Yes, it is. It is anonymous according to the DICTIONARY definition.
"Anonymous" does not mean you don't know that somebody wrote. It means you don't know what they wrote. Alternatively, if you have something written, it means you don't know who wrote it. One follows from the other.
I'm not playing games. YOU are. I suggest you go get a dictionary.
I repeat, and I'm not mincing words or playing semantic games: WHETHER you voted is public. HOW you voted is not. That means that after it is verified WHETHER you voted, your ballot, while surely secret, is also ANONYMOUS.
As the dictionary says:
"1. without any name acknowledged, as that of author, contributor, or the like"
If you knew the [name, author, contributor] of any given ballot, it could not be "secret"! In order to be secret, it HAS TO be anonymous!
"I have repeatedly over the years found this to the case."
I think I'll keep going with the respected industry reviewers.
But also, as I stated earlier, hardware is not the only issue. In many ways OS X is simply a superior OS. Now, if only they would adopt a modern filesystem...
"I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that."
Actually, since I'm a developer, I have justification for getting the upper-end hardware anyway, and if you're going to do that, the cost differential between Mac and PC is actually pretty small. Review after review after review have been saying the same thing for years: "For the same level of hardware, Macs are only slightly more expensive."
But there's quite a bit more to it: Mac gives you native access to the *nix command line, and it is easier to run Windows in a VM on OS X than it is to run OS X on a VM in Windows.
So from my point of view, it is the most flexible option, too.
"Anonymous voting means nobody knows who you are when you vote. Secret ballot means they know who you are but not how you voted. I'd try to come up with a car analogy but it's not worth it."
I understand what you are saying but you're splitting hairs at best. Your actual BALLOT (vote) is still anonymous.
"A democracy is impossible with anonymous voting. If you can't determine that the person who is voting has a right to vote, then anyone can walk in and vote. "
You misunderstood me. We do have "anonymous voting", but not in the sense you mean.
You go to the voting center. You show your I.D. so they know you voted. But it's anonymous in the sense that the ballot does not have your name on it, so HOW you voted, that is, what or who you voted for, is still anonymous.
I just upgraded to 24, and I see the same cookie controls it always had.
I think blocking cookies is turned off by default in the new version, but that's not the same as "hiding controls". If you upgrade, your settings should be the same as before. Mine are.
"Nevertheless that warning was even at that time unfoundated. So the correct statement would be: "some climatologists" warned of global cooling. And even more correct: and got debunked right away at that time However: the wrong warning is more in the public mind than the correction."
So they've said, but I was there. That statement isn't intended as evidence or to convince you, but nevertheless I do remember.
"Global warming is not a theory."
I don't recall claiming it was. ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW), however, IS a theory.
"It is a physical effect based on the theory of Thermodynamics and the chemistry of the atmosphere and the amount of radiation received from the sun."
You contradict yourself. A physical effect is not based on theory. It exists or it doesn't. Further, I suggest you read Pierre Latour's paper on why thermodynamics actually DISproves AGW. To date, nobody has successfully refuted it, though there has been a lot of handwaving.
"It is very unscientific to believe we would need "a new theory" to work on the global warming problem."
Again you contradict yourself. Because if so, then we don't need AGW. Parts of it have been around a while, but parts of it are new.
Correction: "open system" should be "more open system".
The Earth is not a "closed system", but it is largely self-contained except for radiation, some "cosmic" dust, and the occasional rock that enters the atmosphere.
"Sorry that is just nonsense. The laws of physics are the same on every scale."
No, what is nonsense is your argument. There are FAR more issues than just "scale" involved.
Showing that an effect exists in a small, closed system does not prove that it has a major effect on a much larger, open system. And you are just reinforcing one of my points: current models (according to peer-reviewed papers I linked to here yesterday) do not account for convection in the atmosphere.
So sorry yourself, but no. You can't just say "Look, it happens in this box" and then extrapolate it to the entire global atmosphere. It's far more complicated than that, and denying it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
"Regarding "predictions"... so far I find the predictions pretty conservative and in that frame accurate."
