Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Modular design... (Score 2) 74

by JMJimmy (#49346627) Attached to: Facebook Sued For Alleged Theft of Data Center Design

I get that BRG feels that way. Considering the specifics of their claim it sounds like Facebook contacted them expecting something unique and novel, found it wasn't, and BRG being greedy and knowing it's the all mighty Facebook tried to gouge them and lost any hope of working together. Facebook went on and said, "lets just do what we do every day and build in a modular manner" (you know, like classes/methods in programming).

It's such an obvious and old concept that it's not even worth thinking about that much. Read 80s architecture magazines, modular was all the fad back then.

Comment: Re:Great idea... (Score 1) 160

by JMJimmy (#49330885) Attached to: Energy Company Trials Computer Servers To Heat Homes

Wait a second. The Canadian government regulates how warm you heat your home?

Not exactly. They regulate the *minimum* the temperature an be during the winter months for rental units. Federally, it's 18C but then individual provinces/municipalities have different temperatures. Ontario is 20C I believe and Toronto is 21C.

Comment: Re: Great idea... (Score 1) 160

by JMJimmy (#49330867) Attached to: Energy Company Trials Computer Servers To Heat Homes

That's fucked up!

Trust me, it's not. It was regulated because people were freezing to death due to lack of heat in their apartments. While it was a long time ago, most companies will set the temperature to the exact minimum they can get away with - if the regulations go down, so does the temperature.

Now they're considering regulating how hot it can get, especially in nursing homes, as the elderly are dying in poorly run facilities due to heat exhaustion.

Comment: Re:Laptops owned by $DAYJOB (Score 1) 307

HDDs definitely fail - it's pretty rare (if you buy quality) to run into issues before they're expected to start showing issues. I've never had a drive fail early except for a Seagate but that was my fault for buying one (it was cheap, not quality). Since that incident I've always purchased WD performance drives and I have never been disappointed with them. Tape is a completely different beast and wears out over time no matter what you do.

I'm with you on the software being the problem... too many broad strokes and not enough down in the details getting things right.

Comment: Re:For everyone who didn't read the decision (Score 1) 52

The bulk of the $350,000 Teksavvy was requesting was for council

But there was no need for council, they chose to fight the Order. Which is why the request was denied.

No they didn't fight anything. They simply told Voltage, if you want our customer data, get a court order. They remained neutral during the hearings while CIPPIC submitted a "friend of the court" submission about some of the issues with Voltage's case. At this point no one has fought anything.

If you read the decision the court said there were 2 separate issues. First, compliance with the order which the judge valued at $22k. Second was participation in the hearings which the judge ruled as being distinct from compliance with the order. One of the major problems though is that one of the council for TSI was hired as an expert in privacy law - it's hard to separate the issues of the case and issues of compliance as it relates to ensuring TSI properly protected its customers privacy to the standard set by PIPEDA. Because the judge failed to account for any issues relating to PIPEDA with regards to the compliance with the order there's a $120,000 in privacy related costs that may be recoverable on appeal.

Comment: Re:For everyone who didn't read the decision (Score 1) 52

The judge may have erred by solely looking at the Federal Court Rules (rule 400 in particular) when determining Teksavvy's obligation to notify customers. They have an obligation to notify under PIPEDA which the judge did not account for. The bulk of the $350,000 Teksavvy was requesting was for council - the judge may have also erred here. In the first hearing the judge stated that costs would be addressed at a later date and punted the issue. When costs were finally addressed by the current judge they said "it's too late to address those particular costs". ie: the problem was procedural not whether or not Teksavvy deserved to have the costs reimbursed. There were also some costs which TSI has to prove before they can be paid for them.

Likely what is going to happen is that TSI will appeal the ruling and get another ~$150,000 or so of the $350,000 requested (somewhere around the $180,000-$220,000 range including the $22k already ordered). The 'tone and spirit" of the previous case you linked is one thing but there's also the costs awarded every time the police request an IP correlation for a criminal case. Those cost awards are in the $100-$150 per IP range... this was $11 per IP. Not exactly consistent with existing precedent.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." -- The Wizard Of Oz