There is a technology tie-in, the new pope was spotted with the unreleased Galaxy S4, but it was hastily taken from his hands by an aide who was overheard saying "That was not to be taken outside the chapel without His approval".
Many (most?) data centers I've been in have been buildings converted from some other use -- office buildings, warehouses, etc. But regardless of how they are built, they always seem to have relatively low ceilings, even in converted spaces where they rip out the ceiling grid.
I get the density argument, but I often wonder if someone built a data center with a 50 foot ceiling (a large, flat building) if you wouldn't gain some cooling benefit from convection that would be worth the sacrifice in vertical density versus the cost in intensive forced air cooling.
I don't see why high ceilings would make a difference - you have X BTU/hr of heat to remove - letting it accumulate at the ceiling doesn't seem to make much difference (unless you have a lot of conductive losses through the walls/ceiling).
I can't beleive there's any economic argument for giving up 66% - 75% of your potential floor space (12 or 16 foot ceilings versus 48 foot ceilings) just to let heat rise to the ceiling.
Hot aisles make the heat exchangers more efficient.
That's not the point of improved convection. The idea is not to let heat rise, it is to give more room to the air so the flow can establish wider patterns, bringing cooler air in contact with the heat source without requiring additional power for blowers. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no need to blow artic air on a server to cool it down.
But you get the same benefit from hot aisles/cold isles for the price of some baffles to separate the hot/cold air - much cheaper than 50 foot ceilings.
Many (most?) data centers I've been in have been buildings converted from some other use -- office buildings, warehouses, etc. But regardless of how they are built, they always seem to have relatively low ceilings, even in converted spaces where they rip out the ceiling grid.
I get the density argument, but I often wonder if someone built a data center with a 50 foot ceiling (a large, flat building) if you wouldn't gain some cooling benefit from convection that would be worth the sacrifice in vertical density versus the cost in intensive forced air cooling.
I don't see why high ceilings would make a difference - you have X BTU/hr of heat to remove - letting it accumulate at the ceiling doesn't seem to make much difference (unless you have a lot of conductive losses through the walls/ceiling).
I can't beleive there's any economic argument for giving up 66% - 75% of your potential floor space (12 or 16 foot ceilings versus 48 foot ceilings) just to let heat rise to the ceiling.
Hot aisles make the heat exchangers more efficient.
Depending on where you are, even a small percentage of power savings could pay for the hardware fairly quickly. Here in the Silicon Valley at least, PG&E charges upwards of $0.30/kWh for the average home power consumer, and their rates go higher based on usage tiers. Running a data center of supercomputer cluster wouldn't be cheap when it costs me ~$300/month to power my desktop PC and toaster oven.
PG&E uses a tiered rate structure so while the highest rate may be in the 34 cent/KWh range, the average rate for most homes is lower.
Here are the rates (Residential E1, no time of day):
$0.13230 $0.15040 $0.30025 $0.34025 $0.34025
Baseline quantities depends on region - my single family townhome has a baseline of 273KWh. Baseline is supposed to be 50 - 60% of an average home's power usage. We tend to stay under 300KWh/month, so pay close to the baseline rates. Though if you had a 400W server at home running 24x7, its 288KWh/month of usage would likely all be charged in a higher tier.
I think commercial rates are around 19 cents/KWh (no tiers), industrial rates are around 13 cents/KWh.
That's more complicated than it looks. On a first look it may seem like this does not change cooling requirements; most datacenter simply use a formula such as watts/3 to get a rough ideas of the needed BTUs. However the more you space out heat sources, the more natural cooling (convection) can do a magnificent job as the air flow is more optimally utilized.
Every densely packed datacenter I've seen uses forced air cooling to suck in cool air from the cool aisles and blow warm air into the hot isles. Natural convection seems less important in such a scenario.
The draft text for TPP is secret, but the U.S. proposal for the IP chapter was leaked two years ago. The leaked proposal contained KORUS's closed list of exceptions.
How can the US sign a treaty that is secret from the citizens of the US? The government shouldn't be allowed to sign (or even consider) a trade treaty with secret terms. How else can the people know if they want to be party to the treaty?
