Nothing in the GDPR stops websites from honoring "Do not track" and then _not asking_ if it's present. They don't have to ask if they don't track you! They don't have to ask for a technically necessary session cookie that appears after you actively log in!

Websites ask because they want to track you! A 'law targeting browsers' would not help because people would say no to cookies, and then websites would ask about some other way to track you. Because they want to track you.

2-3 spam emails slip through every week, and sometimes a false positive happens when I sign up for something new. I don't see this as a huge problem, and I doubt Gmail is significantly better.

The older EU 'cookie directive' only mentions cookies as an example of storage in a footnote. The regulative is actually about any storage on the users computer.

Marketers would like you to believe that the stupid banners are about cookies. They're not - they're about processing your personal information.

If tenant A schedules 99 jobs and tenant B schedules 1 job, a "fair" algorithm would pick B's job either first or second, RANDOM() will not.

I do get three to four phonecalls from spoofed UK numbers every month. I havn't picked up for a year or so, but last time I did, it was a fake "Microsoft Support" scam.

If an attacker can modify your local install, you've lost anyway....

Keepass will (by default) not ask for the password a second time before exporting - but you have to decrypt the database once before it can be exported.

So this is not a risk if your threat model is "attacker obtains a copy of my .kdbx", but it is a risk if your threat model is "attacker can modify .kdbx without me noticing, and can access my local computer or a mounted network disk to read the exported passwords".

There's some boilerplate in the definition, but it's fairly clean and non-repetitive. And easy to use in the "client code".

https://www.typescriptlang.org/play?#code/KYOwrgtgBAKg9ga1AS...

So if Disney doesn't uphold the contract, doesn't that mean it wasn't a work for hire, and therefore the copyright belongs to the author?

Capital is short for capital city.

Vacuum is also short for vacuum cleaner.

I'll grant you Aussehen - that's a single word in english. But longer than the German one.

> Consent of the data subject means any freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject’s wishes by which he or she, by a statement or by a clear affirmative action, signifies agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her.

Which is why I suspect almost all "cookie banners" are worthless. They don't give a clear, informed consent, so the site operator is still not allowed to use the data for anything at all.

0: https://gdpr.eu/article-4-definitions/

https://github.com/qbittorrent/qBittorrent/wiki/Setup-GDB-wi...

This is _exactly_ why a lot of jurisdictions assign/assume copyright by default, and make it hard to 'remove'. Otherwise authors would see their work ripped off in a lot of inventive ways.

When the default state is that every work is copyrighted, that removes a lot of possible confusion, and possible excuses.

I assume it's written partly tongue-in-cheek, to show how arbitrary a lot of music tradition is, and how it creates a barrier to entry.

And the article didn't even mention different clefs or transposing instruments!

And then give the answers after the homework was handed in, if they want to grade the homework. Or compromise, by giving answers to half the assignments, and not grading those.

So blaming the GDPR and new rules, seems a bit weird in this case.

Now, consumer protection regulation is always a balancing act. And most consumer protection laws will hurt some companies that didn't actually do anything bad. That doesn't mean I don't want any regulations. Particularly when it comes to healthcare.