It is simply what all software companies want. A subscription based platform where they can nickle and dime you to death. And you know what? It works. Just look at the thousands of apps for phones that do just that with recurring charges. I have a crap ton of apps on my Nokia (yeah, I know but it works for what I need it to do) that are subscription based. Worse, they are considered a part of the system and cannot be removed. So yeah, a sucker and his money are soon parted.

As I said in a previous post, the reason for the single source was the fact that WV has an existing contract with Cisco and instead of going the proper route of purchasing, a very, very painful and dreadfully long process, they simply used the existing contract route. It was improper bidding but it was bid out at one point. The real problem is with the purchasing division here in WV making the entire process something that people want to avoid. Agencies actively seek ways to avoid having their contracts tied up in purchasing red tape for months and even years. Even the former governor Joe Manchin got caught stringing contracts to avoid the limit required to trigger the purchasing rules (Then it was $10,000.00).

For those that don't know, stringing is the process of breaking down large dollar contracts down below the limit required by law for the bidding process. So a $50,000.00 contract would be split into 6 with each being below $10,000 which means no bids were required. They would then be awarded to the contractor one after the other until the true agreed upon amount has been reached. It is skirting the law that was done to keep it out of purchasing. It is the WV purchasing process that is mostly at fault. It shouldn't be that difficult or take as long as it does to get a job done or equipment procured. But here in WV it does!

Disclaimer: I work in the office where this occurred although NOT a part of this mess...

Having said that, if anyone has ever tried to work with the WV purchasing division you come to realize they practice real hard to rise to a level of incompetency the likes of which would make a pinhead blush. This isn't the first time officials have tried to "get around" them. Joe Manchin himself used a practice called stringing to avoid using them when he was governor. Projects languish over there for years meanwhile the clock is ticking on the funds available. I have had a contract sit there for 18 months with no end in sight.

I am not trying to excuse what was done simply trying to get others to see a broken system in this state. When you make things so difficult to work with of course people try to find a way a way around it. That is human nature. This incident has less to do with any sort of corruption (although some did exist in the Cisco sales rep and his representations) than it had to do with trying to meet the conditions of the grant quickly which was one of the conditions itself. Remember, stimulus funds were supposed to be used for "shovel ready" projects. Few states met that requirement....

There is no law in the United States which generally prohibits storage and processing of medical information. It does not apply to you or to a company making security devices.

You know, that is the funny thing about laws.... They can and often do change. I believe all biometrics stored electronically should have the protections of HIPPA. So much can be learned from them that if they fall into the wrong hands can be just as devastating as if a hospital released all your files. Things like this scanner that can detect hemoglobin states is one example of the technology going in a scary direction. What's next, one that detects blood sugar level or cholesterol levels?

One can agree or disagree with Apple's infringement claims, but the analogy with SCO is unfounded.

How so? They both are using the courts to try and extort money out of their competitors. They both are using flimsy excuses to do the extortion. How are they different? Oh, I see, because Apple continues to manufacture something they are no longer considered trolls... Anyone who uses the legal system as a club to extort money using legal trickery is a troll in my eyes even if they were bloody Mother Theresa otherwise.

And it would serve Apple right if Samsung refused to renew any contracts with them to supply their technology to Apple. It would also serve Apple right if Samsung ended any license Apple may hold for for the use of any of Samsung's patented technology. Good luck building that iPhone without a screen...

But what Musk does not describe is how the test vehicles are picked to begin with. It wouldn't be the first time a manufacturer rigged a test for a favorable review. I remember quite a few years ago some video card manufacturers got caught rigging their chipsets to detect when they were being tested and report better numbers. Just the simple fact that he states they rig the cars they give to reporters is enough to question the whole test from the start in my eyes.

Or getting married, having children, owning or renting a house or any other thing society requires for living in its world.

ftfy

Having a house, a baby, a spouse, Social Security, or any other form of government interaction. It is all public record and "in the Database" as you put it.

Another fun thing - make some accounts with variations of your name, close but not exact, then post the passwords in forums and let random people take them where you want. Remember, you're not interested in reputation - you're interested in bad data.

Yea, that is one way to quickly become a blonde, bald, hermaphrodite with serious mental illness bent on world domination. That should trigger the DHS watchlist developers scouring the net for their next target.

To add insult to injury, the power companies in my state are 100% private companies. So here we go bailing out private companies using tax payer money to fix a problem cause by their short sightedness. This again is a failure of capitalism or should I say another success of private industry externalizing the risk and privatizing the profits. I say fuck 'em. Let them use their profits to fix this problem they created.

And there is a very high cost to having a Walmart in your town. Low wages, no or poor health benefits shifting the costs to the taxpayer along with the massive tax incentives they receive that other local businesses can't get drive local businesses out of business. Whole towns have been decimated economically by a Walmart moving in. And when they become the only employer a town has, that town will always be at the mercy of Walmart.

Might I suggest the following for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jazb24Q2s94

No, it is unspecified because they left the award amount up to the court. It happens on every suit I have seen. "We ask for relief as the court deems equitable."

It is a moot point in my state at least since teachers aren't salaried. So this whole salaried vs non-salaried argument is not going to be an issue in my state should they follow suit.

Nobody has answered the main thrust of my post though...

Where is the incentive to come up with new ideas and material when those ideas and material are going to be taken from you without compensation above what you would have gotten anyway? That is a question that remains whether the person is salaried or not.

I can see a K-12 school system asking teachers to assign copyrights to creative works that are relevant to their jobs, but not to things that are irrelevant. A 2nd grade teacher who does art work that isn't related to teaching 2nd graders shouldn't have to quit her job to keep the copyrights on her paintings. On the other hand, it is reasonable to tell new-hire or renewing-contract teacher who creates worksheets for use in the classroom that things she creates in the future will belong to the district.

And just how is that promoting anything school related off the clock? Many teachers spend hours off the clock developing innovative ways to teach their subjects. Often times their work load is such that they can't possibly complete their tasks without the extra hours. I see silly things like this rule stifling creative thinking more than promoting it.

1) While that is a legit concern, I don't see how it's a "privacy" violation. It's not you, so how is your privacy being affected? Also, you can remove auto-tags. Not to mention, accidental tags (or maliciously/jokingly incorrect tags) were possible years before, with or without auto-tagging.

Privacy may be incorrect but reputation certainly isn't given that potential employers are increasingly using the damned thing for evaluation purposes. And you can only remove the tags IF you have an account and are aware of the tag.

2) The issue of auto-tagging has literally nothing to do with using your photo for commercial purposes.

It has everything to do with commercial purposes. You are forgetting that FB is nothing more than a data warehouse that they use to aggregate then sell to advertisers. If tagging allows them to combine you with someone else that is valuable data whether you are on FB or not.

3) + 4): I don't see how these concerns are even about Facebook, let alone auto-tagging (to which they're not even tangentially related). Does it also upset you that people can publish your name or photos in a blog without your permission? I never opted in to Google but searching me by name turns up all sorts of things about me that I didn't explicitly approve. Why is this not an outrage?

It is an outrage and Google does provide a means of "removing" yourself from their searches unlike FB. Once you are tagged, bagged on FB there is no way to get unassociated from their data aggregation. Everything from your political views to favorite color is evaluated, cataloged and stored forever for later re-evaluation for its potential to make FB money. That, after all, is why they exist.