If someone gives you money and tells you that he's thirsty, and you prescribe water, then you have provided medical services.
See the difference? To be perfectly clear, it's when you start charging money for services.
No, that alone does not make it medical device, there's a requirement you are missing.
The person you provide a service to in exchange for money has to believe you are a medical professional, for you to have provided medical services.
If you go to your accountant's office, and in the midst of a discussion, you say you're thirsty, and he says "Here, have some water"; you have not been provided with medical advice, even though you are paying for your accountant's time.
Similarly, if in the middle of a meal at a restaurant, you tell the waitress that you are thirsty -- and she says "Here, drink this"
You have not been provided with medical advise, even though there is a fee for a drink.
Advise is only medical when the business is advertised as a medical professional business,
with a medical doctor.
Seeing as the use of the title medical doctor requires a license.
if someone dies from taking this unlicensed person's advice, who pays the health bills? That's right, the taxpayer!
If they seek medical attention, they probably don't die, in which case, the person who took ill-advised actions on account of poor suggestions. People take ill-advised actions all the time, whether the suggestion to do so is coming from another person or not.
Unless you can prove this unlicensed person is giving advice, the advice is reckless harmful and unjustified, there's really no basis
for government suggesting they have an authority to prevent someone from making general suggestions based on their personal experience available..
If a person in danger doesn't seek medical attention, and as a result they seek emergency care but still die, their expenses may be a bit more. However, unless they are quite insolvent -- their estate has to cover the expenses -- that is, their estate will have a debt. Medical expenses trump most other debts; the medical provider gets paid before credit card companies, etc -- so if there's any real or personal property, life insurance, etc, the Medical expenses get paid not by the taxpayer, before their next of kin can get anything.
One thing we know about anyone reading the blog regularly.... they have a computer and an internet connection......
I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"
Some caution might be in order. People can go to jail for comments like the above too.
States take almost as much exception to citizens practicing law without a license as they take to citizens practicing nutrition without a license.
Even when the advise is being given to yourself.
That does give one an idea about how to sort out the lawyer overabundance problem..... states should stop issuing licenses to practice law,
then there can be no more lawyers.
The web site http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/ is clearly located in Utah.
So, possibly he's working remotely from his home in Missouri, but the practice is still in Utah.
Utah is not Missouri, therefore, it is interstate commerce if anyone in Missouri is being served from Utah,
placing this matter clearly outside of Missouri's regulatory authority.
So on a big project with lots of copyright holders, it is nearly impossible to switch to a more permissive license, but that's because it's so hard to get a big group of people to agree, not because the GPL doesn't allow it.
Not necessarily. The maintainer can change the conditions on which the collective work is published.
The individual contributors granted an implied right to publish, in making their contribution.
However, they did not necessarily "tie the maintainer's hands" to the GPL.
The individual contributors might (or might not) have known what the conditions were that the final work would be distributed under.
In many cases, they may have signed their rights over, either explicitly or implicitly (for example, by signing a copyright transfer agreement, by being paid for their work by the maintainer, or other means; if their contribution was small enough, and lacking a creative element [e.g. a 1-line bugfix patch], the incorporation of their work might not even be copyrightable).
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones.
In that case, the Employee has somehow provided their phone number.
Their current employer has no right to say what calls they can take on their
personal cell phones, or what calls other people can make to an employee cell phone.
The only person Employer A has to complain to in this case is the employee,
if they chose to take the call while they're supposed to be working,
against taking personal calls while on the job.
But then perhaps Employer B while throwing in the 33% increase can also throw
in the perk of "Some flexibility to take a few personal calls while on the job; as
long as the amount of time used/distraction to the job at hand is kept to a minimum"
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig.
--
A team member who lacks loyalty, or lacks job satisfaction may take the opportunity to switch employers.
A more loyal team member, may take this offer and negotiate higher pay with their current employer.
Either way, the employee benefits. This is not against the economic interests of the employee.
In some circumstances, this may be unfair to the employer.
