No, it really isn't. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you feel it is justified to force vaccinations on others for your own health benefit.
It's part of the social contract. If someone feels that it isn't their civic duty to take the proper vaccinations required and demanded of them for their part in protecting society, Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.
Such rights only exist under the civilized society, AND if you choose to live in the civilized society,
then you MUST take every obligation that comes with that choice --- that choice is only available if you also are to pay your taxes, and respect the well-being of other people, for example: by not killing them, or robbing from them, BUT, also, taking the required steps to see that you are not making them sick or putting their lives at risk through your own negligence.
Failure to receive the minimal recommended and required vaccinations is negligence.
It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard, and claiming you have no duty to prevent it from catching your neighbor's house on fire; that just aint so..
Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination.
any program that can control what happens within its address space can manipulate data moving in and out of the CPU cache.
Yes, but it cannot observe what data from other processes is moving out of the cache
The attacking process already has to know what bits the other process might have in the cache that they
are attempting to time. The cache side-channel attacks are using statistical techniques... in
artificially constructed scenarios: where only one other process has shared data you want to do a timing attack against.
It only works when the spying process knows the bits; And the timing at which those shared known bits are accessed,
reveals information that can be used to infer other bits
Cryptographic algorithms are susceptible to this, BUT the algorithms and implementations can be made resistant through various methods.
Ireland either (1) Agrees to a new treaty extending US National Security Letter, wiretap, and subpoena privileges to cover resources hosted in Ireland, OR (2) Ireland gets added by the US to the state sponsors of terrorism list
Only because it's socially unacceptable to even joke about that / most people don't find that very funny /
some people may not recognize it as a joke, and it can cause panic since the joke is too "believable", so even jokingly it's a terrorist threat.
On the other hand..... "Dropping O2 masks"; isn't the same.
Even if it's not a joke: how exactly is that life-threatening?
Dropping O2 masks falsely would be property damage for the airline, since now they would incur additional expenses after the flight to restore/reset safety systems, not a life-threatening event in itself.
The argument you made was that money woes are caused by people spending poorly
Not woes, BUT worries, and the argument I made is to counter the claim that he removed all money worries from his staff, AND spending poorly is just one of the examples of additional spending It doesn't matter necessarily if it's "poor" spending or not, only that it is more spending, as even people spending within their needs will spend more, and therefore, there will sometimes be money worries regardless. It looks like the dramatic generalizations here are coming from you....
But even I would be pleased if my CEO cut his pay by 93% and used the money to bump my salary up even a modest amount.
I never suggested any employees wouldn't be pleased by the bump up.
Only that most of them will probably still have money worries occasionally,
as their spending is likely to increase ----- a salary bump up does not make it so people no longer need to budget or think long and carefully about available choices, to avoid problems.
With a newborn, child daycare will cost me $1515 per month. An increase in my salary will help me be in the office 5 days a week vs. working from home
Your story is anecdotal and does not apply to the population in general.
Your story also does not contradict my proposition.
There are intelligent or beneficial uses of additional $$$ and bad ones.
There is well-planned budgeted constrained spending, and impulsive spending.
You chose to not spend money on childcare before, and work from home which can be career-limiting, why would you do that? What did you spend money on instead... was it well-planned, did you avoid waste, prioritize your purchasing plans, save as much as possible, and pay as little as you needed to on other things?
The way that you would even consider refraining before and then plan on spending the extra money on Daycare in advance, instead of splurging on 100 additional pairs of new shoes or $600 i-Toys you can buy just shows you probably aren't like most of the population.
What he just did was remove all money worries from his staff.
Not necessarily. When people earn more money, they tend to spend more less efficiently or
for things they want more than need. If they have poor discipline, now they are eligible for more
credit and can rack up bigger debts faster.
Often people spend more money than they should,
Or they have a "spending disorder", such as Shopping Addiction OR Binge + Buyer's Remorse, and it ultimately results in money worries.
In other words: money worries are not exclusively caused by low salaries.
Money worries can be caused by insufficient education/poor resource management, and psychological problems as well.
He wasn't charged with hacking. The charge was unauthorized access.
