Cores don't add. That's problem number one with your confusion. You can't add clock speeds together because you have multiple cores. There's a lot more logic involved, and speed is dependent on a lot of other things in hardware (RAM, bandwidth, etc.). How effective multiple cores are depends on how threaded an application is, and on the quality of the operating system's scheduler. In some workloads, a dual-core might be twice as fast as a single-core, and quad core twice as fast as a dual core. In other workloads, a quad-core may only be 50% faster than a dual-core, and a dual-core might be only 50% faster than a single-core. Again, it depends on a plethora of hardware bottlenecks and software factors.
There's also the fact that clockspeed isn't the only metric - an AMD chip at the same clockspeed as an Intel one may actually be slower overall (or faster at some things and slower at others). This is because what you're interested in is work/second, not clocks/second. Assuming you get the same amount of work done per assembly instruction (since it's all x86 with only minor differing extensions, that's not an outlandish assumption), instructions/clock is a crucial metric. Because of various factors, Core2 Duos can do more instructions per clock than Phenoms. Previously, Athlons were beating Pentium4s at instruction/clock. So clockspeed isn't the only metric, and in fact isn't the most crucial one.
Additionally, most CPUs have only one clock and one voltage setter. So either the entire chip runs at 2.6 GHz, or the entire chip runs at 2.0 GHz. You can't mix and match them currently. Because you need a stable processor, you're only as strong as your weakest link - if one core can only hit 2.0 GHz at a set voltage, you have to make the entire processor 2.0 GHz. If disabling that core lets you hit 2.6 GHz with the 3 "healthy" cores, that may be a more attractive option, depending on the workload. Because a lot of software isn't multithreaded, 3 faster cores are sometimes superior to 4 slower ones. Heck, a 3.2 GHz dual-core is sometimes better than a 2.4 GHz quad-core (for some limited workloads).
Processors aren't designed individually, they're made by the thousands. They start out as silicon wafers. Then they get put in a machine with a whole bunch of lasers and stuff I don't even pretend to understand, which etches a few dozen processors on the wafer. Because of a variety of factors (manufacturing process issue, stray pieces of dust, impurities in silicon, whatever), some cores wind up testing better than others. A processor which can meet the 2.6 GHz benchmarks gets sold as a 2.6 GHz chip. The chip next to it may fail the 2.6 GHz tests, but meet the 2.2 GHz benchmark, and so gets sold as a 2.2 GHz chip. If a dual-core chip has one busted core (some kind of massive defect in one core but not the other), it gets the bad core blasted off and lives life as a single core chip. If a chip has an issue with some of its cache, then it gets half the cache disabled and is sold as a Celeron.
It's not a hassle to manufacture this extra stuff, whether its cache or cores. It's actually more of a pain in the butt to completely re-tool all the machines to make a pure triple-core. If you look at the economics of it (and I've only done that from the homework standpoint), most of the cost is the fixed cost of buying the machines and setting them up just right. After that, the goal is to get as much out of the chips you manufacture as possible. The choice you're making is between selling a chip with features disabled for a lower price, or tossing it in the trash.
Each chip has 4 cores, but with the slower core enabled, the chip can only hit 2.0 GHz. Without having to deal with the slow core, the other 3 can run faster (at 2.6 GHz). Obviously, AMD would prefer to sell the chip as a quad-2.6, but they can't. They can sell it at the speed it can hit with 4 cores (2.0 GHz), the speed it can hit with 3 cores (2.6 GHz) by disabling a core, or throw it out as defective.
They can sell it for more. If you have 3 cores that can handle 2.6 GHz, and 1 that can handle 2.0 GHz, your options are:
A) Quad 2.0 GHz
B) Triple 2.6 GHz
There are a lot of applications for which (B) beats out (A), and you can probably sell a high-speed Triple-Core at a slight premium to a mid-range Quad-Core.