"Do you know any particular prediction (made by creditable scientists) that was later revised?"
Pretty much everything in the latest IPCC report. Temperature is not predicted to go up as far as they said before. They've pretty much dropped any claim that "global warming" will make hurricanes worse (in fact they're saying it isn't even mentioned in the new report). Etc.
The "science" in the IPCC reports has been continually revised, and it has been revised downward in each successive report.
"That would make sense if there was a shred of evidence that people only invent things because they hope to patent them. Say maybe if the world were full of saying like "IP protection is the mother of invention" or "invent a better mouse trap and the world will grant you exclusive use of the idea for a limited time."
Well then, it makes sense, because we have far more than a shred. We have at least 300 years of historical evidence, continuing into modern times.
"Of course, we don't see any of that. We don't live in that world and it takes a rather twisted view of human nature to swallow the notion that patents somehow cause invention. "
You are blaming abuses that exist in our current bureaucratically-fouled system on the very concept of patents. That's like blaming the 4th Amendment for the time the police broke down your door without a warrant.
"If you want a patent on your gizmo, you have to fully disclose the details so anyone reasonably competent can make and use one after the patent expires. That is what society gets out of it."
No shit, Sherlock. What is your point?
"The promotion of progress isn't about gulling people into inventing stuff (they were doing that already)."
Nobody said it was. I didn't claim it was an attempt to trick people. It *ISN'T* an attempt to "gull" anybody.
" It's about making sure that other people can copy those inventions, build on them"
Only AFTERWARD. It's about MOTIVATING people to invent, SO THAT society can benefit from it later.
We are arguing the same thing, except that you're denying the necessary first half of the argument.
"You are absolutely right. Concentrating only on hurricanes that hit inhabited areas is misleading. It's the completely inadequate response the Government has had for the Great Red Spot of Jupiter that we should focus on."
My point was that it hit a very large swath of land... far more than most hurricanes. It was large, but it was not particularly energetic per unit area. If it had only hit the coast in the manner of most hurricanes, it would have done relatively little damage.
"I am curious what makes you think that any other organisation will achieve the same - or smaller - list of things that went wrong, while keeping the list of things that went right equal too."
I'll put it in few words: FEMA is notorious for having its head firmly up its ass, and fucking up simple things.
The FACT is, they have FUCKED UP. A lot. Maybe not every time, but a lot.
"A big disaster ceases to be one if organizations such as FEMA step in to help the people in need and mitigate the effects of a nasty occurrence.
Your claim is equivalent to lambasting the fire department because their work extinguishing a fire was done properly enough so that it didn't turned into a raging inferno, and then use that consequence to criticize the fire department because their reason for existence is fighting raring infernos."
Absolute nonsense. My claim is equivalent to saying we should fire the fire department because they FAILED to put out fires.
"To the extent "banning" pseudonyms pleases some people, it does so by letting them retaliate."
Precisely. It puzzles me why many people don't understand this.
Our Founders (and for that matter, the Supreme Court) acknowledged that a Democratic form of government is not possible without free and anonymous speech, and anonymous voting. And anonymity requires pseudonymity.
And this is so precisely because without anonymous speech, it becomes possible to retaliate against people for their speech. An employer can retaliate if an employee supports politics he doesn't like, for example. Or the government can retaliate if certain speech is not appreciated.
Think that's stretching things? Nonsense. Look at the flap about the IRS just this year.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is not anonymous by ANY definition."
Yes, it is. It is anonymous according to the DICTIONARY definition.
"Anonymous" does not mean you don't know that somebody wrote. It means you don't know what they wrote. Alternatively, if you have something written, it means you don't know who wrote it. One follows from the other.
In BOTH senses, your vote is anonymous.
I repeat, and I'm not mincing words or playing semantic games: WHETHER you voted is public. HOW you voted is not. That means that after it is verified WHETHER you voted, your ballot, while surely secret, is also ANONYMOUS.
As the dictionary says:
"1. without any name acknowledged, as that of author, contributor, or the like"
If you knew the [name, author, contributor] of any given ballot, it could not be "secret"! In order to be secret, it HAS TO be anonymous!