The student had authorized access to the computing system. The student logged into the system with higher privileges without permission than the student was intended to access the system with -- using the credentials to another user's account which the student learned using lawful means (There was no surreptitious spying, keylogging, deceptive/fraudulent activity, or attacking of the computer system required to get access to the login used).
No. This is the equivalent if locking the grade book away when the student knows where the key is. It's the changing of the grade that is wrong not the finding of the key.
Ok, sure... the teacher locked the grade book away, then in plain sight of the students set the key on the desk, or left the key in the lock. The point is there is no 'breaking and entering' involved here.
The teacher/staff of the school are totally complicit in any wrongdoing, due to inadequate supervision and improper precautions. If they expected to secure their accounts, they should have actually chosen a password for the Password field, instead of using their name: which all the students are told on 1st day of class, therefore the teacher actually indirectly disclosed her password on the 1st day of class, most likely.
Except, the student didn't look at or change the grades; although the student in theory could have. Even if the student did change the grade... a criminal charge would be ridiculous.
Just give the student an academic penalty and a disciplinary charge --- fail the course, suspended pending review by a disciplinary committee and possible expulsion.
As long as you have a sub-basement below the frost line; you could carve a narrow transport tube, with a larger holding area at the other end, and deposit additional capsules.
Retrieval is a harder problem, and you better make sure you choose non-combustible non-thermally conductive materials and a nice long plug for your transport tube.
And for the really paranoid, two banks, located in different parts of the country (or a different continent).
For the less paranoid.... Make sure the data is encrypted. get yourself a piece of sewer pipe.. stick the media in with some baggies of Silica gel.. cap off the ends of the tube with airtight/watertight seal, so nothing is getting in
Use a post hole digger to create a hole in the backyard 3 to 4 feet deep, and bury the piece of tubing so the top is at least 36 inches down.
It's still stupid for the teacher to do so, but the kids are also still trespassing on the teacher's property.
No... your new analogy is not a good one. The kids are not trespassing on the teacher's real property, only on portable belongings which are located on the school grounds.
Invading someone's house is a serious crime.
Although the teacher informing the kids there's a key under the doormat would be tacit permission to enter , since telling someone how to get into your house is a way of granting implicit permission -- thus making it a non-crime to use the key.
In fact.... the students' have permission to use the computer. The problem is not going somewhere they shouldn't; it's doing something with the property they have not been granted permission to do with that property, even if they weren't explicitly told they cannot do it.
So they're discriminating against the student and choosing to file criminal charges because of his sexual orientation, whereas a heterosexual posting a cat picture as wallpaper would not have been charged?
The law is screwed up. This isn't hacking.
Hacking is when someone intrudes into a properly secured computer system containing high-valued data and conducts ransom, espionage, theft, damage in a large amount, such as stealing SSNs, identity theft, or intellectual property on which a business is based.
This is the equivalent of the teacher leaving the grade book unattended on his table instead of locking it in the desk and exits the room for a moment, and a student sneaks over to it and pencils in a lewd picture on the cover.
The kid is deserving of detention, and possibly suspension for petty vandalism, especially if there's an ongoing discipline issue.
No friggin' jail time or criminal charges for ordinary childish behavior.
If there's a crime; it should be misdemeanor for disorderly conduct in posting sexually explicit photos.
If you know you're "negotiating," you ask for more than you want based on the expectation that you'll meet in the middle, somewhere close to what you actually want.
Not necessarily.... That's called deceptive negotiating, which is a specific kind of very aggressive negotiation strategy. Which can also backfire through sticker shock or insulting the other party.
A more respectful form of negotiation is to first know what you really want, and ask for what you think is fair, as close to what you expect to get as possible --- but overestimate slightly towards your favor never underestimate...
All negotiation is: is knowing that you want; asking for more, and attempting to persuade the counterparty to agree to more; and being willing and prepared to walk away from a deal and make no agreement, instead opting for a next best option ---- since you need some form of leverage to effectively persuade the other party.
Sometimes you do your research, you decide on what you want in exchange for X. You offer what you want, Y.
If the other party tries to counter with Y - 5%, then you say no; I want Y.
And you get Y, or you leave the discussion and make no deal, or go to think about it.
