The judicial system shouldn't be able to force you to say anything you don't believe in, to your own customers, with no means of telling your side of the story.
Self determination is a sacrosanct right, and this punishment crosses the line.
UK resident: no, there is no 'sacrosanct right' here at all. If a company chooses to take legal action in the UK, then they have to comply with what the court decides. If they don't, there will be consequences.
They werent forced to 'say' anything, it was more the equivalent of a dodgy restaurant being made to put up a poster or a leaflet in a shop window informing customers that they only got a C on their hygiene inspection
I can't say I understand that. If RAM utilization is so vastly out-scaled as compared to CPU utilization, there's a significant resource use inefficiency at play.
Machines consume a baseline amount of power whether they're used or not; that power usage obviously increases with utilization, but ideally you'd have full utilization across the board.
If memory usage is so much higher than CPU usage, I have to wonder what it is that Mozilla is doing wrong with their architecture. Are they using pre-fork-style servers? Are they just provisioning poorly? What is it?
> CPU use is irrelevant to most internet servers.
Why? The CPU is used when the machine does anything. Ideally you're operating the machines at full capacity, less overhead to handle load spikes.
> Over the week, I operate my car engine at about 1.2% capacity. Maybe they should write about that.
What you're doing is inefficient, and they do write about that. The solution is called car sharing and public transportation.
>If memory usage is so much higher than CPU usage, I have to wonder what it is that Mozilla is doing wrong with their architecture. Are they using pre-fork-style servers? Are they just provisioning poorly? What is it?
Or are they just serving up web pages to users? That's RAM and bandwidth heavy, but very CPU light. You still need the machines to scale your load, but you're not going to be using the CPU.
Realistically, for just about any application, you're going to be RAM-bound before you're CPU-bound. The exceptions are(off the top of my head) scientific computing and video rendering, both of which are CPU heavy, and are very deterministic in their behaviors, which allows for heavy optimization of L2 and L3 cache misses.
> Or are they just serving up web pages to users? That's RAM and bandwidth heavy, but very CPU light. You still need the machines to scale your load, but you're not going to be using the CPU.
That depends very much on the efficiency of software your architecture. A well-architected web app can scale up RAM and CPU utilization much more closely than something modeled on zero shared state independent processes.
Additionally, even if your scaling model of RAM before CPU is the only possible one, that doesn't make the utilization effecient, and implies that higher efficiency could still be reached by scaling up RAM per machine.
Anecdotally, gnome 3 attracted me. I now run a Ubuntu system, but I haven't switched my main desktop to Ubuntu because Mac OS X is still better (for me).
Not really - the users own the posts and put them up in order to get publicity. It's like claiming 'I republished your classified ad for you in 6 papers' is a problem - virtually every classified ad would be pleased that they had more coverage.
I don't want my classified ads republished because I've chosen to publish the advertisement in places that target specific types of people.
It's incredibly naive to assume you know best.
We have our job ads republished by job sites with user bases that are far outside what we're interested in, and it results in a massive waste of our time in filtering those candidates.
> Customers, coworkers, managers, do this intentionally or not, maliciously or not.
None of these situations are the same as an interview. If you're providing an explanation at the behest of the interviewer, why not also depart on a tangent, also at the behest of the interviewer?
If you're explaining the value of your software to a prospect, why not also go off on a tangent at the behest of the prospect.
The role whose function an interview most resembles is that of a sales person. Having been in hundreds of sales meetings, I can say with total conviction that the ability to direct the conversation and deflect tangential questions is absolutely critical to being successful.
That said, every role doesn't require that skill, but OP specifically said that it's only for more senior/customer-facing positions.
I don't see why the "right" thing would be to reward someone for breaking your ToS and stealing your database as a means of creating a potential competitor to your business.
On top of that, even if PadMapper had not been slimy, I don't see why it's "right" to pay a sum for something you're perfectly capable of building yourself for less time, money, effort, and headache than what an acquisition would cost.
No, of course, it's not like Craigslist has done some damage to PadMapper and now needs to buy them as recompense or anything. But buying them would be the... gallant thing to do?
That is, it isn't so much what Craigslist "needs" to do to be in the right, here, but it's what they could do to be in the very right. To be better than any other random classifieds company, to generate viral PR, to be something you'd be happy to say you use, etc.
Being gallant doesn't make you better than other random classifieds companies. It makes you more gallant. That might be worth something to a few users, but it doesn't seem like the majority care.
This has been asked and answered numerous times here, lets not have to go over this again. PadMapper was using CL data without a license, they are not 'reading it' they are republishing it in their own app.
Well, since you've clearly been over this more carefully than most of us, maybe you could be troubled just a bit to elaborate on these questions one more time:
* Is it clear that the kind of data that craigslist published can in fact be "owned"? Because no matter what their terms claim, the legal analyses I've read aren't positively conclusive.
* Why is what Padmapper did any different than a search engine? Contrary to some assertions, PadMapper was not republishing listings wholesale -- they published digests (making the ownership issue even less tenable) along with hyperlinks, which sounds a lot like a search engine to me (pretty much what they are). Or even a typical anchor tag itself: the contents of such a tag are generally a digest, the attribute presents the hypertext.
* If you agree these activities are something people shouldn't be able to do without permission, are you fine with a web where search indexing or even linking is essentially by agreement only? This is not an academic question, btw -- there have been lawsuits over linking: http://www.salon.com/1999/08/12/deep_links/
But that data doesn't belong to Craigslist. To the extent it's copyrightable at all, it belongs to the user who posted each ad. And even then, PadMapper only reproduced a minimal number of facts on its website: price, location, subject line, number of bedrooms, whether cats/dogs are okay. They linked to CL for the full ad, so no copyright was infringed.
Damn, didn't realize that. But to be honest, it won't change my habits. I enjoy reading comics, not the actual comics themselves. I don't "collect" them, I just buy and read them, and will probably never reread a book.
Self determination is a sacrosanct right, and this punishment crosses the line.