Inflation we're about to see? My health insurance premiums have gone up by about 30% a year for the past 5 years. We're already seeing health insurance inflation. It's skyrocketing. That's why people were clamoring for reform--and it's why reform is still needed. The health insurance bill that was passed is a joke--a gift from the Democrats to the insurance companies.
It's all down to the decoder. There's a dedicated processor in the iPhone which handles h.264. For the Flash player to be as efficient as any old h.264 you want to play on the iPhone, it would have to use that processor. However Adobe doesn't have the greatest history of using accelerated features (essentially dedicated processors for decoding h.264) of the hardware they target--in fact, they only recently started using accelerated decoding on Windows.
If they don't use the dedicated chip, then they're going to be using the main CPU. It's going to be far less efficient, both in energy usage and in CPU usage. And this applies to all portable devices with acceleration, not just the iPhone. Many laptops have acceleration via the graphics hardware.
Worse, of course, is what happens when you try to move to a platform that Adobe doesn't support? Want to use 64-bit linux? Too bad. Apple wants to change their decoder on the iPhone? They have to convince Adobe to adapt to the new one. That's vendor lock-in, and it's bad for the consumer.
I go stand with a camera next to a paid petition troll and film every single person who signs the petition, then publish the details. Is this then illegal?
That's a pretty big manpower investment. This is the same reason that cops can tail people, but shouldn't be able to just throw a GPS tracker no cars willy-nilly. One is self-limiting by the manpower involved, and thus is less likely to be abused.
Not as the courts have defined it (the public record of a petition and it's intent is not circumstantial when the record of employment changes are proof of opportunity making the petition itself a motive).
You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject. Mind pointing me to a case?
Most online services say that they can change the terms at any time without notice, and that you are responsible for knowing the terms every time you use the service.
So do you go read the terms before you log into websites, even if you read them the day before, and the day before that?
Petitions have power in many cases. In my state, for example, enough signatures on a petition for a referendum guarantees that referendum will be put to a vote. In my city, signatures alone can overturn executive actions of the mayor.
Hell, just having a referendum on the ballot itself can be powerful. In my single piece of anecdotal evidence, we had a referendum where the number of YES voters in the actual election was over 5 times the number of people who signed the petition. There was overwhelming support once the issue was on the ballot. But not so many people signed it--possibly because of fears like this, possibly because petitions tend to be much harder to get support for. Most people know when elections are coming up. Not many people may have the ability to get the word out about a petition.
What do you consider the most important of your arguments?
Signing a petition is a choice; if you want to have your voice heard in that way, you choose to do so.
s/signing a petition/voting/ Voting is clearly a choice. Lots of people choose not to do it.
The purpose of a petition is to show a threshold level of support for an issue before bothering to hold a vote.
This can be done without giving public access to the signatures, so suggesting that the signatures must be public for this reason is pointless.
If you can't come up with X signatures from people who are willing to stand by their belief, then you don't have that threshold level of support.
The same could be said to apply to voting. If you think votes should be public, then I'll disagree for a number of reasons, but at least I won't think you're a hypocrite.
On the flip side of the coin, if we allow anonymous petition-signing, then what becomes of the right of the dissent to audit the signatures?
And I pointed out that the votes can be audited. You could have the election committee do it, since that's usually composed of multiple political parties.
At some point, everyone has to drum up the courage to look another human being in the eye and say, "You can take your ignorance and go fuck yourself."
I did that once. Cost me a job. Thanks for supporting me for those four weeks while I was on unemployment!
The whole point of petitions and voting and change revolves around standing up for yourself or others. It involves doing what you believe in. Standing up for a belief often times bring grief, especially when that belief lies far enough outside of the mainstream. Change often times hurt. The more extreme the change, the more likely there will be negative reprocussions.
And yet voting is anonymous because the downsides to public ballots far outweigh the upsides. The US has a history of coercion and retaliation when it comes to voting. That's why most (all?) states have secret ballots.
There are plenty of laws on the books to deal with harassment. Harassment may be effective for limited times in certain circumstances. In the long run, the harassers will get theirs.
Why should I face even limited harassment for participating in the political process?
You can audit the signatures without the signatures becoming a part of public record. This is a case where the signatures should be semi-private. Not open to just anyone to see, but still available to trusted people (I'd say judges) to audit.
Coercion is only one of the reasons to have voter anonymity. THe other reason is persecution after the fact. Because taking part in government is an essential right of the people, we should be able to do it without fear of retribution.
And if I do get my legs broken for signing/not signing a petition, my next stop after I get out of the hospital would be the PD to file charges for assault.
Good luck with that if, say the perp was wearing a mask. You won't necessarily know the identities of your attackers.
Tarsnap uses prepaid micropayments to back your data up to Amazon's cloud. Slashdot is a site which uses it to provide subscribers with a few nifty extras, and they deduct per pageview.
The thing is, for micropayments to work, you have to charge a large (relative to the costs per widget) amount all at once, and in most cases, consumers have to prepay.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but the passages in the New Testament which condemn homosexuality did not.
Inflation we're about to see? My health insurance premiums have gone up by about 30% a year for the past 5 years. We're already seeing health insurance inflation. It's skyrocketing. That's why people were clamoring for reform--and it's why reform is still needed. The health insurance bill that was passed is a joke--a gift from the Democrats to the insurance companies.
It's all down to the decoder. There's a dedicated processor in the iPhone which handles h.264. For the Flash player to be as efficient as any old h.264 you want to play on the iPhone, it would have to use that processor. However Adobe doesn't have the greatest history of using accelerated features (essentially dedicated processors for decoding h.264) of the hardware they target--in fact, they only recently started using accelerated decoding on Windows.