With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship, and
the employee will not part for something as low as a 30% change in pay, and nor will the employer
necessarily fire the employee just because they found someone willing and able to do the same job for 30% less.
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract.
It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete"
for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave,
and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired
by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached,
unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to
leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage.
The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them... and you are pissed about it?
I wouldn't be pissed about it. If someone is paying me to do the other job during the time I am taking the call,
that the call is distracting me from, however, and the caller uses my employer's equipment to make that offer (e.g. Company phone number, Company e-mail address), they might have a right to be pissed about it, because:
(A) They are likely doing this to many employees -- wasting many employer hours.
(B) They are a third party abusing the employer's communications equipment.
(C) The nature of the calls is likely to result in loss of increased employee costs; either in the form of
increased pay to existing employees, or to pay for recruitment of new employees and training
to enable existing staff to cover the hole left by valuable team member.
(D) Increased churn, corporate brain drain, loss of company memory, lower morale.
But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
Employer B picking up their phones is fine.
The issue is Employer B harrassing Employer A by calling Employer A's phone numbers,
and attempting to disrupt staff from doing their jobs, by enticing them to personally jump
ship and join Employer A.
Employees may have a use of a phone in their office, and might even have a direct extension,
but it seems reasonable that if Employer A has issues with the calls, they could contact Employer A
and get them to stop calling their business numbers.
What calls Employer B makes to employes' private phone numbers or personal
e-mail addresses is another matter, and none of Employer A's business.
Even the scientists behind the research are stressing that industrial-scale drilling will exaust the supply eventually.
Presumably it will last a long time, if they make sure to tightly regulate any tapping of industrial scale quantities,
ensure that the amount of water drawn out is less than the local replenishment rate, and
ensure that players are treated fairly, no one entity is allowed to hog the resource, and any entity that does
tap the resource pays a quantity-dependant price for doing so, to discourage waste.
There's no inherent reason that industrial-scale drilling has to be allowed to exhaust the supply
Since when is the iOS more secure? The latest Android has a very stable code and a solid permission system that allows the user to set exactly what an app can or can't do.
The reason there are fewer iOS malware infections has to do with something totally
separate from security of the device.
There is a 'more efficient' distribution channel for Android platform malware.
Developing for the Apple platform requires a security certificate from Apple to sign applications,
paying money to apple, signing a contract, and approval from Apple and review to be listed on the pap store, which
makes the app store a less efficient means of distributing malware than the Android marketplace.
An operating system can be extremely insecure, but if there is no useful distribution channel,
or no network connection, it is not likely to be infected.
Adding a step to the shutdown process is simple, it's trivial to install, and it's trivial to turn off if you need to reboot.
You don't necessarily control all reboots. Reboots sometimes are a result of application or OS failure, for example the INIT process receives a SIGINT signal.
Under certain circumstances system management applications will issue reboot as an automatic response to a problem.
It is extremely unlikely that anyone will install a system in a datacenter that contains explosive devices to turn the system into shrapnel if a network cable is disconnected.
It's neither necessary nor likely that someone stuffs a server with a charge sufficient to turn the server into shrapnel; they only need the disk drive coated with enough material to destroy the drive inside the chassis, and extra shielding around the disk drive cage.
If there was a risk of the server becoming shrapnel, this could endanger the server operator, and
create unwanted risks, loss, and liability, should it accidentally be engaged.
A mechanism to destroy the hard drives should effect the hard drives but no other system components.
This requires a bit more work than simply putting code in one file in/etc/init.d under the "stop" function, called by one of the K-files in rc3.d, that deletes any incriminating files. Shutdown code is a lot less dangerous than having to deal with explosive charges.
It's rather unlikely. Servers get rebooted all the time.
