but in a one-night stand, consent should be sought each time.
This is pretty much the view of a prostitute who's charging for each ejaculation.
In real life, consent is rarely explicitly given. When I'm caressing a women, just before penetration I do not ask if I can. As long as she doesn't say "no", I infer she accepts.
Sure, consent is rarely explicitly given. But the other person needs to be in a position to make a decision. They need to be able to voice their objection, if they so desire. Somebody who sleeps can neither consent nor object.
Or let me put it differently: Consent needs to be given explicitly (using words or actions) or implicitly (by being able to object, but not doing so). But lack of consent because the other person can not make any decision means you're entering rape territory.
In the situation described here the woman awoke before/during sex and did not seem to have voiced any complaint. That fact saves Assange from going to trial for rape: She was in a position to voice complaint and seemingly didn't.
Yes, I know misandrists... I mean feminists, are trying to get all the power they can against men. S
if the data controller or a third party has a legitimate interest in doing so, as long as this interest does not affect the interests of the data subject, or infringe on his or her fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy. This provision establishes the need to strike a reasonable balance between the data controllers' business interests and the privacy of data subjects.
First of all: this is a directive (it is more than 2 decades old, and it become -some of its provisions- law in my country Greece just a couple of years ago), plus... read the the part in bold.
Yes, and directives are the basis for national laws, meaning that national laws have to at least reach that level.
Also, please explain to us how Facebooks interest in collecting data from people that are not Facebook members is more legitimate than the interest of said people not having their data collected by a company they have no contractual relationship with?
Surely if the admins had evidence that rules were being broken they could just ban the people involved and thereby remove that kind of behaviour from their website?
How should they ban the people? From what I understand, you can easily create new accounts. And banning IP addresses can affect both other people who happen to share the same IP and not affect the user targeted because they might easily get a new IP.
or suing former companies for the exact amount her husband owes for illegal schemes
The claims against her husband seem to be from 2012. She filed the lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins in 2012. So, you're saying that she knew a year in advance that her husband would need money and filed the lawsuit to get it? Or does she have a time machine? Or what?
This is about whether or not proprietary software is clearly identified as such. This is useful for pragmatic reasons, not just ideological..
Now, let's look at this pragmatically: What do people want when they open the software center? They want to find software (probably do to some specific task). And they want to know if they can download it for free or if it costs them anything. The vast majority of people using the software center don't care about licences or source code, as they only want to use the software.
So the pragmatic solution is do make a distinction between free (as in beer) and pay-for software.
Making a distinction between closed source and open source or between limiting and less limiting licences doesn't add anything for the vast majority of users.
[...] a group of insurgents armed with little more than pickup trucks, AKs and insane levels of brutality to actually form a caliphate which Europe officially recognizes as a sovereign nation and trading partner.
Do you have any proof for this statement (that Europe recognizes ISIS)? If not: Stop spreading such BS.
Because Uber wants to provide a taxi service in everything but the name, but doesn't want to play by the same rules as the regular taxis. Why should Uber get special treatment? Because they're new and hip?
As if there's no public interest in limiting the number of taxis on the road.
No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition. This is about protecting vested private interests, not the public interest.
If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair. of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.
If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
Hogwash. The supply would only be high if the demand was high. If there were too many taxis and not enough passengers, then some drivers would go home and take the day off. Free markets don't solve every problem, but they can solve this one.
Nope. The taxi drivers would compete for too few passengers by trying to undercut each other, skimming on costs thus reducing the safety for passengers etc.
Free markets do work practically never on scale, as the ideal conditions necessary for a working free market are never met. There is always some imbalance.
Your username would imply you are male. Thus, you literally oppose Men's Rights groups... as a man? That's not unprecedented, as there are women who reject feminism in its many flavors, but by doing so, you're saying that there are no issues at all that men need be concerned about?
I can not talk for GP, only for myself. But you are oversimplifying the situation.
I'm a man. I'm against the mens rights groups that I know of. Not because I believe there are no problems. But because I believe that those mens rights groups I know about do their cause a disservice. Instead of pointing out rationally the existing problems, they pretty much always exaggerate, go off on tangents and generally come about as weirdos and nutters.