Depending on the position you are in.... just because you are prepared negotiate, does not necessarily mean you are willing to allow the other party to talk down your demands.
Sometimes you can accept a 1%, 2%, or 5% decrease to meet the other party...... sometimes, the circumstances are very much in your favor, so you don't bend at all..
If I did negotiate and get a much larger salary than someone with the same skills as me, isn't that unfair and selfish?
No... what's unfair and selfish is that the employer is taking unfair advantage of the other person by accepting their work and not paying nearly as much as they are willing to pay for that kind of work.
In other words, the company is exploiting them for more than the company's fair share of the profit from their work.
And you with your negotiation stood up to them and avoided that level of injustice.
It's selfishness and unfairness; sure, but not on your part... on the employer's part.
The "outdated business model" I speak of is having gaming as a gated resource.
Gated gaming is coming back..... welcome to in-app purchases. I saw a game the other day, where you run out of lives, you can pay $1 for an extra 3 lives, or start over... Free App, but you gotta pay if you want to win.
I think what they also missed was that Nintendo enabled this model in the first place. The Coin OP model was viable, so long as consumers could not or would not buy the systems themselves, and not after.
Once the model was no longer profitable for Nintendo compared to other options, then Nintendo no longer had any reason to incur the costs to support the coin op model, as they could make more $$$ selling large numbers of copies of software for home systems, instead of selling a few games to niche players operating games in select venues.
I don't see where Nintendo would incur an obligation to write exclusive software to help promote the old Coin Op model, when doing so would just hurt Nintendo's bottom line, and they didn't really owe anything to the businesspeople who were buying their systems in the hope of reselling 1000x+ uses of Nintendo's their software.
Using a Company network gives the company the right to snoop the traffic and see what you are doing.
It also gives the company the right to dictate what you (the user) are allowed to do with that computer, which is their property.
With a single phone call, the employer can inform at any time they are able to make contact with you (the end user).. even 10pm on a Sunday... they might say please power off the computer immediately, do not press any keys; we have revoked your permission to access the laptop, you are no longer authorized to perform any activities on the laptop, and please return it to our offices at your earliest convenience, tomorrow morning
If you login to it after that point to grab a personal file, or delete some personal files, after that, then you would be committing the crime of unauthorized access to a computer system.
So your access to "personal" files could be lost at any point in time, outside your control.
Likewise.... if they hand you a Linux system and tell you that installing software, or changing the operating system is not allowed, and you go format and install Windows 7 on it, or boot it from a Knoppix CD / Boot and Nuke CD / reimage it, or gain access to restricted accounts such as local Administrator (through hacking) to install unapproved software such as a file shredder, then you might be looking at civil or criminal charges for gaining the unauthorized access or the destruction of "personal files".
I have already set some fileserver folders to Read-Only for him and taken a backup of his mailbox in case he empties it on the last day.
Most folks aren't going to be engaged in destructive behavior when they leave ----- especially if moving to a new job.
Therefore marking folders 'read-only' shouldn't be the pertinent thing. The greater danger is, they steal information. Not they destroy or corrupt information, which should be backed up anyways. And if they were going to, they probably had all the time they needed already.
Why would they engage in the suspicious activity AFTER giving notice; given that they may be able to reasonably expect being released on the spot (for security reasons)? If someone wanted to be naughty..... wouldn't it make more sense to do the naughty things, and then turn in their notice after they had been doing the naughty thing for 6 months in small bite-size pieces unlikely to be noticed, or explainable away in any one instance?
Even if IT is the custodian of the information, employee's may be able to access sensitive information. Two classic examples are contact lists and contracts. If a salesperson is leaving an organization, it is a time honored tradition to try to leave with the entire customer contact list. Receiving and providing contracts give a clear picture of the revenue and cost structure of an organization. These should be protected not only with digital means, but also with physical security protections.
Perhaps not the best idea.... unless these are permissions he wouldn't notice going away.
I would firmly suggest instead: audit all activity.
You do have file access auditing on your file server, and capture of audit logs to a safe location, right?
You might adjust the auditing parameters for the user to audit all activity, even when normally not all is audited.
Get him to delete anything personal, because chances are his co-workers are going to be asking for access to his files and emails so they can continue whatever work he was in the middle of.