If they don't use the dedicated chip, then they're going to be using the main CPU. It's going to be far less efficient, both in energy usage and in CPU usage. And this applies to all portable devices with acceleration, not just the iPhone. Many laptops have acceleration via the graphics hardware.
Worse, of course, is what happens when you try to move to a platform that Adobe doesn't support? Want to use 64-bit linux? Too bad. Apple wants to change their decoder on the iPhone? They have to convince Adobe to adapt to the new one. That's vendor lock-in, and it's bad for the consumer.
The key is that most people don't walk.
Absolutely. Ideally, you would know that your fob was lost and be able to canncel it before the key could be recovered, though.
Because this is based on TPM, copying it is very hard and requires the use of an electron microscope and physical access to the device.
I go stand with a camera next to a paid petition troll and film every single person who signs the petition, then publish the details. Is this then illegal?
That's a pretty big manpower investment. This is the same reason that cops can tail people, but shouldn't be able to just throw a GPS tracker no cars willy-nilly. One is self-limiting by the manpower involved, and thus is less likely to be abused.
Not as the courts have defined it (the public record of a petition and it's intent is not circumstantial when the record of employment changes are proof of opportunity making the petition itself a motive).
You seem to have a lot of knowledge on the subject. Mind pointing me to a case?
What I can't figure out is how they ever sold music before the Internet. I guess that's just one of life's mysteries.
That's circumstantial.
Most online services say that they can change the terms at any time without notice, and that you are responsible for knowing the terms every time you use the service.
So do you go read the terms before you log into websites, even if you read them the day before, and the day before that?
If not, you're the same type of fool.
FYI, the word is "coerce."
Petitions have power in many cases. In my state, for example, enough signatures on a petition for a referendum guarantees that referendum will be put to a vote. In my city, signatures alone can overturn executive actions of the mayor.
Hell, just having a referendum on the ballot itself can be powerful. In my single piece of anecdotal evidence, we had a referendum where the number of YES voters in the actual election was over 5 times the number of people who signed the petition. There was overwhelming support once the issue was on the ballot. But not so many people signed it--possibly because of fears like this, possibly because petitions tend to be much harder to get support for. Most people know when elections are coming up. Not many people may have the ability to get the word out about a petition.
What do you consider the most important of your arguments?
Signing a petition is a choice; if you want to have your voice heard in that way, you choose to do so.
s/signing a petition/voting/
Voting is clearly a choice. Lots of people choose not to do it.
The purpose of a petition is to show a threshold level of support for an issue before bothering to hold a vote.
This can be done without giving public access to the signatures, so suggesting that the signatures must be public for this reason is pointless.
If you can't come up with X signatures from people who are willing to stand by their belief, then you don't have that threshold level of support.
The same could be said to apply to voting. If you think votes should be public, then I'll disagree for a number of reasons, but at least I won't think you're a hypocrite.
On the flip side of the coin, if we allow anonymous petition-signing, then what becomes of the right of the dissent to audit the signatures?
And I pointed out that the votes can be audited. You could have the election committee do it, since that's usually composed of multiple political parties.
He can quite easily deny ever having made the threat. Good luck proving it.
At some point, everyone has to drum up the courage to look another human being in the eye and say, "You can take your ignorance and go fuck yourself."
I did that once. Cost me a job. Thanks for supporting me for those four weeks while I was on unemployment!
The whole point of petitions and voting and change revolves around standing up for yourself or others. It involves doing what you believe in. Standing up for a belief often times bring grief, especially when that belief lies far enough outside of the mainstream. Change often times hurt. The more extreme the change, the more likely there will be negative reprocussions.
And yet voting is anonymous because the downsides to public ballots far outweigh the upsides. The US has a history of coercion and retaliation when it comes to voting. That's why most (all?) states have secret ballots.
There are plenty of laws on the books to deal with harassment. Harassment may be effective for limited times in certain circumstances. In the long run, the harassers will get theirs.
Why should I face even limited harassment for participating in the political process?
I said if you fear retribution, then don't engage in an activity which could bring retribution to your doorstep.
Eric Schmidt? Is that you?
Except all of the same issues apply.
Your boss can threaten to fire you if you don't sign the petition. As the petition is now a matter of public record, he can check.
Your boss can threaten to fire you if you do sign the petition.
Your boss can offer you a raise if you sign the petition.
Anonymous can threaten your life or your family if you sign.
I'm just in favor of abolishing the relationship between marriage and the government.
You can audit the signatures without the signatures becoming a part of public record. This is a case where the signatures should be semi-private. Not open to just anyone to see, but still available to trusted people (I'd say judges) to audit.
So the founders came up with the secret ballot, eh?
Coercion is only one of the reasons to have voter anonymity. THe other reason is persecution after the fact. Because taking part in government is an essential right of the people, we should be able to do it without fear of retribution.
And if I do get my legs broken for signing/not signing a petition, my next stop after I get out of the hospital would be the PD to file charges for assault.
Good luck with that if, say the perp was wearing a mask. You won't necessarily know the identities of your attackers.
Those intimidations and threats can be anonymous. Good luck on that prosecution.
ElectricTurtle is just another name for AC. Sure, we can track your responses across multiple posts, but we still don't know who you are.
Can they still pull money from your bank account in the event of a fraud alert?
There are places that do this.
Tarsnap uses prepaid micropayments to back your data up to Amazon's cloud. Slashdot is a site which uses it to provide subscribers with a few nifty extras, and they deduct per pageview.
The thing is, for micropayments to work, you have to charge a large (relative to the costs per widget) amount all at once, and in most cases, consumers have to prepay.