Don't know where you get your info, but all of my OS X discs are interchangable.
I happened to be upgrading a G5 tower yesterday, and the disc had a scratch in it. Someone passed me an iBook "bundle" disc and it worked without a hitch.
Just wanted to point out a note from the article at ThinkSecret:
The benchmarks do not reflect native performance of the 3.6GHz systems, however, but rather provide an indication of how PowerPC-compiled applications will run under Rosetta on Intel-based systems.
This is something to keep in mind when reading the article; apparently the bench code is being translated from G3 PPC to Intel code on the fly by a pre-release version of Rosetta.
Even so...
The GCD Loop score for the Intel Mac, part of the CPU test, is a respectable 110, compared to dual-2.5GHz G5 Macs that score about 140.
and
...the Intel Mac actually exceeded the G5's Stream Memory Test: 351 to 319.
Also, I can't say exactly what the Intel system they are using for the article is, but in the other referenced article, they indicate that the systems are currently using an Intel 900 graphics card (instead of the ATI/nVidia in the G5s). Something to keep in mind:
The Intel Mac scored well in both the Quartz graphics and OpenGL graphics tests--almost matching or exceeding dual-2.5GHz G5 score--although it's unknown which video card is powering the system.
Blatently stolen from the article (emphasis mine - sorry for so many bold areas):
"What does all of this mean? Well, I am sure you're bored by now, so I will summarize. If you ask an attorney about EULAs, he or she will likely say "they are enforceable, but there are some caveats." If you ask him about a terms of service agreement that you "sign" by clicking "I agree" each time you log into a service, he will likely say "that sounds pretty good to me." He will be right on both accounts. So, once again, true shrink wrap EULAs have been tested in most major jurisdictions and are valid contracts, subject to certain limitations. Terms of Service contracts, like the "EULA" found in MMOGs, are simply enforceable. There is a common perception that EULAs have not been tested in court. This is incorrect. They have been. In fact, very recently Blizzard's EULA was enforced in two separate cases and relief was granted based on the EULA's terms."
Also blatently stolen from the article:
"In that case the court determined that EULAs are enforceable because everyone knows what's in them, and everyone reasonably should expect to be bound by certain terms and conditions. Later cases came out, however that said EULAs are a special kind of contract that comes with certain restrictions. Companies that use EULAs must make sure they are "reasonable." There is a lot of case law defining what is reasonable"
In other words, EULAs are fine as long as they are standard EULAs. They cannot have provisions in them that make you give me all your money, they cannot make you format your computer, but they can have the 'standard' provisions.
In essence, EULAs and infringment are not things that can be blanket-covered, in the words of the author of the original article, "it depends, but in some cases the only way to tell is to go to court."
That said, if the EULA is within the bounds of "reasonable", it IS enforcable. His addition of the Terms of Service is questions of the specific topic he was addressing, not to say (your quote) "2. However, EULAs are invalid according to a sensible reading of the legal principles, so hopefully a higher court will reverse that bad ruling."
The reason is that if the EULA was not enforced at all, then you wouldn't actually be buying a license to the software, but rather the software itself. You would have free reign to do whatever you liked (including installing on as many computers as you liked and passing out copies for Halloween). That is the other part of the article; the reference to the ProCD case. In other words, violating the EULA _does_ invalidate the 'contract' of you buying the software license, and thus remove your ability to run it. Again, the EULA is part of the contract for the license.
As for the wedding ring story, I know at least one state (in the US) that it's accurate. True enough, YMMV on state law... The problem is not the legality of her obtaining the ring (gifts are not illegal, and Tom did give the ring away); it was the 'consideration' of marriage that turns the gift into a contract. Her not following through on her side means that she must return the ring.
As for your examples, they are great for shock value, but don't really apply.
Your stating of something (an offer), does not constitute a contract. It never will. You can "say" anything you want, but unless I accept the offer, there is _absolutely_ nothing to be said for it. Beyond that, your point could be that there is no gain on my part (other than getting away from you;) so it does not make a valid contract, but that doesn't follow suit with this; the person paying for the license is granted use of the license (subject to the EULA).
As for the EULA not carrying any weight (reposted from above, from said article, and yes, I am being lazy and not looking up the cases, thankyouverymuch): "...very recently Blizzard's EULA was enforced in two separate cases and relief was granted based on the EULA's terms."
You do raise an interesting point in the PPS; I wonder if there is any case law on it.
#2 is off. EULAs are valid legal documents. This comes from two reasons; first, there is a reasonable assumption that an EULA is required to run the software (as tested in the courts), as long as the EULA is "reasonable" itself, it holds up. Secondly (and more importantly for the mindset you have), the fact that there is an EULA is listed on the box of said game (all Blizzard games, and most software in general include this disclosure, just in case).
