The company would be in no way responsible for tracking your licenses nor removing software once you left.
It is also arguable if you install software on a system you don't own you are violating licensing of the software itself, and that you are gifting it by doing so.
Any company I have worked for either had already or had shortly after I got there a policy against it simply because it makes license auditing a nightmare. I don't know how many of you have been through a BSA audit but I assure you they do NOT have your interests at heart.
I had for a year and a half a phone and plan which were payed for by the company through reimbursements, but in my name. When I walked out the door I simply took it with me as the company had no claim to it.
This is why companies favor blackberries and things with remote wipe functionality so it is not a danger.
You know BLM in terms of farming... that doesn't mean there aren't other contracts. Have you actually READ the Burning Man contract to see what it says? If not, read your own complains regarding not knowing what you are talking about.
Just because the map is marked off for what it is 90% of the year does not make it so at all times. I went to college basically on BLM land and I can recall several events which were allowed to cordon off portions of it and we weren't allowed.
It is NOT public as they can and will eject you from the land if you don't have a ticket or brake the rules. They have law enforcement there to back them up on this. Or are they wrong too?
The company I used to run had this... we reduced our rate for those willing to allow remote work because it allowed our costs to go down, but were happy to show up on site, have others put in passwords etc. I just made it clear when negotiating such contracts that the less control we had the less responsive we could be. Most were fine with one trade off or another.
This would not be a bad idea. The only way to make something secure is to make it cost more to take it than it's worth. This can be done with punitive regulations, high bar to steal, any factor which will make the risk vs reward equation come out negative.
The biggest problem with regulation, as in any industry, is who watches the watchers? If you are outsourcing your IT who ensures they are following the rules?
This is not completely true... we have a setup where data maintenance and system maintenance are separate due to encryption. The number of people who have the data decryption keys is much smaller than the number of people who have access to patch the system.
I realize this is rare, but if your concern is only data security this is an option.
I have never seen a liberal deny the need for rules, they deny the need for rules which only protect people from themselves or enforce a moral stance not everyone has.
A conservative on the other hand wishes to use rules to enforce his moral stance on everyone regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with that stance.
Don't confuse Democrats for liberals or Republicans for conservatives either... neither one fits either bill.
I agree with this, point out you would be trusting a company with no stake in keeping your data private, and quite the opposite, with data YOU are required to keep private, and will be liable if you do not. There is no suing google when they loose it, read the EULA, but you will be sued for sure.
I've tried several and still prefer Belgian beer... I haven't been able to stand anything made in the US outside a single norwegian brewery in SF bay area, but then again that's sort of an import:)
Job's health is absolutely his business and no one else's. Who cares if it's a publicly traded company. Did he agree he and his families lives would be an open book to shareholders by virtue of them investing a few dollars? NO.
His professional actions are absolutely subject to scrutiny, after all a public company does not work for it's customers, it works for it's shareholders. This is established, especially in the US. But read that carefully, his PROFESSIONAL actions. It ends there.
If shareholders view his absence as harming stock they are welcome to replace him, temporarily or permanently. That is their sole recourse. He has done his duty in saying "I cannot preform my function and thus take a leave of absence." but in the end he wasn't even required to tell them it was for medical reasons.
I have to agree here. Although I think it was unethical for them to expose him, so long as all information was obtained legitimately it is not and should not be illegal. If it was obtained illegally in any way then lock up the journalist who committed the crime and fine the newspaper.
Journalistic ethics should be enforced through money, laws are a different issue.
The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however, the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now, or don't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right.
This is going to vary from country to country and their standards for evidence.
Fairly sure in the US if it was found illegally it falls under "Fruit of the poisonous tree" laws and can't be used, civil or criminal. There are some grey areas for licensed PIs where they seem to be able to do things cops can't but I am not sure on the details of that one. It would be the equivalent of breaking into someone's house and finding a stolen painting vs police knocking on the door and seeing it hanging there from the doorway. One is legal, one is not.
