly written.
The problem is, when entities upstream from users (both senders and receivers) are deluded into using Spamhaus, and that in turn screws up those user's email -- the users themselves have zero recourse. So it isn't a matter of simply "deciding not to use a list." Spamhaus and every operation like them are exercising power over people who are defenseless, and who never authorized any such interference.
FTFY: What you're actually saying is that Spamhaus should be allowed to destroy multiple senders and receiver's email capability without law enforcement intervening.
The thing is, they have no right to do this, and nowhere to GET a right to do this -- and THAT is why law enforcement should be provided with a means to show up at Spamhaus's door and arrest the lot of them.
I never signed up for Spamhaus to be my "Internet Mommy." They're presumptuous abusers of other people's rights. Just as bad as spammers, and for the same reason: direct interference with my email.
Whatever, it's good to see some kickback here. I never asked for Spamhaus to be my Internet Mommy. As far as I'm concerned, they're no more than a bunch of low-lives, just as bad as the spammers themselves, and for *exactly* the same reason -- they're screwing with my inbox without my permission.
The correct way to deal with spam is legislation, legal enforcement, and more secure operating systems. Not by screwing with the mail system mechanism itself.
Also, he thinks G+, a privacy nightmare and corporate well-of-shame, is nonetheless something worthy of support, and Facebook, the same thing -- only worse -- is something to emulate. Pitiful. Simply pitiful.
Money directly causes lack of consequences, or ameliorates them, often significantly. Therefore, money does corrupt. Power likewise.