Are you implying that the difference of protons and neutrons is what defines personal property vs non personal property?
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't make that distinction
The founding fathers made that exact argument. If you cant hold it in your had or otherwise posses it, it isn't personal property.
[Citation needed]
4th amdendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The founding fathers listed tangible personal and real property in the amendment.
You missed something: The definitions of papers and effects.
Also - they never mentioned television or the internet, either, but it's generally accepted that the 1st Amendment applies to them.
I didn't miss anything.
As a means of communication it makes sense that the 1st amendment would apply to television and even the internet. The 4th amendment, however, is about tangible personal and real property. It is your papers, not what is written on them that is protected. The police cannot take or search your papers without proper warrant. If you leave them on the front stoop of your house, they are free to read them. Effects, as used in the 4th amendment are physical things you have legal title to (if you don't have legal title to it, it is not your effect, but somebody else's). A flash drive and the data contained on it, assuming it is your flash drive, is your personal effect. Google's drive array with your data on it is Google's personal effect, not yours.
Data is not a personal effect. What stores the data is, whether that storage is a newspaper, a flash drive, etc. The 4th amendment is about physical tangible things. There are other laws that protect intangible things, like copyrights and patents, to name but two. There are other amendments that protect other rights, like speech, which is the conveyance of ideas, so it goes beyond simple oration.
Look at a real life problem with what you are arguing. Assume you purchase a music CD (personal property). You rip the CD and store it on your local hard drive (which is also personal property). You now copy the data file to your Google drive (which you claim is personal property but is not, but we will assume it is for now). Google backs up their server and now there is your copy of the data (your claimed personal property) and another copy, which cannot be yours (you don't even know if it exists or not). This process can be repeated multiple times. Sometime in the future, the main server, where you copied your file fails. Your personal property (by your claim) is now lost. Google replaces the server with a backup and now there is a copy of the file that is really their personal property (using the rational that data is personal property and they made the copy, so it is their creation and their property). Again, this cycle repeats over and over again, until Google owns all the data stored on their servers, because using your reasoning, it is all their personal property and your personal property was destroyed when the server went down.
Now, in real life, nobody is going to argue that. Why? Well first of all, data isn't tangible personal property, it is intangible personal property. As intangible personal property, it doesn't matter whether it is the original or the copy, it is still your intangible personal property. But that is the crux of the matter, the 4th amendment only applies to tangible property (both personal and real -- real meaning real estate). So, your files stored on somebody else's server are not, nor can they ever be your personal property. If you own the server it is your personal property. If you own the building, it is your personal property. But otherwise, even if you rent the space, it is not your personal property (which is why a land lord can let the police in without a warrant and you are screwed).
Are you implying that the difference of protons and neutrons is what defines personal property vs non personal property?
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't make that distinction
The founding fathers made that exact argument. If you cant hold it in your had or otherwise posses it, it isn't personal property.
[Citation needed]
4th amdendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The founding fathers listed tangible personal and real property in the amendment. Sub atomic particles aren't mentioned, nor would they have been even if they would have been known. For one thing, given the Heisenberg uncertainty principle how would one claim such particles are in your possesion versus the public sphere? If they are in the public sphere, they are open to search and seizure.
Are you implying that the difference of protons and neutrons is what defines personal property vs non personal property?
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't make that distinction
The founding fathers made that exact argument. If you cant hold it in your had or otherwise posses it, it isn't personal property. As such, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc. are not personal property in the eyes of the founding fathers or the constitution.
Phone calls are also electrons or light signals, not personal property.
Yet a warrant is still needed to monitor them because of privacy.
Why is there a different standard for email? Why would there be a different standard for email.
Yes they are and as such aren't protected by the 4th amendment either. That is why we have telecommunication laws. Emails came long after the telecommunication laws were enacted so those laws don't cover emails. There is nothing keeping congress from enacting new laws or amending existing laws, but normally, laws only cover what they say they cover.
Ohhh, so that means the movies on bit-torrent are fine to download since they are not actual property and are just a bunch of electrons. I like where this is going!
If your concern is a 4th amendment violation, then yes, you can download them to your heart's content. OTOH, if your concern is with copyright infringement, which is not a constitutional issue, but is still illegal, then you might want to reconsider.
