The fact there would be a heavy fine won't affect them unless they are completely asleep at the wheel.
So why exactly is Fox taking this all the way to the Supreme court?
If you're going to answer your own question before you ask it, why do we need any other posts to this thread?
Basically, the crux is that Fox (or any broadcaster) can take all reasonable precautions, but if just one "naughty word" slips through, they can get hammered with a very large fine.
Related to this is the fact that they are a network, and the FCC seems to sometimes decide that they can fine each affiliate station for the same violation. Basically, this means that you could broadcast Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" uncut on a single station and get less of a fine than if one of those words slips through a network feed. This capricious enforcement is also part of their issue with the FCC.
Guessing 36 combinations doesn't seem like a big hassle to me? And you have a 50-50 chance of getting the right combination in just 18 tries.
Depending on how deep into the install wizard the code input is, it could be a very big hassle.
Also, if the input box doesn't allow pasting from the clipboard, you'd have to manually enter every digit every time. So, this could take 2-3 minutes per try. With 15 tries, that's nearly an hour to spend failing to install the game. I don't mind if software takes an hour to install, as long as the interactive part in the install only takes a minute or two, and happens entirely at the beginning.
The RIAA should give up on its outrageous fantasy of being paid for every single copy of every single music track ever produced, and do a better job of selling their products to people who want to pay.
I've probably averaged the purchase of two CDs a year for the past three years because I basically already have everything I want, and most new music isn't worth the money. So, the music industry have gotten about $1-2/month from me during that time.
I would happily pay $10/month for access to something like iTunes but without DRM, even with download limits (say 100 tracks/month, with rollover). And, I'd probably pay that for the next 10 years without flinching. With that sort of system, the music industry would get at least five times the money from me as they do now. How can that not be better for them?
And, if they enact such a thing, it's only a problem for people who never download any kind of movies or music.
For everyone else, it's a win, since paying that tax means you've paid the copyright holder for the content, and you can then download it from anywhere you want. As long as the ISPs don't shut down P2P, such a tax is a good deal for music buyers.
I'm sure the media companies will argue that such a tax doesn't allow you to download anything you want, but if it ever comes to a lawsuit, I suspect that a jury would think otherwise.
If people would just get these sayings right, there would be less confusion.
Originally, it was "eat your cake and have it too", which basically means you want to get the value of the cake (by eating it) and yet still keep it as "savings". As always, Wikipedia gets the details right.
These ridiculous lawsuits scare the crap out of anyone who would want to legitimately use open source software, and they completely go against the idea of freedom.
These lawsuits are no more "ridiculous" than Microsoft suing somebody because they were running 100 copies of Windows XP but had only paid for one.
In both cases, it's an infringement of copyright. If Diebold hadn't infringed copyright, they wouldn't be sued for it. OK, so maybe the RIAA would sue them while they were getting around to everyone else on the planet, but that doesn't count.
why should Cogent have to pay Sprint for peering instead of the other way around?
The company that sends the most data outbound (i.e., off their network to someplace else on the Internet) pays in peering agreements.
This really only applies to "leaf" companies who are dealing with other companies to get transit to other places. The Tier 1 providers are essentially "the backbone", and although they tend to send the most off their network, much of that does not originate on their network, but is merely passing through. Also, they have the big club where they can just cut off a leaf network provider because they don't need them to get to anybody but machines completely local to that network. I would assume that these big players have agreements where as long as the differential over some time period is less than some number, no money changes hands.
From what everyone here is saying, Cogent is a leaf that does mostly outbound, so they would have to pay to whoever gives them transit to the rest of the Internet.
Seriously, you've needed more than 64 cores in a single desktop machine?
Even using the newest 6-core chips, that would mean a 12-socket motherboard. Systems like that often don't have standardized hardware that can run an abitrary desktop OS, anyway.
