It has nothing to do with that: all this does is allow companies to outsource sensitive data to certified US-based infrastructures. Before if you had e.g. an application handling sensitive data you could not legally outsource its data storage to an US server, but after this you can as long as it's certified.
It changes nothing for Protonmail since I doubt they are interesting this kind of outsourcing as it would defeat their whole purpose.
Instagram obviously assumes that the children's legal guardian entered the contract. In any case this is not the point: Instagram *has a contract*, the question eventually being whether it's enforceable or not. IMDB has *no contract at all* and it claims it doesn't need one.
You are comparing apples with oranges. IMDB claims it has right to publish the age without the actor's permission, Instagram claims it has right to sell your informations if you agree to use their services, thus granting them permission to do so.
The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.
It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times these tests were conducted without issues and how many users complained about the battery life of the new model even before CR's results... you know, Occam's razor.
On top of that, Apple actually patched away the "remaining time" indicator from the battery widget shortly after this model's release via software update since apparently it's "confusing". If you think there is nothing suspicious about *that* maybe you should sell that eCat reactor to yourself.
First of all, no, they are under no obligation. They would still likely do it since it would be in the best interest of their subscribers and of their reputation.
Furthermore, there is no official fix from Apple yet. As far as I know there are rumors of some beta version faring better, but nothing more. CR didn't say they won't re-test the devices if/when Apple releases a fix, they won't re-test the devices *as they are* since they are confident of their previous test's methodology and findings.
Note that CR shared the diagnostic files from their tests with Apple and will definitely re-test the devices as soon as Apple claims they figured out the battery problems and fixed them. Until then they trust their results and find a re-test pointless.
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
You don't need reasons to feel entitled to something. On top of that doing something against the rules if you can get away with it is basically standard business practice for most big organisations, why are common citizens expected to behave differently?
Then you'd still have to compensate them for their decreased quality of life. You cannot simply tell them "you lost your nice house, here is a hut in the middle of nowhere, we're even"...
Because Cameron basically invested all his political credibility in the referendum. He was politically dead the moment he lost the referendum no matter the actual practical consequences.
Technically, they can be binding, but this one wasn't. <pedantry/>
Actually interested in pedantry: it actually can be binding in the UK? Of course referendums in general can be binding and in many other countries they are, but I thought it was not the case of the UK.
Getting an indication doesn't mean blindly following through. In this case, a lot of people said they want to leave the EU. Nice, but it still doesn't mean it's the only course of action, nor that it's necessarily the best.
Actually it *is* OK to "ignore what they say" since in the UK parliament is sovereign and not bound to any referendum's outcome. Referendums in the UK are *not* legally binding and the parliament can ignore them as much as it wants.
As far as I understand in most US states there are actually already data breach laws which require companies to notify users if their data is known or believed to be breached, with delayed notification allowed only if law enforcement requires it to facilitate the investigation.
It depends: in some games it's not even enough to get started. No Man's Sky developers touted multiple times the sheer size of the game and the incredible length of time required to play it. If the overall game is designed to require gaming hours in the multiple hundreds, 50 hours is nothing.
The most common age for "sex offenders" is 14 years old: still dangerous decades after the fact? Really? On top of that most "sex offenders" would not even be labelled as such at all in most of the civilized world. Furthermore sex offenders have actually a pretty low recidivism rate. The whole crackdown on "sex offenders" is misguided and driven by irrational overreactions and the whole concept should be reviewed and drastically reformed.
In general, deciding if and when somebody is or still is a risk to others is actually pretty hard: you only think it's not hard because you believe in a solution which is "clear, simple and wrong".
I don't see how the "overall view" of a poster has anything to do to with moderating a new post: even a troll can be insightful once in a while and even a very informative poster could happen to be overrated.
Exactly: what people fail to understand is that by making referendums much more difficult to be successful they would actually place even more power in the government and reduce their own power to affect it. These kinds of decisions are very dangerous since once the government gets more power it's very difficult that it will renounce it and it's the kind of decisions which will soon or later bite back
So what supermajority was required for the UK to join the EC back in the 70s?
None, but no majority requires leaving the EU today either. In any case the whole debate of a popular vote being required to join the EU in the first place is a huge can of worm by itself.
Ok. If you impose a very high supermajority to one side, you've effectively already chosen for everyone. The vote becomes farcical. Why should people participate in meaningless pretend elections?
The side getting the supermajority is the status quo. I don't like it much, but the idea of requiring a higher majority or a quorum to change the status quo makes sense on paper, but then you have governments like Italy which plan bothersome referendums at super-impractical dates to try to deter participation and basically try to "win by default"...
The UK is made up of REGIONS, each REGION voted in the MAJORITY to STAY in the EU.
That's actually how important referendums in Switzerland work: they are legally binding but to be successful they require support of 50%+1 of the voters and support of at least half of the "states" forming the confederation.
For the record, it is routine in essentially all countries bar the UK who allow constitutional plebiscites that the bar is much higher than a simple majority.
If the results are binding, sure. In the UK referendums are non-binding, so a "higher bar" would be meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as you accept it's a two-way street.
I think the correct tool in this case would be an international letters rogatory requesting judicial assistance from Ireland, where the data lies.
It has nothing to do with that: all this does is allow companies to outsource sensitive data to certified US-based infrastructures. Before if you had e.g. an application handling sensitive data you could not legally outsource its data storage to an US server, but after this you can as long as it's certified.
It changes nothing for Protonmail since I doubt they are interesting this kind of outsourcing as it would defeat their whole purpose.