The DGA already has a contract. They signed their contract about halfway through the writer's strike (sometime last month). It was sort of the reason that the writers and the AMPTP moved back into unofficial talks.
A traditional problem in computer security is the local access problem. Someone with local access to the box has a lot of work-arounds (even if you have a BIOS password) to attack the computer. You can remove the HDD, modify it, and put it back. You reset the BIOS to accept boot CDs and then use a Knoppix one. Macs have Target Disk Mode. Someone with local access can hack your box. And that's besides having a rootkit.
TCPA makes that harder. If they modify your boot.exe, then you'll know about it. Some hardware encryption chips might make HDD encryption more viable. Any defense is appreciated in the business world. That's where the chip is targeted. Trickle-down to the consumer will be incidental.
I've found that you have to go through other doctors to get to a psychiatrist for insurance reasons. That seems to be the general case. In my case, I had to see a general practitioner, then a psychologist, before I could get a referral to a psychiatrist.
FDR got his head start in politics because of the popularity of Teddy Roosevelt, his fifth cousin/uncle-in-law*. That got him elected to state Senate in New York, and got him on the 1920 ticket as VP (they lost horribly). Without that boost, he never would have been able to run for Governor and later President. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt were both in the top five of American presidents.
* - Yeah, FDR married his fifth cousin. You have to go back like 170-200 years to find a common ancestor.
The concern isn't that Google has a lot of the search engine market, the concern is that Microsoft, who is an OS monopoly and a former (and still near) browser monopoly, will use their monopoly in adjacent markets to attack the the search engine market.
Having a monopoly is fine, abusing it isn't. Google (if you call 2/3rds a monopoly) hasn't been shown to abuse its position, while Microsoft has in the past and very well might again.
To be fair, that's not exactly sub-standard. It's a forum. You're submitting commentary related to the band, not your latest novel or lyrics. It insures them against having any sort of forum, having something posted there that resembles some kind of future marketing material, and having a tiff over it.
It would be a big deal if it was a novel-writing forum, or anything encouraging creativity, but the most creative thing you usually find in a fan forum is a very disturbing slash story or something.
(This is a not a defense of the news media, who generally suck. This is an attempt to identify a problem) The problem is two-fold:
1) In Internet media, you want to be FIRST. Having "the scoop" or being "first on the scene" is what differentiates 3-5 equally poorly written news-blogs from each other. Then when you have a dozen sources reporting on a story, more respectable places might pick up on it simply because there are so many sources, and they suddenly feel left behind. After all, with a dozen people reporting it, they can't all be wrong, right?* Sites like Reddit and Digg are based almost exclusively on headlines or blurbs, so people "vote them up" without reading the part about "no comment yet from the music industry".
2) In the "mainstream" media, there's not a lot of understanding of technology issues. They probably get a million press releases a day, and write about the ones that sound cool. A lot of them probably devote a column below the fold on the 3rd page of the technology section (or 5 minutes of a mid-day broadcast) to it. They don't understand it, but they need to fill time/space, and they have a peripheral comprehension that it might one day be a big deal. And services like the AP and Reuters write up a lot of stuff. They got a press release, found a few sources to back it up*, and then they had another technology story for subscribers to reuse. They probably took any "no comment" from the music industry as a "we don't comment before official launches" thing, or something.
* - This is a symptom of the rate at which information spreads on the Net. Normally, with multiple independent sources reporting something, it means they've down their own research. On the Internet, it may well mean they read the same blog and had different takes.
hoping to refine a business model to the point where they're making the profits they once enjoyed.
The RIAA can never return to making the profits they once enjoyed. Even if piracy vanishes tomorrow, the shifts in the broader entertainment market in the last 8-10 years completely preclude that. They can no longer sell a $18 CD next to a $10 DVD. They can't sell crappy filler bundled with hits when customers can buy "just the hit singles" for $1 a pop. They can't go back to forcing people to "re-buy" music every few years. With production costs falling, they can no longer force bands to sign with them to create a quality CD. With the rise of alternative streams of music recommendation, they can't go back to the days of using a stranglehold on the radio stations to push their top hits (admittedly, this still exists, but its effect is weakening).
