kekumu

For anyone not very familiar with copyleft, the actual goal is:

> My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. [1]

Free as in freedom for the users of the software to control, audit, and modify what runs on their hardware.

The stipulations are there to prevent people who aren't aligned with those goals from benefiting from (and working against) the work done by the community that believes in those goals.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html

Do both!

You can use karabiner elements to remap CAPS LOCK so that it’s ESCAPE when tapped and CONTROL when held.

Personal data is not the only form of compensation, and GDPR is a direct response to the situation that attitude has created.

Nobody is suggesting companies provide free services. We're saying that personal data is more than commodity, and we should be looking to more ethical business models. And we won't be sad to lose companies that can't adapt.

edit: And I don't think my point was silly, but I'm also not really libertarian. So I don't think it's acceptable for companies to abuse their dominant position to make things worse for society at large.

> Pretty straightforward choice.

It is, if you don't think the rest of what I wrote is worth any consideration.

It's a difference in how much a business values their users' privacy and data.

Some value it until they hit XXXXXXXXX amount of extra cost. Some only value it until they hit XXXX amount of extra cost.

Most probably only value it as much as they're forced to.

Because consent must be "freely given". As soon as you start attaching consequences unrelated to the utility itself, you're making a decision less and less freely.

The greater the power imbalance, the less free the choice. Social networks are a great example of this. You can choose not to use a particular one, but what's the alternative if everyone is already on that platform? You can go without, but what if it's LinkedIn, and there can be a real impact on your career?

> EU users will be trained to click "Agree" without reading, because web sites would ask them for permission very frequently, and users do not have time to read web site policies anyway.

From what I've read, opt-in is only supposed to be used when there's an actual voluntary choice, and "allow us to share your data with 3rd party trackers or we block you" doesn't count as a real choice.

It should be treated in the same way as opting into marketing emails. Totally optional. Not opting in shouldn't totally break a site.

If you use a third-party, they would be acting as your data processor. You'd need to make sure you have a contract with them that ensures they're respecting GDPR as well.

I agree with others that you should self-host whenever possible. It will simplify these questions and you'll be able to fully protect your users' data yourself.

I would. Better to be overly cautious if you're serious about protecting user data and privacy.

IPs specifically are quite likely to reveal some identifying info, and it's obvious how trivial it is to find that info. Even the company itself isn't looking that info up, losing that info could expose their users.

As long as the video is in a supported format you should be able to: http://bolivar.tumblr.com/post/79222932441/popcorn-time-chro...

IIRC Bank of America lost a class-action lawsuit over this practice. I didn't opt-in to overdraft protection precisely because of stuff like this. I'd rather just be denied.

I got hit with several overdrafts after some tickets I purchased finally got charged a month after I purchased them. Even better was that I never got any text messages to warn me. I set up alerts for low balances and whatnot, and somehow this was the one day it failed to work. If it had, I would have transferred money from another account and avoided any problems. I've been meaning to find a new bank (or credit union) since.

Used Apple products do hold their value better than anything - personally I think people pay way too much for used Apple gear, but hey, they have their high-end niche and people are willing to pay for it.

But to say that selling his computer would net him little more than the Windows license is absurd. It wouldn't be Apple resale prices, but he should definitely be able to get %50 back. He'd get the most value by parting out the system.

I think USPS is basically the same way. I just shipped something with Signature Confirmation. The only thing I needed was the tracking number, and then I could sign up to receive an email with the signature in a PDF. Maybe you have to sign up before it's delivered though.

What's the advantage of it being built into the OS versus using chef or puppet? There's going to be some kind of process running to handle configuration no matter what. Docker also has Dockerfiles to handle configuration of containers. After seeing this article I looked into config management in Docker and containers and I'm having a hard time seeing why something like puppet/chef isn't the right solution.

All of the articles are about Apple's proprietary lock-in and difficulty in making your own repairs. This definitely looks like more proprietary form factors and parts to me - I think it's safe to say this will be a definite downgrade in terms of an iFixit score.