Brexit means Biscuit!!!
And I just reminded myself that school kids across the UK have started dirty takling each other, with no intention of getting the ball, while shouting "Brexit means Brexit!!"
like the last bitch that tried to object on religious grounds (y’know, the one that was divorced multiple times)
Henry VIII?
The UK has its own version of GDPR. That's actually how the EU works, it sets guidelines and the countries create their own laws within those guidelines.
I’m sure the remaining officiants that will perform ceremonies for same sex couples will make themselves known and they will be busy.
Unfortunately they will also likely be targeted by extremists.
Also, it doesn't skirt federal law, per the article:
the Constitution prohibits public officials from discriminating against members of the public based on their personal beliefs
This might not cover all officiants, eg priests, but it covers state notary publics and government officials, which is really all this law is targeting anyway (I think religious people could already refuse).
It is a hidden transaction. They try to argue it both ways, that it's an exchange of access for data, but then they hide the data in the fine print. When you buy something, the price isn't in the fine print, it's front and centre. When you buy insurance, they have to provide a "key facts page" where they detail what you're paying for in general terms. The key parts being exchanged are supposed to be at the forefront, not hidden in the terms and conditions.
People don't understand the value of their product because businesses hide that part in the terms and conditions to inhibit their ability to properly assess the value.
In your analogy, you asked them to send your nuts and bolts for free. In exchange, they advertised stuff to you. Then they started collecting the addresses of your clients... that was not fine. Now, they're throwing nuts and bolts from multiple people into a box and selling it as a "sampler kit", nuts and bolts you did ask them to send for free.
I didn't ask them, they advertised their service in bright lights saying it was free. Then, the fine print at the point of entry says they can pick the pockets of their guests.
You really are trying to advocate for the devil here, and I think if you take a step back you'll see that you're just parroting the same arguments they make. Such arguments have not been properly challenged yet, but if you stack them up against the core principles of contract law - through which all trade is conducted - they are clearly wrong.
That's the asshole. Thanks for the reminder.
Shortly after they introduced reddit gold, they made enough money to cover the server costs for decades. A few years later, with continued revenue from this (until they scrapped it last year), all the money was gone.
The reason reddit loses money is because it's poorly managed.
If you think tickling a big breasted flower with tickle bees so a king bee can pollinate her, then allowing you to jump on her boobs to collect some cash, this game is for you.
I know what you mean. After Microsoft bought Rare, they remade the game on the Xbox, however completely left out the old multiplayer. The new multiplayer was decent, it felt a bit like Halo, but that was nothing on storming the beaches with French squirrels. Hoh-hee hoh-hee!!
The EU is trying to legitimise it, which is completely the wrong take.
I think one of either two courses of action should be taken by lawmakers. Either:
- Data collection must be made open, such that anyone can access the data (but processing of data can be proprietary), or,
- Websites should pay people for the data they take.
Data has value, it is completely unacceptable that this value is taken without consideration.
Everyone just needs to focus on figuring out objective truth, rather than relying on someone else to do it for them.
There's nothing much wrong with viewing biased sources, in principle, so long as you do so openly and compare them against other sources with a critical eye.
The bitter truth I was pointing to is that CNN is no longer the antithesis to Fox News. Maybe it was for many people, but they should be aware that the network has been captured and skewed towards a new bias.
I wasn't criticising the study for that so much, aside from the suggestion that their findings have broader implications than they likely do. The article perhaps deserves a little criticism, but yes the media (which the article publisher is a part of), and particularly mass media is the bigger culprit.