If I can't trust my partner not to sue me why should I trust that they are entering contracts on good faith?
Conversely, how can I trust that my partner who just created a product line in direct competition will always have my best interest in mind ?
But let's be realistic one second. Samsung can still refuse to sell to Apple if they wanted to, there is no need to hike the price. Samsung is probably in a position to ask more money and unless the CPU market is fucked (i.e. Samsung has a monopoly), the price it will ask is going to be the market price. Basically, meh, only a news because Samsung and Apple are the Lady Gaga and Paris Hilton for nerds.
Samsung is number 2 by a very large margin above number 3. If they can significantly hurt iPhone market share, they will be in a very strong position to basically define the smartphone market. For the same reason that nobody really cares if Samsung or Apple win whatever lawsuit, they won't really care why the iPhone 6 is so much more expensive. Samsung is overrepresented in the shop catalogs, so that is a good bet that they will get the most benefit from any failing on Apple side.
That is going to be interesting, as long as neither Samsung nor Apple manages a kill blow, that will be good for the customers (Apple will have to be quite innovating to offset the price hike. On the other hand, Samsung will have to drop the price to really hurt Apple). Even better if that little battle gives some oxygen to other players like MS and RIM and if Google manages to revive LG and HTC.
Anyway, this is a good example of why relying on your main competitor to build your product is not the best position to be in. (if anybody had any doubt why it was necessary for Apple to have their own Map application, or why Android makers shit their pants when Google bought Moto, or why OEM became pale when MS built Surface). Also that is no wonder that Apple was especially bitter against Samsung in their lawsuit, both companies are on a collision course.
Apple's being a whiny, greedy child and deserves to be punished for infringing on legit IP they NEED to make a smartphone/tablet/etc...
Well, complaining about somebody being a fanboy and falling right in the other camp. Unless you give more numbers, it may very well be that Apple has a good case. Motorola could very well have set a very high price for "everybody" knowing that all its best buds would not have to pay anyway. That's not even very advanced, that's just a classic trick.
Anyway, any new player need to ask authorisation via licensing/exchange to all its competitors because they all hold mandatory patent and are all in bed together. Is that supposed to be good thing ? I can't believe how people on slashdot are happy to accept patents as long it is used against Apple.
Android needs Google to step in a break the bank to prevent competition from dying at the end range: they are at risk of having only Amazon for tablet or Samsung for mobile. Android strength comes from competition fueled by openness. That cannot happen in the current market where a single player in each segment makes real money, that is great that Google is stepping in, but really that is a sign of trouble.
Then there is openness itself. Apple manage to more or less keep the iPhone outside the worst of carrier control. That is not the case with Android, and sadly, the only thing that Google has been able to do so far is provide the Nexus line. That is good, but the Nexus is always going to be a geek phone, not a Galaxy S3.
Samsung/Amazon are the one fighting Apple - they will or already have won depending the metric you want to look at, in any case, they are doing very well. Google on the other hand is fighting to keep Android being diluted away. That is a great move Google and I hope it succeed, I would hate to have my choice reduced to iPhone vs (Galaxy + Carrier).
You mean standard perks a generation or 2 ago ? Actually people spent the last 20 years explaining how better everyone would be by getting the union and pesky government off the workplace. So following that theory, without the unions the teachers would make a lot more than 80K and have much better perks, no wonder they complain and it is so hard to find good ones.
There is a strong correlation between developers that cannot follow a style standard and divas. I want to believe you are a good developer, but in my experience, I have yet to work with a developer that would not comply with a style standard but would follow the rest of the code standards like patterns or framework. Especially since there is a lot of grey area: like defining the common vocabulary (like the expected behaviour of getX, createX, findX, selectX, process, run, execute,...) which can be seen as a style but is nevertheless very important for the consistency of your apis.
Also, most recent projects have a team working on the same codebase. Free code style, in practice, would only mean that you are working most of the time with code in a different coding style. If you work on a java project or similar, that means that you would always have several files in different style opened at the same time. That is just messy. Again, I don't think the kind of developer that find that situation desirable is the kind that strive for code consistency.
Let's take an example, my wife and I live in a city far wealthier (London) than the region I come from. Although well paid and living a very confortable life, we are under the level of salary that would be required to start a family (2/3 bed instead of 1. Area with good schools,... makes price go through the roof and that does not even include the price of daycare for kid). So we save money and plan to move in a cheaper place. So in a sense, we did work for less than a fair price for our situation. We probably take the job or at least reduce the salary level of people that would like to live their whole life in London.
