Vote2016() does not accept arguments. It's a sloppy, poorly-scoped function that just uses two global variables. Accepting third-party parameters will require a significant overhaul of the underlying engine and API.
I don't understand this philosophy some Americans have of "all our people are idiots and you can't possibly expect our politicians to speak intelligently." I mean if that's really the case you should just burn down the whole country now.
At the very worst, you've got a vicious cycle of dumbing down. Substantive debates and intelligent politicians would encourage voters to care about those things, and would eventually come to be expected.
Good advertising is about communicating your product's merits to the public so they can speak for themselves.
And advertising does not just affect the weak-minded - it affects everyone, deeply, including you. If you believe it doesn't, and that only idiots are influenced by it, then you're the most deeply influenced of all!
You may have missed the point. This is like if someone at an oil protest had a "No Pipelines!" sign, and you said "well actually, there *are* pipelines. Instead of denying that, shouldn't we be protesting it?"
Most attempts to censor speech usually winds up giving that suppressed cause a much bigger platform and audience.
I hope you see the inherent flaw in that observation. Speech that gets Streisanded is by definition spread everywhere and seen widely, so of course we get the impression that this happens more often than speech which is successfully censored, which by definition we see very little of.
The truth is, Facebook successfully censors huge amounts of content — spam, infringement, and violation of terms of service and community standards — every day, and the vast majority of that content never gets any bump from the Streisand Effect.
We are going to be adding UK fulfillment soon! Prices should be similar. It takes some time to set up but we'll hopefully have it active for the second half of this sale period... Check back soon (we'll post an announcement once it's ready!)
If your security relies on keeping a single number secret, and then that number leaks, expecting the government to step in and clamp down on massive amounts of speech and essentially outlaw the mere knowledge of a few digits is both stupid and unjust.
If my password leaks, I change it unless I'm a moron. If my password leaks after I've already shipped millions of units of something-or-other that is supposed to be perfectly protected by that now-unchangeable password, I was a moron all along.
Of course there are laws against this. Lots of laws. For example, "[A] person shall not . . . Intentionally communicate another individual's social security number to the general public[.]" Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-443.2.
As far as I can tell, less then half of all the states have such a law. And it's a stupid law. Indeed, all the laws regarding SSN use and privacy form nothing more than a sad patchwork attempt to shore up utterly useless security. The idea that your entire identity is guarded solely by a single password which is difficult to change and which you must hand over in plaintext to dozens of different companies and agencies over the course of your life is... idiotic.
Many companies and agencies use your mother's maiden name as a piece of identifying data too - my bank sometimes seems to accept just that & my birthdate as confirmation that they are talking to me. So... should publishing someone's mother's maiden name and birthdate be illegal, too? After all, it can be "dangerous" for that information to be out there...
(as for comparing the breaking of copy protection to a mere number, that's because in the cases I'm referring to it literally was. AACS encryption was broken and the cryptographic key became public knowledge. It was in hexidecimal: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
For a while, websites that so much as printed that number started receiving cease & desist orders from the MPAA. Digg.com removed a bunch of articles and started banning people who mentioned it in a comment.
A simple number 128-bit number had become illegal.
As I understand it, there is no law against knowing or sharing someone's SSN. Indeed, there shouldn't be any danger inherent in anyone knowing your SSN, since that's a pretty abysmal security system - it's only dangerous because many organizations treat it as a piece of authenticating data, even though they really shouldn't, any more than they should your mother's maiden name.
Now, if you use that social security number to do something like commit fraud, then you have broken the law. But outlawing the number itself is just silly.
This is the very last time we'll be offering the Vote2016() shirt. And the very last time this year that we'll be offering any of the other shirts.
Shirts, by the way, are not artificially scarce.
[This comment posted for the benefit of anyone else who might not have been clear on our plan for these shirts - not for the jackass who will find something to whine about regardless of any and all factors.]