FTFY. Commercial research, as you pointed out further down, includes product development. (Of course, it also includes developing things that help you develop the products as well.) Xerox PARC was/is funded by the sale of copy machines. It isn't unreasonable to require researchers to focus on developing products that help fund more research.

You shouldn't expect Xerox to fund projects that are solely designed to learn something new. Sometimes they will and that is great, but at the end of the day, the responsibility for funding high-risk research (the research that commercial labs often build upon) rests solely on the government.

I think the question implied "on an original Windows install." In that case the proper answer is to fall off your chair laughing.

You understand it incorrectly. Passing the state bar exam is one barrier to entry (a VERY DIFFICULT barrier), but you also have to pass the MPRE (an ethics exam), possibly take an additional ethics course (if you're in New York, like I am) and finally, submit an application to the court for admission. The application is very thorough - I just sent mine in and had to include reference letters from every attorney I ever worked with and had to list every job and residence I've had for the last ten-odd years. Here's a link to the packet, if you want to look it over. After you have submitted the packet, you get grilled by the character and fitness committee and then, if you make it through that step, you become a lawyer.

I believe that the original poster isn't a great journalist. (Did you see how I qualified that?) He or she didn't bring up the fact that after creating websites like obsidianfinancesucks.com, she offered her services to Obsidian to clear up their "PR Problem" at $2,500 a month. That seems like an important fact that someone might need to shape his or her opinion on the ruling. As I understand the judge's ruling, it doesn't bar all bloggers from being considered journalists, just this one and even then, only as it applies to this case.

I'll go on record with a preemptory "what he/she said" to include all of the previous comments. This is one of those things that nearly every slash dotter has to do at one point or another and in my experience, you'll have to deal with at least one of three bottlenecks: time, money, or bandwidth.

If you are doing this to several hundred machines, sneaker net is likely a faster solution than your network. Take advantage of the higher bandwidth and save the backup images to a portable USB drive. With a large enough drive you can also keep the new image local as well. Using this method you can boot into Your Favorite Backup Solution, take the backup, securely erase the disk, and write the new image in one fell swoop. After the imaging is complete collect your various USB drives and march them back to the server.

With large enough USB disks, you could repeat this process several times before off-loading the images to your server.

There is a back tick key. If you hold your finger on the single quote button, you get a selection of four quote-like characters: ', ’,‘, and `. I'm not saying your network filter didn't work, it just kept people off who don't know how to use their idevices. (Sent from my iPhone, of course.)

If memory serves, there was a CarAnalogyGuy somewhere in that lineage as well.

Getting nine lawyers to agree on anything, much less an interpretation of the Constitution, is a self-defeating premise.

I can't speak for the author, but I think he meant "touch screen" and not just "touch." Steve Jobs (among others) have criticized touch screen desktops because of the "gorilla arm" problem. FWIW, I use a magic trackpad at work and it's good for gesturing - especially if you are already used to it, coming off a laptop or tablet.

I'm not sure how it is done where you work, but this information - location and usage - is not anonymized when you order it from the carriers with a subpoena (at least in New York). In our office, we use this data all the time to defend against auto accident litigants. (Hint: The plaintiff always swears he was not on the phone at the time of the accident.) Regardless, the stuff we get is never anonymized.

I stand corrected.

Can someone explain to me why the company's CEO should be responsible for his employee wrongfully sharing his password? Disregarding the specific employee's fate for a moment (the link is dead at this time), how is "sic[ing] the Feds" an inappropriate response for someone who illegally penetrated their network?

Summary: Man penetrates corporate network with hot credentials, man copies software from illegally penetrated network, man complains when law enforcement gets involved.

Private citizens cannot file antitrust suits.

Insert comment about the quality of free slashdot submissions and obligatory lawn reference.

Yes, it was. In fact, at least one slashdotter was nearby when the bomb went off.

Maybe this will lead to new standards (or maybe, they'll pay better attention to the old ones) but those standards exist to protect people. The GP was right - the summary could have been a little more helpful in describing the extent of the tragedy.

Google's approach did not involve breaking and entering. Google didn't plug in rogue devices on secured networks, engage in spoofing, unauthorized network access, evade physical security (kudos for masking your face with a bike helmet) and voluntarily circumvent security measures designed to protect the network after admins found him. Google DID scan a bunch of books and they subsequently settled with the copyright holders. Google certainly put themselves on the hook for civil penalties and in the process pissed off a bunch of authors, but they didn't do any of the above.

So to answer your question, this is nothing like what Google did.

That's a more or less correct reading, based upon your exposure. However, there would be no chain of custody here because it went from the defendants, to a third party (Lulzsec) and then (presumably) to the authorities. (Proper chain of custody would be something like: scene of the crime -> lab technician -> detective -> prosecutor.) Instead, a prosecutor can take these emails along with additional evidence to get a warrant for the originals, thereby getting a "clean" set of evidence. The clean set would be admissible and likely devastating at trial.

What about my industry? I'm a lawyer, you insensitive clod!