> That's the key behind defensive patents. Other companies won't want to sue you for patent infringement, because they know that you can respond in kind.
That works till RedHat falls into the wrong hands. If it goes titsup in a bad economy and the receivers sell off its assets to the patent trolls all bets are off.
> In the case of a private key, the immunity is extended only to the content of the key itself.
Nope, thats far too narrow.
If you are given immunity it will be transactional immunity or Use immunity.
Transactional means the testimony and any evidence obtained via the testimony can't be uses in THIS proceeding.
Use immunity means it can be used against you at ALL for any future proceedings.
It has never been suggested (except by you) that the actual digits of the key are the only thing immunized, thats just totally bogus. Immunity covers the actual testimony and any evidence derived or developed from that testimony.
> Scientific studies at Cambridge showed that the oak panel on which the Cobbe portrait was mounted came from trees felled in the last 20 years of the 16th century, pointing to a date for the painting in the early 1600s."
Big deal. Go find any church being torn down and you can find really old timbers, pews, rafters, tables, etc.
Its not hard to get old wood, especially since the advent of Viagra.
> I don't think the 5th protects you from being compelled to give testimony that might damage your civil case!
The fifth only applies in criminal cases. However, if you are forced to testify in a civil case and thereby lay the groundwork for a follow-on criminal case (fraud, say) you can demand a "use immunity" hearing, preventing any use of the testimony or related evidence derived there from in subsequent criminal cases.
Criminal cases usually go to trial first in the US, precisely because the state does not want the evidence spoiled by blurting it out in a civil case with or without a use immunity.
In Canada, it appears that there are even stronger protections. You could confess to murder in traffic court and maybe get away with it. At least that's how I read it, but again IANAL.
Yes, there are a FEW places that do not have track. This was not always the case. 60 years ago there was no such thing as long haul trucking. Only short haul for those small locations beyond the end of the track.
There is simply no excuse for the solid line of truck running across the US from one coast to the other. Go for a drive on an east-west route like I90, 94, 80, 40, or 10 midweek. Its wall to wall trucks. Each pulling one van. Many, if not most of those vans are containers that could just as well be on the train.
Intermodal can do this job. It did this job up to about the 60s when the interstate opened up.
Trucks have largely destroyed our interstate system. Beat it to rubble. Your claim to convince is subsidized heavily by my tax dollars.
But coal fired plants are being scrubber equipped an breakneck speed. (New deadlines passed a couple years ago).
I believe this includes scrubbing for mercury. In fact, those EAP estimates of 104 metric tons released were made in support of the legislation requiring scrubbers.
Yet Coal plants still get tagged with this Mercury estimate even after the scrubbers are in place. Whats up with that.
I find it odd you didn't even mention the clean up procedure mentioned in the document you quotes.
Step 1: Evacuate the area....
Really, you can't have it both ways. CFLs can't be less of a threat than an incandescent bulb AND require an evacuation followed by airing out the room for 15 minutes followed by a scrub down and containment of the cleanup materials.
If it were as cut and dried as you seem to suggest they would simply subpeona the pages.
Instead they are asking him to testify about those pages.
Maybe because Facebook is located in the US, or maybe because they already hacked in and know what was there but by doing so they committed a crime, or maybe because the pages are already taken down and all they have is hear-say as to their content.
But by forcing the guy to testify they are going for self incrimination, and THAT is the wrinkle that makes this case interesting to US audiences, who find this odd without reading the article closely enough to realize its Canada.
Civil or not, if it were in the US you can still plead the 5th.
After all if the content of said pages reveals that his enjoyment of life was in fine fettle after the incident, then he is committing fraud/perjury with his claim.
Did you see the Goldmans successfully force OJ to produce the knife?
1) its in Canada, not the US. So grandstanding post of FRCP means nothing.
2) Nothing is being subpoenaed. He is being asked to testify about what he had in his pages, not to produce those pages.
I don't know if Canada has the equivalent of the 5Th amendment, but this tactic would never work in the US. They can go for the originals and subpeona facebook, but you can't make the man testify against himself.
In Canada, it appears that he CAN be made to testify against himself.
In the USA for example a court can compel you to provide a decryption key, failure to do so resulting in contempt of court charges.
I don't believe you have that part exactly correct.
The only case I am aware of involved Border searches of a laptop, where the suspect cooperated and volunteered SOME information but balked at providing the decryption key.
Once you waive your right to refuse self incrimination you can not un waive it for certain acts only.
When asked what's on your lap top the best answer is to simply plead the 5th and refuse to answer anything more. Don't show your soft porn and then expect to hold back the good stuff.
IANAL, but that is essentially what I read in the MSM on this issue.
If you post it online, you should assume anyone can see it. None of these minor protections like "friends only" are any sort of serious impediment.