Voice over phone line is in "clear", and ATT could listen to it. Yet it is still required to have warrant to bug the line. I fail to see what is different with my emails. They are traveling "the infrastructure" in clear, that doesn't mean they are intended to be read by every bystander. As a matter of fact, somebody got a very harsh sentence for intruding onto S. Palin's mailboxes and revealing the content of these emails, so it seems to be quite clear and settled that emails are not to be considered public by default.
The reason a warrant is required to tap a phone is not a constitutional law issue but a telecommunication law issue. Because Congress declared it illegal to listen to other people's phone conversations, you need a warrant to do so. S.Palin's mailbox was also not a constitutional law issue. To fall under the 4th amendment, you have to be depriving somebody of their personal property. Stored emails are not personal property. They may be intellectual property, but that is not the same thing. The courts may rule that you need a warrant to access somebody's emails, that is their prerogative. However, if they do, it won't be because of the 4th amendment.
Technically incorrect. If what you said is true then anything you placed inside a bank locker would be subject to the same searches. The manner you pay a company for services matters not.
People so readily try to throw out amendments because technology has changed when in reality an email would fall under the class of papers because papers are documents emails are electronic documents and your computer or cloud service is the filing cabinet or vault you store them in.
That being said, I do not like the services people describe as the cloud as its just a new marketing term to cover a type of service that has existed for years without any legal confusion until it became wide spread for consumers and took on the name cloud.
The 4th amendment protects personal property. Emails and the like, as long as they are in an electronic format, are not tangible and therefore are not personal property. They are obviously stored on personal property somewhere and if you own that device, it is protected under the 4th amendment. If you do not own it, then the owner has the 4th amendment protection, but you do not. What you have is a contractual agreement with them, so contract law comes into play, but not constitutional law.
Whether one calls it the cloud, the intranet, the intraweb or the server, if you don't own the physical device that your data is stored on, then it isn't your personal property and the 4th amendment doesn't apply (other laws do, just not the 4th amendment).
And the entirety of the 4th amendment is eliminated by storing your data on somebody else's system since it's no longer considered part of YOUR "persons, houses, papers, and effects"
Still like "the cloud"?
Bullshit - my papers and effects are my papers and effects, regardless of where I keep them.
Could you imagine how hard it would be for banks to sell safety deposit space, if there was no guarantee other people weren't able to rifle through your shit?
But a safe deposit box contains personal property. Your emails and other electronic data is not personal property it is a bunch of electrons. Now, if those electrons are stored on your own hard drive, then it is still on your personal property. OTOH, if they are stored in the cloud, it may be your data, but it is no longer your personal property, at least as defined in the 4th amendment.
Are contest the best way to find programmers? It depends. If you are looking for programmers who can write use once, throw away code that doesn't have to be maintained, then the answer may be "Yes." On the other hand, if you are wanting programmers who can write code that can be maintained by somebody else five years from now and easily modified, then probably not.
Will your contest winner be able to readily adapt to your entity's coding style/standards? Will your contest winner be able to adapt to your client's needs (and if it is for internal coding, then your internal customer's needs). And finally, will your contest winner, be there for the long haul or will he/she get bored and look for the next puzzle/contest, leaving you high and dry?
Given the massive bias the US government has towards expensive private software contractors, I am surprised the results were so close.
Well, it could be that there really isn't a correlation between quality and what you pay for programming, at least beyond some point, so a good, but lower paid, open source programmer writes just as good code as a good, but higher paid proprietary programmer.
Or, it could be the higher paid programmers really do turn out better code, but the nature of open source, with multiple people reviewing it mitigates the difference. I hate to use a sports analogy, but I will anyway. I am a lousy golfer, but I can putt fantastically. If I am playing a normal round of golf, I will most likely lose. However, in a four man scramble, where the best ball is played, people want me on their team, because once the ball makes it to the green, I can usually get it in the cup with a single putt. Likewise, the programmers working on an open source project might not have the expertise as the high priced specialist, but they may have those who contribute the right parts to make the whole project successful.
I would venture that in reality, it is a combination of both of the above. Good programmers turn out good code, regardless of whether it is proprietary or open source. Plus, the open source model makes up for weaknesses in the skills of individual programmers.
Code quality for open source software continues to mirror that of proprietary software — and both continue to surpass the industry standard for software quality. Defect density (defects per 1,000 lines of software code) is a commonly used measurement for software quality.