This, by the way, is also true for at least some of the more extreme feminists. But there are not only extreme feminists, but also moderate one. Yet with mens rights activists there doesn't seem to be a middle ground.
Just because the Catholic Church has been taken some stupid, incorrect positions in some fields of science doesn't mean they don't care about the sciences in general.
Did nobody tell you that the GDR (German Democratic Republic, 'East Germany') ceased to exist 25 years ago? The BND is the intelligence service of the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany, 'West Germany').
He is on British soil. Britain, like most (all?) countries in the world, doesn't consider embassy buildings to be the soil of the embassy's sending country.
I guess it's true: You learn something new every day.
Maybe its time for the United States to go after a few EU companies doing business in our country. We can certainly use the same principle of - we don't like the way you do business. Forget the law.
Except there are laws that Intel, Microsoft and (potentially) Google have broken.
And what people like you love to ignore (or, more probably, don't know, as it doesn't involve Americans): The EU judges European companies by the same standard. A few years back Gaz du France and German E.On where found to break anti-competition laws and had to pay high fines. And there are many other cases not involving American companies.
The problem is NOT that the EU is going against American companies, but that American companies sometimes don't understand that in Europe they have to play by European laws, not by the lawlessness that's the American reality.
Actually, that's not what they say. The write (quote) 'As a result, DNT will not be the default state in Windows Express Settings moving forward'. Windows Express Settings is used by IE; sure. But it may also be used to set up Spartan.
Totally ignoring the facts that you have to start somewhere, that it is best to start where you have at lease some chance at success (as slim as it may be in reality), and that this suit will likely not stop the NSA from spying outside of America so they will only lose the 'surveillance arms race' of spying on Americans.
The issue with FDE in Android has for long been the lack of combining strong passwords with a pattern lock or pin lock for unlocking the screen. In other words, your encryption key is only as strong as the pin code or password you are willing to put in every time you open your screen lock. Who wants to type in a 20+ password every time they open their screen lock?
Are you sure? For my Android phone I activated FDE. On boot I have to enter the FDE password, which is independent from the lock screen password/pattern/face unlock. So on boot I enter the complex password once, and later I use the less complex pattern to unlock my running phone. My phone is Running Android 4.4.4 (Cyanogen CM11S).
The Linux distros would have done a lot better if they were codenamed after an animal, without the stupid adjective. Lucid Lynx - crap name. Lynx - acceptable name suitable to interest PHBs.
So... Ubuntu is now 'the Linux distros'?
Those names are typical for Ubuntu and its derivatives, other distributions like Debian, Fedora and SuSE use different naming schemes.
Two things: First, this is about Vivaldi, not Opera. Vivaldi is a different company, just founded by the former founder of Opera. Second, Opera is a Norwegian company. They have offices in the US, amongst other countries.
Maybe you got confused by Opera buying Australian company Fastmail.FM.
As an example, in the USA, the ground floor counts, while in Europe only the floors/stories above ground floor count.
You have differentiate between numbering (naming) the floors and counting the numbers of floors in a building. A five storey building is a five storey building, but some number the floors from floor 1 to floor 5, others count ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor...
Also, not all of Europe is the same. Here in Germany we have both variants, depending on region and design of the buildings.
You don't have free phones in the USA, either. You are just paying in installments rather than up front, and chances are you paying more in the end than if you bought the phone separately.
This sudden attempt by Google supporters to shift the responsibility is the lamest fucking excuse I've ever seen. Microsoft has supported XP FAR longer than Google has supported...
The argument against Google here is that Android 4.3 is still widely used.Wenn, so is Windows XP. If you claim that Google has to look for the user base you have to hold Microsoft to the same standard.
How man patches to known vulnerabilities of Windows XP has Microsoft patched lately? This OS is still widely used, and MS can provide patches to its users with ease (something Google can not as easily do for Android), yet MS does hardly anything.
Slashdot Mirror
This is pretty much the view of a prostitute who's charging for each ejaculation.
In real life, consent is rarely explicitly given. When I'm caressing a women, just before penetration I do not ask if I can. As long as she doesn't say "no", I infer she accepts.
Sure, consent is rarely explicitly given. But the other person needs to be in a position to make a decision. They need to be able to voice their objection, if they so desire. Somebody who sleeps can neither consent nor object.