Apparently in this case the impediment is sufficient to force the vic to answer questions under oath.
I suspect cross-boarder issues prevents the Canadian court from simply getting a warrant for Facebook to produce the page, or they suspect the pages in question may be already taken down.
If the loss of enjoyment of life refers to what we all suspect it refers to, and the "vic" brags about banging every hot bod in town to his private friends it goes directly to credibility, and possible perjury.
The private pages are not necessarily the same as the public facade pages. The public pages amount to public statements.
The private pages amount to a private discussion in the lobby of a hotel with friends.
If they differer the vic has a problem.
Far too many people jump into the meat market of web 2.0 thinking it will make the cool, relevant, and part of the in crowd.
There have been a number of ads by IBM lately pushing the idea that their new line of computers is needed to redesign the nation's electrical grid, claiming that half the power never makes it to any light bulb.
In other areas power companies will actually buy you the new CCFL bulbs if you pay the tax on the bulb.
The push for efficiency is long over-due.
But realistically, will the replacement of a an entire power grid really save more than it costs? Is it really necessary?
Wouldn't more energy be saved by taxing long haul trucking out of existence and putting the money into a resurgence of rail freight?
Realistically, the NT kernel has something like a 1% overhead, if that, especially for CPUs other than the primary. User-mode applications can cheerfully use 100% of each core, the kernel will not get in the way,
That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen on Slashdot all month.
You think just because task manager doesn't show you kernel time that its not doing anything?
Go back ad read the rest of the article.
Until Vista and Win7, Even Microsoft admitted that Windows was a poor platform for multiprocessor utilization. This was largely due to spinlocks.
Windows 7 is way better than Vista in this regard, and Vista is better than XP/2k. Win7 is expected to scale to 256x without wasting too much resources.
> Other drives made on the same line on the same day are likely to have the same manufacturing defect.
So what? They still won't fail at the same time.
I have had dozens of consecutively serial numbered drives in production in various raid farms over the years and never has two drives fail at the exact same time.
Often within several weeks of each other, but never in the same day or same week.
You think there is a built in Clock in these things with fail date pre-scheduled?
The myth of synchronized failure just doesn't exist out side of lightning strikes or similar power or fire related incidents.
> 'So Novell, one of the biggest Linux > distributors in the world, and Microsoft, one of > the biggest companies in world history, couldn't > find a single large customer on Planet Earth to > buy into Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server > software.
Why can't you simply cut and paste instead of putting your own lying slant on things?
You Imply Novell never signed any SLES customers, which is not true.
The actual article stated:
"During the first quarter of fiscal 2009, we did not sign any large deals, many of which have been historically fulfilled by SUSE Linux Enterprise Server ("SLES") certificates delivered through Microsoft."
So Microsoft didn't even try to sell these certificates for SLES. Novell still sold SLES, probably to the very same customers that send Microsoft packing.
How hard do you suppose Microsoft tried to sell these certificates?
Except he would need another drive to achieve the same storage.
Raid10 = 1/2 N * Size. Raid5 = N-1 * Size.
Two drives failing before you can replace the first failure is fairly unlikely. The fact that they more than likely bought all the drives at the same time increases the odds that they will fail reasonably close to each other in time.
But having Two drives failing before you have time to replace the first failure is fairly unlikely.
Perhaps there is some limitations that creep in with drive sizes and controller configuration.
His 3Ware controller should be able to handle all those drives, but I wager he us using some headers on the mobo for the raid1 arrays. The 3ware is not all that fast either, and it may have been pointless to put his raptors on that controller.
You can bench it yourself. With Windows, doubling the processors gives about 1.4 times a single processor's performance.
With almost any flavor of nix, its much closer to 1.9. With some kernel options in linux its even higher.
Adding processors beyond 2, the return diminishes, but much more quickly on Windows than Linux.
Microsoft has continually been spinning the story that they scale well into huge processor/core counts but in every instance comparative tests show that they don't.
I thought they had made progress on this front. But when benching 2008 Server against OpenSuse on a quad core machine I was blown away by the difference. And further tests reveal that Windows 7, running two cores outperforms Vist ultimate running 4 cores.
You can't handwave this away by reading Microsoft fud papers.
Slashdot Mirror
> That's the key behind defensive patents. Other companies won't want to sue you for patent infringement, because they know that you can respond in kind.
That works till RedHat falls into the wrong hands. If it goes titsup in a bad economy and the receivers sell off its assets to the patent trolls all bets are off.
> In the case of a private key, the immunity is extended only to the content of the key itself.
Nope, thats far too narrow.
If you are given immunity it will be transactional immunity or Use immunity.
Transactional means the testimony and any evidence obtained via the testimony can't be uses in THIS proceeding.
