You're not really good at reading comprehension, or understanding shades of gray, are you? I never said that one should *never* watch television or *never* do anything like read slashdot. For example, my posts you so triumphantly mentioned were over two months ago. I do not treat slashdot, television, or anything similar like a *necessity*, which is what you were implying television shows, DVRs and so on are for people.

One simply does not need to spend inordinate time on these things. One does not need to watch television for hours a day, buy DVRs, keep up with the latest bullshit, and so on. Do you understand? No, probably not. You are too interested in "winning" an argument instead of understanding a point of view.

You see, I have watched Star Trek, Doctor Who, and other shows. So what? If someone thinks they are stupid, I don't care. I do not have a show "that you dare not criticize". You assume "elitism" (whatever the hell that is) simply because I do not share your world view. Most people in the world do not feel the need to spend their lives glued in front of a television set. But, I guess they are all "elitists" to you, too.

Well, that should be easy. After all, he drinks like a fish! (Thank you! I'll be here all night!)

We don't elect the Supreme Court. Diamond v. Chakrabarty is what led to being able to patent genes.

No, it's like taking two cars of the same make and model, and roughly the same year, and making a new car out of duplicate parts from each of the two cars. You can be fairly certain that it will work, although in some cases there may be defects since a part from one car may be slightly incompatible with a part from the other car. GM crops are like taking rolls royce and replacing the timing belt with one taken from a pinto. You don't know exactly what you'll get, but either way it will be an abomination.

And this, gentlemen, is the rarely-seen-in-the-wild Straw Man/Non-Sequitor/Category Error! Or, could the great Bing Tsher E please explain what in the name of Zeus's asshole does the Iran Hostage crisis have to do with the protesters in the article???

Well, given that it is a British corporation, the BBC could include more personalized educational programs, such as one that teaches you proper English.

Spoken like someone who truly doesn't know what to do other than watch TV. You see, there is a world of difference between "don't be like the mass of sheep watching television and buying all the latest stupid gadgets" and "be like me". You see (and apparently, I have to explain this to you), there are so many other things one can do in life that don't involve watching television. There are so many things to do, so many ways to develop, so many kinds of lives that can be lived. Being an idiot who spends hours every day watching television, and who feels like he has to own every idiotic shiny box for sale is only one of them. It's not important. Get over yourself.

Of course, I'm sure you will intentionally misunderstand this in a feeble attempt to inflate your own ego.

Don't forget the Outer Limits Episode ("Cold Hands, Warm Heart") where he plays an army colonel who goes to Venus. He really shows his "Captain Kirk"-style acting in that one!

Oh, get a life!

... he'll tell his friends that his "body is wearing thin." Then, he'll go into his TARDIS and regenerate.

So remember, in just over ten years, look for a younger actor. who. talks. like. this. on. stage.

He got his TARDIS cheap, though, since he was able to name his own price.

So, you can't find anyone who likes Castro in a self-selected group of ex-pats who fled Cuba specifically because they hate Castro and the Cuban government? Funny that. Mind you, I don't like the Communist government of Cuba or Castro, either. But your logic is, shall we say, a wee bit faulty.

Actually, if it perfectly mimicked a human being, it wouldn't be economically viable. Imagine, after some robo-sex, the fem-bot starts asking "So, when do you want to get married?" or "Why can't we live together? There is no reason for us to pay two rents."

Actually, you're an idiot. They hate you for the same reason most people hate lawyers. You are bottom-feeding scum who contributes nothing of value to society, and in fact takes value out of society. If you were paid according to what you actually produce, you would have to give us all money to keep doing what you do. But, alas, that is capitalism.

I'm surprised they allowed their mass-media mind-control network to leak the fact that there are tunnels on the Moon. Perhaps they accidentally drank some of their own fluoridated water? Either way, the Annunaki will be pissed.

Your post advocates a

(X) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(X) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(X) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(X) Asshats
(X) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(X) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(X) Technically illiterate politicians
(X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
(X) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
(X) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!