The Slashdotted - Slashdot User

Cisco Launching Blade Servers in 2009 87

Posted by timothy on Wednesday December 24, 2008 @05:40PM from the please-wear-eye-protection dept.

minutetraders writes "According to some sources, by next year Cisco Systems will be in the blade server business. ChannelWeb has a story, confirmed by several sources, that the San Jose, Calif.-based networking behemoth is readying blade servers, code-named California, for a release early next year. A blade server offering would put Cisco in direct competition with the likes of Dell, HP, and IBM, companies it partners with on their respective blade server offerings, for control of the enterprise data center."

Comment Re:Use them as CAPTCHA... (Score 1) 150

by The Slashdotted on Sunday October 05, 2008 @12:55PM (#25264973) Attached to: Optical Character Recognition Still Struggling With Handwriting

CAPTCHA requres you to know what it says in the first place. You typed in Mary Jones, but that's not what my Chinese transcriber/OCR think it says. You could keep a database of failed CAPTCHAs and accept them as more people repeat, but then the bad guys will use the same bad entry over and over.

Submission + - Has RIAA Abandoned "Making Available"?

Submitted by

NewYorkCountryLawyer

on Sunday September 16, 2007 @09:11PM

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The RIAA's standard complaint (pdf) was thrown out last month by a federal judge in California as so much "conclusory" "boilerplate" "speculation" in Interscope v. Rodriguez. Interestingly, the RIAA's amended complaint (pdf), filed six (6) days later, abandoned altogether the RIAA's "making available" argument, which it first formulated in defending the dismissal motion in Elektra v. Barker. This raises a number of questions, including (a) whether the RIAA is going to stick to this new form of complaint in future cases, (b) whether it is going to get into a different kind of trouble for some of its new allegations, such as its contention that the investigator "detected an individual" (contradicting the testimony of the RIAA's own expert witness) and the allegation that the defendant should be held liable because he or she is "the individual responsible for that IP address at that date and time", a phrase which would appear to be meaningless in a copyright infringement context, and (c) what tack defendants' lawyers should take (this was one lawyer's suggestion)."

Slashdot Top Deals