Since there are two types of software open source and proprietary and both of them surpass the industry standard for software quality, what exactly is the industry standard based on?
The article states that the industry standard is 1 defect per 1,000 lines of code. But at the rates given, open source is 1 defect in 1,449 lines of code and proprietary software is 1 defect in 1,470 lines of code. Maybe it's time to change the industry standard?
Total Garbage. Just what I expect from the U.S. Government. Can't balance our budget, find more ways to tax consumers.
Except that it isn't the US Government doing the taxation. It is only the US Government saying that the states have the right to collect sales tax on internet purchases, reversing the original ban the US Government put in place on the very issue in the 1990s.
Although this is call an internet sales tax, effectively it is a local use tax. Almost all states impose a use tax on out of state purchases. Normally, the purchaser must self-report the amounts purchased and remit the tax directly to the state. What is different, here, is that businesses with $1M or more in sales to any given state (not just internet sales) will need to collect that use tax and remit it back to the state in question. For their trouble, they will get to keep a portion of the tax they collect.
This is aimed at the large online retailers like Amazon. Places like Walmart, B & N, etc., already charge the local sales tax for online purchases because they have nexus ( a local presence in the state). Unfortunately, there may be businesses that will get caught with enough sales that they will have to comply, even though they aren't the large online retailers. They will need to look at whether the cost of collecting and remitting the tax outweighs the benefit from providing the sales to that state. Chances are, with the fee they will get to keep, they decide to continue selling to that state, but ultimately, it will be a business decision.
But remember, this isn't about the US Government trying to balance the budget or adding a new tax. The tax is already on the books. The US government prohibited the states from collecting it to spur the fledgling online business model back in the 1990s. It is hard to make an argument that online sales still need a break over brick and mortar stores, so it is time for the government induced competitive advantage to be withdrawn.
This all sounds nice but will it be more fuel efficient than current land vehicles? Will it be less poluting than land vehicles? Will it be more convenient to use and cheaper to own than land vehicles? If the answer to those questions is "No," then why bother doing this? Sure it may be fun, but if it burns more oil, polutes more air, costs more to operate and is less convenienent, what is the point?
I agree the English aspect is likely to limit its usefulness. Although it's getting somewhat more common for kids around the world to be able to read a bit of English.
There are, in any case, already large Wikipedia versions in some other languages, so they wouldn't have to be translated from scratch. And some of them overlap with languages widely spoken in countries with poor internet access, such as French and Spanish.
A bigger limit to the usefulness is the amount of inaccurate information on Wikipedia. While the concept is great, there is a lot to be desired given the implimentation.
All five of these countries were once part of the Soviet Union. They all inherited the Soviet educational system, and the cycle of illiteracy was already broken before they became independent. Literate mothers don't raise illiterate children.
That would depend on when the Muslims immigrated to those countries, would it not? Were those countries predominantly Muslim under Soviet rule or did that occur post Soviet rule? If I recall, the Soviets were not fond of letting religion flourish.
Indonesia, which has the highest concentration of Muslims, has a female literacy rate of 99.38 (2008), and they were not part of the Soviet Union.
It is far more likely that the poor literacy rates in the countries you mention (Burkina Faso, Chad, Sierra Leone, South Sudan) have more to do with economics and civil war than religion.
Only works if they all run Windows, and the backup software from the phone to laptop to server runs the software taken from the phone, or the process of backuping up the phone (and subsequently the server) can trigger an exploit in the host OS to do so. In a heterogenous environment - e.g. ARM devices to x86 devices as is nearly all Android and all iOS devices - that would be very, very hard to do. In a homogenous environment - e.g. Windows Phone, Windows OS, - it would have some tricks, but it would be within reason of possibilty.
Actually it could be much simpler than that. Supposed it wipes your phone, but leaves a bit of code on the phone so the next time you go to sync, it checks itself and if the flag was set to wipe the phone, it then wipes the synced files or hard drive instead. There is already a product that does exactly that on the market.
Still, a company could have quite the legal risk if they did that...so it wouldn't be worth it to most companies for that reason alone. The company could, for instance, be in violation of the CFAA, among other things, for doing that. It would have similar consequences to the HP hacking scandal a few years back.
They wouldn't have any legal risk if you signed an agreement that allowed them to do so. Could be in your employment papers, or employee manual or any number of other places that if you didn't read the whole thing carefully, you wouldn't realize what you were signing away.