You are paying for the license to use software, knowing (both because you should know, and because it is on the box) that there is an EULA. It is part of the consideration (e.g., they get your money and your agreement to the EULA, you get the license to use the software).
Also, most EULAs (that I know of) contain clauses that allow them to update the EULA with sufficient notice (as per any normal contract).
That said, you are correct that Terms of Service (TOS) are, if anything, more ironclad. Since you have to agree to both before playing this particular game (which is also listed on the box), there's really no way around it.
If you are more interested, I talk about it more in this post which is attached to this article. This article (referenced in the slashdot post) gives some good information.
Short version, EULAs are just fine.
Long version, RTFA =)
Sorry if I condensed the content a little too much here, it's oversimplified, but has the gist.
Standard disclaimer, IANAL, TINLA (This Is Not Legal Advice), etc.
Common sense and law sometimes have little to do with each other =)
The problem I see is that there are 'conditions' which can be applied to items. I'll give you an example:
-Tom proposes to Amy (marriage proposal).
-As part of proposal Tom presents Amy with a ring (we'll say value $5,000.00 for fun).
-BEFORE the wedding, they break up.
Who owns the ring?
Tom. The gift was conditional on the acceptance of the marriage proposal (which must be seen through to the wedding - it is part of the consideration for the ring), and since the wedding didn't happen, the ring is still his.
EULAs can be looked at the same way. You have paid money to license the software, BUT, it is also conditional upon accepting the EULA. The tricky part is if the customer (you) has a reasonable expectation for the EULA to exist*. If, for instance, this was the very first EULA to ever exist, and nobody knew about it, it would probably be unenforceable. However, since customers know the EULA exists, there is an assumption that you will have to agree to it before you even purchased the software. As long as the terms of that agreement are "reasonable," you're stuck.
*Being written on the packaging is a good way to ensure that people know it's comming. To quote a random Blizzard box I have at my desk (WC3 Battle Chest for those interested) which has a fair amount of fine print on the bottom of the box:
"The use of this software product is subject to the terms of the enclosed End User License Agreement. You must accept the End User License Agreement before you can use this product. The World Editor contained in this product is provided strictly for your personal use. Use of the World Editor is subject to additional license restrictions contained inside the product and may not be commercially exploited. Use of Battle.Net is subject to the acceptance of the Battle.Net Terms of Use Agreement."
So, either by reasonable assumption, or in Blizzard's case, explicit writing on the box, you will need to accept the EULA. Since _that_ is known before payment, the owness is on the user.
Last tidbit is that since the EULA is not visible, it has to be "reasonable." This protects you (the customer) from getting software that you cannot possibly agree to (e.g., EULA specifies that you need to hand over you bank and credit information prior to use). If the EULA was completely unacceptable, you would have a recourse for getting your money back.
There are people who use cars _as_ their jobs (e.g., taxi, bus, courier, etc).
There are people who rely on cars _for_ their jobs (e.g., anyone who has to drive to work).
There are people who use cars to relieve stress (e.g., most people I know have at some point.. a nice drive in the country, opening up on a deserted road, taking some nice curves at a good clip).
And yet, cars also cause an _unbelieveable_ amount of stress... traffic, pollution, accidents, etc., etc., etc...
This is one example.. you can pick almost any _broadly_ used piece of technology, and apply it there (e.g., phones, T.V., airplanes, etc).
I also have to believe that if you can't blame stress on technology, you don't have kids (and kids toys that have no off button =).
Does technology _cause_ stress? Directly, no. Only _you_ cause stress. Stress is an internal emotion that usually results from external forces such as pressure, etc., or other internal forces such as frustration, lack of sleep, etc.
Can technology be one of those forces? I'd say so.
Upgrading computers makes that much of a difference too...
I remember back in the days that I was playing Quake and Doom in 320 windows with 15-30 fps.. luckily, was solo or only one other player (ahh, the days of modems).
BUT, when I upgraded my computer, I owned; after playing with such crappy conditions, the upgrade made a huge difference.
Like almost everyone here, I'm a developer and have an opionion..
Anyway, it seems to me that this is all a point of discipline, or more specifically, lack thereof.
For some reason (which is probably best another thread), Software Engineering has lost the 'Engineering' aspect and become, well, just Software. This is _not_ good.
Take any engineering discipline out there, and think of _how_ projects are done. There are standard ways of conveying ideas, standards in diagrams, and in many cases, standards in documentation (though they may be loose). Any sufficiently accomplished EE can look at a schematic from any other and tell you what it is (understanding what's presented is a different story, but they will at least be able to _read_ it).