Before quad-core chips became common, there were probably a few times when wanting support for more than two sockets from a desktop OS was a reasonable request, but now that you can run 12 cores with just two sockets, anything more really screams "distributed app". Heck, with all the free bare-metal virtualization systems that support at least 256 cores, you can just run one of those, then run VMs of your choice on top of that.
Each VM would have 2-4 virtual CPUs, and then add in a distributed component using virtual networking. Since the networking is entirely within the same physical machine (no real NIC is ever used), you essentially get memory copies (that's how VMware ESX does it). So, you'd have a very fast, very scalable system with no extra cost...you'd still need to buy any hardware and license any VM OS and software, but you'd always have to do that.
Although XP and Vista don't support more than two physical CPUs, they do support up to 32 cores (64 on the 64-bit versions) regardless of the version of the OS.
Yes, that's a lot less than current Linux kernels, but the reality is that for a desktop operating system it's not a problem. I don't think that Microsoft is really wrong in assuming that once you hit more than two CPU sockets, you're going to be installing a server OS.
They also bleep out "drugs" in "girls come easy and the drugs come cheap", "drug" in "everybody's got a drug dealer on speed dial", and "pills" from "gonna pop my pills from a pez dispenser".
My attitude is if you are bleeping out words, then you don't understand the point of that particular song, and shouldn't be playing it on your station.
First, let's assume "several hundred" equals 200, and we have exactly 65000 employees. Let's also assume that these extra servers are on for exactly 48 hours. Let's also assume perfect load balancing and distribution of the process over the servers.
That means that each server processes payroll for 325 employees in 48 hours, or about 7 employees per hour. So, each of these servers is basically the equivalent of a Commodore 64 in computing power. I suggest that the best way to save money at this task is to replace the 200 servers with a single Pentium 4 quad core running at 3GHz.
The other explanation—that the software is so unbelievably bad that it really does take 8½ minutes for it to run a single employee—is possible, but would going out and buying "QuickBooks" really cost more than the 200 servers to run this awful beast of a payroll program?
At my exact current location, only 50/20 is available, but in other places you can get 50/50. See this chart for pricing info.
Even doubling the 50/20 price would only make it $500/month. Extra static IPs are $5 each/month, so that could add up, too, but still well below what most people would expect.
If you have been victimized by your company and are considering seeking legal remedies, get a lawyer.
Agreed, but in this case, there is no "victimization" going on.
It's merely a matter of opinion of what a company should do about a purely internal matter. Although the issue is ethical in nature, it is no different from a business perspective than if your manager told you "use blue text on the website" and you disagreed.
Bringing in a lawyer to that sort of thing can do nothing but harm.
Unless it's something about you, personally, then an HR employee has no requirement to keep it "confidential".
In other words, if you are talking about your health insurance, your personal information, etc., that's not general "company business" and shouldn't be spread around. But, if you bring them some information about someone doing something that could be detrimental to the business, they really do have an ethical requirement to pass that along. A good HR team would know not to bring your name into it if you are "snitching" until it was absolutely necessary, but sometimes that happens sooner than you would like.
What you were thinking of is a company ombudsman. These people are somewhat like your "lawyer" within the company, and are there for the employees. What they would do is explain to you your options (go to management yourself, let them do it and respect your anonymity as far as possible, never divulge your name even if that means the complaint can't proceed, etc.), and then help you implement them.
Although I don't know about the "infected within 10 minutes" if the system is behind a firewall, I definitely agree about the "not just weird sites".
I had done a re-install on an XP machine that had a TV tuner card and went to TitanTV to check if a show was a new episode that night, and ended up getting a drive-by download of a bunch of malware that was definitely trying to do virus-like things (connecting to other machines on my network, etc.).
I couldn't even clean it by pulling the hard drive and installing it as a second drive. I ended up re-imaging the disk with my base install.
The real problem was that my base install was a bit old and the anti-virus and Spybot didn't have the right signatures. The latest is now in my base install, and I keep it more up-to-date.