Obviously, that's not the same, there is no visa involved, we stay in the same country,... but the dynamic is the same. H1-B worker that plan to move back to their countries can and will accept lower salaries than people that plan to stay in the US. That is a red herring though, first it would require the majority of the H1-B worker to both want to return and then actively plan for it and secondly, unless you flood the market with H1-B worker, I doubt that will make a significant difference, considering that even locals affect the wage level.
An interesting thing however, that I notice with people with visa, not sure if that applies with H1-B, is that they have a strong legal incentive to stay with the same employer for many years ( time to get naturalised run in decades and the job market is quite tough to change your visa sponsor ). That, however, must have an effect on the market.
On the other hand, the judge should have known what was coming. The "apology" only repeat mainly the argument of the judge for asking the apology: because of the judgement in other countries, Samsung UK customers could be misled. When you think about it, considering the clusterfuck between Samsung and Apple with very publicized victories on both side, that decision was a bit retarded in the first place. The coolness thing is also coming for the lawsuit. How do you end up using an argument based on the coolness of original and alleged copy Samsung is somehow relevant ?
The US lawsuit was shameful, with both sides abusing the court as a stage for their ads campaign, but the UK looks like they got their judge and lawyers out of Ally McBeal.
Anyway, that won't change a thing really. We have drown in such much crap that people do not even know what the countless suits are about. People have chosen their "camp" already and unless the judge ask for a "Show Alternative" page like for MS Browser, I doubt anything will make a difference.
And really, what other answer could they give ? They would not want to hint that their client should have a look at their competitor product, especially if they do not have a product that goes directly against it ready to be shipped next week. That like asking your CEO in a general meeting if he has any outsourcing plan, the answer is 'no' folk, even there is an announcement scheduled to take place right after the meeting.
The only "interest" of those questions in interviews is to gauge the stage performance skills of the interviewee.
That is the scary thing about all that. There is no real screening on site or behaviour analysis, or you know, normal police work. No the level of scrutiny you get is dictated in advance by some random algorithm and independent of what you do there.
And if they are so good at it, why don't they just make their OSes secure enough to obviate that excuse for the walled gardens in the first place?
Because Users are the problems, not the OS. Device/Software can be made reasonably secure, users cannot be made security conscious. A walled garden prevent a user from installing stuff he shouldn't (and of course other uses, but I'm just replying to your point on security)
Samsung has now become more or less synonymous with Android, so there would be a lot of work to do in order to offer the necessary differentiation. At that rate they may aswell have persisted with their own OS. MS was the only option to get differentiation on the cheap. The real question, is why did they think they think they needed to have another option than their own OS.
Anyway, MS killed all the momentum Nokia managed to build up with the Nokia line up by instant deprecating the whole line months before giving Nokia an alternative to release. That is a case study of why depending on another company to deliver your key technology is a bad thing, and should be repeated a few times when people wonder why Apple replaced Google Map, and RIM persist developing its own OS.
Yes and No. Selectively discarding a single one in one side of such important case is only confirming to Companies fill thousands of shitty patent every years, that it is a valid strategy, because they get invalidated only in the most extreme condition, and not even consistently.
Something good would have been for the USPTO to re-evaluate the whole patent portfolio of both Samsung and Apple and invalidate all the obvious one, regardless if they were cited in a lawsuit or not. THAT would have scared patent trolls and other silly patent hoarder (i.e. all the big companies).
When looking for a dyson sphere you assume that an advanced society would need such an amount of energy in a - relatively - small location. If there is a technology that allows you to tap other convenient source of energy, a society may very well spread itself so that it does not radiate that much.
Let's take a plausible example that assume not so fancy technology. If you have a species that live for example 10K years, they may very well be a lot less enclined to stick to their solar system and a few hundred years of travel is daunting but not more than creating a colony on Mars for our civilisation. Even if that civilisation evolve to the level of being able to create a dyson sphere, they may simply not be interested.
I did google - ended up here. This is scary beyond belief. I don't even know how that can be called justice. I know that is not at the same scale but that certainly put our outrage against some aspect of justice in other countries in perspective.