Instagram obviously assumes that the children's legal guardian entered the contract. In any case this is not the point: Instagram *has a contract*, the question eventually being whether it's enforceable or not. IMDB has *no contract at all* and it claims it doesn't need one.
You are comparing apples with oranges. IMDB claims it has right to publish the age without the actor's permission, Instagram claims it has right to sell your informations if you agree to use their services, thus granting them permission to do so.
The results being "wildly inconsistent" doesn't mean the tests are flawed, especially given that the same tests on the previous models and other laptops don't show the supposed "flaw" appearing on the Late 2016 MacBook Pro. These tests were used on *a lot* of devices, including the previous MacBook Pro model which had no issue whatsoever.
It could be a flaw in the test? Sure, but it could also be that the Late 2016 MacBook Pro's battery life *is actually wildy inconsistent* and given how many other times these tests were conducted without issues and how many users complained about the battery life of the new model even before CR's results... you know, Occam's razor.
On top of that, Apple actually patched away the "remaining time" indicator from the battery widget shortly after this model's release via software update since apparently it's "confusing". If you think there is nothing suspicious about *that* maybe you should sell that eCat reactor to yourself.
First of all, no, they are under no obligation. They would still likely do it since it would be in the best interest of their subscribers and of their reputation.
Furthermore, there is no official fix from Apple yet. As far as I know there are rumors of some beta version faring better, but nothing more. CR didn't say they won't re-test the devices if/when Apple releases a fix, they won't re-test the devices *as they are* since they are confident of their previous test's methodology and findings.
Note that CR shared the diagnostic files from their tests with Apple and will definitely re-test the devices as soon as Apple claims they figured out the battery problems and fixed them. Until then they trust their results and find a re-test pointless.
So no, there is nothing suspicious on the part of CR.
You don't need reasons to feel entitled to something. On top of that doing something against the rules if you can get away with it is basically standard business practice for most big organisations, why are common citizens expected to behave differently?
Then you'd still have to compensate them for their decreased quality of life. You cannot simply tell them "you lost your nice house, here is a hut in the middle of nowhere, we're even"...
Because Cameron basically invested all his political credibility in the referendum. He was politically dead the moment he lost the referendum no matter the actual practical consequences.
https://www.parliament.uk/abou...
Technically, they can be binding, but this one wasn't. <pedantry/>
Actually interested in pedantry: it actually can be binding in the UK? Of course referendums in general can be binding and in many other countries they are, but I thought it was not the case of the UK.
All referendums in the UK are not legally binding and, as such, merely advisory.
Getting an indication doesn't mean blindly following through. In this case, a lot of people said they want to leave the EU. Nice, but it still doesn't mean it's the only course of action, nor that it's necessarily the best.
Actually it *is* OK to "ignore what they say" since in the UK parliament is sovereign and not bound to any referendum's outcome. Referendums in the UK are *not* legally binding and the parliament can ignore them as much as it wants.
As far as I understand in most US states there are actually already data breach laws which require companies to notify users if their data is known or believed to be breached, with delayed notification allowed only if law enforcement requires it to facilitate the investigation.
It depends: in some games it's not even enough to get started. No Man's Sky developers touted multiple times the sheer size of the game and the incredible length of time required to play it. If the overall game is designed to require gaming hours in the multiple hundreds, 50 hours is nothing.
The most common age for "sex offenders" is 14 years old: still dangerous decades after the fact? Really? On top of that most "sex offenders" would not even be labelled as such at all in most of the civilized world. Furthermore sex offenders have actually a pretty low recidivism rate. The whole crackdown on "sex offenders" is misguided and driven by irrational overreactions and the whole concept should be reviewed and drastically reformed.
In general, deciding if and when somebody is or still is a risk to others is actually pretty hard: you only think it's not hard because you believe in a solution which is "clear, simple and wrong".
I don't see how the "overall view" of a poster has anything to do to with moderating a new post: even a troll can be insightful once in a while and even a very informative poster could happen to be overrated.
Exactly: what people fail to understand is that by making referendums much more difficult to be successful they would actually place even more power in the government and reduce their own power to affect it. These kinds of decisions are very dangerous since once the government gets more power it's very difficult that it will renounce it and it's the kind of decisions which will soon or later bite back
So what supermajority was required for the UK to join the EC back in the 70s?
None, but no majority requires leaving the EU today either. In any case the whole debate of a popular vote being required to join the EU in the first place is a huge can of worm by itself.
Ok. If you impose a very high supermajority to one side, you've effectively already chosen for everyone. The vote becomes farcical. Why should people participate in meaningless pretend elections?
The side getting the supermajority is the status quo. I don't like it much, but the idea of requiring a higher majority or a quorum to change the status quo makes sense on paper, but then you have governments like Italy which plan bothersome referendums at super-impractical dates to try to deter participation and basically try to "win by default"...
This isn't fucking rocket science. It's basic fucking Parliamentary democracy of the sort that the UK is supposed to deliver.
The point of referendums is exactly to get the parliament straight when it's not doing what the people wants.
The UK is made up of REGIONS, each REGION voted in the MAJORITY to STAY in the EU.
That's actually how important referendums in Switzerland work: they are legally binding but to be successful they require support of 50%+1 of the voters and support of at least half of the "states" forming the confederation.
For the record, it is routine in essentially all countries bar the UK who allow constitutional plebiscites that the bar is much higher than a simple majority.
If the results are binding, sure. In the UK referendums are non-binding, so a "higher bar" would be meaningless.