I definitely agree that having the keys are the attacks on all current DRM systems, but the reason this occurs is because the keys are so broadly distributed. In other words, many devices have the exact same key, and media has to have multiple keys embedded on it.
With a download-only system, you could conceivably have devices where every one has its own key, and media is encrypted in such a way that only that one key will decrypt it.
With a one device/one key system, gaining control of a key gives you nothing more than attacks like a debugger that grab the decrypted data off the bus (or out of memory) while the system runs, which can never truly be stopped.
But, along with having to decrypt/encrypt to send to another device, the major flaw with this system is no pressed media. To be honest, though, the only DRM system that might have a chance to work would be one that didn't support mass-produced read-only media.
No, it will be like the Tivo - the source is open, however the hardware will only execute code that is signed. So you can modify the software all you want but it won't run on the hardware.
But, with open source, you can just build your own "device"...really.
See, the TiVo system is not truly open source...only the changes that they have made to the GPL code are available. Their completely non-GPL code isn't, and the DRM is all within that code.
For Marlin, you would simply compile the code and run it on whatever system you wanted, then have it acquire licenses, which I assume would be (in some way) personalized decryption keys for the content. You can't embed the decryption keys in the device, or you end up with CSS...break it once and it's permanently broken.
One way around this is to give each individual device a private key signed by the Marlin developers. Then, any "purchase" would result in encrypting the content using the device public key. This would allow revoking the device key which would only break one single device (not a class of devices). The problem then becomes how to allow movement of content between devices.
All these potential problems and ways to circumvent the DRM are just off the top of my head. A determined team would easily defeat this, just like they defeated everything else. So, like every other DRM, Marlin will be an annoyance to legal users of the content, and of complete unimportance to illegal users of the content.
The whole anti-malware market exists to fit one purpose.....to plug the holes Microsoft's incompetence leaves behind.
Although there is no doubt that there is a lot of poor code from Microsoft that causes some of the virus issues, at this point there is also no doubt that market share has a lot to do with it.
If Linux had even 25% desktop market share, there would be spam bots for it that would drive-by download from thousands of web pages. You don't need a root account in Linux to send e-mail...you just need an e-mail server running.
There are also a fair number Linux root exploits that require you to start as a user that is logged in locally. With more market share, these would be seen a lot more.
And yes, running Linux is a lot less of a hassle. And you don't have to buy a new $40-80 AV license every year or so.
The Symantec "Corporate" line of AV products have the advantage of not being subscription based (at least up to version 10).
Although only useful if you have more than one PC to protect (because the minimum number of licenses is 5), you end up paying about $40/machine for a permanent license (i.e., updates forever). I had been using version 7 for many years before jumping up to version 10 last year. It's not free, but it works out to about $10/year for my usage, and that's acceptable to me.
Your example is pretty much the only time that uncompressed HD is regularly used...when rendering CGI. Even when editing HD, all you do is mark cut points and when you splice scenes together, most of the compressed frames are copied unchanged, with only a few frames around the join subject to de-compression and re-compression.
I have several different LSI hardware cards, and I don't need the exact same card as a replacement.
As long as I can plug the drives in (and since they are all SATA/SAS controller cards, I can), the array shows up. When you connect the drives to another card, it will complain that the drives don't match the configuration in the NVRAM, but you can just tell it to copy the drive config into NVRAM and use it.
I don't know how other controller manufacturers build their cards, but LSI seems to do the right thing with this.
Slashdot Mirror
find . | grep [string]
I take it this is for a system with a non-GNU grep (stock Solaris, maybe?).
grep -Rs "string" *
The fact there would be a heavy fine won't affect them unless they are completely asleep at the wheel.
So why exactly is Fox taking this all the way to the Supreme court?
If you're going to answer your own question before you ask it, why do we need any other posts to this thread?
Basically, the crux is that Fox (or any broadcaster) can take all reasonable precautions, but if just one "naughty word" slips through, they can get hammered with a very large fine.