"I have repeatedly over the years found this to the case."
I think I'll keep going with the respected industry reviewers.
But also, as I stated earlier, hardware is not the only issue. In many ways OS X is simply a superior OS. Now, if only they would adopt a modern filesystem...
"I'm on Windows... I paid less for things to work fine for me. *shrugs* But hey, if cost is less important to you, you keep rocking that."
Actually, since I'm a developer, I have justification for getting the upper-end hardware anyway, and if you're going to do that, the cost differential between Mac and PC is actually pretty small. Review after review after review have been saying the same thing for years: "For the same level of hardware, Macs are only slightly more expensive."
But there's quite a bit more to it: Mac gives you native access to the *nix command line, and it is easier to run Windows in a VM on OS X than it is to run OS X on a VM in Windows.
So from my point of view, it is the most flexible option, too.
"Anonymous voting means nobody knows who you are when you vote. Secret ballot means they know who you are but not how you voted. I'd try to come up with a car analogy but it's not worth it."
I understand what you are saying but you're splitting hairs at best. Your actual BALLOT (vote) is still anonymous.
"That's not anonymous, that's secret."
You're making a distinction that is not a real difference. Your VOTE is anonymous. WHETHER you voted is not.
Those are two different things.
Well, I'm on OS X here, and all the controls are in the same place they always were, and they've always worked fine for me.
If you're on Windows, YMMV. I seldom use Windows anymore.
"A democracy is impossible with anonymous voting. If you can't determine that the person who is voting has a right to vote, then anyone can walk in and vote. "
You misunderstood me. We do have "anonymous voting", but not in the sense you mean.
You go to the voting center. You show your I.D. so they know you voted. But it's anonymous in the sense that the ballot does not have your name on it, so HOW you voted, that is, what or who you voted for, is still anonymous.
"It has nothing to to do with "think" or "believe" it is knowledge ;D"
That's really quite amusing. But I repeat:
"If you really think so, then this discussion is completely pointless. Goodbye."
I think peer sharing via the browser is a wonderful idea. I've been waiting for something like this for a long time.
I think you're confusing Mozilla with Apple: giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
I just upgraded to 24, and I see the same cookie controls it always had.
I think blocking cookies is turned off by default in the new version, but that's not the same as "hiding controls". If you upgrade, your settings should be the same as before. Mine are.
"No it is not, and never was. It is a fact."
If you really think so, then this discussion is completely pointless. Goodbye.
"Nevertheless that warning was even at that time unfoundated. So the correct statement would be: "some climatologists" warned of global cooling. And even more correct: and got debunked right away at that time However: the wrong warning is more in the public mind than the correction."
So they've said, but I was there. That statement isn't intended as evidence or to convince you, but nevertheless I do remember.
"Global warming is not a theory."
I don't recall claiming it was. ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW), however, IS a theory.
"It is a physical effect based on the theory of Thermodynamics and the chemistry of the atmosphere and the amount of radiation received from the sun."
You contradict yourself. A physical effect is not based on theory. It exists or it doesn't. Further, I suggest you read Pierre Latour's paper on why thermodynamics actually DISproves AGW. To date, nobody has successfully refuted it, though there has been a lot of handwaving.
"It is very unscientific to believe we would need "a new theory" to work on the global warming problem."
Again you contradict yourself. Because if so, then we don't need AGW. Parts of it have been around a while, but parts of it are new.
Correction: "open system" should be "more open system".
The Earth is not a "closed system", but it is largely self-contained except for radiation, some "cosmic" dust, and the occasional rock that enters the atmosphere.
"Sorry that is just nonsense. The laws of physics are the same on every scale."
No, what is nonsense is your argument. There are FAR more issues than just "scale" involved.
Showing that an effect exists in a small, closed system does not prove that it has a major effect on a much larger, open system. And you are just reinforcing one of my points: current models (according to peer-reviewed papers I linked to here yesterday) do not account for convection in the atmosphere.