Now you could break in, see it, report it and have the police come look in exchange for immunity on the break-in charge:) Though why you would want to do that is beyond me.
Unfortunately the best he can do is make all the evidence inadmissible in court.
The police had a warrant, which at least in the US means signed by a judge. That is all the police need to be protected. The fact it was found to be faulty later means nothing they found can be used, and they have to give it back and say their sorry, but at the time of the activity it was perfectly legal. No recourse available.
The judge who signed it has been embarrassed, and the police annoyed, that is as much vindication as he can get at this point.
IMHO this is a case of checks and balances in the system working. Sure they should have worked sooner, but they did work.
Re:This will end up making more wars
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 1
Yes, this is a real danger. Most people only care about a war if they see a cost, usually in lives, and under no circumstances should war be without cost.
When war has a drawback people avoid it, they are hesitant to participate and it doesn't last very long. This is desirable.
This is why I think any president who declares war should be forced to serve along side troops. So long as he thinks it's worth while for him to be there, so should the troops be. If he isn't willing to put himself in danger for whatever cause, it's obviously not important enough to kill people over.
One of my favorite lines from The Postman "Wouldn't it be nice if wars were fought by the assholes that started them."
Re:The next generation of military robots
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 1
They do... who do you think makes all the parts for US robots.
If we ever go to war with China we are SCREWED... no replacement parts:)
Slashdot Mirror
The company would be in no way responsible for tracking your licenses nor removing software once you left.
It is also arguable if you install software on a system you don't own you are violating licensing of the software itself, and that you are gifting it by doing so.
Any company I have worked for either had already or had shortly after I got there a policy against it simply because it makes license auditing a nightmare. I don't know how many of you have been through a BSA audit but I assure you they do NOT have your interests at heart.
This is the most accurate I have seen.
I had for a year and a half a phone and plan which were payed for by the company through reimbursements, but in my name. When I walked out the door I simply took it with me as the company had no claim to it.
This is why companies favor blackberries and things with remote wipe functionality so it is not a danger.
You know BLM in terms of farming... that doesn't mean there aren't other contracts. Have you actually READ the Burning Man contract to see what it says? If not, read your own complains regarding not knowing what you are talking about.
Just because the map is marked off for what it is 90% of the year does not make it so at all times. I went to college basically on BLM land and I can recall several events which were allowed to cordon off portions of it and we weren't allowed.
It is NOT public as they can and will eject you from the land if you don't have a ticket or brake the rules. They have law enforcement there to back them up on this. Or are they wrong too?
Except that part of the permit is that the land is temporarily changing hands, the terms of the contract determine what rights the BLM keeps.
Just like my landlord may own my apartment, but they have a very limited set of rights there. It is MY private space even legally.
The company I used to run had this... we reduced our rate for those willing to allow remote work because it allowed our costs to go down, but were happy to show up on site, have others put in passwords etc. I just made it clear when negotiating such contracts that the less control we had the less responsive we could be. Most were fine with one trade off or another.
This would not be a bad idea. The only way to make something secure is to make it cost more to take it than it's worth. This can be done with punitive regulations, high bar to steal, any factor which will make the risk vs reward equation come out negative.
The biggest problem with regulation, as in any industry, is who watches the watchers? If you are outsourcing your IT who ensures they are following the rules?
This is not completely true... we have a setup where data maintenance and system maintenance are separate due to encryption. The number of people who have the data decryption keys is much smaller than the number of people who have access to patch the system.
I realize this is rare, but if your concern is only data security this is an option.
I have never seen a liberal deny the need for rules, they deny the need for rules which only protect people from themselves or enforce a moral stance not everyone has.
A conservative on the other hand wishes to use rules to enforce his moral stance on everyone regardless of whether or not anyone else agrees with that stance.
Don't confuse Democrats for liberals or Republicans for conservatives either... neither one fits either bill.