There is a much simpler method: utilize full-drive encryption. When power is pulled, or a reboot occurs,
the secured media becomes unreadable until actions are taken to decrypt and load encryption keys back into RAM and remount the secured volume -- then "pull the plug" as you suggest is destruction of evidence. The owner of the server may have a secret USB stick somewhere that is required to boot the server. Upon hearing that their server's are being seized, they go to their covert secure location, grab the USB stick and the backup stick, toss it them both a microwave, give it a good nuke, and then throw it in a dumpster somewhere. The servers' data is now impossible to recover.
When explosive charges in confiscated servers becomes a significant issue, cops will start treating every confiscated server like it has explosive charges.
The point is there are millions of possible methods of a server containing a data "self-destruct" mechanism, whether mechanical or logical; whether overt action is required by some mechanism, or the failure for some action to occur results in data becoming inaccessible. The practice that protects against one method ensures destruction of the data if a different method was used.
If the server has unknown secured mechanisms for destroying the data, such as carefully attuned exploding charges/break the drive, or douse the disks in destructive acid, or logical methods, there's very little that can be done about that.
If you're a professional, you don't assume that the system isn't rigged to destroy evidence in the event of an attempted seizure.
That can happen at a physical layer too. The chassis can be altered so that if an entry procedure is not
followed, a data-destruct occurs if there is a chassis intrusion or if the chassis is moved.
This can be done by installing an interposer circuit in between disk drives and the drive controller with an independent power supply.
If a "destruct" event occurs; the independent battery powers up the disk drives, locks in
ATA Secure Erase Mode, and detonates an explosive charge of just sufficient strength to
shatter the glass plates in the hard drives.
Anyways... if the volume decryption key is rendered unusuable by 1 second of ATA Secure erase,
there is no opportunity at all to interrupt the process.
To parrot another response, there's also data on RAM that could have valuable info if they didn't shut down the machines.
Perhaps if they ever come to prosecute someone, the defense can show how the
investigative agents willfully destroyed evidence required for the defense by powering
off the server and left it powered off for hours, resulting in data being permanently lost from RAM.
For some applications, it will be, please see the advisory
Any application which uses BIO or FILE based functions to read untrusted DER
format data is vulnerable. Affected functions are of the form d2i_*_bio or
d2i_*_fp, for example d2i_X509_bio or d2i_PKCS12_fp.
Applications using the memory based ASN1 functions (d2i_X509, d2i_PKCS12 etc)
are not affected. In particular the SSL/TLS code of OpenSSL is *not* affected.
Applications only using the PEM routines are not affected.
S/MIME or CMS applications using the built in MIME parser SMIME_read_PKCS7 or
SMIME_read_CMS *are* affected.
Yep. And pretty soon ISPs will be asked to identify customers using Tor at this rate.
Utilizing Tor will become probable cause for a search and seizure of all interesting data
processing devices, in order to search for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Unfortunately it's not a legitimate use of bitcoin.
It's the kind of use that will be at risk of getting bitcoin banned,
if someone doesn't popularize a legitimate reason for using bitcoin soon.
That would be a legitimate use.
There's a risk that an employee could use this method to steal data with their smart phone,
even having never connected it to the company's infrastructure;
simple proximity is sufficient.
Don't you actually have to be alive at 35 to reach the age of 35?
Apples have been obsolete and out of production for a long time.
We don't normally talk about those who are dead,
transformed into aquariums, and buried, as reaching a certain age -- corpses are ageless.
You don't pay $5 an hour to people who use $600 computers.
So uh... if I as say a storage engineer manage a $200k storage array, does that mean
I cost $1m ? Obviously if there were no storage admins, there would be no SAN.
You're right. You pay $5 an hour to people who use $10,000 computers that are good for at least 12 years, and the computers they use are called "Point of Sale Terminals or Cash registers". It's only the $50/hour people using the general purpose $600 computers that are mostly worthless after 4 years, and discarded after 7 years.
By this logic, the salary could be negatively correlated with employee costs, since higher paid managers do not sit at the point of sale, or touch highly specialized work equipment, that the tradesmen have to use, by your argument, their costs are lower.
