Except it allows more extensive access to the company network and therefore exposes the company to more opportunities for the information to pass out of their control.
But if you kept a backup, their remote wipe is ineffective, and companies have no technical means to keep you from backing up their data on your machine (home PC, smart phone, iPad) and no technical means of erasing it or even discovering that it exists.
For example, the employee may be using one of those web services that backs up all his information to "the cloud." Now the company's info is now on the employee's personal device and there are also and unknown number of copies on servers that neither party can control. And the "cloud" backup servers could be in several other legal jurisdictions than the employer and employee. Imagine an employer and employee in the UK but the backup server is in the USA, or India or China or all three. Good luck to the English company trying to chase down and destroy copies of their they-thought-it-was-secret information then.
So what are employers to do, and where should they draw the line and prevent employees from having access to their information?
When evaluating the cost of preparing for unlikely but extremely costly or dangerous events, people routinely get it wrong. Either they drastically overestimate or underestimate the likelihood of the event occurring.
Let's say the estimated cost of a meltdown was pegged at $1 billion and 100 lives. And lets say you can add a feature or siting to the reactor design that cuts the risk of meltdown from 1% to 1/2% over its lifetime. That feature is worth spending $5 million and 5 lives.
"... provides tantalizing clues about the identity of the man behind Cutwail,... Over the years, Cutwail has shifted from a spam cannon for male enhancement pills to a major vector for distributing malicious software."
Thank you for invalidating the next "patented business method" by posting it and making it patently (pun intended) obvious even to a patent examiner that this would be obvious.
Really? You don't know about most of their covert activities.
If you know about it, either it has been declassified or security has been broken. You're looking at them through a biased filter.
Here's part of what the judge said in his instructions to the jury:
" By statute -- and here is what the statute says -- you may award 20-20's lost profits resulting
from the infringement and Real View's profits attributable to the infringement. In making this
determination, you may consider what 20-20 may have reasonably charged for a license permitting Real View's
use of the 20-20 Design program, any design costs that Real View saved by its use of the 20-20 Design and
the development of ProKitchen and any benefit Real View obtained by its use of 20-20 Design in the
development of ProKitchen."
The jury ignored those instructions and incorrectly assessed a verdict based on an assumption that Real View
had used infringing material in the product they sold. If they had done that and 20-20 had shown it in court,
damages would have been appropriate. But no such thing was shown in court, so Real View was only entitled to
actual damages equal to the cost they saved by stealing a copy of 20-20's program.
As for how the courts and punish lawbreaking, there's a separate mechanism for that: award of punitive damages and court costs.
There's no justification for improperly inflating actual damages.
Does it seem to anybody else that a Knighthood is not the appropriate award for one who distinguishes himself in the area of product design or any such very non-military achievement? I assume it's the Order of the British Empire he's joining, but still:
One shudders to think of Sir Jonathan Ive leading a charge in combat, let alone Sir Elton John doing so.
Absolutely right. In a winner take all system, a third party gets squeezed out because most voters don't want to make their vote irrelevant by voting for a candidate that they think has little chance of winning. So you pick the one of the top two party candidates whom you find less objectionable.
Paris has an average high of about 25C in July and August. Marseilles has an average high of about 29C at that time.
Both are cooler than most of the United States in the summer.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it allows more extensive access to the company network and therefore exposes the company to more opportunities for the information to pass out of their control.
But if you kept a backup, their remote wipe is ineffective, and companies have no technical means to keep you from backing up their data on your machine (home PC, smart phone, iPad) and no technical means of erasing it or even discovering that it exists.
For example, the employee may be using one of those web services that backs up all his information to "the cloud." Now the company's info is now on the employee's personal device and there are also and unknown number of copies on servers that neither party can control. And the "cloud" backup servers could be in several other legal jurisdictions than the employer and employee. Imagine an employer and employee in the UK but the backup server is in the USA, or India or China or all three. Good luck to the English company trying to chase down and destroy copies of their they-thought-it-was-secret information then.