In the US, these entities are in fact regulated, and I imagine its the same in France. If they're acting in the same fashion (but with slightly different physical characteristics), why wouldn't those same laws apply to them? If you want fully de-regulate the long distance phone providers as being telecommunications entities that's one thing, but applying one set of rules because its half tethered off the internet doesn't change the nature of what these companies do.
I don't see it. From the article "An IXC carries traffic, usually voice traffic, between telephone exchanges." Skype isn't carrying traffic between exchanges, instead they are acting as a long wire from the point of entry to the Telco network to the end user's computer. The management of a large building may provide a long wire from the building MPOE to an office on the 55th floor, but that doesn't make them an IXC.
I think Skype is more like a CLEC (with a very large "local area"), but they aren't that either -- they buy their phone numbers and telco access from a regulated CLEC.
And they are correct. You tie into the Telco, you need to play by the regulations for Telco.
Why? Skype isn't providing traditional telephones, they are using gateways that interface with the Telco network (thus are ultimately controlled by the Telcos) -- the Telco is providing the physical telephone lines, not Skype.
If a computer-to-computer call is not regulated, why should the computer end of a computer-to-landline call be regulated? The landline side is already regulated, what makes the computer side different just because it's able to call a landline?
That sounds like a fire hazard, not to mention a source of dust - do people really put wooden shelves in their datacenters?
The autoignition temperature for generic cheapo plywood is somewhere on the order of 300 degrees C. If you went with pine, which is still pretty cheap, it goes up to 427 degrees C.
How hot do you think computers run?
It's not normal operation that would concern me with wooden rack shelves, but failures like this:
The standard for airflow is front to back and upwards. Doing some sticky note measurements, I think you could mount 5 of these vertically as a unit. I'd say get a piece of 1" think plywood and dado cut channels 1/4" top and bottom to mount the motherboards. This would also give you a mounting spot that you could line up the power supplys in the back. This would also put the Ethernet ports at the back. Another thing this would allow would be for easy removable of a dead board.
That sounds like a fire hazard, not to mention a source of dust - do people really put wooden shelves in their datacenters?
It's 2013 don't build your own cluster just use AWS EC2 spot instances.
An EC2 "High CPU Medium" instance is probably close to his Core 2 Duo's (it has 1.7GB RAM + two cores of 2.5 EC2 compute units each (each ECU is equivalent to a 2007 era 1.2Ghz Xeon).
Current spot pricing is $0.018/hour, so a month would cost him around $12.96. (not including storage, add about a dollar for 10GB of EBS disk space).
If his computers use 150W of power each, at $0.12/KWh, they'll cost exactly $0.018 -- the same price as an EC2 instance excluding storage.
However spot pricing is not guaranteed, so he'll have to be prepared to shut down his instances when the spot price rises above what he's willing to pay -- full price for the instance is $0.145/hour, but he could get that down to $0.09/hour if he's willing to pay $161 to reserve the instance for 3 years.
There was a proposal recently for another Mars rover for 2020 and I was like, how? We don't have the bandwidth to transmit data appropriate for entering the 3rd decade of the 21st century there... Curiosity is completely gimped due to only being able to send (even by 2013 standards) small amounts of data at certain times etc. etc.
By that time I'm really expecting, you know, some HD footage at 60fps of the landing and surface operations. At least make that your target and stretch yourself a little.
What is scientifically appropriate bandwidth for 2013? What would the Mars Rover designers have been willing to give up to get better bandwidth? More bandwidth comes (generally) at the expense of weight, greater space requirements, and power demands. All of which are a very constrained on a space probe. Or maybe you think they should have delayed Curiosity's launch another 5 years so a newer orbital relay platform could be launched that has more bandwidth?
The Curiosity Rover can send around 250 mbit of data to earth daily. Netflix sends around 3GB/hour when streaming HD content, so if you want them to be able to stream an hour of HD video in a day, what you're asking for is over 100 times more bandwidth than they have now -- two orders of mangnitude more bandwidth.