People with a dimmer in the living room in a rented a flat with less than perfect wiring.
I switched to hallogen. Dimmable CFL survives on average 5 to 10 minutes on the dimmer - at full power, not even trying to dim them. At 15GBP each, I tried only twice. If you have electric heating (quite common in big cities nowadays), there is nothing wrong with the extra heat from the lamp. It complements quite well your heat accumulator heater - for example my desk hallogen lamp is creating a nice light and after half an hour a nice slightly warmer environment around the desk that let me keep the overall room temperature down a bit.
Of course, I could not say for sure how much I save / waste - that's the problem with lighting - at the end of the day, that is one of tiniest fraction of your energy bill for the majority of people, and it is difficult to get real data unless you have the tools to measure it.
That is hardly a comparison, btw. None of the image are in full resolution and there are no sample at 1:1 to compare. I know that phones are not supposed to be used for "real photography", but damn, I expect a minimum more than a thumbnail comparison from a so called "App and Photography Editor at iMore".
Otherwise here is my review. I also don't think the camera is worth replacing your 1 year old phone. I have read the spec and seen a few picture on the net, trust me.
The only piece of stainless steel the iPhone ever had was the antenna of the iPhone 4/4S and I think the screen border of iPhone 3G/3GS. For the 3 first years the back of the iPhone was in plastic. The aluminium back is only easy to scratch compared to the glass back of version 4 and 4G. You could scratch the back of all 3 iPhones generation before with little effort.
Man, how rubbish was that video was by the way. If those 30 seconds are supposed to simulate "2 weeks of solid use", you need a ruggedized cheap phone and not a $600 phone. And it is not a question of brand there, it just happen that the iPhone 4 was special with regards to scratches compared to basically everything else. Its design was very critized for being too fragile though, compared to basically everything else - at least for the same people that would consider the video a fair representation of a few weeks of use.
People remember fondly but really the first generation of iPhone was a pain to keep scratch free. It was also one the first phone that OCD afflicted people took an interest in. Before 2007, nobody seemed to care about scratches - at worst you would buy those polishing compound when the screen was unreadable.
They had the biggest contract by far, and Google surely wanted to keep it.
surely ?
If I were running Google, I wouldn't even negotiate with them. Nor would I submit a Google Maps app for iOS.
Indeed there is bad blood. By you first reasoning, Apple is spending billion in an app that has little strategical value with its core business, surely they wouldn't do that without as good reason. Works both ways, difficult to say which one is a dick.
By rolling along quietly, you mean negotiating deals behind closed doors, effectively locking any newcomer out of the market. Patents are supposed to be used to promote innovation not for petty lawsuit (after Apple) or legalized cartels (before Apple).
Lobbying is not only about one-off money - you don't just send money to a few congressmen and they are bought. It is more subtle than that. You need to have people dedicated, long term plan/strategies, contact with people of influence and most importantly, revolving doors.
Money is gas but you need an engine to use it with.
That is not a patent that you violate or license, that is a web of patents specifically designed to cover as much of technology as possible so that any implementation, no matter how different from the competitor will violate at least one. Why do you think Samsung is so confident that they do not even to see the iPhone5 to be sure it violates their tech, just the spec: 4G LTE - we got that cornered ? Maybe they even sell the ships to Apple that Apple will be sued to use.
In the past we had the cold war between tech giant through cross-licensing, behind doors agreement and patent blackmarket. At least it seems we now enter regular patent war. Hopefully it will be quick and mean, so that we get at last a profound reform of the patent system.
One of the problem is that organic food tends to be more expensive, so they made up the argument that the price difference was compensated by nutritional difference.
I don't know personally whose people that argument was supposed to convince. In my experience, either you shop for the cheap food or you shop for good food. Organic or not, price between good food and the cheapest one is massive, especially if you live in a big city with no direct access to local producers.
That's where Apple got it right with the marketing. They advertise new features that us geek consider not worthy of even talking about. However, as you said Joe User does not care about the OS or what it can do unless it has been demonstrated to him and Apple ads, as silly as they are, just do that.
As a major presidential candidate, he should have less right to privacy than Joe User. That is not a privacy issue, that is a transparency issue, something that is incredibly important for a healthy democracy.
For the same reason, he also deserve extra resource allocated to the protection against misuse of the information he has had to disclose.