Related to this is the fact that they are a network, and the FCC seems to sometimes decide that they can fine each affiliate station for the same violation. Basically, this means that you could broadcast Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" uncut on a single station and get less of a fine than if one of those words slips through a network feed. This capricious enforcement is also part of their issue with the FCC.
Guessing 36 combinations doesn't seem like a big hassle to me? And you have a 50-50 chance of getting the right combination in just 18 tries.
Depending on how deep into the install wizard the code input is, it could be a very big hassle.
Also, if the input box doesn't allow pasting from the clipboard, you'd have to manually enter every digit every time. So, this could take 2-3 minutes per try. With 15 tries, that's nearly an hour to spend failing to install the game. I don't mind if software takes an hour to install, as long as the interactive part in the install only takes a minute or two, and happens entirely at the beginning.
The RIAA should give up on its outrageous fantasy of being paid for every single copy of every single music track ever produced, and do a better job of selling their products to people who want to pay.
I've probably averaged the purchase of two CDs a year for the past three years because I basically already have everything I want, and most new music isn't worth the money. So, the music industry have gotten about $1-2/month from me during that time.
I would happily pay $10/month for access to something like iTunes but without DRM, even with download limits (say 100 tracks/month, with rollover). And, I'd probably pay that for the next 10 years without flinching. With that sort of system, the music industry would get at least five times the money from me as they do now. How can that not be better for them?
And, if they enact such a thing, it's only a problem for people who never download any kind of movies or music.
For everyone else, it's a win, since paying that tax means you've paid the copyright holder for the content, and you can then download it from anywhere you want. As long as the ISPs don't shut down P2P, such a tax is a good deal for music buyers.
I'm sure the media companies will argue that such a tax doesn't allow you to download anything you want, but if it ever comes to a lawsuit, I suspect that a jury would think otherwise.
If people would just get these sayings right, there would be less confusion.
Originally, it was "eat your cake and have it too", which basically means you want to get the value of the cake (by eating it) and yet still keep it as "savings". As always, Wikipedia gets the details right.
These ridiculous lawsuits scare the crap out of anyone who would want to legitimately use open source software, and they completely go against the idea of freedom.
These lawsuits are no more "ridiculous" than Microsoft suing somebody because they were running 100 copies of Windows XP but had only paid for one.
In both cases, it's an infringement of copyright. If Diebold hadn't infringed copyright, they wouldn't be sued for it. OK, so maybe the RIAA would sue them while they were getting around to everyone else on the planet, but that doesn't count.
why should Cogent have to pay Sprint for peering instead of the other way around?
The company that sends the most data outbound (i.e., off their network to someplace else on the Internet) pays in peering agreements.
This really only applies to "leaf" companies who are dealing with other companies to get transit to other places. The Tier 1 providers are essentially "the backbone", and although they tend to send the most off their network, much of that does not originate on their network, but is merely passing through. Also, they have the big club where they can just cut off a leaf network provider because they don't need them to get to anybody but machines completely local to that network. I would assume that these big players have agreements where as long as the differential over some time period is less than some number, no money changes hands.
From what everyone here is saying, Cogent is a leaf that does mostly outbound, so they would have to pay to whoever gives them transit to the rest of the Internet.
Seriously, you've needed more than 64 cores in a single desktop machine?
Even using the newest 6-core chips, that would mean a 12-socket motherboard. Systems like that often don't have standardized hardware that can run an abitrary desktop OS, anyway.
Before quad-core chips became common, there were probably a few times when wanting support for more than two sockets from a desktop OS was a reasonable request, but now that you can run 12 cores with just two sockets, anything more really screams "distributed app". Heck, with all the free bare-metal virtualization systems that support at least 256 cores, you can just run one of those, then run VMs of your choice on top of that.