NASA can have all of the bandwidth to Mars that it's willing to pay for, just like you could have a 10 gigabit home internet connection if you were willing to pay for it. But is it worth the added expense? How much more science could they do with more bandwidth considering the tradeoffs they'd have to make to get that bandwidth?
Require a unique decode key, a session ID, and a valid user identity in their database, with unique on the fly encoding?
Eg, in order to use the service, the device must be provisioned with a unique player key, (either has one already, or one is generated and provided to the player when the netflix app is installed and kept in a local keystore) and is encoded with the "secret" key that is generated for each user identity (subscriber) and is kept in the netflix server farm.
Multiple private keys, multiple public keys, but a single standard implementation.
This is the sort of thing TPM modules were intended for, and devices outfitted with one would get a boost to the crypto functions involved.
But that's not what the grandparent poster was asking for - he was asking for fully published and documented DRM. You're talking about moving the DRM into a closed TPM, along with an operating system that's able to securely checksum the binary that's being run and report the checksum back to Netflix. (the binary can't checksum itself or it can lie).
If you throw in some digital watermarking on the video feed data itself that can survive a re-encode run, (perhaps in the audio too?) Then finding a pirate copy of a stream on the internet would directly identify the pirate, (the stream is alread being uniquely cryptographically processed. Poking a few bits in the stream itself prior to crypto is icing on the cake.)
This is easily bypassed by stealing someone elses authentication tokens - why use your own identity when there are plenty of easily penetrated computers out there? Worst case, the pirate can use a stolen cc number and proxy his traffic through someone else's computer.
Netflix is a subscription-based service provider which streams content to you. In this scenario, to what end does DRM inhibit your experience or tread on your right as a consumer? I am legitimately curious, because while I am very anti-DRM in most scenarios, I fail to see the issue with a DRM-lock on content designed and intended to only be streamed.
I can tell you how Netflix's DRM inhibits my experience as a consumer - when I travel I take only my Linux laptop, thus have no way to watch Netflix videos (well, unless I'm willing to use a Wine based hack). It's not a platform limitation since Netflix runs well on Linux based devices.
Though it's not really the DRM that bothers me, I'd be just as happy if they had a Linux player.
Well, there is one other limitation that bothers me as a consumer - it's when Netflix takes down content from their streaming service. I've been mid way through a movie, paused it for a few days and then gone back to look for it and find that it's no longer available for streaming. It'd be nice if I could download the movie and keep it available until I'm done with it. It's stuff like that that makes torrents much more attractive - better selection and once you download the movie, it's yours forever.
how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
Following Kerckhoffs's principle, the algorithm is published but the required cryptographic keys are secret.
How would you do that when the content has to be decrypted on the client, so the client has to have the keys at some point. Even if the content holder encrypted all content with a unique key with each stream, preventing you from replaying the stream on other players, the client has to be able to decrypt it in order to play it. So the client can either save the keys along with the encrypted content, or can decypt the content and save off an unencrypted copy.
I'm totally ok with DRM, provided that it's very clear how to implement it, and I don't need to sign any contracts or otherwise agree to keep any trade secrets. Just write up the RFC, send it to IETF, and we'll all get to work on our your-DRM-compatible players. Everybody wins.
I can't tell if you're trolling or serious, but how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
You may argue that DRM doesn't work at all, but the fact that there's no native Netflix player on Linux (yet) seems to indicate otherwise.
The DHS representative said the exact same thing I did.
The DHS operates 71 checkpoints in the extended border zone for the entire United States. This is NOT a large number.
If you don't want to engage the DHS under the rules these checkpoints operate under, stay out of them.
Oh,well that's easy - as long as I don't want to travel on any of the roads where they conduct checkpoints, I don't need to stop at them. Why didn't you say so - that's not a violation of my rights at all! I can just stay home if I don't want to be stopped.
Within those checkpoints they routinely stop all traffic. That is an exception to the normal standards of the 4th Amendment. Such exceptions also operate in ports of entry. Congress and the courts have both determined that it is 'reasonable' under the terms of the 4th amendment that the Border Patrol be able to stop citizens without any suspicion within these check points. They also have rules that allow an inspection of vehicles on a 'selective' basis. Searches require an even higher standard.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm complaining about the "exception to the normal standards of the 4th Amendment. I'm not complaining about searches and stops at ports of entry, I'm complaining about the stops that are up to 100 miles inland from a port of entry where a citizen is stopped even if he's not entering the country.