No.... IT should have a backup of company computers he has access to, and they should be kept.
Anything deleted, to be done with management approval. Now is not the time to go around willy nilly deleting things.
I realize co-workers are indeed going to be asking for access to files and e-mails.
The "personal files" issue, is one of the reasons co-workers should not be given blanket access to his or her files.
If the file was pertinent to the team's work, then it should have been in a shared location, unless it was a private draft
they were working on but had not published out yet.
If they didn't need to be shared when (s)he was working, they shouldn't need to be shared when (s)he leaves.
In order to protect the company; management should be reviewing things before deciding if co-workers get to see it.
If the Schmuck Company sold Arduino-designed boards under the name Schmuckware, without referring to Arduino, it would infringe on the CC license.
The CC-BY-SA is not an advertising clause. They can include the attribution as a label or note attached to the product package as accompanying it. BY-SA doesn't require (Or grant permission for) them to print that the item is an Arduino or Arduino brand product in marketing material.
A lot, and then, a lot more. How else do you stop fossil fuel usage, ask nicely?
Build more Nuclear power plants, make the licensing easier and less expensive, and pour funding into MSR technology and making Nuclear available more safely and at smaller scales. Create a tax on industrial complexes and power plants based on Net CO2 released.
Tax vehicle owners for the expected Net release of CO2 based on their registered vehicles, and for vehicles that burn fuel: regular emissions check, with mandatory monthly reporting by the vehicle computers, and at least 1 annual check to make sure all emission controls sensors are operational.
to ensure that only the intended active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients are in the dose
It goes beyond purity of the dose. If a person ingested some medicine containing DMSO as a delivery vector.... even if there were no contaminants in the dose, when the DMSO gets into the blood stream, it can dissolve things that are on the surface of the skin, which would not otherwise be a danger.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it really isn't. You have a warped sense of right and wrong if you feel it is justified to force vaccinations on others for your own health benefit.
It's part of the social contract. If someone feels that it isn't their civic duty to take the proper vaccinations required and demanded of them for their part in protecting society, Then it's not the community's job to allow these people to live in our cities, hold claims to land, conduct trade, or access or public roads or other venues.
Such rights only exist under the civilized society, AND if you choose to live in the civilized society, then you MUST take every obligation that comes with that choice --- that choice is only available if you also are to pay your taxes, and respect the well-being of other people, for example: by not killing them, or robbing from them, BUT, also, taking the required steps to see that you are not making them sick or putting their lives at risk through your own negligence.
Failure to receive the minimal recommended and required vaccinations is negligence.
It's no different than creating a humongous unreasonable fire hazard in your backyard, and claiming you have no duty to prevent it from catching your neighbor's house on fire; that just aint so..
Such people who would refuse vaccination for no provable and rationally justifiable medical reason --- can and should then be put into quarantine or deported / removed from civilized areas, with steps taken to ensure they stay out until they agree to vaccination.
any program that can control what happens within its address space can manipulate data moving in and out of the CPU cache.
Yes, but it cannot observe what data from other processes is moving out of the cache The attacking process already has to know what bits the other process might have in the cache that they are attempting to time. The cache side-channel attacks are using statistical techniques... in artificially constructed scenarios: where only one other process has shared data you want to do a timing attack against.
It only works when the spying process knows the bits; And the timing at which those shared known bits are accessed, reveals information that can be used to infer other bits
Cryptographic algorithms are susceptible to this, BUT the algorithms and implementations can be made resistant through various methods.
Ireland either (1) Agrees to a new treaty extending US National Security Letter, wiretap, and subpoena privileges to cover resources hosted in Ireland, OR (2) Ireland gets added by the US to the state sponsors of terrorism list
Only because it's socially unacceptable to even joke about that / most people don't find that very funny / some people may not recognize it as a joke, and it can cause panic since the joke is too "believable", so even jokingly it's a terrorist threat.
On the other hand..... "Dropping O2 masks"; isn't the same.
Even if it's not a joke: how exactly is that life-threatening?
Dropping O2 masks falsely would be property damage for the airline, since now they would incur additional expenses after the flight to restore/reset safety systems, not a life-threatening event in itself.