Each VM would have 2-4 virtual CPUs, and then add in a distributed component using virtual networking. Since the networking is entirely within the same physical machine (no real NIC is ever used), you essentially get memory copies (that's how VMware ESX does it). So, you'd have a very fast, very scalable system with no extra cost...you'd still need to buy any hardware and license any VM OS and software, but you'd always have to do that.
Although XP and Vista don't support more than two physical CPUs, they do support up to 32 cores (64 on the 64-bit versions) regardless of the version of the OS.
Yes, that's a lot less than current Linux kernels, but the reality is that for a desktop operating system it's not a problem. I don't think that Microsoft is really wrong in assuming that once you hit more than two CPU sockets, you're going to be installing a server OS.
You must listen to the same stations I do.
They also bleep out "drugs" in "girls come easy and the drugs come cheap", "drug" in "everybody's got a drug dealer on speed dial", and "pills" from "gonna pop my pills from a pez dispenser".
My attitude is if you are bleeping out words, then you don't understand the point of that particular song, and shouldn't be playing it on your station.
Usually, they just fade the song out before that line, since it's so close to the end.
But, yes, it's censored. ISTR that the Stones sang that song at the Super Bowl halftime and that line was bleeped or muted.
First, let's assume "several hundred" equals 200, and we have exactly 65000 employees. Let's also assume that these extra servers are on for exactly 48 hours. Let's also assume perfect load balancing and distribution of the process over the servers.
That means that each server processes payroll for 325 employees in 48 hours, or about 7 employees per hour. So, each of these servers is basically the equivalent of a Commodore 64 in computing power. I suggest that the best way to save money at this task is to replace the 200 servers with a single Pentium 4 quad core running at 3GHz.
The other explanation—that the software is so unbelievably bad that it really does take 8½ minutes for it to run a single employee—is possible, but would going out and buying "QuickBooks" really cost more than the 200 servers to run this awful beast of a payroll program?
Yes.
At my exact current location, only 50/20 is available, but in other places you can get 50/50. See this chart for pricing info.
Even doubling the 50/20 price would only make it $500/month. Extra static IPs are $5 each/month, so that could add up, too, but still well below what most people would expect.
If you have been victimized by your company and are considering seeking legal remedies, get a lawyer.
Agreed, but in this case, there is no "victimization" going on.
It's merely a matter of opinion of what a company should do about a purely internal matter. Although the issue is ethical in nature, it is no different from a business perspective than if your manager told you "use blue text on the website" and you disagreed.
Bringing in a lawyer to that sort of thing can do nothing but harm.
Unless it's something about you, personally, then an HR employee has no requirement to keep it "confidential".
In other words, if you are talking about your health insurance, your personal information, etc., that's not general "company business" and shouldn't be spread around. But, if you bring them some information about someone doing something that could be detrimental to the business, they really do have an ethical requirement to pass that along. A good HR team would know not to bring your name into it if you are "snitching" until it was absolutely necessary, but sometimes that happens sooner than you would like.
What you were thinking of is a company ombudsman. These people are somewhat like your "lawyer" within the company, and are there for the employees. What they would do is explain to you your options (go to management yourself, let them do it and respect your anonymity as far as possible, never divulge your name even if that means the complaint can't proceed, etc.), and then help you implement them.
Although I don't know about the "infected within 10 minutes" if the system is behind a firewall, I definitely agree about the "not just weird sites".
I had done a re-install on an XP machine that had a TV tuner card and went to TitanTV to check if a show was a new episode that night, and ended up getting a drive-by download of a bunch of malware that was definitely trying to do virus-like things (connecting to other machines on my network, etc.).
I couldn't even clean it by pulling the hard drive and installing it as a second drive. I ended up re-imaging the disk with my base install.
The real problem was that my base install was a bit old and the anti-virus and Spybot didn't have the right signatures. The latest is now in my base install, and I keep it more up-to-date.