The changes in the entertainment market as a whole have altered what the music industry can get away with. As a result, the days of the profits they once enjoyed are gone. That's not to say that they can't profit if they shape up, but they have to accept that those 1996 levels of profit aren't coming back.
When I inquired about the change I found that the department had switched mainly due to the AP exam switching languages
Shouldn't the AP test fit what colleges are doing, not the other way around? That's pretty disturbing that a college will change a department's curriculum because of 1 test they don't even administer. When the APs switched, I had just taken both of the CS ones as a freshman and sophomore. I recall the reason for the switch as being that Java was supposedly better supported at colleges.
The reason that colleges would switch to match the AP test is simply because they'd have hundreds of students entering with Java skills. If you have a 101 course with C++ and the AP is in Java, you have two options:
Let the AP students skip the 101
Make the AP students take the 101
If you go for option 2, you're going to lose CS students in a competitive environment. Standing is an important consideration in choosing a college (it shouldn't be, but it is), and getting 4-8 (CS 101 classes often have labs) credits at one school versus none at another is a factor. You'll also deprive top students of the ability to either double-major or take extra high-level electives.
Option 1 forces your 201 professor to waste weeks reviewing the basics of the language, simply because half his class knows the language and the other doesn't. While all the students would have introductory theory and computer programming basics, the professor would have to contend with the massive knowledge gap.
This is what makes option 3 most attractive. Switching to match the AP test eliminates all of those problems, but with the obvious downside of ceding all decision making to the College Board or ETS. That makes it a poor long-term option, but a decent short term one.
Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend as a first language? I ask this having dealt with the entry level programming courses already, and so knowing at least intermediate C++ and having struggled through a Java course (placing mid-level Java w/o any Java background = pain). I'm curious as to what your choice would be (are you leaning toward straight C?)
Actually, there is a viable argument that they haven't broken the law. In Sweden, hosting copyrighted content w/o authorization is illegal, but linking to it isn't. This differs from America, which doesn't distinguish between the two.
Isn't MySpace run on IIS? Granted, that's almost a point for Linux - as MySpace only scales the way it does because its users will tolerate occaisonal problems, but that's one large MS site.
That's interesting but irrelevant. Noone disputes that the original goal of Novell's shopping UNIX was to sell it entirely, but SCO couldn't afford it. If SCO bought the UNIX rights, why would they be giving Novell 95% of the licensing fees? And why would the multi-million dollar APA not list it as a sold item, and list it as an item that was excluded from the transaction? This isn't a comma error that we're talking about, where intent was clear, but they accidentally said the wrong thing. To say that the APA as signed was supposed to transfer the copyrights is to suggest that the entire text of the agreement is in error. It's like calling someone a "disease-ridden whore" and saying "but that actually means 'I love you'". Not a mistake anyone (much less dozens of crack lawyers) can make accidentally.
You're saying that the impressions of someone who wasn't involved in the proceedings outrank the results of said proceeding? If Frankenberg was involved in the proceeding, or even read the APA, he wouldn't have signed the draft he did if he meant it to unambiguously transmit copyrights.
The judge looked at the case, and his comments on the testimony are pretty straightforward (emphases mine): "Frankenberg also testified that he had high-level discussions with the negotiating team and recalled discussing the fact that retaining UNIX copyrights would facilitate Novell's exercise of rights with respect to capitalizing the SVRX revenue stream and facilitate the negotiation of SVRX License buyouts. The evidence submitted as to Frankenberg's role shows that he was not intimately involved in the deal. Frankenberg testified that he was involved in high-level discussions but was not involved in the negotiation or drafting of the APA. He further stated that he did not review the details of the deal and he signed the APA on the basis of the recommendation of his team."