The argument you made was that money woes are caused by people spending poorly
Not woes, BUT worries, and the argument I made is to counter the claim that he removed all money worries from his staff, AND spending poorly is just one of the examples of additional spending It doesn't matter necessarily if it's "poor" spending or not, only that it is more spending, as even people spending within their needs will spend more, and therefore, there will sometimes be money worries regardless. It looks like the dramatic generalizations here are coming from you....
But even I would be pleased if my CEO cut his pay by 93% and used the money to bump my salary up even a modest amount.
I never suggested any employees wouldn't be pleased by the bump up. Only that most of them will probably still have money worries occasionally, as their spending is likely to increase ----- a salary bump up does not make it so people no longer need to budget or think long and carefully about available choices, to avoid problems.
With a newborn, child daycare will cost me $1515 per month. An increase in my salary will help me be in the office 5 days a week vs. working from home
Your story is anecdotal and does not apply to the population in general. Your story also does not contradict my proposition.
There are intelligent or beneficial uses of additional $$$ and bad ones. There is well-planned budgeted constrained spending, and impulsive spending.
You chose to not spend money on childcare before, and work from home which can be career-limiting, why would you do that? What did you spend money on instead... was it well-planned, did you avoid waste, prioritize your purchasing plans, save as much as possible, and pay as little as you needed to on other things?
The way that you would even consider refraining before and then plan on spending the extra money on Daycare in advance, instead of splurging on 100 additional pairs of new shoes or $600 i-Toys you can buy just shows you probably aren't like most of the population.
What he just did was remove all money worries from his staff.
Not necessarily. When people earn more money, they tend to spend more less efficiently or for things they want more than need. If they have poor discipline, now they are eligible for more credit and can rack up bigger debts faster.
Often people spend more money than they should, Or they have a "spending disorder", such as Shopping Addiction OR Binge + Buyer's Remorse, and it ultimately results in money worries.
In other words: money worries are not exclusively caused by low salaries. Money worries can be caused by insufficient education/poor resource management, and psychological problems as well.
He wasn't charged with hacking. The charge was unauthorized access.
The student had authorized access to the computing system. The student logged into the system with higher privileges without permission than the student was intended to access the system with -- using the credentials to another user's account which the student learned using lawful means (There was no surreptitious spying, keylogging, deceptive/fraudulent activity, or attacking of the computer system required to get access to the login used).
No. This is the equivalent if locking the grade book away when the student knows where the key is. It's the changing of the grade that is wrong not the finding of the key.
Ok, sure... the teacher locked the grade book away, then in plain sight of the students set the key on the desk, or left the key in the lock. The point is there is no 'breaking and entering' involved here.
The teacher/staff of the school are totally complicit in any wrongdoing, due to inadequate supervision and improper precautions. If they expected to secure their accounts, they should have actually chosen a password for the Password field, instead of using their name: which all the students are told on 1st day of class, therefore the teacher actually indirectly disclosed her password on the 1st day of class, most likely.
Except, the student didn't look at or change the grades; although the student in theory could have. Even if the student did change the grade... a criminal charge would be ridiculous. Just give the student an academic penalty and a disciplinary charge --- fail the course, suspended pending review by a disciplinary committee and possible expulsion.
As long as you have a sub-basement below the frost line; you could carve a narrow transport tube, with a larger holding area at the other end, and deposit additional capsules.
Retrieval is a harder problem, and you better make sure you choose non-combustible non-thermally conductive materials and a nice long plug for your transport tube.
And for the really paranoid, two banks, located in different parts of the country (or a different continent).
For the less paranoid.... Make sure the data is encrypted. get yourself a piece of sewer pipe.. stick the media in with some baggies of Silica gel.. cap off the ends of the tube with airtight/watertight seal, so nothing is getting in Use a post hole digger to create a hole in the backyard 3 to 4 feet deep, and bury the piece of tubing so the top is at least 36 inches down.
It's still stupid for the teacher to do so, but the kids are also still trespassing on the teacher's property.
No... your new analogy is not a good one. The kids are not trespassing on the teacher's real property, only on portable belongings which are located on the school grounds.