Software is.. well, just code.
At our company, we have a development process that was invented by our head honcho (read: founder, CTO, etc). It covers everything from documentation to code formatting to testing process. By using it, we've achieved a good codebase (over 1500 functions in the core libraries that can be accessed from any product/project) and have been using it for years. Likewise, anyone can look at code from anyone else, and it looks the same. You'd be amazed how much of a difference it makes.
Granted, we are a "small" company, so the same may not work for everyone (read: two people with sufficiently sized egos butting heads over the 'correct' way to code), but by using engineering instead of coding by the seat of our pants, it works.
I'll also say that we've had to do a few re-writes. Mostly, it's caused by engineers who have 'left' and weren't following convention or by new people who were still getting the hang of it. The code is impossible to follow, since documentation is the ugly bastard stepchild of software, and they didn't follow the conventions (e.g., someone using a 'standard' variable for a loop counter just because it was already defined). It's a mess, and it does need to be re-written. Basically, you just need to look at the additional time it will take you to support/improve the project 'as-is' vs. what a re-write will cost (often times, just re-writing modules is good enough, a thread here or there over time and it'll end up the way you want it to). Along those lines, there are several ways of doing re-writes; and some are better than others. If you go off into a box and design a new version of the same software, have the decency to name it something else. A re-write involves looking at the old documentation (if it's good, if not, it's off into the software), maintaining some semblance of backwards compatability, etc.
Well, that rant got a bit longer than intended. Ah, well. Bring engineering back into software development, and it will be a huge boon for the industry... or, we can just keep on re-inventing the wheel.
Unfortunately, the real trick is to get application specific data.
When cataloging information, you need to have things specific to the type of file and/or arena it is used.
For instance, the catalog for a movie file would need to contain: Film Title, Actors/Actresses, Director, Production Companies, Rendering Companies (if application), FX Companies... While none of that applies to say, a word document.
I work for a digial storage company, and we run into the same issues. Our storage system keeps track of no (as in zero) metadata. Then, it is up to applications to track their own (e.g., storage system sits there, if you want to use medical images, there is a medical-specific database that tracks data for that type of image, video server has it's own database with it's information, they all relate back to the main server).
Every so often, it's a good idea to do a dry-run of a recovery (on a blank system - NOT your main system). Too many times I've seen people who have current backups that a) are on bad media that was not flagged by the backup procedure or b) only parts are recoverable (e.g., database backups that can only be loaded onto the original system).
Sadly, I've also seen backup software with bugs that make a full (sometimes even a partial) recovery impossible. Most people just assume that since the computer says it's backed up, it is.. riiight.
Good point... I hadn't mentioned it because I had no idea what the timeframe was. That sounds pretty good though (assuming perfect storage conditions).
There's one small problem with your space calculation though; how do you retrieve anything?
When moving any media to shelf (digital or analog), you need to be able to retrieve it. The type of setup you are speaking of does not satisfy that requirement. Typically, when storing tapes like that, you need to set up shelves on wheels (any idea how heavy those tapes are?) that allow dense storage while allowing the tapes to be cataloged and retrievable. This is expensive to setup and maintain.
Finally, a few points to keep in mind with this type of setup...
1) The 'tape monkeys' get expensive fast. They need to catalog and properly place the tapes. They need to move the tapes from the room(s) with the vcr's to the storage location (at the very least down the hall); it takes time to move them there. Also don't forget that most people you are paying at the 'monkey' level don't really care about your organization, and will lose/misplace/damage tapes (on accident) from time to time.
2) VCR's break down rather frequently when recording 24/7. You will be replacing them each at least once per year (extremely conservative). Granted, they are cheap, and easy to replace, but the numbers do add up.
3) Your footage is analog. Seeing as how this was posted on slashdot, I'm guessing they want to actually do something with the video, and I'm guessing it will have to be digital for that.
If you're interested in storing a few petabytes of data, take a look at my other post (and you are right about distributing the storage).
Yes, casinos do have that much video; if you can get them to talk about it (after dealing with them for less than six months), my hat goes off to you. =)
Actually, the main problem with checking with the casinos is that they themselves are trying to move to digital. Untill recently, the technology simply was not available, so they were stuck using analog (and rack after rack of tapes).
You're right about the capture though, you need to either use cards that do the processing or move it to seperate machines (video encoder/decoders).
As for the server downtime, getting a reliable video server, setting up everything correctly, and going from there means very little (if any) downtime. This depends on how much money you are willing to spend; remember many tv stations broadcast from digital signals, and their downtime is minimal.
