A petition is quite a different thing and serves a different purpose. If the names on it cannot be verified, there's nothing to say that the people represented actually signed it.
I'm failing to see how keeping the names out of the public record stops anyone from verifying the legitimacy of the signature.
No, the argument against the disclosure is such that voters don't fear reprisal, harassment and intimidation over the way they've voted. Unless you're just pig ignorant there is plentiful history of such things happening in situations where ballots were not secret.
I personally think so, but I would be willing to be a large portion of voters wouldn't be comfortable with that...which, if true, is freakin' hilarious.
What is hilarious about it? There is plenty of history of voter intimidation and harassment in this country.
The level of service at the post office compared to UPS and Fedex is shockingly bad. Whenever I go into a UPS store there is little to no line.
I disagree. Any time I've ever had to use UPS I've gotten nothing but terrible service. Anywhere from boxes that look like someone was using them as punching bags (and the stuff inside being broken or damaged in some way), to packages being lost and delayed and the fact that they are too incompetent to just hold a package at the office so you can pick it up.
Or maybe they know people will want to play maps they are familiar with in Civ4 and are trying to make it easier for people to do so. No, that couldn't possibly be it.
I think that's referring to Amazon defending its exemption from sales taxes (as cross-state sales typically are, at least in practice), the argument being that it's not bearing its share of e.g. road upkeep costs for the products its delivering.
Most of those roads are being maintained by federal money not sales taxes. So that would be a rather stupid argument to make.
I think that point is that if Apple did this it wouldn't just be shrugged off. The Android fanbois would be coming out of the wordwork to howl about how Apple is messing with people's phones.
It's a crime against the consumer to force them to keep a product they don't like.
How is it a "crime"? Were you forced into buying the product? Was the product defective? Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold? I'm sorry, but I see nothing criminal in the fact that a store isn't obligated to accept returns on things that are neither faulty nor were sold under fraudulent terms (and no, the fact that you didn't like it doesn't make the sale fraudulent).
Why would Adobe do so? What do they gain at all monetarily or otherwise from blocking Flash from iDevices? If Jobs reversed his position, Adobe would be begging at his feet like good little whores to get Flash on the iDevices as fast as possible.
Except that the summary links to the same press release from May 19th as the article the GP posted. And the press release states nothing about coming out of beta.
Slashdot Mirror
The vote is public record. The name of the voter isn't for good reason.
How does not making these signatures part of the public record prevent the elections office from verifying them?
I like how your post which has flat out lies in it is moderated as informative.
A petition is quite a different thing and serves a different purpose. If the names on it cannot be verified, there's nothing to say that the people represented actually signed it.
I'm failing to see how keeping the names out of the public record stops anyone from verifying the legitimacy of the signature.
No, the argument against the disclosure is such that voters don't fear reprisal, harassment and intimidation over the way they've voted. Unless you're just pig ignorant there is plentiful history of such things happening in situations where ballots were not secret.
I personally think so, but I would be willing to be a large portion of voters wouldn't be comfortable with that...which, if true, is freakin' hilarious.
What is hilarious about it? There is plenty of history of voter intimidation and harassment in this country.
The level of service at the post office compared to UPS and Fedex is shockingly bad. Whenever I go into a UPS store there is little to no line.
I disagree. Any time I've ever had to use UPS I've gotten nothing but terrible service. Anywhere from boxes that look like someone was using them as punching bags (and the stuff inside being broken or damaged in some way), to packages being lost and delayed and the fact that they are too incompetent to just hold a package at the office so you can pick it up.
Or maybe they know people will want to play maps they are familiar with in Civ4 and are trying to make it easier for people to do so. No, that couldn't possibly be it.
The only "DRM" is that it's a Steam-only game, and you can always play steam games in offline mode.
I think that's referring to Amazon defending its exemption from sales taxes (as cross-state sales typically are, at least in practice), the argument being that it's not bearing its share of e.g. road upkeep costs for the products its delivering.
Most of those roads are being maintained by federal money not sales taxes. So that would be a rather stupid argument to make.
I think that point is that if Apple did this it wouldn't just be shrugged off. The Android fanbois would be coming out of the wordwork to howl about how Apple is messing with people's phones.
This sounds like an Apple move - "the App wasn't malicious but we didn't like it so we nuked it for you."
You mean other than the fact that Apple has never done this?
Maybe you should have actually read their post? They did define what net neutrality is:
Net Neutrality means that an ISP may not prioritize or filter Internet traffic based on source or destination.
Except that most if not all of those orders got canceled.
How exactly are they going to turn off the internet? Wasn't it designed specifically to resist such attempts?
By having the ISPs cut off people's connections.
Except that as bad as AutoCAD is it's still better than the freeware tools.
Hint: They are the same person.
It's a crime against the consumer to force them to keep a product they don't like.
How is it a "crime"? Were you forced into buying the product? Was the product defective? Was the product exactly as it was advertised when sold? I'm sorry, but I see nothing criminal in the fact that a store isn't obligated to accept returns on things that are neither faulty nor were sold under fraudulent terms (and no, the fact that you didn't like it doesn't make the sale fraudulent).
The MPA already takes on the mob selling bootlegs in places like Hong Kong. I doubt they are going to be scared like you think.
not the American sense (conservative==constitutionalist).
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. This is a joke, right?
Why would Adobe do so? What do they gain at all monetarily or otherwise from blocking Flash from iDevices? If Jobs reversed his position, Adobe would be begging at his feet like good little whores to get Flash on the iDevices as fast as possible.
It's 2010, closed source does not belong on the net
Well then you better get off the train because plenty of the net will never stop using closed source software.
What do you mean "now" gone public? It went public a month ago. This is just a stale story.
Except that the summary links to the same press release from May 19th as the article the GP posted. And the press release states nothing about coming out of beta.
Google Wave has been open since May 19th going by the date in the press release linked in the summary.