Outside those checkpoints (including in the extended border zone) they do not have the right to stop you without a reasonable suspicion - which is the same standard all law enforcement is held to.
Are you reading impaired? It's those checkpoints in the extended border zone that I'm complaining about. I never said DHS could stop you anywhere any time, I said that they can stop you within the 100 mile zone - which happens to encompass more than half the population of the USA. They may have "only" 71 checkpoints today, but what's to stop them from setting up more tomorrow? As you've said, it's already perfectly legal.
The ACLU has adopted the position that the existence of these check points is of grave concern. Well, of course it is. Any suspension of the 4th Amendment normal default terms is worrying. But let's be clear. All nations do have a right to control their borders, and they exercise that right. These exceptions do not apply to the entire extended border, only at a limited number of checkpoints which may be located within this border.
Saying that the entire extended border is a '4th Amendment free zone' is at best a gross exaggeration of the actual state of affairs.
But you just said that the checkpoints are "an exception to the normal standards of the 4th Amendment" - how is that not a 4th Amendment free zone? If the normal standards of the 4th Amendment don't apply, what do you call it?
It's so hard to evaluate tablets looking at specs. it's such an intimate experience that the only way to buy is one is by trying them out, preferably for an extended period (borrow from friends?).
would you choose a pair of pants based on features, or would you try one on before you guy it?
Once I find my size in a brand, I usually keep buying that brand based on features (color, fabric style, etc) rather than trying them on every time I buy a new pair of pants. I hate going to the store to try on clothes.
You need to read this more carefully. The government in the US does NOT have the right to stop you without a reason unless you are in a border checkpoint or point of entry.
I read it, but just because you typed it doesn't make it true -- if you don't believe me, how about a spokesman from the DHS?
DHS spokesman Jason Ciliberti says the ACLU’s description of the zone as "Constitution-Free" couldn’t be further from the truth and that the check points follow rules set by Supreme Court rulings.
"“The 100-mile zone absolutely is not a Constitution-free zone,” said Jason Ciliberti, a supervisory border patrol agent with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Those 100 miles are what essentially is said to be a reasonable distance from the boundary from the United States, and the Supreme Court has come down firmly on our side and said that what we’re doing is not unreasonable.”
“The vast number of those encounters is very brief,” Ciliberti said. “If [necessary], agents do take some time to conduct investigations. But, of course, they conduct those investigations with due diligence and as minimally invasive as possible.”
Even the DHS says that they are conducting checkpoints within that 100 mile "extended border".
What SC validation? According to Wikipedia, it's the opposite: "the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent" and there's a link to such a ruling from 1973.
In Martinez-Fuerte the court went on to add that while the stop does infringe upon a motorist' right to free passage without interruption, it is a minimal infringement. They also went on to state that a warrant for such a minor infringement was not necessary, despite the Fourth Amendments declaration that no search or seizure of a person or thing occur without a warrant issued by a detached neutral magistrate.
Notice I used the word 'search', not the word 'stop'.
You may think it's ok for the government to stop you at any time and question who you are, where you came from, and where you're going, but fortunately many people (including myself) do not.
Slashdot Mirror
"News for nerds, stuff that matters"
There is a technology tie-in, the new pope was spotted with the unreleased Galaxy S4, but it was hastily taken from his hands by an aide who was overheard saying "That was not to be taken outside the chapel without His approval".
Many (most?) data centers I've been in have been buildings converted from some other use -- office buildings, warehouses, etc. But regardless of how they are built, they always seem to have relatively low ceilings, even in converted spaces where they rip out the ceiling grid.
I get the density argument, but I often wonder if someone built a data center with a 50 foot ceiling (a large, flat building) if you wouldn't gain some cooling benefit from convection that would be worth the sacrifice in vertical density versus the cost in intensive forced air cooling.
I don't see why high ceilings would make a difference - you have X BTU/hr of heat to remove - letting it accumulate at the ceiling doesn't seem to make much difference (unless you have a lot of conductive losses through the walls/ceiling).