So what are employers to do, and where should they draw the line and prevent employees from having access to their information?
Are you kidding? Photographers want to be identified with their work.
They'll proudly point to it and say "That's my photo!"
When evaluating the cost of preparing for unlikely but extremely costly or dangerous events, people routinely get it wrong. Either they drastically overestimate or underestimate the likelihood of the event occurring.
Let's say the estimated cost of a meltdown was pegged at $1 billion and 100 lives. And lets say you can add a feature or siting to the reactor design that cuts the risk of meltdown from 1% to 1/2% over its lifetime. That feature is worth spending $5 million and 5 lives.
I think it may still be pretty intriguing to your doctor.
JIR focusses on weird experiments, not unexpected results from normal experiments.
If the agregators delist their sources they have nothing.
In Colorado, on-line schools have been shown to be less effective than face time with the teacher -- dramatically so.
There's no reason to think that doesn't scale, and if it scales that means that those on-line courses would be ineffective.
You can't get more than 100mA of charging current out of a collector on the back of a cell phone.
With a typical battery capacity of 2700 mAh, that means it would take 27 hours of vertically incident sunlight to charge your battery.
Good luck with that.
"... provides tantalizing clues about the identity of the man behind Cutwail, ... Over the years, Cutwail has shifted from a spam cannon for male enhancement pills to a major vector for distributing malicious software."
You just had to go there, didn't you?
Thank you for invalidating the next "patented business method" by posting it and making it patently (pun intended) obvious even to a patent examiner that this would be obvious.
It's a public service.
Or maybe their market research consultants correctly told them that few people would download and install candidate-specific mobile apps.
Fracking only affects an area within a few hundred feet of the well.
... unless the fracking fluid leaks into groundwater...
... or a fault.
New Madrid is NOT a small fault. It's a huge fault.
One of the biggest earthquakes ever recorded in North America occurred on that fault.
It's notoriously difficult to prove things that are contrary to fact.
Isn't Benny flying one of those jets? I like to imagine so.
Targeted blackout is the right choice. Also, don't display SOPA backers' ads.
Really? You don't know about most of their covert activities. If you know about it, either it has been declassified or security has been broken. You're looking at them through a biased filter.
Here's part of what the judge said in his instructions to the jury: " By statute -- and here is what the statute says -- you may award 20-20's lost profits resulting from the infringement and Real View's profits attributable to the infringement. In making this determination, you may consider what 20-20 may have reasonably charged for a license permitting Real View's use of the 20-20 Design program, any design costs that Real View saved by its use of the 20-20 Design and the development of ProKitchen and any benefit Real View obtained by its use of 20-20 Design in the development of ProKitchen." The jury ignored those instructions and incorrectly assessed a verdict based on an assumption that Real View had used infringing material in the product they sold. If they had done that and 20-20 had shown it in court, damages would have been appropriate. But no such thing was shown in court, so Real View was only entitled to actual damages equal to the cost they saved by stealing a copy of 20-20's program. As for how the courts and punish lawbreaking, there's a separate mechanism for that: award of punitive damages and court costs. There's no justification for improperly inflating actual damages.
Does it seem to anybody else that a Knighthood is not the appropriate award for one who distinguishes himself in the area of product design or any such very non-military achievement? I assume it's the Order of the British Empire he's joining, but still: One shudders to think of Sir Jonathan Ive leading a charge in combat, let alone Sir Elton John doing so.
Absolutely right. In a winner take all system, a third party gets squeezed out because most voters don't want to make their vote irrelevant by voting for a candidate that they think has little chance of winning. So you pick the one of the top two party candidates whom you find less objectionable.
Paris has an average high of about 25C in July and August. Marseilles has an average high of about 29C at that time. Both are cooler than most of the United States in the summer.
Lowest latitude in France: 42d 19m. That's about the same as Boston, which is considered a northern city in the USA.
I used the word 'if' before 'Apple sold the extended warranty' for a reason.
Exactly. What's bad for the providers (too much competition) will be good for consumers (cheaper product).