The article says he is irreplacable, and that about 17% of Australian women are at risk for the condition his blood helps to correct. Is there a backup plan for how to handle that many at-risk pregnancies when Mr. Harrison can no longer donate?
The article mentions a $250 cheek swab test for breast cancer risk. These tests are being sold to all sorts of doctors, and interpretation is included. Is this test more or less accurate than blood testing done for a BRCAplus panel done by a geneticist? Are *all* genetic test results prone to this kind of error in interpretation, or just the cheap commodity ones? Which ones are better? Is the test itself inaccurate, the interpretation, or both? Vague article is vague. Scaring people without actionable data is irresponsible and cruel, especially when we're talking about people who are concerned enough about these cancers to have sought out testing for risk.
Yes, I did read that part. I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to a buy a license of his own for this software. If he's not directly competing with his employer, then he might be able to develop some add-ons that don't collide with his employer's business. I agree with you entirely about what will probably happen if OP starts selling company code from his day job.
IANAL. If you really want to explore this, though, you should get one. Your employer is paying for you to code on company time. It is reasonable to expect that anything you develop on company time becomes the property of the people who have paid you for that time, especially if you are using company resources to do so. Why not develop your own projects at home on your own time? There's much less room for a theft argument if you use your laptop, your internet, your tools and your time.
I know very few people who are buying an extra vehicle for the first time, but I know multiple families that have kept a second car for years. The second car gets traded in and replaced just like the primary vehicle.
The NSA's data centers will record everything we need.
Law enforcement has access to this information *anyway* via the phone company. Many, probably most carriers are complying with warrantless wiretaps *anyway* - Verizon and ATT are known to do so. Is it really that goddamn hard for the police to ask for this data? And why does the FBI need to hide this?
I've been hearing through the rumor mill for a while that Verizon actually *wants* to sell a curated internet experience. I can't say if it's true or not, but lawsuits over content would be a really fast way to make that a reality.
Time Warner is famous for this kind of thing in other cities too. I'm glad someone decided to sue.
Couldn't the criminal just hit you with the gun?
How and why? There are no specifics, only scary words.
I can't understand what this is actually about from reading TFA, or TFA links. What am I supposed to be angry about?
While details are not available, the FBI totally promises that everything was legit.