Slashdot Mirror
If I can't trust my partner not to sue me why should I trust that they are entering contracts on good faith?
Conversely, how can I trust that my partner who just created a product line in direct competition will always have my best interest in mind ?
But let's be realistic one second. Samsung can still refuse to sell to Apple if they wanted to, there is no need to hike the price. Samsung is probably in a position to ask more money and unless the CPU market is fucked (i.e. Samsung has a monopoly), the price it will ask is going to be the market price. Basically, meh, only a news because Samsung and Apple are the Lady Gaga and Paris Hilton for nerds.
Samsung is number 2 by a very large margin above number 3. If they can significantly hurt iPhone market share, they will be in a very strong position to basically define the smartphone market. For the same reason that nobody really cares if Samsung or Apple win whatever lawsuit, they won't really care why the iPhone 6 is so much more expensive. Samsung is overrepresented in the shop catalogs, so that is a good bet that they will get the most benefit from any failing on Apple side.
That is going to be interesting, as long as neither Samsung nor Apple manages a kill blow, that will be good for the customers (Apple will have to be quite innovating to offset the price hike. On the other hand, Samsung will have to drop the price to really hurt Apple). Even better if that little battle gives some oxygen to other players like MS and RIM and if Google manages to revive LG and HTC.
Anyway, this is a good example of why relying on your main competitor to build your product is not the best position to be in. (if anybody had any doubt why it was necessary for Apple to have their own Map application, or why Android makers shit their pants when Google bought Moto, or why OEM became pale when MS built Surface). Also that is no wonder that Apple was especially bitter against Samsung in their lawsuit, both companies are on a collision course.
Apple's being a whiny, greedy child and deserves to be punished for infringing on legit IP they NEED to make a smartphone/tablet/etc...
Well, complaining about somebody being a fanboy and falling right in the other camp. Unless you give more numbers, it may very well be that Apple has a good case. Motorola could very well have set a very high price for "everybody" knowing that all its best buds would not have to pay anyway. That's not even very advanced, that's just a classic trick.
Anyway, any new player need to ask authorisation via licensing/exchange to all its competitors because they all hold mandatory patent and are all in bed together. Is that supposed to be good thing ? I can't believe how people on slashdot are happy to accept patents as long it is used against Apple.
Android needs Google to step in a break the bank to prevent competition from dying at the end range: they are at risk of having only Amazon for tablet or Samsung for mobile. Android strength comes from competition fueled by openness. That cannot happen in the current market where a single player in each segment makes real money, that is great that Google is stepping in, but really that is a sign of trouble.
Then there is openness itself. Apple manage to more or less keep the iPhone outside the worst of carrier control. That is not the case with Android, and sadly, the only thing that Google has been able to do so far is provide the Nexus line. That is good, but the Nexus is always going to be a geek phone, not a Galaxy S3.
Samsung/Amazon are the one fighting Apple - they will or already have won depending the metric you want to look at, in any case, they are doing very well. Google on the other hand is fighting to keep Android being diluted away. That is a great move Google and I hope it succeed, I would hate to have my choice reduced to iPhone vs (Galaxy + Carrier).
awesome perks
You mean standard perks a generation or 2 ago ? Actually people spent the last 20 years explaining how better everyone would be by getting the union and pesky government off the workplace. So following that theory, without the unions the teachers would make a lot more than 80K and have much better perks, no wonder they complain and it is so hard to find good ones.
There is a strong correlation between developers that cannot follow a style standard and divas. I want to believe you are a good developer, but in my experience, I have yet to work with a developer that would not comply with a style standard but would follow the rest of the code standards like patterns or framework. Especially since there is a lot of grey area: like defining the common vocabulary (like the expected behaviour of getX, createX, findX, selectX, process, run, execute, ...) which can be seen as a style but is nevertheless very important for the consistency of your apis.
Also, most recent projects have a team working on the same codebase. Free code style, in practice, would only mean that you are working most of the time with code in a different coding style. If you work on a java project or similar, that means that you would always have several files in different style opened at the same time. That is just messy. Again, I don't think the kind of developer that find that situation desirable is the kind that strive for code consistency.
Let's take an example, my wife and I live in a city far wealthier (London) than the region I come from. Although well paid and living a very confortable life, we are under the level of salary that would be required to start a family (2/3 bed instead of 1. Area with good schools, ... makes price go through the roof and that does not even include the price of daycare for kid). So we save money and plan to move in a cheaper place. So in a sense, we did work for less than a fair price for our situation. We probably take the job or at least reduce the salary level of people that would like to live their whole life in London.