Invading someone's house is a serious crime. Although the teacher informing the kids there's a key under the doormat would be tacit permission to enter , since telling someone how to get into your house is a way of granting implicit permission -- thus making it a non-crime to use the key.
In fact.... the students' have permission to use the computer. The problem is not going somewhere they shouldn't; it's doing something with the property they have not been granted permission to do with that property, even if they weren't explicitly told they cannot do it.
So they're discriminating against the student and choosing to file criminal charges because of his sexual orientation, whereas a heterosexual posting a cat picture as wallpaper would not have been charged?
The law is screwed up. This isn't hacking. Hacking is when someone intrudes into a properly secured computer system containing high-valued data and conducts ransom, espionage, theft, damage in a large amount, such as stealing SSNs, identity theft, or intellectual property on which a business is based.
This is the equivalent of the teacher leaving the grade book unattended on his table instead of locking it in the desk and exits the room for a moment, and a student sneaks over to it and pencils in a lewd picture on the cover.
The kid is deserving of detention, and possibly suspension for petty vandalism, especially if there's an ongoing discipline issue.
No friggin' jail time or criminal charges for ordinary childish behavior.
If there's a crime; it should be misdemeanor for disorderly conduct in posting sexually explicit photos.
If you know you're "negotiating," you ask for more than you want based on the expectation that you'll meet in the middle, somewhere close to what you actually want.
Not necessarily.... That's called deceptive negotiating, which is a specific kind of very aggressive negotiation strategy. Which can also backfire through sticker shock or insulting the other party. A more respectful form of negotiation is to first know what you really want, and ask for what you think is fair, as close to what you expect to get as possible --- but overestimate slightly towards your favor never underestimate...
All negotiation is: is knowing that you want; asking for more, and attempting to persuade the counterparty to agree to more; and being willing and prepared to walk away from a deal and make no agreement, instead opting for a next best option ---- since you need some form of leverage to effectively persuade the other party.
Sometimes you do your research, you decide on what you want in exchange for X. You offer what you want, Y.
If the other party tries to counter with Y - 5%, then you say no; I want Y.
And you get Y, or you leave the discussion and make no deal, or go to think about it.
Depending on the position you are in.... just because you are prepared negotiate, does not necessarily mean you are willing to allow the other party to talk down your demands. Sometimes you can accept a 1%, 2%, or 5% decrease to meet the other party...... sometimes, the circumstances are very much in your favor, so you don't bend at all..
If I did negotiate and get a much larger salary than someone with the same skills as me, isn't that unfair and selfish?
No... what's unfair and selfish is that the employer is taking unfair advantage of the other person by accepting their work and not paying nearly as much as they are willing to pay for that kind of work.
In other words, the company is exploiting them for more than the company's fair share of the profit from their work.
And you with your negotiation stood up to them and avoided that level of injustice.
It's selfishness and unfairness; sure, but not on your part... on the employer's part.
The "outdated business model" I speak of is having gaming as a gated resource.
Gated gaming is coming back..... welcome to in-app purchases. I saw a game the other day, where you run out of lives, you can pay $1 for an extra 3 lives, or start over... Free App, but you gotta pay if you want to win.
I think what they also missed was that Nintendo enabled this model in the first place. The Coin OP model was viable, so long as consumers could not or would not buy the systems themselves, and not after. Once the model was no longer profitable for Nintendo compared to other options, then Nintendo no longer had any reason to incur the costs to support the coin op model, as they could make more $$$ selling large numbers of copies of software for home systems, instead of selling a few games to niche players operating games in select venues.
I don't see where Nintendo would incur an obligation to write exclusive software to help promote the old Coin Op model, when doing so would just hurt Nintendo's bottom line, and they didn't really owe anything to the businesspeople who were buying their systems in the hope of reselling 1000x+ uses of Nintendo's their software.
Is it just me.... or has Xkcd gotten a cartoon for everything [on Slashdot] now, much like the Simpsons have done everything?
Using a Company network gives the company the right to snoop the traffic and see what you are doing.
It also gives the company the right to dictate what you (the user) are allowed to do with that computer, which is their property.
