It depends on what you sue for. There is a thing called "specific performance," which is basically forcing the defendant to comply with the terms of the license or contract in cases where there is no adequate remedy in monetary damages. An injunction is also possible, and even likely, in copyright infringement cases.
There will be many flame wars over this when Firefox 8 is more widely distributed.
Chrome does that, and I haven't seen any flamewars.
is that it allows the package manager to co-install packages of two different architectures in certain cases. This means that you can install a 32-bit Firefox (if you have some proprietary plugin) and have the rest of the system be 64-bit. Or you can install most of the packages from the armel port (ARM EABI soft-float) and install floating-point intensive ones from the armhf port (ARM EABI hard-float).
Previously, in order to install any meaningful amount of i386 software on an amd64 system, you had to install a package called ia32-libs, and if it didn't have the library you needed, you were SOL. Now you can install i386 libraries in parallel.
This is how it works in theory. Not all packages will be updated to be multiarch aware immediately, so YMMV.
One of the articles pointed out that the EFF has filed complaints of barratry and champerty against Righthaven. Lawyers that file suits that they should know to be baseless (barratry) to try to exercise rights that they should know the plaintiff doesn't have (champerty) are very likely to be sanctioned or disbarred.
The state of Texas adopted an amendment to its constitution to limit damages in certain cases because the health care industry claimed that costs, including malpractice insurance, were too high. Years later, malpractice insurance has not gone down significantly. It never did. Texas has enacted laws aimed at tort reform as well, and those have been similarly unsuccessful in lowering costs.
I understand that there are people that exploit the system, but the techniques you describe are ineffective and actually harm people who have legitimate claims.
Unfortunately, as people trying to get
They need to make the commitment and tell developers "If you don't do it our way, it won't work in Windows 8, or Windows 9, or whatever."
They already did. There were programs that broke really badly in Vista because developers were continuing to use interfaces that were marked as deprecated and going away. Microsoft had for years refused to certify these same programs as "Designed for XP" (or whatever it was called) because they used the obsolete interfaces.
It turned out really badly for them. People blamed Vista for the bugs. I had to explain the situation to lots of users and informed them that it was actually the software companies' fault, not Microsoft's.
Actually, Windows Vista supports condition variables where earlier versions didn't. It's possible to emulate them, but it's very difficult to get right. It's totally possible that the IE team wanted to take advantage of features that made the code much cleaner or run faster. What's the point of having those new features built into the operating system if they can't be used?
The problem is that increasing clock speed also increases power usage, usually superlinearly. For a device that will spend most of its useful life on battery, that's not good. As others have suggested, it may actually be advantageous to split threads among multiple cores because it means that those individual processors can run at a lower clock speed.
Also, if we have a problem with heat dissipation for desktops, which have large dedicated fans and huge amounts of space that can be pressed into service for cooling, we're likely to see similar problems with mobile processors that don't have that space, just at lower clock speeds.
Any browser (or other DNS-using software) that does not accept a terminal period on a domain name is broken. The root of the DNS is
SHA-512 is indeed faster than SHA-256 on 64-bit processors. SHA-512 uses 80 rounds using 64-bit variables on block sizes of 128 bytes, and SHA-256 uses 64 rounds using 32-bit variables on block sizes of 64 bytes. Since on most 64-bit machines 64-bit operations are roughly as fast as 32-bit operations, you see a speed increase because you're processing twice as much data and doing only a little more work (80 rounds versus 64). Both algorithms are very similar internally, so a round in each algorithm generally performs the same amount of computation.
The traditional way to make a longer hash value into a shorter one is to truncate it, using the leftmost bits. This is used with DSA and is generally considered suitable for most purposes. I don't therefore really see a need for SHA-512/t; at best it seems like this is an effort to improve performance.
Technically, Texas has a use tax as well which is identical to the sales tax. Unlike other states, though, we don't have an income tax, and the state constitution makes it practically impossible to impose one. So most Texans don't end up paying the use tax because we have no paperwork to file for income tax, which is how most states collect it.
Texas sales tax is also tricky because the state collects a 6.25% sales tax, and other governmental entities (such as the City of Houston and METRO, the Houston-area transit authority) can collect up to an additional 2% total. Therefore, it's pretty difficult to tell how much sales tax a given Texan is going to pay.
There are basically four levels of security with passwords. The first one is an unencrypted password. It's obvious why this is a bad idea. The second is a hashed password. This is, however, subject to a trivial dictionary attack. The third is salted and hashed, and the last is salted, iterated, and hashed. The benefit of iteration is that it slows down the attacker a huge amount. So while salted and hashed is much better than just hashed, it's not really ideal.
OpenPGP provides the last three types and strongly encourages using iteration. WPA2 uses PBKDF2, which is iterated and salted. It's clear that if you want real, cryptographic security, you should be using an iterated and salted method. But using just salt is a much, much better idea than without salt at all.
You can find some of the reasons here. Among them are ZFS, jails, and pf. I've used Debian GNU/kFreeBSD in the past and found pf significantly easier to use than iptables and tc.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.