Unless you think your company is too stupid to think that you might do this, what makes you think they haven't taken measures that included in your backups is the ability to wipe those same backups from where ever you have copied them?
What makes you think they have access to my personal laptop to do any such thing?
You said you backed up your phone to your personal laptop. If they have access to your phone, they have access to what was copied to your personal laptop because they could have installed anything on your phone that would have been copied over. Depending on how you backed up your phone, you could have a nice little trojan sitting there just waiting and listening and the next time you back up your phone if it doesn't have the proper response it automatically wipes the hard drive it is on.
Basically, if your company has control of your phone and you sync your phone to your computer, your company can put whatever they want on your computer.
Personally, if my employer feels I need access to email or to be reached 24/7, it is their responsibility to provide the means for that. They do not have the right to takeover my personal property or data just because I work there. Put differently, if there is a business reason for them needing me to receive emails/texts/calls outside of normal working hours, then they should provide a business solution. If I want to do it for my own convenience on my own device, well, then I would have to weigh the convenience against all the privacy issues involved.
This.
I just tried to argue this same point where I work; I work in an IT group that has a rotating 24x7 on call. We had employer-issued Blackberries, which both received SMS messages and could connect to email.
Since we had had them for a while, the SMS alerts over time had evolved to "X has failed. Check your email for details."
Then the company forced us to turn in our Blackberries and went to a BYOD. I tried, unsuccessfully, to argue your point. I get spotty coverage on my personal phone, and none in the building, so that would rule out my personal device. Plus I refuse to allow the company control of my device, stipend or no.
The alternative was to accept a "penny phone" (a Samsung Chronos 2). I was very clear with my boss and boss' boss what that could mean for response to pages. So far, nothing has come up, but I also am kind of heistant to stray far from home when I am on call.
You are in a win-win situation. They can only monitor when the sms went out. If you aren't in range, you can't be held accountable for not receiving it. Since it is your phone and your personal property, they can't even ask to see the phone to check the logs. So, if a message comes in and you don't want to go, well, you never received it, did you? (Of course, it would be helpful if your concerns had been documented in writing)
I wonder if all of these companies that are going to require BYOD or even those that provide a phone now have figured in, reported and paid for the overtime that is required under the FLSA for non-exempt employees. It seems to me that saying an employee must have a phone to check company email or answer calls outside normal work hours would be considered, well, work and therefore the employee, unless exempt, needs to be compensated for that time.
I think if I were a large company, I would strongly rethink who gets a company phone or is required to provide their own device. While you cannot stop an non-exempt employee from checking their mail (thus working) and you must pay them for it. You can take action if it isn't pre-approved overtime. However, if the employer is providing the phone or requiring the employee to purchase their own, by definition, they are acknowledging that working outside the normal 40 hour work week is required and have given tacit approval.
I wonder how much unpaid overtime is actually accruing and if BYOD becomes widespread, will that force the issue?
I see the future of BYOD being running another OS instance for the work apps, or possibly a separate easily switched profile with encrypted storage.
It's easier to just sync/backup my Android phone to my personal laptop. Wipe whatever you want... my mail is copied via pop3 from gmail to my laptop (and backed up from there to the home server), and my phone is backed up similarly. Restoration is trivial at best.
Unless you think your company is too stupid to think that you might do this, what makes you think they haven't taken measures that included in your backups is the ability to wipe those same backups from where ever you have copied them? If you signed an agreement allowing your company to wipe the data, unless it specifically identified the device in question, they technically can wipe it and all copies of it. After all, you've given them permission (maybe not you, but people signing such agreements).
I'm as big a fan of the iPhone as anyone, but the tools you mention don't work for BYOD.
What you aren't getting is that "Bring Your Own Device" really just means "Pay For The Company's Device."
The company treats it like they own it. They get admin access. They lock the user from setting preferences (like screen lock settings, etc). They wipe it if they decide they don't need you any longer. They specify what kind of device you can bring.
Basically you're buying a device, then leasing it free of charge to the company for the duration of your employment. You get it back when you quit.
I already commented or I would mod you up, but that is exactly what is going on. If a company has a business reason that you need access to mail and other company resources 24/7 then they should provide the device. If there is no business reason for it, then why would anybody voluntarily want to do this and trade away their privacy to boot?