Where I am (near Washington, D.C.), it would cost me about $400/month to get dedicated, non-oversubscribed 50Mbps symmetric service.
It's not a true DS3, but fiber to the premises. I don't need that much, so I'm content with 15Mbps symmetric for $140/month with 5 static IPs.
There are still some good ISPs out there, with prices that won't require you to mortgage your home.
I definitely agree that having the keys are the attacks on all current DRM systems, but the reason this occurs is because the keys are so broadly distributed. In other words, many devices have the exact same key, and media has to have multiple keys embedded on it.
With a download-only system, you could conceivably have devices where every one has its own key, and media is encrypted in such a way that only that one key will decrypt it.
With a one device/one key system, gaining control of a key gives you nothing more than attacks like a debugger that grab the decrypted data off the bus (or out of memory) while the system runs, which can never truly be stopped.
But, along with having to decrypt/encrypt to send to another device, the major flaw with this system is no pressed media. To be honest, though, the only DRM system that might have a chance to work would be one that didn't support mass-produced read-only media.
No, it will be like the Tivo - the source is open, however the hardware will only execute code that is signed. So you can modify the software all you want but it won't run on the hardware.
But, with open source, you can just build your own "device"...really.
See, the TiVo system is not truly open source...only the changes that they have made to the GPL code are available. Their completely non-GPL code isn't, and the DRM is all within that code.
For Marlin, you would simply compile the code and run it on whatever system you wanted, then have it acquire licenses, which I assume would be (in some way) personalized decryption keys for the content. You can't embed the decryption keys in the device, or you end up with CSS...break it once and it's permanently broken.
One way around this is to give each individual device a private key signed by the Marlin developers. Then, any "purchase" would result in encrypting the content using the device public key. This would allow revoking the device key which would only break one single device (not a class of devices). The problem then becomes how to allow movement of content between devices.
All these potential problems and ways to circumvent the DRM are just off the top of my head. A determined team would easily defeat this, just like they defeated everything else. So, like every other DRM, Marlin will be an annoyance to legal users of the content, and of complete unimportance to illegal users of the content.
The whole anti-malware market exists to fit one purpose.....to plug the holes Microsoft's incompetence leaves behind.
Although there is no doubt that there is a lot of poor code from Microsoft that causes some of the virus issues, at this point there is also no doubt that market share has a lot to do with it.
If Linux had even 25% desktop market share, there would be spam bots for it that would drive-by download from thousands of web pages. You don't need a root account in Linux to send e-mail...you just need an e-mail server running.
There are also a fair number Linux root exploits that require you to start as a user that is logged in locally. With more market share, these would be seen a lot more.
And yes, running Linux is a lot less of a hassle. And you don't have to buy a new $40-80 AV license every year or so.
The Symantec "Corporate" line of AV products have the advantage of not being subscription based (at least up to version 10).
Although only useful if you have more than one PC to protect (because the minimum number of licenses is 5), you end up paying about $40/machine for a permanent license (i.e., updates forever). I had been using version 7 for many years before jumping up to version 10 last year. It's not free, but it works out to about $10/year for my usage, and that's acceptable to me.
HD camcorders don't use uncompressed video.
Your example is pretty much the only time that uncompressed HD is regularly used...when rendering CGI. Even when editing HD, all you do is mark cut points and when you splice scenes together, most of the compressed frames are copied unchanged, with only a few frames around the join subject to de-compression and re-compression.
Insanely high bitrate (48Mbps) HD video is 20GB/hour.
How can you fill up a 120GG hard drive with 3 hours of that?
I have several different LSI hardware cards, and I don't need the exact same card as a replacement.
As long as I can plug the drives in (and since they are all SATA/SAS controller cards, I can), the array shows up. When you connect the drives to another card, it will complain that the drives don't match the configuration in the NVRAM, but you can just tell it to copy the drive config into NVRAM and use it.
I don't know how other controller manufacturers build their cards, but LSI seems to do the right thing with this.