Actually, SCO's theory was that said "implied transfer of copyright" should supersede a written and signed agreement that stated that the copyrights were not transfered. If SCO's line of argument were legally permissible, it would eliminate the entire point of contracts.
None of which are acceptable. This person needs to learn more about security and a different way to go about handling their passwords. Based on the techniques I use I am able to remember every single password for every single site I use with 99% of them being different (I have some legacy passwords on sites that don't require security in the first place but that's because I'm lazy).
First of all, you saying "[Bruce Schneier] needs to learn more about security" is like me saying "the Pope needs to learn more about being Catholic".
The reason Mr. Schneier suggested as he did is self-evident: He's addressing non-nerds and wanted to give an answer that balances ease with power. Even a simple two-password system beats the crap out of "password". And note that he said "pay for access" and not "can use my credit card". Thus, you have a three-tiered system: low-level passwords that while embarrassing if stolen, represent no serious loss if cracked and are not very valuable (like Slashdot); mid-level passwords that represent some target to thieves, but little actual loss if compromised (Lexis Nexis, say), and finally the top layer, like Amazon, where having your password lets one purchase things at your expense. Suggesting the writing the passwords down thing was smart, because most people wouldn't, and that prevents them from voluntarily having a password over 6 alphanumeric characters.
Judging by your other thoughts in the comment, I think the overall problem you have is not recognizing that Bruce Schneier is "talking down to" (in a non-condescending way) the Freakonomics readers. A Slashdot Q&A would probably be more in-depth, and would probably offer more complex advice. He's smart enough not to try to push these guys from A to Z in a day. He just wants to get them from A to B.
Per your own link, the judge ruled that the pair had libeled McDonalds, and they were ordered to pay a non-trivial sum. In a loser-pays system, they would be responsible for paying for legal fees.
The issue is not whether or not it gets spam, but how much gets through. Between my UVA and Gmail accounts, maybe 1-2 spams get through on Gmail each day, with a traffic volume of 30-40 emails, while my UVA email has 5 or so spams a day with a daily volume of 10-15 legitimate emails. So from the user's perspective (namely, mine), GMail has a 20-1 signal-to-noise ratio, while my UVA account has a 3-1 SNR. This is a critical factor, as a low SNR is what puts people off of email.
Another useful factor is Gmail's low false positive rate. Out of over 8,000 caught spams I checked at one point, there were no false positives. By comparison, UVA's spam filter and Mail.app's filter catch legit emails weekly. In fact, Mail.app catches every email my Mother sends me.
You do get some spam, but you get proportionally less. Compared to accounts on AOL or ISP-based mail, Gmail's filters are amazing. Without proper training, it probably won't beat a "roll your own" type of anti-spam on a mail server, but its better than most ISPs and better than a lot of EDU or business email spam filters.
If copyright did not exist, then the GPL would be unnecessary - people could share code, and those who didn't would have their binaries decompiled and stuff.
If you're a shop that doesn't have a massive IT department, an easy-to-learn GUI on a server for administration can be a boon. That way, the intern can handle it, while the command-line junkies can work on other things. On the low-end, an easy to configure server beats the crap out of "hire a contractor to come in and handle things 10 hours a month" On the other end of the spectrum, UNIX certification means assured compatibility with some apps, and also meets some standardization prerequisites, which can be a big deal in big businesses.
Fox can't sue the MPAA because the MPAA is an organization made up of the studios. The organization Fox would sue for this would be the AACS-LA, and they could maybe sue them for failing to meet contractual obligations or something. But even that would be a stretch.
What on earth are you jabbering on about? In an adversarial system, it's the prosecution or litigant's job to "prove" the allegation. Where in any statute can I find a reference to conviction on "principle"?
He means that the judge found him not liable because of insufficient evidence, not because the judge thought that filesharing shouldn't result in lawsuits or that the label's case was tainted or something.
If the judge had said "non-commercial infringement is not something you can sue over" or if he had said "your tactics to collect this evidence were illegal", then the case would get thrown out, and other judges would be given ammo to do the same thing. In this instance, it was a decision about a specific set of facts which are non-generalizable.