So sorry yourself, but no. You can't just say "Look, it happens in this box" and then extrapolate it to the entire global atmosphere. It's far more complicated than that, and denying it just shows that you don't know what you're talking about.
"Regarding "predictions" ... so far I find the predictions pretty conservative and in that frame accurate."
That's hilarious.
"Do you know any particular prediction (made by creditable scientists) that was later revised?"
Pretty much everything in the latest IPCC report. Temperature is not predicted to go up as far as they said before. They've pretty much dropped any claim that "global warming" will make hurricanes worse (in fact they're saying it isn't even mentioned in the new report). Etc.
The "science" in the IPCC reports has been continually revised, and it has been revised downward in each successive report.
"That would make sense if there was a shred of evidence that people only invent things because they hope to patent them. Say maybe if the world were full of saying like "IP protection is the mother of invention" or "invent a better mouse trap and the world will grant you exclusive use of the idea for a limited time."
Well then, it makes sense, because we have far more than a shred. We have at least 300 years of historical evidence, continuing into modern times.
"Of course, we don't see any of that. We don't live in that world and it takes a rather twisted view of human nature to swallow the notion that patents somehow cause invention. "
You are blaming abuses that exist in our current bureaucratically-fouled system on the very concept of patents. That's like blaming the 4th Amendment for the time the police broke down your door without a warrant.
"If you want a patent on your gizmo, you have to fully disclose the details so anyone reasonably competent can make and use one after the patent expires. That is what society gets out of it."
No shit, Sherlock. What is your point?
"The promotion of progress isn't about gulling people into inventing stuff (they were doing that already)."
Nobody said it was. I didn't claim it was an attempt to trick people. It *ISN'T* an attempt to "gull" anybody.
" It's about making sure that other people can copy those inventions, build on them"
Only AFTERWARD. It's about MOTIVATING people to invent, SO THAT society can benefit from it later.
We are arguing the same thing, except that you're denying the necessary first half of the argument.
"You are absolutely right. Concentrating only on hurricanes that hit inhabited areas is misleading. It's the completely inadequate response the Government has had for the Great Red Spot of Jupiter that we should focus on."
My point was that it hit a very large swath of land... far more than most hurricanes. It was large, but it was not particularly energetic per unit area. If it had only hit the coast in the manner of most hurricanes, it would have done relatively little damage.
Seriously? Modded "redundant"? I don't see where anybody else here has made a double pun out of this.
:)
Sigh. I'm SOooooo misunderstood.
"I am curious what makes you think that any other organisation will achieve the same - or smaller - list of things that went wrong, while keeping the list of things that went right equal too."
I'll put it in few words: FEMA is notorious for having its head firmly up its ass, and fucking up simple things.
The FACT is, they have FUCKED UP. A lot. Maybe not every time, but a lot.
"A big disaster ceases to be one if organizations such as FEMA step in to help the people in need and mitigate the effects of a nasty occurrence.
Your claim is equivalent to lambasting the fire department because their work extinguishing a fire was done properly enough so that it didn't turned into a raging inferno, and then use that consequence to criticize the fire department because their reason for existence is fighting raring infernos."
Absolute nonsense. My claim is equivalent to saying we should fire the fire department because they FAILED to put out fires.
Hey, modders! Get it straight! I was replying to flamebait.
"To the extent "banning" pseudonyms pleases some people, it does so by letting them retaliate."
Precisely. It puzzles me why many people don't understand this.
Our Founders (and for that matter, the Supreme Court) acknowledged that a Democratic form of government is not possible without free and anonymous speech, and anonymous voting. And anonymity requires pseudonymity.
And this is so precisely because without anonymous speech, it becomes possible to retaliate against people for their speech. An employer can retaliate if an employee supports politics he doesn't like, for example. Or the government can retaliate if certain speech is not appreciated.
Think that's stretching things? Nonsense. Look at the flap about the IRS just this year.
Mainly what I don't see is any reason to encourage you further.
I think it's kind of interesting that they were praising FEMA before Irene hit the coast.
If it were me, I'd wait until after the hurricane to give my praise.