And that's exactly, how things ought to be. No one owes you a job. You can resign at any moment, and the employer can let you go at any moment as well.
"so the 'risks' of not using HTTPS are irrelevant."
Though the author is right in that the public information itself requires no hiding, the information about my am accessing a particular piece of information may be important...
And then there is the integrity aspect — without something like HTTPS, how do I know,the data has not been tampered with in-flight?
Persons are, most certainly, legal entities. GDPR is (currently) limited to those making a profit, but all of that is irrelevant...
You mess up human memory and data collection of a company / database.
The distinction you are making is without difference. The (evil) corporations are just easier to hate.
But, if we start forcing them to forget, the day will come when you — an employee — may have to agree, under contract, to have your memory wiped off your employer's secrets if you ever leave them, as a condition for employment. The arguments for that will be identical to those for GDPR and therefore equally valid.
Now, I think they are invalid in both cases. But you seem to like them for others, but not for yourself. That can't be right...
2) Both sides of the contract - the service provided and information given - have terms and limits attached. 3) GDPR is about establishing standard rules for the limits. I want to know what you shall do with the data and who else shall access it via you.
What I remember about you can not be subject to contract between us. Neither a custom contract our lawyers agreed upon, nor the government-mandated one.
If you are Ok with government forcing Google to forget you, be prepared for the judge siding with your ex' demanding, you forget the good times you've once shared. It is already technologically possible.
Attempts to control, what other people remember about you, are tyrannical and (until very recently) unprecedented.
Once you tell other people something, the information is theirs. There is no basis to allow control of other people's heads, notebooks, or computers...
The only remotely sensible thing — for the authoritarianism-minded — is to ban discrimination based on the customer's unwillingness to share data not essential to the service provision. For example, an auto-repair facility does not need your home address — and so can't refuse to repair your car because you wouldn't fill out the form in full.
Similarly, sites like Quora may be banned from enforcing the "real name" policy.
What I do want to emphasize is that the FAA is not changing its rules....If an air carrier elects to permit cell phone usage (or other PED) onboard during flight, they must determine that the use of that particular model phone won’t interfere
This means, FAA will continue to ban cellular phones — because, given the variety of devices, it is impossible to certify each model as non-interfering.
whether "only allowed under certain conditions" constitutes a ban
That depends on the conditions, does not it? The cited conditions — airline certifying each phone model — does constitute a ban. Or do you see the flight attendant checking "Oh, sorry, sir, you have iPhone 5c — you can't use it, only iPhone 5 has been certified"?
And further down it says: "If this happens, the FAA is apparently going to let individual airlines make their own decisions as to whether or not to allow the cell calls."
Just as I said, both FAA and FCC ban it. Just as I said, FAA is (or was a year ago) forcing individual airlines to claim, the phones "interfere" with the plane.
Whenever Musk or one of his rivals sends up a spacecraft
Damn those evil soulless billionaires! If only it were NASA doing the launches, things would've been completely different...
the carriers which operate closer to the ground must avoid large swaths of territory and incur sizable expenses
Those are FAA requirements, from the same people, who only a few years ago claimed (and compelled the airlines to claim), your cellphone could bring down your airliner...
I am having a hard time reconciling the following two parts of the write-up: "Historically, startups have been the engine of US economy" vs. "While companies that were less than two years old made up about 13% of all companies in 1985, they only accounted for 8% in 2014". Even at their highest number of 13% during the, supposedly, "good old days", how can they be considered "the engine"?..
Oh boo hoo. The government forces me to pay for killing people.
Maintaining a capable military is explicitly a government's responsibility, according to our Constitution. Benevolence is not:
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
Slashdot Mirror
DACA is not about skilled technology workers at all. The man, quite clearly, is against US enforcing its borders in principle...
You must be winning a lot of arguments :)
No one was forcing anybody there. Once it became practical to link up, resources linked up. (Whether the Internet benefited from that is another question.)
Putting a label on an argument does not refute it...
You seem to imply, no such network would've been created, had government not done it first...
No, I don't. I owe my existence to my parents and the rest of the family, who raised me and cared for me.
Everyone else pursued their own self-interest — and I don't blame them, there is nothing wrong with that.
And that's exactly, how things ought to be. No one owes you a job. You can resign at any moment, and the employer can let you go at any moment as well.
