Gruber said in another comment in 2012 that the reason why you can't get subsidies for the federal exchange is so that states will be encouraged to make their own exchange.

Is it also required by law not to offer a credit on your bill for switching to electronic statements?

So how should a U.S. resident reasonably act on this fact?

How would one go about including an "interbank-transfer" with a mailed greeting card?

Common cameras aren't "certified as an evidence gathering tool" either. Do courts likewise reject all photos of a violent crime scene that aren't taken with a "certified" camera? The commodity home movie camera Abraham Zapruder was using wasn't "certified", but his and other films provided evidence of how Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy. And did any copyright owner decide to follow up on this dismissal by modifying one of the free software BitTorrent clients to get it "certified as an evidence gathering tool"?

The algorithm you describe is not compression, as there does not exist an input for which choice-of-algorithm metadata plus compressed data is smaller than the input data.

Any digital broadcast will include two things that are recognizable as a broadcast. One is a pilot signal, used to communicate the existence of a signal to the receiver. Another is forward error correction, used to reconstruct a signal partially obscured by noise. Analog television included both: the pilot signal was the sync pulses during horizontal and vertical blanking, and the error correction was the presence of a double sideband in the bottom 1 MHz of the video.

I'm not sure you understand. Prepending the order to the compressed data would still increase the length of some files.

(In before whoosh.)

Of course it's possible. JPEG encoding has three steps: cosine transform of each block (DCT), then quantization (where the loss happens), then coding. In JPEG, the coding involves a zig-zag order and a Huffman/RLE structure, and this isn't necessarily optimal. A lossless compressor specially tuned for JPEG files could decode the quantized coefficients and losslessly encode them in a more efficient manner, producing a file that saves a few percent compared to the equivalent JPEG bitstream. Then on decompression, it would decode these coefficients and reencode them back into a JPEG file.

For the same reason as the Let's Play takedowns. Sega DMCA'd videos containing footage of the Shining Force games (but later issued a non-apology). Some publishers, such as Nintendo, might instead choose to put a Content ID* claim on videos containing "images or audio of a certain length" (such as a game's title screen or cut scenes), diverting ad revenue away from partners.*

* YouTube terminology used. Feel free to substitute.

Considering we're currently pretty much constantly at war, it should be trivial to get around that amendment.

Whether it's the ISPs or the big content providers: The bottom line is that eliminating net neutrality would cement the power structure and disallow smaller competitors to rise. It would essentially undermine the concept of free trade and equal footing for everyone to compete in a free market.

In the end, what would happen without net neutrality is that big content providers would have to pay ISPs. Either in form of protection money ("shame if anything happened to your fast pipe...") or in form of a bribe ("Ensure that this little upstart there gets 64kbit at best").

We learned that it's pointless to protest peacefully.

If we can somehow throw in Facebook I bet that should piss off the NSA enough to label Aussieland some axis of evil candidate.

Just wait 'til the P2P index page gets public. Then it doubles as a "where to go for content" list.

So... then you'll need pirated AV from abroad to defend against the governmental spying?

It's worse than in the US, actually...

I guess with the right sauce and wine he might be bearable...