I can't beleive there's any economic argument for giving up 66% - 75% of your potential floor space (12 or 16 foot ceilings versus 48 foot ceilings) just to let heat rise to the ceiling.
Hot aisles make the heat exchangers more efficient.
That's not the point of improved convection. The idea is not to let heat rise, it is to give more room to the air so the flow can establish wider patterns, bringing cooler air in contact with the heat source without requiring additional power for blowers. Contrary to popular misconception, there is no need to blow artic air on a server to cool it down.
But you get the same benefit from hot aisles/cold isles for the price of some baffles to separate the hot/cold air - much cheaper than 50 foot ceilings.
Many (most?) data centers I've been in have been buildings converted from some other use -- office buildings, warehouses, etc. But regardless of how they are built, they always seem to have relatively low ceilings, even in converted spaces where they rip out the ceiling grid.
I get the density argument, but I often wonder if someone built a data center with a 50 foot ceiling (a large, flat building) if you wouldn't gain some cooling benefit from convection that would be worth the sacrifice in vertical density versus the cost in intensive forced air cooling.
I don't see why high ceilings would make a difference - you have X BTU/hr of heat to remove - letting it accumulate at the ceiling doesn't seem to make much difference (unless you have a lot of conductive losses through the walls/ceiling).
I can't beleive there's any economic argument for giving up 66% - 75% of your potential floor space (12 or 16 foot ceilings versus 48 foot ceilings) just to let heat rise to the ceiling.
Hot aisles make the heat exchangers more efficient.
Depending on where you are, even a small percentage of power savings could pay for the hardware fairly quickly. Here in the Silicon Valley at least, PG&E charges upwards of $0.30/kWh for the average home power consumer, and their rates go higher based on usage tiers. Running a data center of supercomputer cluster wouldn't be cheap when it costs me ~$300/month to power my desktop PC and toaster oven.
PG&E uses a tiered rate structure so while the highest rate may be in the 34 cent/KWh range, the average rate for most homes is lower.
Here are the Tiers:
Baseline
Tier 2 101%-130%
Tier 3 131%-200%
Tier 4 201%-300%
Tier 5 >300%
Here are the rates (Residential E1, no time of day):
$0.13230
$0.15040
$0.30025
$0.34025
$0.34025
Baseline quantities depends on region - my single family townhome has a baseline of 273KWh. Baseline is supposed to be 50 - 60% of an average home's power usage. We tend to stay under 300KWh/month, so pay close to the baseline rates. Though if you had a 400W server at home running 24x7, its 288KWh/month of usage would likely all be charged in a higher tier.
I think commercial rates are around 19 cents/KWh (no tiers), industrial rates are around 13 cents/KWh.
That's more complicated than it looks. On a first look it may seem like this does not change cooling requirements; most datacenter simply use a formula such as watts/3 to get a rough ideas of the needed BTUs. However the more you space out heat sources, the more natural cooling (convection) can do a magnificent job as the air flow is more optimally utilized.
Every densely packed datacenter I've seen uses forced air cooling to suck in cool air from the cool aisles and blow warm air into the hot isles. Natural convection seems less important in such a scenario.
This is the most worrisome part of the story:
The draft text for TPP is secret, but the U.S. proposal for the IP chapter was leaked two years ago. The leaked proposal contained KORUS's closed list of exceptions.
How can the US sign a treaty that is secret from the citizens of the US? The government shouldn't be allowed to sign (or even consider) a trade treaty with secret terms. How else can the people know if they want to be party to the treaty?
Because both ends of the landline call need to be regulated. It has nothing to do with the computer aspect of it.
Oh, "Just because". Well that's a great reason for government regulation.
Skype in this case is taking the place of an inter-exchange carrier as described generally in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interexchange_carrier
In the US, these entities are in fact regulated, and I imagine its the same in France. If they're acting in the same fashion (but with slightly different physical characteristics), why wouldn't those same laws apply to them? If you want fully de-regulate the long distance phone providers as being telecommunications entities that's one thing, but applying one set of rules because its half tethered off the internet doesn't change the nature of what these companies do.