In some businesses, a $30/hour employee, may require the use of $300,000+ electronic test equipment that is assigned to them, to perform tasks they are assigned, while their $150/hour manager is only required or even able to work with relatively inexpensive equipment.
It makes no sense to attribute such equipment costs to employees who use the equipment as part of the company's benefit. The cost there is associated with getting the task done; the employee, the person, is a separate cost from all the parts and equipment you needed to purchase for the job to get done.
If you were in a different business, you would not even need the Employee to have use of a computer
or such specialized equipment -- the cost is not incurred to employ someone, but is inherent in having
the job done, no matter if an employee or contractor does the job.
You're also wrong about the air conditioning. Each employee heats the office with their nearly 100F body and so requires more AC. It's a trivial amount more, but it's more.
I'm talking about the cost of the air conditioner and its upkeep/repair, and you are talking about Utility costs.
In typical 90 degree weather, the portion of thermal energy released by the staff is a rounding error, VS the rate of heat leaking in through walls and windows, and the set point for building temperature are often dictated by the needs of customers who are coming into the office in order to buy services from the business.
Other costs include the square footage rented for the extra employee, extra phone, Internet and other telecom costs
It is extremely unlikely that your business rents extra footage in order to add an employee.
Often businesses own a building with a fixed square footage that does not change.
At most they'll buy a new desk and chair, when the total number of employees increases.
The requirement to use additional workspace is not necessarily related to having more employees.
The business may require more space because there is now more work to do.
Of course the employee's computer is an employee cost. No employee, no computer.
No. It's facilities. If you fire the employee, you now have a $600 computer which is no longer being used. Should you hire a new employee to replace them, you have the previous employee's $600 computer for the new hire to use, there is no "extra employee cost" -- although you have reduced your number of unused computers by 1 then.
The original cost of the unit is just as unrelated to the employee as the air conditioning for the office space.
You pay the employee $5 an hour for 4 hours a day part time work, you need a $600 computer for them to use. You pay the employee $100 an hour for 4 hours a day part time work, they still need to have use of one $600 computer.
We cannot assume that student saw a TV show or read an article."
You also cannot assume that a student DID NOT read an article.
If they had read an article, you could be penalizing them for having an additional understanding beyond
the material in addition to full understanding of the material.
Tests are supposed to be objective measures of understanding of the material under test.
Not subjective measures of the student's level of understanding matching your assumptions.
And tests are not supposed to be measures designed to ensure that students do not have an understanding of other matters
unrelated to the material; whether that came from independent learning, instructors providing students
learning opportunities that encompass the material but exceed it, etc.
Ultimately, there are very very few people that are not replaceable. Unless you own the place or have some required skill that is unique in the world, don't kid yourself into thinking you are indispensable, and always have a backup plan.
You are indispensable if and only if it would be fiscally irresponsible to replace you.
Management has the power attempt to replace any employee, but there are cases that doing so would simply be an act of incompetence.
For example, you do your job extremely well, you do much more work force the price you
are paid than almost any applicant is willing and able to do (e.g. the cost of employing you is much smaller than any replacement, after considering the recruiting costs of placing a new employee in your position, additional training costs, etc.).
As we tell our staff, get a smart phone and do whatever you want. Just never connect it to our network (including even USB to charge), and never use our network/PCs for personal use. Don't want to spring for a smart phone? Surf at home.
You do realize, this is still a risk right? It's not necessary to ever connect to your network to use a camera phone and snap a picture of a sensitive document.
Slashdot Mirror
If someone gives you money and tells you that he's thirsty, and you prescribe water, then you have provided medical services.
See the difference? To be perfectly clear, it's when you start charging money for services.
No, that alone does not make it medical device, there's a requirement you are missing.
The person you provide a service to in exchange for money has to believe you are a medical professional, for you to have provided medical services.
If you go to your accountant's office, and in the midst of a discussion, you say you're thirsty, and he says "Here, have some water"; you have not been provided with medical advice, even though you are paying for your accountant's time.