Slashdot Mirror
Great! Now I can make my new 3D gun invisible
Are you implying that the difference of protons and neutrons is what defines personal property vs non personal property?
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't make that distinction
The founding fathers made that exact argument. If you cant hold it in your had or otherwise posses it, it isn't personal property.
[Citation needed]
4th amdendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The founding fathers listed tangible personal and real property in the amendment.
You missed something: The definitions of papers and effects.
Also - they never mentioned television or the internet, either, but it's generally accepted that the 1st Amendment applies to them.
I didn't miss anything.
As a means of communication it makes sense that the 1st amendment would apply to television and even the internet. The 4th amendment, however, is about tangible personal and real property. It is your papers, not what is written on them that is protected. The police cannot take or search your papers without proper warrant. If you leave them on the front stoop of your house, they are free to read them. Effects, as used in the 4th amendment are physical things you have legal title to (if you don't have legal title to it, it is not your effect, but somebody else's). A flash drive and the data contained on it, assuming it is your flash drive, is your personal effect. Google's drive array with your data on it is Google's personal effect, not yours.
Data is not a personal effect. What stores the data is, whether that storage is a newspaper, a flash drive, etc. The 4th amendment is about physical tangible things. There are other laws that protect intangible things, like copyrights and patents, to name but two. There are other amendments that protect other rights, like speech, which is the conveyance of ideas, so it goes beyond simple oration.
Look at a real life problem with what you are arguing. Assume you purchase a music CD (personal property). You rip the CD and store it on your local hard drive (which is also personal property). You now copy the data file to your Google drive (which you claim is personal property but is not, but we will assume it is for now). Google backs up their server and now there is your copy of the data (your claimed personal property) and another copy, which cannot be yours (you don't even know if it exists or not). This process can be repeated multiple times. Sometime in the future, the main server, where you copied your file fails. Your personal property (by your claim) is now lost. Google replaces the server with a backup and now there is a copy of the file that is really their personal property (using the rational that data is personal property and they made the copy, so it is their creation and their property). Again, this cycle repeats over and over again, until Google owns all the data stored on their servers, because using your reasoning, it is all their personal property and your personal property was destroyed when the server went down.
Now, in real life, nobody is going to argue that. Why? Well first of all, data isn't tangible personal property, it is intangible personal property. As intangible personal property, it doesn't matter whether it is the original or the copy, it is still your intangible personal property. But that is the crux of the matter, the 4th amendment only applies to tangible property (both personal and real -- real meaning real estate). So, your files stored on somebody else's server are not, nor can they ever be your personal property. If you own the server it is your personal property. If you own the building, it is your personal property. But otherwise, even if you rent the space, it is not your personal property (which is why a land lord can let the police in without a warrant and you are screwed).
I didn't know the founding fathers were gypsies...
The 4th amendment is pretty clear in what it says about tangible personal and real property why would that make the founding fathers gypsies?
Are you implying that the difference of protons and neutrons is what defines personal property vs non personal property?
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't make that distinction
The founding fathers made that exact argument. If you cant hold it in your had or otherwise posses it, it isn't personal property.
[Citation needed]
4th amdendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The founding fathers listed tangible personal and real property in the amendment. Sub atomic particles aren't mentioned, nor would they have been even if they would have been known. For one thing, given the Heisenberg uncertainty principle how would one claim such particles are in your possesion versus the public sphere? If they are in the public sphere, they are open to search and seizure.
Are you implying that the difference of protons and neutrons is what defines personal property vs non personal property?
I'm sure the founding fathers didn't make that distinction
The founding fathers made that exact argument. If you cant hold it in your had or otherwise posses it, it isn't personal property. As such, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc. are not personal property in the eyes of the founding fathers or the constitution.
Phone calls are also electrons or light signals, not personal property.
Yet a warrant is still needed to monitor them because of privacy.
Why is there a different standard for email?
Why would there be a different standard for email.
Yes they are and as such aren't protected by the 4th amendment either. That is why we have telecommunication laws. Emails came long after the telecommunication laws were enacted so those laws don't cover emails. There is nothing keeping congress from enacting new laws or amending existing laws, but normally, laws only cover what they say they cover.
Ohhh, so that means the movies on bit-torrent are fine to download since they are not actual property and are just a bunch of electrons. I like where this is going!