With a single phone call, the employer can inform at any time they are able to make contact with you (the end user).. even 10pm on a Sunday... they might say please power off the computer immediately, do not press any keys; we have revoked your permission to access the laptop, you are no longer authorized to perform any activities on the laptop, and please return it to our offices at your earliest convenience, tomorrow morning
If you login to it after that point to grab a personal file, or delete some personal files, after that, then you would be committing the crime of unauthorized access to a computer system. So your access to "personal" files could be lost at any point in time, outside your control.
Likewise.... if they hand you a Linux system and tell you that installing software, or changing the operating system is not allowed, and you go format and install Windows 7 on it, or boot it from a Knoppix CD / Boot and Nuke CD / reimage it, or gain access to restricted accounts such as local Administrator (through hacking) to install unapproved software such as a file shredder, then you might be looking at civil or criminal charges for gaining the unauthorized access or the destruction of "personal files".
I have already set some fileserver folders to Read-Only for him and taken a backup of his mailbox in case he empties it on the last day.
Most folks aren't going to be engaged in destructive behavior when they leave ----- especially if moving to a new job. Therefore marking folders 'read-only' shouldn't be the pertinent thing. The greater danger is, they steal information. Not they destroy or corrupt information, which should be backed up anyways. And if they were going to, they probably had all the time they needed already. Why would they engage in the suspicious activity AFTER giving notice; given that they may be able to reasonably expect being released on the spot (for security reasons)? If someone wanted to be naughty..... wouldn't it make more sense to do the naughty things, and then turn in their notice after they had been doing the naughty thing for 6 months in small bite-size pieces unlikely to be noticed, or explainable away in any one instance?
I refer you to IT separation duties:
Perhaps not the best idea.... unless these are permissions he wouldn't notice going away.
I would firmly suggest instead: audit all activity.
You do have file access auditing on your file server, and capture of audit logs to a safe location, right?
You might adjust the auditing parameters for the user to audit all activity, even when normally not all is audited.
Get him to delete anything personal, because chances are his co-workers are going to be asking for access to his files and emails so they can continue whatever work he was in the middle of.
No.... IT should have a backup of company computers he has access to, and they should be kept.
Anything deleted, to be done with management approval. Now is not the time to go around willy nilly deleting things.
I realize co-workers are indeed going to be asking for access to files and e-mails. The "personal files" issue, is one of the reasons co-workers should not be given blanket access to his or her files.
If the file was pertinent to the team's work, then it should have been in a shared location, unless it was a private draft they were working on but had not published out yet.
If they didn't need to be shared when (s)he was working, they shouldn't need to be shared when (s)he leaves.
In order to protect the company; management should be reviewing things before deciding if co-workers get to see it.
If the Schmuck Company sold Arduino-designed boards under the name Schmuckware, without referring to Arduino, it would infringe on the CC license.
The CC-BY-SA is not an advertising clause. They can include the attribution as a label or note attached to the product package as accompanying it. BY-SA doesn't require (Or grant permission for) them to print that the item is an Arduino or Arduino brand product in marketing material.
The sea level rise is approximately 1 to 4 millmeters per year.
Something tells me there aren't a very large number of cities within a few inches of having to relocate.
A lot, and then, a lot more. How else do you stop fossil fuel usage, ask nicely?
Build more Nuclear power plants, make the licensing easier and less expensive, and pour funding into MSR technology and making Nuclear available more safely and at smaller scales. Create a tax on industrial complexes and power plants based on Net CO2 released.
Tax vehicle owners for the expected Net release of CO2 based on their registered vehicles, and for vehicles that burn fuel: regular emissions check, with mandatory monthly reporting by the vehicle computers, and at least 1 annual check to make sure all emission controls sensors are operational.
to ensure that only the intended active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients are in the dose
It goes beyond purity of the dose. If a person ingested some medicine containing DMSO as a delivery vector.... even if there were no contaminants in the dose, when the DMSO gets into the blood stream, it can dissolve things that are on the surface of the skin, which would not otherwise be a danger.
OK, then a clarification: Since they've lost nearly every motion and case that's been in front of a judge, it *hasn't been* going well for them.
At this point, they ought to be debating over whether the original management of SCO get tried with 51 counts of criminal charges or 52 counts.