Or let me put it differently: Consent needs to be given explicitly (using words or actions) or implicitly (by being able to object, but not doing so).
But lack of consent because the other person can not make any decision means you're entering rape territory.
In the situation described here the woman awoke before/during sex and did not seem to have voiced any complaint. That fact saves Assange from going to trial for rape: She was in a position to voice complaint and seemingly didn't.
Yes, I know misandrists... I mean feminists, are trying to get all the power they can against men. S
Ugh. What cave did you come out of?
if the data controller or a third party has a legitimate interest in doing so, as long as this interest does not affect the interests of the data subject, or infringe on his or her fundamental rights, in particular the right to privacy. This provision establishes the need to strike a reasonable balance between the data controllers' business interests and the privacy of data subjects.
First of all: this is a directive (it is more than 2 decades old, and it become -some of its provisions- law in my country Greece just a couple of years ago), plus... read the the part in bold.
Yes, and directives are the basis for national laws, meaning that national laws have to at least reach that level.
Also, please explain to us how Facebooks interest in collecting data from people that are not Facebook members is more legitimate than the interest of said people not having their data collected by a company they have no contractual relationship with?
Surely if the admins had evidence that rules were being broken they could just ban the people involved and thereby remove that kind of behaviour from their website?
How should they ban the people?
From what I understand, you can easily create new accounts.
And banning IP addresses can affect both other people who happen to share the same IP and not affect the user targeted because they might easily get a new IP.
or suing former companies for the exact amount her husband owes for illegal schemes
The claims against her husband seem to be from 2012. She filed the lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins in 2012.
So, you're saying that she knew a year in advance that her husband would need money and filed the lawsuit to get it? Or does she have a time machine? Or what?
This is about whether or not proprietary software is clearly identified as such. This is useful for pragmatic reasons, not just ideological..
Now, let's look at this pragmatically:
What do people want when they open the software center? They want to find software (probably do to some specific task).
And they want to know if they can download it for free or if it costs them anything.
The vast majority of people using the software center don't care about licences or source code, as they only want to use the software.
So the pragmatic solution is do make a distinction between free (as in beer) and pay-for software.
Making a distinction between closed source and open source or between limiting and less limiting licences doesn't add anything for the vast majority of users.
[...] a group of insurgents armed with little more than pickup trucks, AKs and insane levels of brutality to actually form a caliphate which Europe officially recognizes as a sovereign nation and trading partner.
Do you have any proof for this statement (that Europe recognizes ISIS)?
If not: Stop spreading such BS.
Because Uber wants to provide a taxi service in everything but the name, but doesn't want to play by the same rules as the regular taxis.
Why should Uber get special treatment? Because they're new and hip?
As if there's no public interest in limiting the number of taxis on the road.
No, there is no public interest in inhibiting fair competition. This is about protecting vested private interests, not the public interest.
If everyone who wants to provide a taxi service has to pay the same price for a license, it's fair.
of, on the other hand, somebody would try to enter the market without paying for taxi licenses *cough* Uber *cough* then they would not be competing fairly.
If licenses weren't numbered, the proliferation of taxis would render city streets unnavigable.
Hogwash. The supply would only be high if the demand was high. If there were too many taxis and not enough passengers, then some drivers would go home and take the day off. Free markets don't solve every problem, but they can solve this one.
Nope. The taxi drivers would compete for too few passengers by trying to undercut each other, skimming on costs thus reducing the safety for passengers etc.
Free markets do work practically never on scale, as the ideal conditions necessary for a working free market are never met. There is always some imbalance.
Your username would imply you are male. Thus, you literally oppose Men's Rights groups... as a man? That's not unprecedented, as there are women who reject feminism in its many flavors, but by doing so, you're saying that there are no issues at all that men need be concerned about?
I can not talk for GP, only for myself. But you are oversimplifying the situation.
I'm a man. I'm against the mens rights groups that I know of. Not because I believe there are no problems. But because I believe that those mens rights groups I know about do their cause a disservice. Instead of pointing out rationally the existing problems, they pretty much always exaggerate, go off on tangents and generally come about as weirdos and nutters.
This, by the way, is also true for at least some of the more extreme feminists.