No, I'm not.
These people have done it for their own self-interest, and I'm motivated by same. They didn't owe me anything, nor do I owe anyone.
Oh, no, what are we going to do? If Elon Musk builds himself an Elysium, we'll inevitably get at each other's throats!
Yey, Collectivism! Down with the greedy cantankerous Individual, glory be to the Collective!
Though the author is right in that the public information itself requires no hiding, the information about my am accessing a particular piece of information may be important...
And then there is the integrity aspect — without something like HTTPS, how do I know,the data has not been tampered with in-flight?
Persons are, most certainly, legal entities. GDPR is (currently) limited to those making a profit, but all of that is irrelevant...
The distinction you are making is without difference. The (evil) corporations are just easier to hate.
But, if we start forcing them to forget, the day will come when you — an employee — may have to agree, under contract, to have your memory wiped off your employer's secrets if you ever leave them, as a condition for employment. The arguments for that will be identical to those for GDPR and therefore equally valid.
Now, I think they are invalid in both cases. But you seem to like them for others, but not for yourself. That can't be right...
What I remember about you can not be subject to contract between us. Neither a custom contract our lawyers agreed upon, nor the government-mandated one.
If you are Ok with government forcing Google to forget you, be prepared for the judge siding with your ex' demanding, you forget the good times you've once shared. It is already technologically possible.
Attempts to control, what other people remember about you, are tyrannical and (until very recently) unprecedented.
Once you tell other people something, the information is theirs. There is no basis to allow control of other people's heads, notebooks, or computers...
The only remotely sensible thing — for the authoritarianism-minded — is to ban discrimination based on the customer's unwillingness to share data not essential to the service provision. For example, an auto-repair facility does not need your home address — and so can't refuse to repair your car because you wouldn't fill out the form in full.
Similarly, sites like Quora may be banned from enforcing the "real name" policy.
Seriously, if anyone has the data, I want to have it too...
Yes, how dare a merchant change his offerings and prices!
This means, FAA will continue to ban cellular phones — because, given the variety of devices, it is impossible to certify each model as non-interfering.
Either way, FAA's ban exists, just as I said. And, according to the FAA official, it is not going away...
That depends on the conditions, does not it? The cited conditions — airline certifying each phone model — does constitute a ban. Or do you see the flight attendant checking "Oh, sorry, sir, you have iPhone 5c — you can't use it, only iPhone 5 has been certified"?
Yeah, such as on the Trump's administration officials...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-teen-murdered-in-bronx-nypd-explorer-20180623-story.html
And further down it says: "If this happens, the FAA is apparently going to let individual airlines make their own decisions as to whether or not to allow the cell calls."
Just as I said, both FAA and FCC ban it. Just as I said, FAA is (or was a year ago) forcing individual airlines to claim, the phones "interfere" with the plane.
More here and, quite officially, here...
This was all so easy for you to find yourself, I strongly suspecting, you aren't arguing in good faith...
They both do — for different reasons. Now you know...
Damn those evil soulless billionaires! If only it were NASA doing the launches, things would've been completely different...
Those are FAA requirements, from the same people, who only a few years ago claimed (and compelled the airlines to claim), your cellphone could bring down your airliner...
Is "fertilizer" really a better word for something — anything — you'd wish to praise?
Just like the US Constitution, the Pythagoras' Theorem can't be valid, because its author is a long-dead White slave-owner.
Dunno, but you can bet, women and children are the worst hit. As they always are...
I am having a hard time reconciling the following two parts of the write-up: "Historically, startups have been the engine of US economy" vs. "While companies that were less than two years old made up about 13% of all companies in 1985, they only accounted for 8% in 2014". Even at their highest number of 13% during the, supposedly, "good old days", how can they be considered "the engine"?..
Where would he get them?
So, preemptive surrender to blackmail is your suggestion? Give the poor their foodstamps so they will not rob you (as much)?
Maintaining a capable military is explicitly a government's responsibility, according to our Constitution. Benevolence is not:
And yet, despite one being the government's mandate and the other — not — the military expenditures are dwarfed by the compulsory charity.
I may be all of these and worse. But you — the nicest and the kindest person in the world — still have no right to spend my money without my consent.
Wow... I've been the target of many ad-hominem attacks before, but none quite so literally attacking my username...