Obviously, that's not the same, there is no visa involved, we stay in the same country, ... but the dynamic is the same. H1-B worker that plan to move back to their countries can and will accept lower salaries than people that plan to stay in the US. That is a red herring though, first it would require the majority of the H1-B worker to both want to return and then actively plan for it and secondly, unless you flood the market with H1-B worker, I doubt that will make a significant difference, considering that even locals affect the wage level.
An interesting thing however, that I notice with people with visa, not sure if that applies with H1-B, is that they have a strong legal incentive to stay with the same employer for many years ( time to get naturalised run in decades and the job market is quite tough to change your visa sponsor ). That, however, must have an effect on the market.
On the other hand, the judge should have known what was coming. The "apology" only repeat mainly the argument of the judge for asking the apology: because of the judgement in other countries, Samsung UK customers could be misled. When you think about it, considering the clusterfuck between Samsung and Apple with very publicized victories on both side, that decision was a bit retarded in the first place. The coolness thing is also coming for the lawsuit. How do you end up using an argument based on the coolness of original and alleged copy Samsung is somehow relevant ?
The US lawsuit was shameful, with both sides abusing the court as a stage for their ads campaign, but the UK looks like they got their judge and lawyers out of Ally McBeal.
Anyway, that won't change a thing really. We have drown in such much crap that people do not even know what the countless suits are about. People have chosen their "camp" already and unless the judge ask for a "Show Alternative" page like for MS Browser, I doubt anything will make a difference.
And really, what other answer could they give ? They would not want to hint that their client should have a look at their competitor product, especially if they do not have a product that goes directly against it ready to be shipped next week. That like asking your CEO in a general meeting if he has any outsourcing plan, the answer is 'no' folk, even there is an announcement scheduled to take place right after the meeting.
The only "interest" of those questions in interviews is to gauge the stage performance skills of the interviewee.
That is the scary thing about all that. There is no real screening on site or behaviour analysis, or you know, normal police work. No the level of scrutiny you get is dictated in advance by some random algorithm and independent of what you do there.
Security theater indeed !
And if they are so good at it, why don't they just make their OSes secure enough to obviate that excuse for the walled gardens in the first place?
Because Users are the problems, not the OS. Device/Software can be made reasonably secure, users cannot be made security conscious. A walled garden prevent a user from installing stuff he shouldn't (and of course other uses, but I'm just replying to your point on security)
Samsung has now become more or less synonymous with Android, so there would be a lot of work to do in order to offer the necessary differentiation. At that rate they may aswell have persisted with their own OS. MS was the only option to get differentiation on the cheap. The real question, is why did they think they think they needed to have another option than their own OS.
Anyway, MS killed all the momentum Nokia managed to build up with the Nokia line up by instant deprecating the whole line months before giving Nokia an alternative to release. That is a case study of why depending on another company to deliver your key technology is a bad thing, and should be repeated a few times when people wonder why Apple replaced Google Map, and RIM persist developing its own OS.
Yes and No. Selectively discarding a single one in one side of such important case is only confirming to Companies fill thousands of shitty patent every years, that it is a valid strategy, because they get invalidated only in the most extreme condition, and not even consistently.
Something good would have been for the USPTO to re-evaluate the whole patent portfolio of both Samsung and Apple and invalidate all the obvious one, regardless if they were cited in a lawsuit or not. THAT would have scared patent trolls and other silly patent hoarder (i.e. all the big companies).
When looking for a dyson sphere you assume that an advanced society would need such an amount of energy in a - relatively - small location. If there is a technology that allows you to tap other convenient source of energy, a society may very well spread itself so that it does not radiate that much.
Let's take a plausible example that assume not so fancy technology. If you have a species that live for example 10K years, they may very well be a lot less enclined to stick to their solar system and a few hundred years of travel is daunting but not more than creating a colony on Mars for our civilisation. Even if that civilisation evolve to the level of being able to create a dyson sphere, they may simply not be interested.
I did google - ended up here. This is scary beyond belief. I don't even know how that can be called justice. I know that is not at the same scale but that certainly put our outrage against some aspect of justice in other countries in perspective.
