If they are part of the chain of custody of the evidence, would they not be compelled to testify if called by the defense? I am not a lawyer, but I would think if they could not testify regarding their collection of the evidence, then the evidence would be inadmissible.
Can't wait for everyone at the office to start openly screaming at their computers.
I don't think that the possibility of being publicly humiliated because you made an error in judgment makes people more interested in contributing to the project.
And that may be the point. He doesn't want more contributions from lower-skilled engineers. He wants contributions from only the best ones. Quality over quantity.
This won't work if the goal is a life insurance payout for their family.
Every piece of software that runs in Ring 0 has that level of access. Anti-virus engines have to run with that level of access in order to do their job. There was nothing in the sales pitch regarding granting them access to our systems. It's obvious that anti-virus software is going to have some ability to update itself to stay current. Nobody batted an eye when traditional AV downloaded daily virus definitions. Nobody complained about granting them "that level of access" to the machines to write their definition files to disk.
So, what do you do to ensure that your company is safe from malware without using software that runs in kernel space?
We're a smallish company (350 or so employees) with way too small of an IT team. As the senior IT engineer at my company, I'm one of the idiots responsible for choosing that vendor in the first place. I'm disinclined to want to fire myself.
The part of the design in question was not known to us. We were all surprised that our N-1 policy could be bypassed by the channel files. We didn't even know those files existed.
We could get angry and switch to a different vendor, but their software probably also contains some stupid design choices that are unknown to us until it causes some disruption. At least CrowdStrike is taking steps to correct this part of their design.
Customers, in turn, installed those patches without testing them before letting them be installed on their system.
Yes, CrowdStrike made an error, but without the users just blindly accepting vendor updates without any oversight or testing is also an error.
Why are we permitting system admins to shirk their responsibilities and just allow any random update from a vendor into their systems?
This was not a patch. It was a channel file which we have absolutely no control over. We can choose to stay on N-1 or N-2 for the sensor updates (which we do) but the channel files get pushed out no matter what. This is by design.
Transactional emails (invoices, order acknowledgments, tracking info, etc) do not require an unsubscribe. Human to human direct emails also do not.
So, I would not consider the lack of an unsubscribe link as any kind of indicator.
Exactly. Now every group going to have multiple competing names.
Epicor's Kinetic ERP still has on-prem as an option. They do heavily push towards their cloud offering (which is the same code base), but they have found too many of their customers resist going to the cloud for them to try to make it mandatory.
The framers expected their Constitution to prevent the formation of factions in Congress...
I think the opposite is true. They expected a "multiplicity of sects" to protect liberty. Meaning that there would be so many factions that, as James Madison put it, "For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."
They quickly realized this wasn't happening, however. So, I think you're largely right about the rest. I think the main problem with the filibuster today is the current version of the rules removed the need to actually hold the floor and keep talking during the filibuster. The actual work involved in holding a filibuster is so low that it is easy to abuse. Restore the need to do actual work to hold up a bill and Senators will be less inclined to use it.
Publicly traded companies are always on the market.
I don't think he will actually try to walk away from the deal. He's probably just trying to get a lower price and/or embarrass the board.
A better analogy would be if you wrote a book. Then I wrote a book with a different book title, but used all the same chapter titles that you did. Except the actual content of each chapter is different from yours.
Oracle is basically saying that writing a book with the same chapter titles is copyright infringement.
The content providers are paying for their bandwidth. The users are paying for their bandwidth. And who is paying the networks in between the two?
The Internet is not this vast unlimited resource of bandwidth that only the edge users have to pay to get on. ISPs also have to pay their Tier 2 or Tier 1 providers for the bandwidth that enters and leaves their network.
Entering into peering agreements directly with the content providers' CDNs is a valid approach to solving this problem without penalizing everyone else in the process. But this seems to make everyone lose their minds.
Maybe I'll give it another try, but last time I played with it none of those plugins worked for me, and the interface was not simple enough. I want to give her a remote that only has arrow buttons, enter, and back.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first teach BASIC.
