15 April 2003
From The Guardian's onlineblog.com: Vivendi also approached Microsoft. According to a Wall Street Journal story, Vivendi -- which is apparently thinking of selling its music business to Apple -- also approached Microsoft. However, this wasn't so much of a takeover, more an effort to get them to bankroll a "management-led buyout", reports Reuters. "The Journal said people close to Jobs insisted he was only interested in accessing music for Apple's new service, not in buying a record company," says the report. People who pay for a Wall Street Journal sub can find the story, Vivendi Music Unit's Attempt To Sell Itself Has Fallen Flat, here.

9:19:06 AM  #   your two cents []
Today's very weird article: Reagan blasts Bush. "My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush," says the former president's son, in a flame-throwing conversation about the war and the Bush administration's efforts to lay claim to the Reagan legacy. [Salon.com]
9:17:38 AM  #   your two cents []
Aristotle. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." [Quotes of the Day]
9:13:14 AM  #   your two cents []
HP closes in on $600 million Irish deal. Hewlett-Packard's services unit is in the final stages of landing a seven-year deal with the Bank of Ireland, under which the financial institution would outsource much of its IT operations to the company. [CNET News.com]
9:10:22 AM  #   your two cents []
Here's a pressing issue!! Did CNN turn up the boos on Michael Moore's Oscars speech?. Check out these two video clips -- one from CNN, the other from ABC -- and see if it doesn't sound to you like CNN turned up the booing during Michael Moore's speech at the Oscars. Link [Boing Boing Blog]
9:09:01 AM  #   your two cents []
Terrorism databases and the fallacy of the false positive. Bruce Schneier runs down the statistical problems of keeping terrorist-suspect databases:
To see this, let's walk through an example. Assume a simple database -- name and a single code indicating "innocent" or "guilty." When a policeman encounters someone, he looks that person up in the database, and then arrests him if the database says "guilty."

Example 1: Assume the database is 100% accurate. If that is the case, there won't be any false arrests because of bad data. It works perfectly.

Example 2: Assume a 0.0001% error rate: one error in a million. (An error is defined as a person having an "innocent" code when he is guilty, or a "guilty" code when he is innocent.) Furthermore, assume that one in 10,000 people are guilty. In this case, for every 100 guilty people the database correctly identifies it will mistakenly identify one innocent person as guilty (because of an error). And the number of guilty people erroneously listed as innocent is tiny: one in a million.

Example 3: Assume a 1% error rate -- one in a hundred -- and the same one in 10,000 ratio of guilty people. The results are very different. For every 100 guilty people the database correctly identifies, it will mistakenly identify 10,000 innocent people as guilty. The number of guilty people erroneously listed as innocent is larger, but still very small: one in 100. Link [Boing Boing Blog]

9:07:38 AM  #   your two cents []