letsgetphysITal

Yet you can still get to tronc.com

Their HTTPS implementation is broken, though; Cert common name wasn't set properly. GJ!

Submit a complaint. You didn't accept the terms, and they breached GDPR by not offering an alternative without tracking.

Does the WSJ accept subscriptions from non-US citizens? If so, they had better get GDPR compliant.

Add the following to My Filters in uBlock Origin:

www.theverge.com###privacy-consent-ui

www.theverge.com###privacyConsent

www.theverge.com##.privacy-consent-notice

A lot are. GDPR Hall of Shame looks like a list of these companies.

That's not how GDPR works. You're not allowed to make use of your product / service require acceptance of collection of data. You must either offer it without data collection as an option, or simply refuse service.

You could create something similar with a pad of cheap industrial memory foam (can buy pre-cut on the web dirt cheap), double-sided tape, and some 68mm downpiping, but it wouldn't be adjustable to the same degree.

You can get articulated forearm supports for desks (says Google). https://theergonomicstore.com/collections/arm-elbow-supports

Did not know that. Seems... Weird. Thanks.

Why would Amazon pass that information to turkers?

"Find city, county, state in this list and post in the three boxes "City" "County" "State" in the web form." is literally all the information required for this task. All of the rest can be handled by Amazon's staff, or more likely automated processes. The turker need not know for whom they do the work, or why. They could be processing marketing communications, or census returns, or credit card applications, or literally anything else where an address may be used.

I disagree. The turkers don't need to know that they're extracting the "country, state (or equivalent), city," from a list of adult store customers in order to extract that data. Sharing the context is superfluous to requirements in this instance, so likely is not included in the task mandate.

I don't know. If it's just an address, you can get it from Google Maps Street View. To find out who is in a specific address is what makes it personal.

Ready Player One was a warning, not a manual!

Your email went into the junk folder. Send a letter and phone call.

Mmmmm yes, Hotdog Stand theme.

http://www.pulpconnection.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/201...

Freemasons.

The Watchmen did this well.

Spoliers

Spoliers

Spoilers

Spoilers

Spoilers

Ozymandias did unify the world, after all.

I read "they" in the phrase "... but they are also reportedly paying their telco providers to send the data." to mean Google were paying, so it wouldn't appear in the metered usage for which the end user is billed. This makes sense, as it seems the data apparently can be transferred when "... they do not have a Sim card or apps installed."

What would bother me, though, is if they were purposefully not exposing that data transfer in the data metering on the device. That seems shady.

Take the facts, and form the simplest theory that explains them. At least that's my take on it in this context.

It requires specialised education to guide free play into a constructive activity. There's a big difference between "Here's a lump of clay. Smash it with your fist until you're bored." and "Here's a lump of clay. Let's try and mold it into something together, like a flower, or a bowl."

I think they call it brigading.

No it's not my problem. I just won't visit your site.

It's most definitely your problem.

How do you find it when communicating with people who don't share your ethos, say those heavily invested in Whatsapp, or another platform to which there is no F/OSS compatible client.

There is, he's called Christopher Wylie. He didn't work for Facebook, but he exposed the access available to their data.

It's almost as though sick people are less productive or something.

Did we really need someone to tell us this?

My Outlook (2016) client is using ~300MB right now while displaying a full HTML spam mail (taking one for the team, guys). I wouldn't say I'm a heavy user, but there's shared calendars and mailboxes, OneNote integration, task list etc.

I've used DuckDuckGo for months. Only the very most esoteric of terms brings me back to Google, and I can count those times in the past months on one hand.

But he was charged and convicted based upon unauthorised selling of licensed software, which he wasn't as he didn't sell licenses. What he did and what he was charged with are two separate things, which is what the entire article is about.

You don't understand. Without the (license) key (which he didn't sell), these disks are coasters. Windows installations without a valid license key (or a crack, which he again didn't provide) are crippled after 30 days.

These disks are only useful to people who already own a Windows license.

You misunderstand. He was convicted of copyright infringement for selling unlicensed copies of Windows. He didn't do this, as copies of Windows aren't sold; they're licensed. As the article states, he didn't sell licenses. He sold recovery media which is available for free from the Microsoft website, and from OEM suppliers.

He did admit to trademark infringement by reusing the protected Dell artwork on the disks, but he wasn't convicted of that. If he was, it would have been a slap on the wrist and a fine. This was unjust and totally unreasonable.