I don't see it. From the article "An IXC carries traffic, usually voice traffic, between telephone exchanges." Skype isn't carrying traffic between exchanges, instead they are acting as a long wire from the point of entry to the Telco network to the end user's computer. The management of a large building may provide a long wire from the building MPOE to an office on the 55th floor, but that doesn't make them an IXC.
I think Skype is more like a CLEC (with a very large "local area"), but they aren't that either -- they buy their phone numbers and telco access from a regulated CLEC.
And they are correct. You tie into the Telco, you need to play by the regulations for Telco.
Why? Skype isn't providing traditional telephones, they are using gateways that interface with the Telco network (thus are ultimately controlled by the Telcos) -- the Telco is providing the physical telephone lines, not Skype.
If a computer-to-computer call is not regulated, why should the computer end of a computer-to-landline call be regulated? The landline side is already regulated, what makes the computer side different just because it's able to call a landline?
That sounds like a fire hazard, not to mention a source of dust - do people really put wooden shelves in their datacenters?
The autoignition temperature for generic cheapo plywood is somewhere on the order of 300 degrees C. If you went with pine, which is still pretty cheap, it goes up to 427 degrees C.
How hot do you think computers run?
It's not normal operation that would concern me with wooden rack shelves, but failures like this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/26/exploding_computer_vs_reg_reader/
http://ronaldlan.dyndns.org/index.php
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/inadequate-deceptive-product-labeling,536.html
One bad power supply could set the whole cabinet on fire -- and perhaps worse, set off the server room fire suppression system.
The standard for airflow is front to back and upwards. Doing some sticky note measurements, I think you could mount 5 of these vertically as a unit. I'd say get a piece of 1" think plywood and dado cut channels 1/4" top and bottom to mount the motherboards. This would also give you a mounting spot that you could line up the power supplys in the back. This would also put the Ethernet ports at the back. Another thing this would allow would be for easy removable of a dead board.
That sounds like a fire hazard, not to mention a source of dust - do people really put wooden shelves in their datacenters?
It's 2013 don't build your own cluster just use AWS EC2 spot instances.
An EC2 "High CPU Medium" instance is probably close to his Core 2 Duo's (it has 1.7GB RAM + two cores of 2.5 EC2 compute units each (each ECU is equivalent to a 2007 era 1.2Ghz Xeon).
Current spot pricing is $0.018/hour, so a month would cost him around $12.96. (not including storage, add about a dollar for 10GB of EBS disk space).
If his computers use 150W of power each, at $0.12/KWh, they'll cost exactly $0.018 -- the same price as an EC2 instance excluding storage.
However spot pricing is not guaranteed, so he'll have to be prepared to shut down his instances when the spot price rises above what he's willing to pay -- full price for the instance is $0.145/hour, but he could get that down to $0.09/hour if he's willing to pay $161 to reserve the instance for 3 years.
*sigh* Then give them little rocketpacks. Do I have to think of everything?
The vacuum of space is a help, not a hindrance. Just give them a push of the correct velocity from mars and they'll coast effortlessly to Earth.
Make sure you give them enough birdseed to survive the trip.
There was a proposal recently for another Mars rover for 2020 and I was like, how? We don't have the bandwidth to transmit data appropriate for entering the 3rd decade of the 21st century there... Curiosity is completely gimped due to only being able to send (even by 2013 standards) small amounts of data at certain times etc. etc.
By that time I'm really expecting, you know, some HD footage at 60fps of the landing and surface operations. At least make that your target and stretch yourself a little.
What is scientifically appropriate bandwidth for 2013? What would the Mars Rover designers have been willing to give up to get better bandwidth? More bandwidth comes (generally) at the expense of weight, greater space requirements, and power demands. All of which are a very constrained on a space probe. Or maybe you think they should have delayed Curiosity's launch another 5 years so a newer orbital relay platform could be launched that has more bandwidth?
The Curiosity Rover can send around 250 mbit of data to earth daily. Netflix sends around 3GB/hour when streaming HD content, so if you want them to be able to stream an hour of HD video in a day, what you're asking for is over 100 times more bandwidth than they have now -- two orders of mangnitude more bandwidth.
