I need to question the methods used to measure Spam, specifically what is being measured - while I can see the volume of spam emails dropping, the number of spam accounts attacking the forums I run is ever-increasing. Despite numerous tools (Blacklisting, CAPTCHAs, etc.), the sophistication and frequency of spam accounts and posts on forums seems to be increasing - to the point of humans joining communities and contributing in semi-relevant ways so that they aren't just auto-banned when they sign up.

I don't think that Spam is declining, I just think it's shifting methods to new ways that aren't being fully measured yet...

In the IT World, "Active Opposition" can manifest as geek / nerd ego. I've seen IT Staff / Departments overflow with anxiety because certain individuals would make it a point to oppose anything and everything they could, to make themselves feel important and needed. Everything needed to be researched, checked, verified, approved, and vetted before it could be executed... and, of course, with so much work, there wasn't enough time to do it all, making it worse.

In one case, every single IT project in our company came to a halt while one person prevented them from moving forward. Once he was fired (for unrelated reasons that could be quantified), every project suddenly began to move, and was completed in a reasonable time frame. We still did the work right, we just didn't oppose each other while doing it.

No matter what promises were made, it's inevitable that the images from the scanners would be able to be saved... for evidence. Imagine if someone was actually caught with a bomb in their pants. When the case went to court, there would be no image from the scanner to provide a reason for the arrest, and the whole thing would be based on "He Said, She Said."

I would more believe in a policy of "not retained for more than 48 hours" than "Not able to be saved at all" - the former is more realistic, even if it's admitting they can be saved.

This, rather than the classic suction cup, is what should be on a Dalek's non-weapon appendage. FAR more versatile!

Like many things in doctrine and dogma, it's about control, specifically thought control. If people think for themselves, they might interpret the word of their faith differently, and then they would no longer be under the control of those who are chosen to interpret it for them.

This is not unique to any one religion. Many, MANY faiths have punished those who thought outside their boundaries, or questioned the faith's word or interpretation. Those who are the people of authority in a religion discourage free thought, because they lose control when it happens. History is filled with people who questioned, or stood up to, authority in religion when they felt the message had been lost for the symbols that represented it, and were punished as a result.