Use immunity means it can be used against you at ALL for any future proceedings.
It has never been suggested (except by you) that the actual digits of the key are the only thing immunized, thats just totally bogus. Immunity covers the actual testimony and any evidence derived or developed from that testimony.
> Scientific studies at Cambridge showed that the oak panel on which the Cobbe portrait was mounted came from trees felled in the last 20 years of the 16th century, pointing to a date for the painting in the early 1600s."
Big deal. Go find any church being torn down and you can find really old timbers, pews, rafters, tables, etc.
Its not hard to get old wood, especially since the advent of Viagra.
> I don't think the 5th protects you from being compelled to give testimony that might damage your civil case!
The fifth only applies in criminal cases. However, if you are forced to testify in a civil case and thereby lay the groundwork for a follow-on criminal case (fraud, say) you can demand a "use immunity" hearing, preventing any use of the testimony or related evidence derived there from in subsequent criminal cases.
Criminal cases usually go to trial first in the US, precisely because the state does not want the evidence spoiled by blurting it out in a civil case with or without a use immunity.
In Canada, it appears that there are even stronger protections. You could confess to murder in traffic court and maybe get away with it. At least that's how I read it, but again IANAL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_13_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms
Yes, there are a FEW places that do not have track. This was not always the case. 60 years ago there was no such thing as long haul trucking. Only short haul for those small locations beyond the end of the track.
There is simply no excuse for the solid line of truck running across the US from one coast to the other. Go for a drive on an east-west route like I90, 94, 80, 40, or 10 midweek. Its wall to wall trucks. Each pulling one van. Many, if not most of those vans are containers that could just as well be on the train.
Intermodal can do this job. It did this job up to about the 60s when the interstate opened up.
Trucks have largely destroyed our interstate system. Beat it to rubble. Your claim to convince is subsidized heavily by my tax dollars.
Put that stuff on the train.
But coal fired plants are being scrubber equipped an breakneck speed. (New deadlines passed a couple years ago).
I believe this includes scrubbing for mercury. In fact, those EAP estimates of 104 metric tons released were made in support of the legislation requiring scrubbers.
Yet Coal plants still get tagged with this Mercury estimate even after the scrubbers are in place. Whats up with that.
I find it odd you didn't even mention the clean up procedure mentioned in the document you quotes.
Step 1: Evacuate the area....
Really, you can't have it both ways. CFLs can't be less of a threat than an incandescent bulb AND require an evacuation followed by airing out the room for 15 minutes followed by a scrub down and containment of the cleanup materials.
If it were as cut and dried as you seem to suggest they would simply subpeona the pages.
Instead they are asking him to testify about those pages.
Maybe because Facebook is located in the US, or maybe because they already hacked in and know what was there but by doing so they committed a crime, or maybe because the pages are already taken down and all they have is hear-say as to their content.
But by forcing the guy to testify they are going for self incrimination, and THAT is the wrinkle that makes this case interesting to US audiences, who find this odd without reading the article closely enough to realize its Canada.
Civil or not, if it were in the US you can still plead the 5th.
After all if the content of said pages reveals that his enjoyment of life was in fine fettle after the incident, then he is committing fraud/perjury with his claim.
Did you see the Goldmans successfully force OJ to produce the knife?
Did you read the story, or even the summary?
1) its in Canada, not the US. So grandstanding post of FRCP means nothing.
2) Nothing is being subpoenaed. He is being asked to testify about what he had in his pages, not to produce those pages.
I don't know if Canada has the equivalent of the 5Th amendment, but this tactic would never work in the US. They can go for the originals and subpeona facebook, but you can't make the man testify against himself.
In Canada, it appears that he CAN be made to testify against himself.
In the USA for example a court can compel you to provide a decryption key, failure to do so resulting in contempt of court charges.
I don't believe you have that part exactly correct.
The only case I am aware of involved Border searches of a laptop, where the suspect cooperated and volunteered SOME information but balked at providing the decryption key.
Once you waive your right to refuse self incrimination you can not un waive it for certain acts only.
When asked what's on your lap top the best answer is to simply plead the 5th and refuse to answer anything more. Don't show your soft porn and then expect to hold back the good stuff.
IANAL, but that is essentially what I read in the MSM on this issue.
If you post it online, you should assume anyone can see it. None of these minor protections like "friends only" are any sort of serious impediment.
Apparently in this case the impediment is sufficient to force the vic to answer questions under oath.
I suspect cross-boarder issues prevents the Canadian court from simply getting a warrant for Facebook to produce the page, or they suspect the pages in question may be already taken down.
Well said. But bear in mind:
If the loss of enjoyment of life refers to what we all suspect it refers to, and the "vic" brags about banging every hot bod in town to his private friends it goes directly to credibility, and possible perjury.