Slashdot Mirror
Cores don't add. That's problem number one with your confusion. You can't add clock speeds together because you have multiple cores. There's a lot more logic involved, and speed is dependent on a lot of other things in hardware (RAM, bandwidth, etc.). How effective multiple cores are depends on how threaded an application is, and on the quality of the operating system's scheduler. In some workloads, a dual-core might be twice as fast as a single-core, and quad core twice as fast as a dual core. In other workloads, a quad-core may only be 50% faster than a dual-core, and a dual-core might be only 50% faster than a single-core. Again, it depends on a plethora of hardware bottlenecks and software factors.
There's also the fact that clockspeed isn't the only metric - an AMD chip at the same clockspeed as an Intel one may actually be slower overall (or faster at some things and slower at others). This is because what you're interested in is work/second, not clocks/second. Assuming you get the same amount of work done per assembly instruction (since it's all x86 with only minor differing extensions, that's not an outlandish assumption), instructions/clock is a crucial metric. Because of various factors, Core2 Duos can do more instructions per clock than Phenoms. Previously, Athlons were beating Pentium4s at instruction/clock. So clockspeed isn't the only metric, and in fact isn't the most crucial one.
Additionally, most CPUs have only one clock and one voltage setter. So either the entire chip runs at 2.6 GHz, or the entire chip runs at 2.0 GHz. You can't mix and match them currently. Because you need a stable processor, you're only as strong as your weakest link - if one core can only hit 2.0 GHz at a set voltage, you have to make the entire processor 2.0 GHz. If disabling that core lets you hit 2.6 GHz with the 3 "healthy" cores, that may be a more attractive option, depending on the workload. Because a lot of software isn't multithreaded, 3 faster cores are sometimes superior to 4 slower ones. Heck, a 3.2 GHz dual-core is sometimes better than a 2.4 GHz quad-core (for some limited workloads).
Processors aren't designed individually, they're made by the thousands. They start out as silicon wafers. Then they get put in a machine with a whole bunch of lasers and stuff I don't even pretend to understand, which etches a few dozen processors on the wafer. Because of a variety of factors (manufacturing process issue, stray pieces of dust, impurities in silicon, whatever), some cores wind up testing better than others. A processor which can meet the 2.6 GHz benchmarks gets sold as a 2.6 GHz chip. The chip next to it may fail the 2.6 GHz tests, but meet the 2.2 GHz benchmark, and so gets sold as a 2.2 GHz chip. If a dual-core chip has one busted core (some kind of massive defect in one core but not the other), it gets the bad core blasted off and lives life as a single core chip. If a chip has an issue with some of its cache, then it gets half the cache disabled and is sold as a Celeron.
It's not a hassle to manufacture this extra stuff, whether its cache or cores. It's actually more of a pain in the butt to completely re-tool all the machines to make a pure triple-core. If you look at the economics of it (and I've only done that from the homework standpoint), most of the cost is the fixed cost of buying the machines and setting them up just right. After that, the goal is to get as much out of the chips you manufacture as possible. The choice you're making is between selling a chip with features disabled for a lower price, or tossing it in the trash.
Each chip has 4 cores, but with the slower core enabled, the chip can only hit 2.0 GHz. Without having to deal with the slow core, the other 3 can run faster (at 2.6 GHz). Obviously, AMD would prefer to sell the chip as a quad-2.6, but they can't. They can sell it at the speed it can hit with 4 cores (2.0 GHz), the speed it can hit with 3 cores (2.6 GHz) by disabling a core, or throw it out as defective.
They can sell it for more. If you have 3 cores that can handle 2.6 GHz, and 1 that can handle 2.0 GHz, your options are:
A) Quad 2.0 GHz
B) Triple 2.6 GHz
There are a lot of applications for which (B) beats out (A), and you can probably sell a high-speed Triple-Core at a slight premium to a mid-range Quad-Core.