If your concern is a 4th amendment violation, then yes, you can download them to your heart's content. OTOH, if your concern is with copyright infringement, which is not a constitutional issue, but is still illegal, then you might want to reconsider.
Voice over phone line is in "clear", and ATT could listen to it. Yet it is still required to have warrant to bug the line. I fail to see what is different with my emails. They are traveling "the infrastructure" in clear, that doesn't mean they are intended to be read by every bystander. As a matter of fact, somebody got a very harsh sentence for intruding onto S. Palin's mailboxes and revealing the content of these emails, so it seems to be quite clear and settled that emails are not to be considered public by default.
The reason a warrant is required to tap a phone is not a constitutional law issue but a telecommunication law issue. Because Congress declared it illegal to listen to other people's phone conversations, you need a warrant to do so. S.Palin's mailbox was also not a constitutional law issue. To fall under the 4th amendment, you have to be depriving somebody of their personal property. Stored emails are not personal property. They may be intellectual property, but that is not the same thing. The courts may rule that you need a warrant to access somebody's emails, that is their prerogative. However, if they do, it won't be because of the 4th amendment.
Technically incorrect. If what you said is true then anything you placed inside a bank locker would be subject to the same searches. The manner you pay a company for services matters not.
People so readily try to throw out amendments because technology has changed when in reality an email would fall under the class of papers because papers are documents emails are electronic documents and your computer or cloud service is the filing cabinet or vault you store them in.
That being said, I do not like the services people describe as the cloud as its just a new marketing term to cover a type of service that has existed for years without any legal confusion until it became wide spread for consumers and took on the name cloud.
The 4th amendment protects personal property. Emails and the like, as long as they are in an electronic format, are not tangible and therefore are not personal property. They are obviously stored on personal property somewhere and if you own that device, it is protected under the 4th amendment. If you do not own it, then the owner has the 4th amendment protection, but you do not. What you have is a contractual agreement with them, so contract law comes into play, but not constitutional law.
Whether one calls it the cloud, the intranet, the intraweb or the server, if you don't own the physical device that your data is stored on, then it isn't your personal property and the 4th amendment doesn't apply (other laws do, just not the 4th amendment).
And the entirety of the 4th amendment is eliminated by storing your data on somebody else's system since it's no longer considered part of YOUR "persons, houses, papers, and effects"
Still like "the cloud"?
Bullshit - my papers and effects are my papers and effects, regardless of where I keep them.
Could you imagine how hard it would be for banks to sell safety deposit space, if there was no guarantee other people weren't able to rifle through your shit?
But a safe deposit box contains personal property. Your emails and other electronic data is not personal property it is a bunch of electrons. Now, if those electrons are stored on your own hard drive, then it is still on your personal property. OTOH, if they are stored in the cloud, it may be your data, but it is no longer your personal property, at least as defined in the 4th amendment.
Are contest the best way to find programmers? It depends. If you are looking for programmers who can write use once, throw away code that doesn't have to be maintained, then the answer may be "Yes." On the other hand, if you are wanting programmers who can write code that can be maintained by somebody else five years from now and easily modified, then probably not.
Will your contest winner be able to readily adapt to your entity's coding style/standards? Will your contest winner be able to adapt to your client's needs (and if it is for internal coding, then your internal customer's needs). And finally, will your contest winner, be there for the long haul or will he/she get bored and look for the next puzzle/contest, leaving you high and dry?
Given the massive bias the US government has towards expensive private software contractors, I am surprised the results were so close.
Well, it could be that there really isn't a correlation between quality and what you pay for programming, at least beyond some point, so a good, but lower paid, open source programmer writes just as good code as a good, but higher paid proprietary programmer.
Or, it could be the higher paid programmers really do turn out better code, but the nature of open source, with multiple people reviewing it mitigates the difference. I hate to use a sports analogy, but I will anyway. I am a lousy golfer, but I can putt fantastically. If I am playing a normal round of golf, I will most likely lose. However, in a four man scramble, where the best ball is played, people want me on their team, because once the ball makes it to the green, I can usually get it in the cup with a single putt. Likewise, the programmers working on an open source project might not have the expertise as the high priced specialist, but they may have those who contribute the right parts to make the whole project successful.
I would venture that in reality, it is a combination of both of the above. Good programmers turn out good code, regardless of whether it is proprietary or open source. Plus, the open source model makes up for weaknesses in the skills of individual programmers.