NASA can have all of the bandwidth to Mars that it's willing to pay for, just like you could have a 10 gigabit home internet connection if you were willing to pay for it. But is it worth the added expense? How much more science could they do with more bandwidth considering the tradeoffs they'd have to make to get that bandwidth?
Require a unique decode key, a session ID, and a valid user identity in their database, with unique on the fly encoding?
Eg, in order to use the service, the device must be provisioned with a unique player key, (either has one already, or one is generated and provided to the player when the netflix app is installed and kept in a local keystore) and is encoded with the "secret" key that is generated for each user identity (subscriber) and is kept in the netflix server farm.
Multiple private keys, multiple public keys, but a single standard implementation.
This is the sort of thing TPM modules were intended for, and devices outfitted with one would get a boost to the crypto functions involved.
But that's not what the grandparent poster was asking for - he was asking for fully published and documented DRM. You're talking about moving the DRM into a closed TPM, along with an operating system that's able to securely checksum the binary that's being run and report the checksum back to Netflix. (the binary can't checksum itself or it can lie).
If you throw in some digital watermarking on the video feed data itself that can survive a re-encode run, (perhaps in the audio too?) Then finding a pirate copy of a stream on the internet would directly identify the pirate, (the stream is alread being uniquely cryptographically processed. Poking a few bits in the stream itself prior to crypto is icing on the cake.)
This is easily bypassed by stealing someone elses authentication tokens - why use your own identity when there are plenty of easily penetrated computers out there? Worst case, the pirate can use a stolen cc number and proxy his traffic through someone else's computer.
Netflix is a subscription-based service provider which streams content to you. In this scenario, to what end does DRM inhibit your experience or tread on your right as a consumer? I am legitimately curious, because while I am very anti-DRM in most scenarios, I fail to see the issue with a DRM-lock on content designed and intended to only be streamed.
I can tell you how Netflix's DRM inhibits my experience as a consumer - when I travel I take only my Linux laptop, thus have no way to watch Netflix videos (well, unless I'm willing to use a Wine based hack). It's not a platform limitation since Netflix runs well on Linux based devices.
Though it's not really the DRM that bothers me, I'd be just as happy if they had a Linux player.
Well, there is one other limitation that bothers me as a consumer - it's when Netflix takes down content from their streaming service. I've been mid way through a movie, paused it for a few days and then gone back to look for it and find that it's no longer available for streaming. It'd be nice if I could download the movie and keep it available until I'm done with it. It's stuff like that that makes torrents much more attractive - better selection and once you download the movie, it's yours forever.
how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
Following Kerckhoffs's principle, the algorithm is published but the required cryptographic keys are secret.
How would you do that when the content has to be decrypted on the client, so the client has to have the keys at some point. Even if the content holder encrypted all content with a unique key with each stream, preventing you from replaying the stream on other players, the client has to be able to decrypt it in order to play it. So the client can either save the keys along with the encrypted content, or can decypt the content and save off an unencrypted copy.
Crazy hacks? Its just firefox and wine. Geez, you add one repo and install a package and it just works 99% of the time.
What more could you want?
How about something that works 100% of the time and without having to give an unknown repository the ability to install binaries on my system?
I'm totally ok with DRM, provided that it's very clear how to implement it, and I don't need to sign any contracts or otherwise agree to keep any trade secrets. Just write up the RFC, send it to IETF, and we'll all get to work on our your-DRM-compatible players. Everybody wins.
I can't tell if you're trolling or serious, but how could you have a documented, published DRM standard that actually works? Anyone could use the standard to write a "player" that does nothing more than record the stream.
You may argue that DRM doesn't work at all, but the fact that there's no native Netflix player on Linux (yet) seems to indicate otherwise.
The DHS representative said the exact same thing I did.
The DHS operates 71 checkpoints in the extended border zone for the entire United States. This is NOT a large number.
If you don't want to engage the DHS under the rules these checkpoints operate under, stay out of them.
