After a five minute discussion the principal will be apologizing to the student and his family.
There is disagreement over that.
"The new deterrence research has been discussed favorably and uncritically by national news outlets and has been declared persuasive in leading academic journals and by prominent scholars and jurists. Legal academics, such as Professors Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, both of the University of Chicago, find the new deterrence evidence "powerful" and "impressive." They couple it with "many decades of reliable data about [capital punishment's] deterrent effects" as the "foundation" of their argument, which holds that since "capital punishment powerfully deters killings," there is a moral imperative to aggressively prosecute capital crimes. Prof. Becker concurs, finding the evidence "persuasive," while Judge Richard Posner brushes aside worries about the possible execution of the innocent as we ramp up executions to achieve even greater deterrent effects. Twice, authors of some of the articles have appeared before the U.S. Congress, stating the case for deterrence."
Because it's never been an issue before.
Great line from Sneakers!
"90 days is really long."
It's short when fixing vulns in an OS and delivering a real product.
90 days is not a lot of time.
"Google doesn't care about Microsoft's internal BS. Why should it?"
Because releasing that data two days before Microsoft releases a fix makes the world less secure, not more secure. The point of doing that security research is to make the world more secure, then Google does stupid shit and does the opposite.
But if you're sitting in your car with the doors closed talking on that phone you do have an expectation of privacy. How in the hell would the device be able to distinguish between the two?
Yes, that's overly simplistic.
Sure, it's great to drive the a good bargain with your suppliers. But, when you drive your suppliers out of business, particularly a sole supplier, maybe it's better to let them make a little money too.
Some just don't know it...
... it will never happen with a Republican Congress.
If the company doesn't insist on a license agreement then walk away. Any lawyer worth his weight in rice would insist on a license agreement. If the company can't get that right all on their own they don't know enough about intellectual property to work with.
"They ONLY other option was to become IBM and that's to simply run around BUYING other companies."
That was Symantec for most of the last ten years.
He likely will be the CEO once the split is complete.