But does Netcraft confirm it?
The DGA already has a contract. They signed their contract about halfway through the writer's strike (sometime last month). It was sort of the reason that the writers and the AMPTP moved back into unofficial talks.
Source, Official Source
A traditional problem in computer security is the local access problem. Someone with local access to the box has a lot of work-arounds (even if you have a BIOS password) to attack the computer. You can remove the HDD, modify it, and put it back. You reset the BIOS to accept boot CDs and then use a Knoppix one. Macs have Target Disk Mode. Someone with local access can hack your box. And that's besides having a rootkit.
TCPA makes that harder. If they modify your boot.exe, then you'll know about it. Some hardware encryption chips might make HDD encryption more viable. Any defense is appreciated in the business world. That's where the chip is targeted. Trickle-down to the consumer will be incidental.
I've found that you have to go through other doctors to get to a psychiatrist for insurance reasons. That seems to be the general case. In my case, I had to see a general practitioner, then a psychologist, before I could get a referral to a psychiatrist.
FDR got his head start in politics because of the popularity of Teddy Roosevelt, his fifth cousin/uncle-in-law*. That got him elected to state Senate in New York, and got him on the 1920 ticket as VP (they lost horribly). Without that boost, he never would have been able to run for Governor and later President. Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt were both in the top five of American presidents.
* - Yeah, FDR married his fifth cousin. You have to go back like 170-200 years to find a common ancestor.
The concern isn't that Google has a lot of the search engine market, the concern is that Microsoft, who is an OS monopoly and a former (and still near) browser monopoly, will use their monopoly in adjacent markets to attack the the search engine market.
Having a monopoly is fine, abusing it isn't. Google (if you call 2/3rds a monopoly) hasn't been shown to abuse its position, while Microsoft has in the past and very well might again.
To be fair, that's not exactly sub-standard. It's a forum. You're submitting commentary related to the band, not your latest novel or lyrics. It insures them against having any sort of forum, having something posted there that resembles some kind of future marketing material, and having a tiff over it.
It would be a big deal if it was a novel-writing forum, or anything encouraging creativity, but the most creative thing you usually find in a fan forum is a very disturbing slash story or something.
(This is a not a defense of the news media, who generally suck. This is an attempt to identify a problem) The problem is two-fold:
1) In Internet media, you want to be FIRST. Having "the scoop" or being "first on the scene" is what differentiates 3-5 equally poorly written news-blogs from each other. Then when you have a dozen sources reporting on a story, more respectable places might pick up on it simply because there are so many sources, and they suddenly feel left behind. After all, with a dozen people reporting it, they can't all be wrong, right?* Sites like Reddit and Digg are based almost exclusively on headlines or blurbs, so people "vote them up" without reading the part about "no comment yet from the music industry".
2) In the "mainstream" media, there's not a lot of understanding of technology issues. They probably get a million press releases a day, and write about the ones that sound cool. A lot of them probably devote a column below the fold on the 3rd page of the technology section (or 5 minutes of a mid-day broadcast) to it. They don't understand it, but they need to fill time/space, and they have a peripheral comprehension that it might one day be a big deal. And services like the AP and Reuters write up a lot of stuff. They got a press release, found a few sources to back it up*, and then they had another technology story for subscribers to reuse. They probably took any "no comment" from the music industry as a "we don't comment before official launches" thing, or something.
* - This is a symptom of the rate at which information spreads on the Net. Normally, with multiple independent sources reporting something, it means they've down their own research. On the Internet, it may well mean they read the same blog and had different takes.
The RIAA can never return to making the profits they once enjoyed. Even if piracy vanishes tomorrow, the shifts in the broader entertainment market in the last 8-10 years completely preclude that. They can no longer sell a $18 CD next to a $10 DVD. They can't sell crappy filler bundled with hits when customers can buy "just the hit singles" for $1 a pop. They can't go back to forcing people to "re-buy" music every few years. With production costs falling, they can no longer force bands to sign with them to create a quality CD. With the rise of alternative streams of music recommendation, they can't go back to the days of using a stranglehold on the radio stations to push their top hits (admittedly, this still exists, but its effect is weakening).