Similarly, if in the middle of a meal at a restaurant, you tell the waitress that you are thirsty -- and she says "Here, drink this"
You have not been provided with medical advise, even though there is a fee for a drink.
Advise is only medical when the business is advertised as a medical professional business, with a medical doctor.
Seeing as the use of the title medical doctor requires a license.
if someone dies from taking this unlicensed person's advice, who pays the health bills? That's right, the taxpayer!
If they seek medical attention, they probably don't die, in which case, the person who took ill-advised actions on account of poor suggestions. People take ill-advised actions all the time, whether the suggestion to do so is coming from another person or not. Unless you can prove this unlicensed person is giving advice, the advice is reckless harmful and unjustified, there's really no basis for government suggesting they have an authority to prevent someone from making general suggestions based on their personal experience available..
If a person in danger doesn't seek medical attention, and as a result they seek emergency care but still die, their expenses may be a bit more. However, unless they are quite insolvent -- their estate has to cover the expenses -- that is, their estate will have a debt. Medical expenses trump most other debts; the medical provider gets paid before credit card companies, etc -- so if there's any real or personal property, life insurance, etc, the Medical expenses get paid not by the taxpayer, before their next of kin can get anything.
One thing we know about anyone reading the blog regularly.... they have a computer and an internet connection......
I guess this means I should stop reading the ingredients in my food and trying to eat healthy and balanced. Don't want to be jailed for "practicing nutrition"
Some caution might be in order. People can go to jail for comments like the above too. States take almost as much exception to citizens practicing law without a license as they take to citizens practicing nutrition without a license.
Even when the advise is being given to yourself.
That does give one an idea about how to sort out the lawyer overabundance problem..... states should stop issuing licenses to practice law, then there can be no more lawyers.
The web site http://www.diabetes-warrior.net/ is clearly located in Utah.
So, possibly he's working remotely from his home in Missouri, but the practice is still in Utah. Utah is not Missouri, therefore, it is interstate commerce if anyone in Missouri is being served from Utah, placing this matter clearly outside of Missouri's regulatory authority.
So on a big project with lots of copyright holders, it is nearly impossible to switch to a more permissive license, but that's because it's so hard to get a big group of people to agree, not because the GPL doesn't allow it.
Not necessarily. The maintainer can change the conditions on which the collective work is published.
The individual contributors granted an implied right to publish, in making their contribution. However, they did not necessarily "tie the maintainer's hands" to the GPL.
The individual contributors might (or might not) have known what the conditions were that the final work would be distributed under.
In many cases, they may have signed their rights over, either explicitly or implicitly (for example, by signing a copyright transfer agreement, by being paid for their work by the maintainer, or other means; if their contribution was small enough, and lacking a creative element [e.g. a 1-line bugfix patch], the incorporation of their work might not even be copyrightable).
Exactly. But just to be clear, the cold calls being discussed here are almost universally to employee owned cell phones.
In that case, the Employee has somehow provided their phone number. Their current employer has no right to say what calls they can take on their personal cell phones, or what calls other people can make to an employee cell phone.
The only person Employer A has to complain to in this case is the employee, if they chose to take the call while they're supposed to be working, against taking personal calls while on the job.
But then perhaps Employer B while throwing in the 33% increase can also throw in the perk of "Some flexibility to take a few personal calls while on the job; as long as the amount of time used/distraction to the job at hand is kept to a minimum"
Any recruiter who wants to call me right now for a 33% pay raise to work at a premier tech company will never piss me off, even if I don't take his offer. And I am very content with my current gig. --
A team member who lacks loyalty, or lacks job satisfaction may take the opportunity to switch employers. A more loyal team member, may take this offer and negotiate higher pay with their current employer. Either way, the employee benefits. This is not against the economic interests of the employee. In some circumstances, this may be unfair to the employer. With employment there is an implied understanding that there is a long-term relationship, and the employee will not part for something as low as a 30% change in pay, and nor will the employer necessarily fire the employee just because they found someone willing and able to do the same job for 30% less.