Oh,well that's easy - as long as I don't want to travel on any of the roads where they conduct checkpoints, I don't need to stop at them. Why didn't you say so - that's not a violation of my rights at all! I can just stay home if I don't want to be stopped.
Within those checkpoints they routinely stop all traffic. That is an exception to the normal standards of the 4th Amendment. Such exceptions also operate in ports of entry. Congress and the courts have both determined that it is 'reasonable' under the terms of the 4th amendment that the Border Patrol be able to stop citizens without any suspicion within these check points. They also have rules that allow an inspection of vehicles on a 'selective' basis. Searches require an even higher standard.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm complaining about the "exception to the normal standards of the 4th Amendment. I'm not complaining about searches and stops at ports of entry, I'm complaining about the stops that are up to 100 miles inland from a port of entry where a citizen is stopped even if he's not entering the country.
Outside those checkpoints (including in the extended border zone) they do not have the right to stop you without a reasonable suspicion - which is the same standard all law enforcement is held to.
Are you reading impaired? It's those checkpoints in the extended border zone that I'm complaining about. I never said DHS could stop you anywhere any time, I said that they can stop you within the 100 mile zone - which happens to encompass more than half the population of the USA. They may have "only" 71 checkpoints today, but what's to stop them from setting up more tomorrow? As you've said, it's already perfectly legal.
The ACLU has adopted the position that the existence of these check points is of grave concern. Well, of course it is. Any suspension of the 4th Amendment normal default terms is worrying. But let's be clear. All nations do have a right to control their borders, and they exercise that right. These exceptions do not apply to the entire extended border, only at a limited number of checkpoints which may be located within this border.
Saying that the entire extended border is a '4th Amendment free zone' is at best a gross exaggeration of the actual state of affairs.
But you just said that the checkpoints are "an exception to the normal standards of the 4th Amendment" - how is that not a 4th Amendment free zone? If the normal standards of the 4th Amendment don't apply, what do you call it?
If it let me upload standard ePub (and maybe .mobi) files via USB, I'd buy one.
It's so hard to evaluate tablets looking at specs. it's such an intimate experience that the only way to buy is one is by trying them out, preferably for an extended period (borrow from friends?).
would you choose a pair of pants based on features, or would you try one on before you guy it?
Once I find my size in a brand, I usually keep buying that brand based on features (color, fabric style, etc) rather than trying them on every time I buy a new pair of pants. I hate going to the store to try on clothes.
You need to read this more carefully. The government in the US does NOT have the right to stop you without a reason unless you are in a border checkpoint or point of entry.
I read it, but just because you typed it doesn't make it true -- if you don't believe me, how about a spokesman from the DHS?
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/washington/news.aspx?id=101659
DHS spokesman Jason Ciliberti says the ACLU’s description of the zone as "Constitution-Free" couldn’t be further from the truth and that the check points follow rules set by Supreme Court rulings.
"“The 100-mile zone absolutely is not a Constitution-free zone,” said Jason Ciliberti, a supervisory border patrol agent with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Those 100 miles are what essentially is said to be a reasonable distance from the boundary from the United States, and the Supreme Court has come down firmly on our side and said that what we’re doing is not unreasonable.”
“The vast number of those encounters is very brief,” Ciliberti said. “If [necessary], agents do take some time to conduct investigations. But, of course, they conduct those investigations with due diligence and as minimally invasive as possible.”
Even the DHS says that they are conducting checkpoints within that 100 mile "extended border".
What SC validation? According to Wikipedia, it's the opposite: "the Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies only at international borders and their functional equivalent" and there's a link to such a ruling from 1973.
http://voices.yahoo.com/supreme-court-checkpoint-rulings-diminish-fourth-8598639.html
In Martinez-Fuerte the court went on to add that while the stop does infringe upon a motorist' right to free passage without interruption, it is a minimal infringement. They also went on to state that a warrant for such a minor infringement was not necessary, despite the Fourth Amendments declaration that no search or seizure of a person or thing occur without a warrant issued by a detached neutral magistrate.
Notice I used the word 'search', not the word 'stop'.
You may think it's ok for the government to stop you at any time and question who you are, where you came from, and where you're going, but fortunately many people (including myself) do not.