The changes in the entertainment market as a whole have altered what the music industry can get away with. As a result, the days of the profits they once enjoyed are gone. That's not to say that they can't profit if they shape up, but they have to accept that those 1996 levels of profit aren't coming back.
Shouldn't the AP test fit what colleges are doing, not the other way around? That's pretty disturbing that a college will change a department's curriculum because of 1 test they don't even administer.
When the APs switched, I had just taken both of the CS ones as a freshman and sophomore. I recall the reason for the switch as being that Java was supposedly better supported at colleges.
The reason that colleges would switch to match the AP test is simply because they'd have hundreds of students entering with Java skills. If you have a 101 course with C++ and the AP is in Java, you have two options:
- Let the AP students skip the 101
- Make the AP students take the 101
If you go for option 2, you're going to lose CS students in a competitive environment. Standing is an important consideration in choosing a college (it shouldn't be, but it is), and getting 4-8 (CS 101 classes often have labs) credits at one school versus none at another is a factor. You'll also deprive top students of the ability to either double-major or take extra high-level electives.Option 1 forces your 201 professor to waste weeks reviewing the basics of the language, simply because half his class knows the language and the other doesn't. While all the students would have introductory theory and computer programming basics, the professor would have to contend with the massive knowledge gap.
This is what makes option 3 most attractive. Switching to match the AP test eliminates all of those problems, but with the obvious downside of ceding all decision making to the College Board or ETS. That makes it a poor long-term option, but a decent short term one.
Just out of curiosity, what would you recommend as a first language? I ask this having dealt with the entry level programming courses already, and so knowing at least intermediate C++ and having struggled through a Java course (placing mid-level Java w/o any Java background = pain). I'm curious as to what your choice would be (are you leaning toward straight C?)
Actually, there is a viable argument that they haven't broken the law. In Sweden, hosting copyrighted content w/o authorization is illegal, but linking to it isn't. This differs from America, which doesn't distinguish between the two.
Isn't MySpace run on IIS? Granted, that's almost a point for Linux - as MySpace only scales the way it does because its users will tolerate occaisonal problems, but that's one large MS site.
That's interesting but irrelevant. Noone disputes that the original goal of Novell's shopping UNIX was to sell it entirely, but SCO couldn't afford it. If SCO bought the UNIX rights, why would they be giving Novell 95% of the licensing fees? And why would the multi-million dollar APA not list it as a sold item, and list it as an item that was excluded from the transaction? This isn't a comma error that we're talking about, where intent was clear, but they accidentally said the wrong thing. To say that the APA as signed was supposed to transfer the copyrights is to suggest that the entire text of the agreement is in error. It's like calling someone a "disease-ridden whore" and saying "but that actually means 'I love you'". Not a mistake anyone (much less dozens of crack lawyers) can make accidentally.
You're saying that the impressions of someone who wasn't involved in the proceedings outrank the results of said proceeding? If Frankenberg was involved in the proceeding, or even read the APA, he wouldn't have signed the draft he did if he meant it to unambiguously transmit copyrights.
The judge looked at the case, and his comments on the testimony are pretty straightforward (emphases mine): "Frankenberg also testified that he had high-level discussions with the negotiating team and recalled discussing the fact that retaining UNIX copyrights would facilitate Novell's exercise of rights with respect to capitalizing the SVRX revenue stream and facilitate the negotiation of SVRX License buyouts. The evidence submitted as to Frankenberg's role shows that he was not intimately involved in the deal. Frankenberg testified that he was involved in high-level discussions but was not involved in the negotiation or drafting of the APA. He further stated that he did not review the details of the deal and he signed the APA on the basis of the recommendation of his team."