But there are not only extreme feminists, but also moderate one. Yet with mens rights activists there doesn't seem to be a middle ground.
Just because the Catholic Church has been taken some stupid, incorrect positions in some fields of science doesn't mean they don't care about the sciences in general.
Did nobody tell you that the GDR (German Democratic Republic, 'East Germany') ceased to exist 25 years ago?
The BND is the intelligence service of the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany, 'West Germany').
He is on British soil. Britain, like most (all?) countries in the world, doesn't consider embassy buildings to be the soil of the embassy's sending country.
I guess it's true: You learn something new every day.
I stand corrected.
So.. you're from Ecuador?
Because, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Assange is not on British soil.
Maybe its time for the United States to go after a few EU companies doing business in our country. We can
certainly use the same principle of - we don't like the way you do business. Forget the law.
Except there are laws that Intel, Microsoft and (potentially) Google have broken.
And what people like you love to ignore (or, more probably, don't know, as it doesn't involve Americans): The EU judges European companies by the same standard. A few years back Gaz du France and German E.On where found to break anti-competition laws and had to pay high fines. And there are many other cases not involving American companies.
The problem is NOT that the EU is going against American companies, but that American companies sometimes don't understand that in Europe they have to play by European laws, not by the lawlessness that's the American reality.
Actually, that's not what they say. The write (quote) 'As a result, DNT will not be the default state in Windows Express Settings moving forward'.
Windows Express Settings is used by IE; sure. But it may also be used to set up Spartan.
Ah, yes, the good ol' they-do-it-so-we-have-to.
Totally ignoring the facts that you have to start somewhere, that it is best to start where you have at lease some chance at success (as slim as it may be in reality), and that this suit will likely not stop the NSA from spying outside of America so they will only lose the 'surveillance arms race' of spying on Americans.
The issue with FDE in Android has for long been the lack of combining strong passwords with a pattern lock or pin lock for unlocking the screen. In other words, your encryption key is only as strong as the pin code or password you are willing to put in every time you open your screen lock. Who wants to type in a 20+ password every time they open their screen lock?
Are you sure?
For my Android phone I activated FDE. On boot I have to enter the FDE password, which is independent from the lock screen password/pattern/face unlock.
So on boot I enter the complex password once, and later I use the less complex pattern to unlock my running phone.
My phone is Running Android 4.4.4 (Cyanogen CM11S).
The Linux distros would have done a lot better if they were codenamed after an animal, without the stupid adjective. Lucid Lynx - crap name. Lynx - acceptable name suitable to interest PHBs.
So... Ubuntu is now 'the Linux distros'?
Those names are typical for Ubuntu and its derivatives, other distributions like Debian, Fedora and SuSE use different naming schemes.
Disclaimer: I'm a mostly satisfied Ubuntu user.
Two things:
First, this is about Vivaldi, not Opera. Vivaldi is a different company, just founded by the former founder of Opera.
Second, Opera is a Norwegian company. They have offices in the US, amongst other countries.
Maybe you got confused by Opera buying Australian company Fastmail.FM.
Talk to Microsoft about that.
No need. Microsoft and the GP agree that it does matter where the data is STORED.
As an example, in the USA, the ground floor counts, while in Europe only the floors/stories above ground floor count.
You have differentiate between numbering (naming) the floors and counting the numbers of floors in a building.
A five storey building is a five storey building, but some number the floors from floor 1 to floor 5, others count ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor...
Also, not all of Europe is the same. Here in Germany we have both variants, depending on region and design of the buildings.
You don't have free phones in the USA, either.
You are just paying in installments rather than up front, and chances are you paying more in the end than if you bought the phone separately.
Neither does Googles Android.
RTFA, the culprit is a replacement app developed by a third party.
This sudden attempt by Google supporters to shift the responsibility is the lamest fucking excuse I've ever seen. Microsoft has supported XP FAR longer than Google has supported...
The argument against Google here is that Android 4.3 is still widely used.Wenn, so is Windows XP.
If you claim that Google has to look for the user base you have to hold Microsoft to the same standard.
How man patches to known vulnerabilities of Windows XP has Microsoft patched lately?
This OS is still widely used, and MS can provide patches to its users with ease (something Google can not as easily do for Android), yet MS does hardly anything.
Double standards galore.