The private pages are not necessarily the same as the public facade pages. The public pages amount to public statements.
The private pages amount to a private discussion in the lobby of a hotel with friends.
If they differer the vic has a problem.
Far too many people jump into the meat market of web 2.0 thinking it will make the cool, relevant, and part of the in crowd.
There have been a number of ads by IBM lately pushing the idea that their new line of computers is needed to redesign the nation's electrical grid, claiming that half the power never makes it to any light bulb.
In other areas power companies will actually buy you the new CCFL bulbs if you pay the tax on the bulb.
The push for efficiency is long over-due.
But realistically, will the replacement of a an entire power grid really save more than it costs? Is it really necessary?
Wouldn't more energy be saved by taxing long haul trucking out of existence and putting the money into a resurgence of rail freight?
What the chance you ran right thru the first failure, relying on the fact it was raid 5 and you didn't need to rush.
I've had people call me complaining about slow servers, and why does it send them spam email every 4 hours every day for the past month!!!
Its hard to make things fool proof, because fools are so resistant to guidance.
Sorry for forgetting my cynicism tag in my prior post Jlarocco. I'll be more careful next time.
Exactly.
He should not be Swift-Boated for the actions of others.
Follow the money.
Yes, its change. No tax issues here.
Realistically, the NT kernel has something like a 1% overhead, if that, especially for CPUs other than the primary. User-mode applications can cheerfully use 100% of each core, the kernel will not get in the way,
That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen on Slashdot all month.
You think just because task manager doesn't show you kernel time that its not doing anything?
Go back ad read the rest of the article.
Until Vista and Win7, Even Microsoft admitted that Windows was a poor platform for multiprocessor utilization. This was largely due to spinlocks.
Windows 7 is way better than Vista in this regard, and Vista is better than XP/2k. Win7 is expected to scale to 256x without wasting too much resources.
> Other drives made on the same line on the same day are likely to have the same manufacturing defect.
So what? They still won't fail at the same time.
I have had dozens of consecutively serial numbered drives in production in various raid farms over the years and never has two drives fail at the exact same time.
Often within several weeks of each other, but never in the same day or same week.
You think there is a built in Clock in these things with fail date pre-scheduled?
The myth of synchronized failure just doesn't exist out side of lightning strikes or similar power or fire related incidents.
Why not do some research, where you will find I was being generous.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/labnotes/workflow-transaction-times.html
They probably are from the same assembly line. They probably have consecutive serial numbers.
That still does not mean they fail in synchrony.
You did read what you quoted didn't you? I said:
Two drives failing before you have time to replace the first failure
You should look up MTBF some time.
> 'So Novell, one of the biggest Linux
> distributors in the world, and Microsoft, one of
> the biggest companies in world history, couldn't
> find a single large customer on Planet Earth to
> buy into Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server
> software.
Why can't you simply cut and paste instead of putting your own lying slant on things?
You Imply Novell never signed any SLES customers, which is not true.
The actual article stated:
"During the first quarter of fiscal 2009, we did not sign any large deals, many of which have been historically fulfilled by SUSE Linux Enterprise Server ("SLES") certificates delivered through Microsoft."
So Microsoft didn't even try to sell these certificates for SLES. Novell still sold SLES, probably to the very same customers that send Microsoft packing.
How hard do you suppose Microsoft tried to sell these certificates?
Except he would need another drive to achieve the same storage.
Raid10 = 1/2 N * Size.
Raid5 = N-1 * Size.
Two drives failing before you can replace the first failure is fairly unlikely. The fact that they more than likely bought all the drives at the same time increases the odds that they will fail reasonably close to each other in time.
But having Two drives failing before you have time to replace the first failure is fairly unlikely.
Perhaps there is some limitations that creep in with drive sizes and controller configuration.
His 3Ware controller should be able to handle all those drives, but I wager he us using some headers on the mobo for the raid1 arrays. The 3ware is not all that fast either, and it may have been pointless to put his raptors on that controller.
No, unfortunately, its not just FUD.
You can bench it yourself. With Windows, doubling the processors gives about 1.4 times a single processor's performance.
With almost any flavor of nix, its much closer to 1.9. With some kernel options in linux its even higher.
Adding processors beyond 2, the return diminishes, but much more quickly on Windows than Linux.
Microsoft has continually been spinning the story that they scale well into huge processor/core counts but in every instance comparative tests show that they don't.
I thought they had made progress on this front. But when benching 2008 Server against OpenSuse on a quad core machine I was blown away by the difference. And further tests reveal that Windows 7, running two cores outperforms Vist ultimate running 4 cores.
You can't handwave this away by reading Microsoft fud papers.