You're just pounding the table like an illiterate moron while making false assertions.

It requires clear and conspicuous notice, unless they obtain the customer's express consent. Putting a checkbox with a link to a disclosure is not even close to express consent.

Express consent usually requires putting the notice into it's own form, that you agree to with no other terms attached. That's why in financial or medical settings you're often asked for your signature multiple times; the things requiring express consent you're signing to acknowledge that single thing.

If you don't understand the details, don't pound the table.

As somebody who (fairly recently) wrote firmware that generates PAL and NTSC compatible composite video for a microcontroller, I'm gonna call bullshit on this.

They're basically identical, they just use slightly different resolution and timing.

There is nothing in PAL that makes adjustments less useful; Europeans simply misunderstood. They presumed that their technology was more advanced, even though it was the same. Their engineers gave them less and charged more for it, and they responded with righteous appreciation.

This is slashdot, we all know who Alan Turing was.

But who is this Turinga T. M. person?

"Adjustments?! How backwards!" What?!

In this case you don't have look for anything shady to see the connection. There's a lot of dishonest messaging about "SK Telecom" not having strong connections to China, but SK Telecom is a subsidiary of SK Group, which does have extensive investments in almost every industry in China.

They know that forcing random gubermint agencies to change their security systems arbitrarily will give a lot of new opportunities for foreign intelligence agencies to penetrate their systems, but they don't care; foreign gubermints don't vote in France, so they'll take the penalty in order to score a political talking point.

They'll probably blame America, without being willing to even pronounce it, but as an American I'm confident that this will improve our intelligence visibility.

"Browser A uses more memory than Browser B" isn't a sign of leaks, and my tab collection currently includes a few Reddit tabs.

It's an example of what I was talking about above. You're too ignorant of technical details to even include "memory leak" in your vocabulary. You should just say what you mean; it uses more memory for you.

After a few months without a restart, it hasn't grown significantly. Most of my available memory is still free, still available. It isn't leaking at all.

25 years ago that wasn't true, because it was leaky. It would grow and grow and eventually I'd need to restart the browser to recover system performance.

But note that it does not necessarily mean that it won't, either.

Nobody cares about your theory that tiny-moustache-man was actually a sensitive poet, or that he invented veganism. We know your interest is just about being a not-see.

I know you already know everything, so when you see a link to wikipedia you don't need to review the information at all before deciding "yer rong!!!," but it may actually be that the entirety of the Kesler Syndrome hypothesis or scenario is based in LEO.

You may want to look into it. (And in general, re-cap with a wikipedia-level source before shouting "yer rong!!!" even though you already know everything. You're welcome.)

Other planets don't get days, because they don't have people. They just get rotations.

So, half a Cowboy Neal?

You think this one is bad you shoulda seen the last 5 or 6 they had before him.

They also make whole sports team stand on the scoreboard because they can't figure out where the score is at.

And they have yet to discover hand soap. What did they call the stuff you wash your hands with before it came in a liquid? Simple... they didn't.

The UK has nationalized health care, I'm pretty sure the government already has everybody identified.

They also have CCTV everywhere and it's connected to face identification software.

What I find "funny" is the knee-jerk reaction, "Somebody once proposed something stupid in the name of protecting children, so anything done to protect children must be bad."

One alternative to protecting children from oligarchs, for example, would be to protect *everybody*. Then, they wouldn't even need to worry about ages or identification. But the people complaining about this would complain even louder about that! So the whole, "I'm against protecting children" nonsense is just as dishonest and tactical as the "protecting the children" ghosts they're so scared of.

You probably also believe in "banned books."