Code quality for open source software continues to mirror that of proprietary software — and both continue to surpass the industry standard for software quality. Defect density (defects per 1,000 lines of software code) is a commonly used measurement for software quality.
Since there are two types of software open source and proprietary and both of them surpass the industry standard for software quality, what exactly is the industry standard based on?
The article states that the industry standard is 1 defect per 1,000 lines of code. But at the rates given, open source is 1 defect in 1,449 lines of code and proprietary software is 1 defect in 1,470 lines of code. Maybe it's time to change the industry standard?
Because socialists have this nasty habit of killing LOTS of people.
Yeah, almost as many as the capitalists.
Total Garbage. Just what I expect from the U.S. Government. Can't balance our budget, find more ways to tax consumers.
Except that it isn't the US Government doing the taxation. It is only the US Government saying that the states have the right to collect sales tax on internet purchases, reversing the original ban the US Government put in place on the very issue in the 1990s.
Although this is call an internet sales tax, effectively it is a local use tax. Almost all states impose a use tax on out of state purchases. Normally, the purchaser must self-report the amounts purchased and remit the tax directly to the state. What is different, here, is that businesses with $1M or more in sales to any given state (not just internet sales) will need to collect that use tax and remit it back to the state in question. For their trouble, they will get to keep a portion of the tax they collect.
This is aimed at the large online retailers like Amazon. Places like Walmart, B & N, etc., already charge the local sales tax for online purchases because they have nexus ( a local presence in the state). Unfortunately, there may be businesses that will get caught with enough sales that they will have to comply, even though they aren't the large online retailers. They will need to look at whether the cost of collecting and remitting the tax outweighs the benefit from providing the sales to that state. Chances are, with the fee they will get to keep, they decide to continue selling to that state, but ultimately, it will be a business decision.
But remember, this isn't about the US Government trying to balance the budget or adding a new tax. The tax is already on the books. The US government prohibited the states from collecting it to spur the fledgling online business model back in the 1990s. It is hard to make an argument that online sales still need a break over brick and mortar stores, so it is time for the government induced competitive advantage to be withdrawn.
This all sounds nice but will it be more fuel efficient than current land vehicles? Will it be less poluting than land vehicles? Will it be more convenient to use and cheaper to own than land vehicles? If the answer to those questions is "No," then why bother doing this? Sure it may be fun, but if it burns more oil, polutes more air, costs more to operate and is less convenienent, what is the point?
What happens when flying cars collide with buildings or other infrastructure?
Or more importantly, when somebody intentionally flies one into a building?
I agree the English aspect is likely to limit its usefulness. Although it's getting somewhat more common for kids around the world to be able to read a bit of English.
There are, in any case, already large Wikipedia versions in some other languages, so they wouldn't have to be translated from scratch. And some of them overlap with languages widely spoken in countries with poor internet access, such as French and Spanish.
A bigger limit to the usefulness is the amount of inaccurate information on Wikipedia. While the concept is great, there is a lot to be desired given the implimentation.
All five of these countries were once part of the Soviet Union. They all inherited the Soviet educational system, and the cycle of illiteracy was already broken before they became independent. Literate mothers don't raise illiterate children.
That would depend on when the Muslims immigrated to those countries, would it not? Were those countries predominantly Muslim under Soviet rule or did that occur post Soviet rule? If I recall, the Soviets were not fond of letting religion flourish.
Indonesia, which has the highest concentration of Muslims, has a female literacy rate of 99.38 (2008), and they were not part of the Soviet Union.
It is far more likely that the poor literacy rates in the countries you mention (Burkina Faso, Chad, Sierra Leone, South Sudan) have more to do with economics and civil war than religion.
Only works if they all run Windows, and the backup software from the phone to laptop to server runs the software taken from the phone, or the process of backuping up the phone (and subsequently the server) can trigger an exploit in the host OS to do so. In a heterogenous environment - e.g. ARM devices to x86 devices as is nearly all Android and all iOS devices - that would be very, very hard to do. In a homogenous environment - e.g. Windows Phone, Windows OS, - it would have some tricks, but it would be within reason of possibilty.
Actually it could be much simpler than that. Supposed it wipes your phone, but leaves a bit of code on the phone so the next time you go to sync, it checks itself and if the flag was set to wipe the phone, it then wipes the synced files or hard drive instead. There is already a product that does exactly that on the market.