People with a dimmer in the living room in a rented a flat with less than perfect wiring.
I switched to hallogen. Dimmable CFL survives on average 5 to 10 minutes on the dimmer - at full power, not even trying to dim them. At 15GBP each, I tried only twice. If you have electric heating (quite common in big cities nowadays), there is nothing wrong with the extra heat from the lamp. It complements quite well your heat accumulator heater - for example my desk hallogen lamp is creating a nice light and after half an hour a nice slightly warmer environment around the desk that let me keep the overall room temperature down a bit.
Of course, I could not say for sure how much I save / waste - that's the problem with lighting - at the end of the day, that is one of tiniest fraction of your energy bill for the majority of people, and it is difficult to get real data unless you have the tools to measure it.
That is hardly a comparison, btw. None of the image are in full resolution and there are no sample at 1:1 to compare. I know that phones are not supposed to be used for "real photography", but damn, I expect a minimum more than a thumbnail comparison from a so called "App and Photography Editor at iMore".
Otherwise here is my review. I also don't think the camera is worth replacing your 1 year old phone. I have read the spec and seen a few picture on the net, trust me.
The only piece of stainless steel the iPhone ever had was the antenna of the iPhone 4/4S and I think the screen border of iPhone 3G/3GS. For the 3 first years the back of the iPhone was in plastic. The aluminium back is only easy to scratch compared to the glass back of version 4 and 4G. You could scratch the back of all 3 iPhones generation before with little effort.
Man, how rubbish was that video was by the way. If those 30 seconds are supposed to simulate "2 weeks of solid use", you need a ruggedized cheap phone and not a $600 phone. And it is not a question of brand there, it just happen that the iPhone 4 was special with regards to scratches compared to basically everything else. Its design was very critized for being too fragile though, compared to basically everything else - at least for the same people that would consider the video a fair representation of a few weeks of use.
People remember fondly but really the first generation of iPhone was a pain to keep scratch free. It was also one the first phone that OCD afflicted people took an interest in. Before 2007, nobody seemed to care about scratches - at worst you would buy those polishing compound when the screen was unreadable.
They had the biggest contract by far, and Google surely wanted to keep it.
surely ?
If I were running Google, I wouldn't even negotiate with them. Nor would I submit a Google Maps app for iOS.
Indeed there is bad blood. By you first reasoning, Apple is spending billion in an app that has little strategical value with its core business, surely they wouldn't do that without as good reason. Works both ways, difficult to say which one is a dick.
By rolling along quietly, you mean negotiating deals behind closed doors, effectively locking any newcomer out of the market. Patents are supposed to be used to promote innovation not for petty lawsuit (after Apple) or legalized cartels (before Apple).
Lobbying is not only about one-off money - you don't just send money to a few congressmen and they are bought. It is more subtle than that. You need to have people dedicated, long term plan/strategies, contact with people of influence and most importantly, revolving doors.
Money is gas but you need an engine to use it with.
That is not a patent that you violate or license, that is a web of patents specifically designed to cover as much of technology as possible so that any implementation, no matter how different from the competitor will violate at least one. Why do you think Samsung is so confident that they do not even to see the iPhone5 to be sure it violates their tech, just the spec: 4G LTE - we got that cornered ? Maybe they even sell the ships to Apple that Apple will be sued to use.
In the past we had the cold war between tech giant through cross-licensing, behind doors agreement and patent blackmarket. At least it seems we now enter regular patent war. Hopefully it will be quick and mean, so that we get at last a profound reform of the patent system.
One of the problem is that organic food tends to be more expensive, so they made up the argument that the price difference was compensated by nutritional difference.
I don't know personally whose people that argument was supposed to convince. In my experience, either you shop for the cheap food or you shop for good food. Organic or not, price between good food and the cheapest one is massive, especially if you live in a big city with no direct access to local producers.
That's where Apple got it right with the marketing. They advertise new features that us geek consider not worthy of even talking about. However, as you said Joe User does not care about the OS or what it can do unless it has been demonstrated to him and Apple ads, as silly as they are, just do that.
As a major presidential candidate, he should have less right to privacy than Joe User. That is not a privacy issue, that is a transparency issue, something that is incredibly important for a healthy democracy.
For the same reason, he also deserve extra resource allocated to the protection against misuse of the information he has had to disclose.