claiming something doesn't make it false -- in this case it would be true.

However, the gear isn't theirs -- as I originally pointed out, it's the company's, which is why it is being respected as the company's gear, and is being reimaged to be in compliance with company policy.

However, this doesn't work as well with BYOD, which is increasingly common. In those cases, you need other ways of fencing off company data from personal data.

Ah; but 1) I don't stand on the female golfer at all
and 2) I *can* have it both ways, as these things are open to context and interpretation.

Since there's really nothing differentiating a male golfer from a female golfer other than gender, I see no problem with her joining. On the other hand, there's lots of other clubs she could have joined.

So I'm on both sides, and feel that they should have been able to amicably work it out between them instead of bringing it to court. There are always exceptions to the rules.

The point here is that in order to sell new games, they would need to advance the progress of science and the useful arts. That's what copyright is all about.

A new game that's like an old game, but can run on different hardware, with slightly improved graphics, slightly improved sound, and in-game purchases, does not advance the progress of science and the useful arts.

Basically, history shows that people are willing to pay for products that achieve what copyright sets out to achieve. People tend to find alternate ways of preserving their societal history when copyright is used as a means of artificial monopoly for the sake of holding our social heritage hostage.

This one's easy: Nintendo still sells games. They're afraid that if people start playing conversions of their old games (or even just start watching videos of other people playing old games), they'll have no incentive to go out and by their newer games/consoles.

The reality probably includes that, but also includes the fact that since IP goes so deep, any Nintendo games are likely to include IP licensed from others, with specific contract details outlining how the IP can be used. If some third party starts duplicating/redistributing this IP, things get messy.

Not the way it *should* be, but it's the way it *is*. Shortening copyright to 14 years for digital works would fix a lot of this.

I think you've just proven that it's good advice in the UK too -- because if the email is personal rather than business, you will be in a lot of trouble via the privacy act if you let those personal emails fall into the hands of the co-workers of the individual who left. So you MUST back up everything (without looking at it to see what's personal and what isn't) and MUST then clear out all the personal email before allowing other co-workers to look at the archive. Failure to do either is a criminal offense in the UK.

You summed this up nicely -- including my propensity to use closely matched mnemonic clauses :) I almost switched from "on the company time" to "the company's business" but it sounded clunky, and I figured everyone already knew what I was talking about and just needed a friendly reminder.

Obviously at least one person needed it spelled out in more detail :)

Security is already done or not when the notice goes in... but shutting off access, as the GP pointed out, is done as a simulated test environment. Basically, it's a "What would things be like if he wasn't here?" while he's still around to help out if it turns out something was missed. The alternative is assuming that everyone has a perfect memory and that all systems have been adjusted appropriately, all project migrated properly, and no further questions need to be asked (in which case, why not give him 2 weeks paid vacation, if he isn't needed anymore?).

And beyond this... if it's on the company computer, it's on the company's time, and is the company's business. A lot of people forget this and use company systems for personal stuff, but it's still company data, and has been proven to be so in court.

So yeah; back up everything now, and then provide a sanitized version for others to look through as need arises.

The truth is, even if there's something critical in the backup, it's likely that nobody will ever know its there and so have reason to go looking for it. But CYA is always important for IT.

Yeah; it's really about developmental psychology (feed your kids well while their brains are forming, and they'll work better), but the discussion will devolve into head size jokes before you know it.

My skies are already filled with drones. Who needs flying cars when the drones can bring you everything you need?

http://store.apple.com/us/brow...

Now that that's out of the way... I've got devices from 2009. I can't find any way to even trade them in.

Back in 2011, I had an iOS device failure out of warranty, and I got a $50 value for bringing in the back cover of my previous device. Didn't need to bring in the rest, just the back cover, and I got $50 off the replacement. This probably kept me from going with an Android device at the time, and now I'm locked into the iOS App walled garden.

So not sure about how they've adjusted the program now, but the old way definitely has affected my buying decisions.

Well why not automate the process? SCIgen should just subscribe to the SciDetect source repo, and auto-update its copy when the trunk updates. SciDetect should then subscribe to the SCIgen source repo, and ensure that it detects any newly missed sets.

Leave this system alone for a while, and we won't need to write articles anymore, as SCIgen should do a better job of producing insightful but unintelligible drivel than you'd get from any peer-reviewed journal -- and it would detect itself to boot!

Whoosh?