However, it would be best if the employer spelled that out with a contract. It would probably be best if such enterprises had their employees sign a "non-compete" for the industry their organization is in, effective in case the employee voluntarily chose to leave, and with a small salary continuing for the non-compete period to secure the employee from being hired by a competitor during that period. This is more fair to both employer and employee -- the employee cannot be poached, unless the employee is fired without cause; if the employee is released with cause, or chooses to leave the business, they continue to be paid a sustaining wage. The competitor can offer the 33% increase after the 2 or 3 year period.
You get a call about once a week from someone offering you significantly more money to come work for them ... and you are pissed about it?
I wouldn't be pissed about it. If someone is paying me to do the other job during the time I am taking the call, that the call is distracting me from, however, and the caller uses my employer's equipment to make that offer (e.g. Company phone number, Company e-mail address), they might have a right to be pissed about it, because:
(A) They are likely doing this to many employees -- wasting many employer hours.
(B) They are a third party abusing the employer's communications equipment.
(C) The nature of the calls is likely to result in loss of increased employee costs; either in the form of increased pay to existing employees, or to pay for recruitment of new employees and training to enable existing staff to cover the hole left by valuable team member.
(D) Increased churn, corporate brain drain, loss of company memory, lower morale.
But to prevent B from picking up THEIR phones? That's a different story.
Employer B picking up their phones is fine.
The issue is Employer B harrassing Employer A by calling Employer A's phone numbers, and attempting to disrupt staff from doing their jobs, by enticing them to personally jump ship and join Employer A.
Employees may have a use of a phone in their office, and might even have a direct extension, but it seems reasonable that if Employer A has issues with the calls, they could contact Employer A and get them to stop calling their business numbers.
What calls Employer B makes to employes' private phone numbers or personal e-mail addresses is another matter, and none of Employer A's business.
Even the scientists behind the research are stressing that industrial-scale drilling will exaust the supply eventually.
Presumably it will last a long time, if they make sure to tightly regulate any tapping of industrial scale quantities, ensure that the amount of water drawn out is less than the local replenishment rate, and ensure that players are treated fairly, no one entity is allowed to hog the resource, and any entity that does tap the resource pays a quantity-dependant price for doing so, to discourage waste.
There's no inherent reason that industrial-scale drilling has to be allowed to exhaust the supply
Since when is the iOS more secure? The latest Android has a very stable code and a solid permission system that allows the user to set exactly what an app can or can't do.
The reason there are fewer iOS malware infections has to do with something totally separate from security of the device.
There is a 'more efficient' distribution channel for Android platform malware.
Developing for the Apple platform requires a security certificate from Apple to sign applications, paying money to apple, signing a contract, and approval from Apple and review to be listed on the pap store, which makes the app store a less efficient means of distributing malware than the Android marketplace.
An operating system can be extremely insecure, but if there is no useful distribution channel, or no network connection, it is not likely to be infected.
Adding a step to the shutdown process is simple, it's trivial to install, and it's trivial to turn off if you need to reboot.
You don't necessarily control all reboots. Reboots sometimes are a result of application or OS failure, for example the INIT process receives a SIGINT signal. Under certain circumstances system management applications will issue reboot as an automatic response to a problem.
It is extremely unlikely that anyone will install a system in a datacenter that contains explosive devices to turn the system into shrapnel if a network cable is disconnected.
It's neither necessary nor likely that someone stuffs a server with a charge sufficient to turn the server into shrapnel; they only need the disk drive coated with enough material to destroy the drive inside the chassis, and extra shielding around the disk drive cage. If there was a risk of the server becoming shrapnel, this could endanger the server operator, and create unwanted risks, loss, and liability, should it accidentally be engaged.
A mechanism to destroy the hard drives should effect the hard drives but no other system components.
Also, there are self-destroying drives on the market.
This requires a bit more work than simply putting code in one file in /etc/init.d under the "stop" function, called by one of the K-files in rc3.d, that deletes any incriminating files. Shutdown code is a lot less dangerous than having to deal with explosive charges.