Actually, SCO's theory was that said "implied transfer of copyright" should supersede a written and signed agreement that stated that the copyrights were not transfered. If SCO's line of argument were legally permissible, it would eliminate the entire point of contracts.
None of which are acceptable. This person needs to learn more about security and a different way to go about handling their passwords. Based on the techniques I use I am able to remember every single password for every single site I use with 99% of them being different (I have some legacy passwords on sites that don't require security in the first place but that's because I'm lazy).
First of all, you saying "[Bruce Schneier] needs to learn more about security" is like me saying "the Pope needs to learn more about being Catholic".
The reason Mr. Schneier suggested as he did is self-evident: He's addressing non-nerds and wanted to give an answer that balances ease with power. Even a simple two-password system beats the crap out of "password". And note that he said "pay for access" and not "can use my credit card". Thus, you have a three-tiered system: low-level passwords that while embarrassing if stolen, represent no serious loss if cracked and are not very valuable (like Slashdot); mid-level passwords that represent some target to thieves, but little actual loss if compromised (Lexis Nexis, say), and finally the top layer, like Amazon, where having your password lets one purchase things at your expense. Suggesting the writing the passwords down thing was smart, because most people wouldn't, and that prevents them from voluntarily having a password over 6 alphanumeric characters.
Judging by your other thoughts in the comment, I think the overall problem you have is not recognizing that Bruce Schneier is "talking down to" (in a non-condescending way) the Freakonomics readers. A Slashdot Q&A would probably be more in-depth, and would probably offer more complex advice. He's smart enough not to try to push these guys from A to Z in a day. He just wants to get them from A to B.
Per your own link, the judge ruled that the pair had libeled McDonalds, and they were ordered to pay a non-trivial sum. In a loser-pays system, they would be responsible for paying for legal fees.
The issue is not whether or not it gets spam, but how much gets through. Between my UVA and Gmail accounts, maybe 1-2 spams get through on Gmail each day, with a traffic volume of 30-40 emails, while my UVA email has 5 or so spams a day with a daily volume of 10-15 legitimate emails. So from the user's perspective (namely, mine), GMail has a 20-1 signal-to-noise ratio, while my UVA account has a 3-1 SNR. This is a critical factor, as a low SNR is what puts people off of email.
Another useful factor is Gmail's low false positive rate. Out of over 8,000 caught spams I checked at one point, there were no false positives. By comparison, UVA's spam filter and Mail.app's filter catch legit emails weekly. In fact, Mail.app catches every email my Mother sends me.
You do get some spam, but you get proportionally less. Compared to accounts on AOL or ISP-based mail, Gmail's filters are amazing. Without proper training, it probably won't beat a "roll your own" type of anti-spam on a mail server, but its better than most ISPs and better than a lot of EDU or business email spam filters.
If copyright did not exist, then the GPL would be unnecessary - people could share code, and those who didn't would have their binaries decompiled and stuff.
If you're a shop that doesn't have a massive IT department, an easy-to-learn GUI on a server for administration can be a boon. That way, the intern can handle it, while the command-line junkies can work on other things. On the low-end, an easy to configure server beats the crap out of "hire a contractor to come in and handle things 10 hours a month" On the other end of the spectrum, UNIX certification means assured compatibility with some apps, and also meets some standardization prerequisites, which can be a big deal in big businesses.
Fox can't sue the MPAA because the MPAA is an organization made up of the studios. The organization Fox would sue for this would be the AACS-LA, and they could maybe sue them for failing to meet contractual obligations or something. But even that would be a stretch.
He means that the judge found him not liable because of insufficient evidence, not because the judge thought that filesharing shouldn't result in lawsuits or that the label's case was tainted or something.
If the judge had said "non-commercial infringement is not something you can sue over" or if he had said "your tactics to collect this evidence were illegal", then the case would get thrown out, and other judges would be given ammo to do the same thing. In this instance, it was a decision about a specific set of facts which are non-generalizable.