Still, a company could have quite the legal risk if they did that...so it wouldn't be worth it to most companies for that reason alone. The company could, for instance, be in violation of the CFAA, among other things, for doing that. It would have similar consequences to the HP hacking scandal a few years back.
They wouldn't have any legal risk if you signed an agreement that allowed them to do so. Could be in your employment papers, or employee manual or any number of other places that if you didn't read the whole thing carefully, you wouldn't realize what you were signing away.
Unless you think your company is too stupid to think that you might do this, what makes you think they haven't taken measures that included in your backups is the ability to wipe those same backups from where ever you have copied them?
What makes you think they have access to my personal laptop to do any such thing?
You said you backed up your phone to your personal laptop. If they have access to your phone, they have access to what was copied to your personal laptop because they could have installed anything on your phone that would have been copied over. Depending on how you backed up your phone, you could have a nice little trojan sitting there just waiting and listening and the next time you back up your phone if it doesn't have the proper response it automatically wipes the hard drive it is on.
Basically, if your company has control of your phone and you sync your phone to your computer, your company can put whatever they want on your computer.
This.
I just tried to argue this same point where I work; I work in an IT group that has a rotating 24x7 on call. We had employer-issued Blackberries, which both received SMS messages and could connect to email.
Since we had had them for a while, the SMS alerts over time had evolved to "X has failed. Check your email for details."
Then the company forced us to turn in our Blackberries and went to a BYOD. I tried, unsuccessfully, to argue your point. I get spotty coverage on my personal phone, and none in the building, so that would rule out my personal device. Plus I refuse to allow the company control of my device, stipend or no.
The alternative was to accept a "penny phone" (a Samsung Chronos 2). I was very clear with my boss and boss' boss what that could mean for response to pages. So far, nothing has come up, but I also am kind of heistant to stray far from home when I am on call.
You are in a win-win situation. They can only monitor when the sms went out. If you aren't in range, you can't be held accountable for not receiving it. Since it is your phone and your personal property, they can't even ask to see the phone to check the logs. So, if a message comes in and you don't want to go, well, you never received it, did you? (Of course, it would be helpful if your concerns had been documented in writing)
I wonder if all of these companies that are going to require BYOD or even those that provide a phone now have figured in, reported and paid for the overtime that is required under the FLSA for non-exempt employees. It seems to me that saying an employee must have a phone to check company email or answer calls outside normal work hours would be considered, well, work and therefore the employee, unless exempt, needs to be compensated for that time.
I think if I were a large company, I would strongly rethink who gets a company phone or is required to provide their own device. While you cannot stop an non-exempt employee from checking their mail (thus working) and you must pay them for it. You can take action if it isn't pre-approved overtime. However, if the employer is providing the phone or requiring the employee to purchase their own, by definition, they are acknowledging that working outside the normal 40 hour work week is required and have given tacit approval.
I wonder how much unpaid overtime is actually accruing and if BYOD becomes widespread, will that force the issue?
I see the future of BYOD being running another OS instance for the work apps, or possibly a separate easily switched profile with encrypted storage.
It's easier to just sync/backup my Android phone to my personal laptop. Wipe whatever you want... my mail is copied via pop3 from gmail to my laptop (and backed up from there to the home server), and my phone is backed up similarly. Restoration is trivial at best.
Unless you think your company is too stupid to think that you might do this, what makes you think they haven't taken measures that included in your backups is the ability to wipe those same backups from where ever you have copied them? If you signed an agreement allowing your company to wipe the data, unless it specifically identified the device in question, they technically can wipe it and all copies of it. After all, you've given them permission (maybe not you, but people signing such agreements).
I'm as big a fan of the iPhone as anyone, but the tools you mention don't work for BYOD.
What you aren't getting is that "Bring Your Own Device" really just means "Pay For The Company's Device."
The company treats it like they own it. They get admin access. They lock the user from setting preferences (like screen lock settings, etc). They wipe it if they decide they don't need you any longer. They specify what kind of device you can bring.
Basically you're buying a device, then leasing it free of charge to the company for the duration of your employment. You get it back when you quit.
I already commented or I would mod you up, but that is exactly what is going on. If a company has a business reason that you need access to mail and other company resources 24/7 then they should provide the device. If there is no business reason for it, then why would anybody voluntarily want to do this and trade away their privacy to boot?