It's rather unlikely. Servers get rebooted all the time. There is a much simpler method: utilize full-drive encryption. When power is pulled, or a reboot occurs, the secured media becomes unreadable until actions are taken to decrypt and load encryption keys back into RAM and remount the secured volume -- then "pull the plug" as you suggest is destruction of evidence. The owner of the server may have a secret USB stick somewhere that is required to boot the server. Upon hearing that their server's are being seized, they go to their covert secure location, grab the USB stick and the backup stick, toss it them both a microwave, give it a good nuke, and then throw it in a dumpster somewhere. The servers' data is now impossible to recover.
When explosive charges in confiscated servers becomes a significant issue, cops will start treating every confiscated server like it has explosive charges.
The point is there are millions of possible methods of a server containing a data "self-destruct" mechanism, whether mechanical or logical; whether overt action is required by some mechanism, or the failure for some action to occur results in data becoming inaccessible. The practice that protects against one method ensures destruction of the data if a different method was used.
If the server has unknown secured mechanisms for destroying the data, such as carefully attuned exploding charges/break the drive, or douse the disks in destructive acid, or logical methods, there's very little that can be done about that.
If you're a professional, you don't assume that the system isn't rigged to destroy evidence in the event of an attempted seizure.
That can happen at a physical layer too. The chassis can be altered so that if an entry procedure is not followed, a data-destruct occurs if there is a chassis intrusion or if the chassis is moved.
This can be done by installing an interposer circuit in between disk drives and the drive controller with an independent power supply.
If a "destruct" event occurs; the independent battery powers up the disk drives, locks in ATA Secure Erase Mode, and detonates an explosive charge of just sufficient strength to shatter the glass plates in the hard drives.
Anyways... if the volume decryption key is rendered unusuable by 1 second of ATA Secure erase, there is no opportunity at all to interrupt the process.
To parrot another response, there's also data on RAM that could have valuable info if they didn't shut down the machines.
Perhaps if they ever come to prosecute someone, the defense can show how the investigative agents willfully destroyed evidence required for the defense by powering off the server and left it powered off for hours, resulting in data being permanently lost from RAM.
Is this a remote exploit?
For some applications, it will be, please see the advisory
Any application which uses BIO or FILE based functions to read untrusted DER format data is vulnerable. Affected functions are of the form d2i_*_bio or d2i_*_fp, for example d2i_X509_bio or d2i_PKCS12_fp.
Applications using the memory based ASN1 functions (d2i_X509, d2i_PKCS12 etc) are not affected. In particular the SSL/TLS code of OpenSSL is *not* affected.
Applications only using the PEM routines are not affected. S/MIME or CMS applications using the built in MIME parser SMIME_read_PKCS7 or SMIME_read_CMS *are* affected.
So, with that in mind, I'm curious how an expired NDA is more protection than not having signed the NDA in the first place.
It eliminates the possibility that there was an "implied" or "verbal" NDA, because instead: there is an explicit written NDA, with an expiration date.
Yep. And pretty soon ISPs will be asked to identify customers using Tor at this rate.
Utilizing Tor will become probable cause for a search and seizure of all interesting data processing devices, in order to search for evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Unfortunately it's not a legitimate use of bitcoin. It's the kind of use that will be at risk of getting bitcoin banned, if someone doesn't popularize a legitimate reason for using bitcoin soon.
That would be a legitimate use.
There's a risk that an employee could use this method to steal data with their smart phone, even having never connected it to the company's infrastructure; simple proximity is sufficient.
Don't you actually have to be alive at 35 to reach the age of 35?
Apples have been obsolete and out of production for a long time. We don't normally talk about those who are dead, transformed into aquariums, and buried, as reaching a certain age -- corpses are ageless.
You don't pay $5 an hour to people who use $600 computers.
So uh... if I as say a storage engineer manage a $200k storage array, does that mean I cost $1m ? Obviously if there were no storage admins, there would be no SAN.