Except that burning man expressly forbids drug use and WILL help the authorities find people who do anything illegal.
My apartment is leased... is it not private property?
I agree with this, point out you would be trusting a company with no stake in keeping your data private, and quite the opposite, with data YOU are required to keep private, and will be liable if you do not. There is no suing google when they loose it, read the EULA, but you will be sued for sure.
Any lawyer should understand this.
How do you maintain a backup with apps provides no means to do so on an enterprise level?
There are 3-4 AAs at my company, all of which have college degrees.
It's a requirement if you want to be a decently paid AA, that's why they don't call them secretaries any more :)
I've tried several and still prefer Belgian beer... I haven't been able to stand anything made in the US outside a single norwegian brewery in SF bay area, but then again that's sort of an import :)
California doesn't get along with the east coast either... can we split up the US too and save California from the Fed?
Same logic *shrugs*
This needs to be modded up :)
Job's health is absolutely his business and no one else's. Who cares if it's a publicly traded company. Did he agree he and his families lives would be an open book to shareholders by virtue of them investing a few dollars? NO.
His professional actions are absolutely subject to scrutiny, after all a public company does not work for it's customers, it works for it's shareholders. This is established, especially in the US. But read that carefully, his PROFESSIONAL actions. It ends there.
If shareholders view his absence as harming stock they are welcome to replace him, temporarily or permanently. That is their sole recourse. He has done his duty in saying "I cannot preform my function and thus take a leave of absence." but in the end he wasn't even required to tell them it was for medical reasons.
I have to agree here. Although I think it was unethical for them to expose him, so long as all information was obtained legitimately it is not and should not be illegal. If it was obtained illegally in any way then lock up the journalist who committed the crime and fine the newspaper.
Journalistic ethics should be enforced through money, laws are a different issue.
The days of journalists keeping the government in check and acting as the 4th estate I am afraid are long gone however, the papers are all owned by major corporate interests now, or don't have the money to pay a reporter to dig into a story for a few weeks to really do it right.
Or you could just find some way to watch sports that doesn't involve selling out to ESPN's idiocy.
If you reward them they will continue to fleece you.
Yet another reason to not use comcast
Sent them a nastygram... I would encourage everyone else to as well.
This is going to vary from country to country and their standards for evidence.
Fairly sure in the US if it was found illegally it falls under "Fruit of the poisonous tree" laws and can't be used, civil or criminal. There are some grey areas for licensed PIs where they seem to be able to do things cops can't but I am not sure on the details of that one. It would be the equivalent of breaking into someone's house and finding a stolen painting vs police knocking on the door and seeing it hanging there from the doorway. One is legal, one is not.
Now you could break in, see it, report it and have the police come look in exchange for immunity on the break-in charge :) Though why you would want to do that is beyond me.
Unfortunately the best he can do is make all the evidence inadmissible in court.
The police had a warrant, which at least in the US means signed by a judge. That is all the police need to be protected. The fact it was found to be faulty later means nothing they found can be used, and they have to give it back and say their sorry, but at the time of the activity it was perfectly legal. No recourse available.
The judge who signed it has been embarrassed, and the police annoyed, that is as much vindication as he can get at this point.
IMHO this is a case of checks and balances in the system working. Sure they should have worked sooner, but they did work.
Yes, this is a real danger. Most people only care about a war if they see a cost, usually in lives, and under no circumstances should war be without cost.
When war has a drawback people avoid it, they are hesitant to participate and it doesn't last very long. This is desirable.
This is why I think any president who declares war should be forced to serve along side troops. So long as he thinks it's worth while for him to be there, so should the troops be. If he isn't willing to put himself in danger for whatever cause, it's obviously not important enough to kill people over.
One of my favorite lines from The Postman "Wouldn't it be nice if wars were fought by the assholes that started them."
They do... who do you think makes all the parts for US robots.
If we ever go to war with China we are SCREWED... no replacement parts :)
Unless we start making them in mexico...