You're right. You pay $5 an hour to people who use $10,000 computers that are good for at least 12 years, and the computers they use are called "Point of Sale Terminals or Cash registers". It's only the $50/hour people using the general purpose $600 computers that are mostly worthless after 4 years, and discarded after 7 years.
By this logic, the salary could be negatively correlated with employee costs, since higher paid managers do not sit at the point of sale, or touch highly specialized work equipment, that the tradesmen have to use, by your argument, their costs are lower.
In some businesses, a $30/hour employee, may require the use of $300,000+ electronic test equipment that is assigned to them, to perform tasks they are assigned, while their $150/hour manager is only required or even able to work with relatively inexpensive equipment.
It makes no sense to attribute such equipment costs to employees who use the equipment as part of the company's benefit. The cost there is associated with getting the task done; the employee, the person, is a separate cost from all the parts and equipment you needed to purchase for the job to get done. If you were in a different business, you would not even need the Employee to have use of a computer or such specialized equipment -- the cost is not incurred to employ someone, but is inherent in having the job done, no matter if an employee or contractor does the job.
You're also wrong about the air conditioning. Each employee heats the office with their nearly 100F body and so requires more AC. It's a trivial amount more, but it's more.
I'm talking about the cost of the air conditioner and its upkeep/repair, and you are talking about Utility costs.
In typical 90 degree weather, the portion of thermal energy released by the staff is a rounding error, VS the rate of heat leaking in through walls and windows, and the set point for building temperature are often dictated by the needs of customers who are coming into the office in order to buy services from the business.
Other costs include the square footage rented for the extra employee, extra phone, Internet and other telecom costs
It is extremely unlikely that your business rents extra footage in order to add an employee. Often businesses own a building with a fixed square footage that does not change. At most they'll buy a new desk and chair, when the total number of employees increases. The requirement to use additional workspace is not necessarily related to having more employees. The business may require more space because there is now more work to do.
Of course the employee's computer is an employee cost. No employee, no computer.
No. It's facilities. If you fire the employee, you now have a $600 computer which is no longer being used. Should you hire a new employee to replace them, you have the previous employee's $600 computer for the new hire to use, there is no "extra employee cost" -- although you have reduced your number of unused computers by 1 then.
The original cost of the unit is just as unrelated to the employee as the air conditioning for the office space.
You pay the employee $5 an hour for 4 hours a day part time work, you need a $600 computer for them to use. You pay the employee $100 an hour for 4 hours a day part time work, they still need to have use of one $600 computer.
We cannot assume that student saw a TV show or read an article."
You also cannot assume that a student DID NOT read an article.
If they had read an article, you could be penalizing them for having an additional understanding beyond the material in addition to full understanding of the material.
Tests are supposed to be objective measures of understanding of the material under test. Not subjective measures of the student's level of understanding matching your assumptions.
And tests are not supposed to be measures designed to ensure that students do not have an understanding of other matters unrelated to the material; whether that came from independent learning, instructors providing students learning opportunities that encompass the material but exceed it, etc.
Ultimately, there are very very few people that are not replaceable. Unless you own the place or have some required skill that is unique in the world, don't kid yourself into thinking you are indispensable, and always have a backup plan.
You are indispensable if and only if it would be fiscally irresponsible to replace you. Management has the power attempt to replace any employee, but there are cases that doing so would simply be an act of incompetence.
For example, you do your job extremely well, you do much more work force the price you are paid than almost any applicant is willing and able to do (e.g. the cost of employing you is much smaller than any replacement, after considering the recruiting costs of placing a new employee in your position, additional training costs, etc.).
As we tell our staff, get a smart phone and do whatever you want. Just never connect it to our network (including even USB to charge), and never use our network/PCs for personal use. Don't want to spring for a smart phone? Surf at home.
You do realize, this is still a risk right? It's not necessary to ever connect to your network to use a camera phone and snap a picture of a sensitive document.