Cliff, interesting problem; but I have a solution.
The company I work for, Software Engineering Corporation (www.sencorsoft.com) makes storage software. I won't get into too much detail about it (you can check our website for more information), but I'll just say that it scales well.
One of the finer points of the system is that you can distribute the storage and still query any single point for data stored in any other point. To achieve the throughput you want (and the long-term storage capacity), I would recommend building several systems with a RAID for online storage (enough to cache storage and retrieval operations, would depend on how long each segment of video is) and a tape library for nearline storage (or dvd if you prefer, but for this type of system, I would recommend tape).
Depending on where you wanted to go from there, you could either shelve the media (take the media offline) or purchase additional library units (keep everything nearline). Since the retrieval time is not important for you, and the costs of the latter would be incredible, the former would probably be more palatable.
If you want more information, let me know (either post a reply or send me an email; my email name is gino.canessa, the domain is sencorsoft.com).
Some tips in general also...
1) RAID
--- Using large amounts of RAID is both extremely expensive and unncessary. Since you do not need instant access to everything, I wouldn't even consider it (also, assuming you keep everything for a few months, it would be the largest amount of RAID ever sold by any company =).
2) HSM limitations
--- Most HSM's need a single point of reference. Given that you will be using multiple units for encoding, it would probably not make sense to reduce that to a single point (bottleneck), so you would want to have your storage distributed. In traditional HSM's, each storage system is independant of the others, so when you wanted to retrieve something, you would have to know where it was instead of the archive finding it for you. Also, many HSM's run into problems when you start leaving the terabyte range of data (e.g., petabytes of data).
3) Hardware choice
--- Several other people mentioned this, and I feel it is an important point as well. Many software solutions only work with specific media types or harware vendors. The last thing you want is to be vendor or media-locked a year from now when the next big thing in storage comes along and your chosen vendor doesn't support it.
If you don't feel like setting it up with the assistant, just use the field chooser on your inbox and have it display the To: and Cc: fields... that way you'll know at a glance who it was sent to.
Also has the added bonuses of making it easier if you have multiple accounts being routed to the same inbox and being able to see if someone else important (e.g., your boss) was copied on the message.
Sorry to jump in (which means that I'm not, but you get the idea =)...
But, I have to disagree here. Perhaps I'm just lucky with the company I've found, but the people here really do care; let me explain.
I work for a (now growing) small software company. Over the past five or so years, I've seen the owners do some pretty amazing things. They've helped people with residency issuses (H1's), stayed to help on projects they weren't involved in, and sent people home when they wanted to stay too late on a project. Holidays off, flexible hours, you name it and if it's within their power, it's done.
Don't get me wrong, we've all had to pull weekends every once in a while, and I'm sure that most people here could be making a few extra bucks somewhere else, but I work for an honest software company run by honest people. Strange concept, isn't it?
I think it's sad that that's the attitude you and so many others (rightfully) have, but I (niavely, perhaps) think it's important to remember that not every single person is based on Machievelli (sp). A good group is, I'll give you that, but if you're willing to look into a company before signing the dotted line (and realize what you're after as well), I think more people could have expericences similar to mine.
Ah! What was that crack about 'what you're after,' you ask? Simple, really... think of what you're looking for in a company, and see how that reflects on your position (e.g., if you're looking only for top salary, expect a company that is interested in only your productivity).
I don't recall saying anything about paying for a new license, but just to clarify...
My point is that MS is keeping a very tight leash on where you install their OS, and in doing so will be inconveniencing users.
I see it as quite similar to the 'copy protection' schemes that will disallow playing audio cd's from your computer - they will cut back on piracy from certain groups, but the cost to the average consumer is incredible.
As a side note, I slept through the reading comprehension of the ACT, and part of the SAT English =).
Microsoft's stepped-up copy protection may prompt even more howls from users, however. During installation, Windows Product Activation will scan your system's hardware and create a "fingerprint" that you'll be required to transmit to Microsoft, along with the unique product key, within 30 days of installation.
If you alter enough of the system's characteristics recorded in this fingerprint -- by upgrading video, storage, and other components, for example -- you may have to call Microsoft and convince a representative that you're not a software pirate before you can use the system again. The feature's main purpose, of course, is to prevent people from installing a single copy of XP on multiple computers, something determined crackers will surely view as a challenge.
Doug, I was reading a review of Windows XP today, and came across some interesting information on the new licensing scheme. From what I read, the XP will use the current hardware configuration to generate an id string (I believe they called it a fingerprint), which you then tell Microsoft, over the phone, to get the license key for your machine. In an end-user environment (especially laptops), configurations change constantly, and thus the user would be calling in regularly to get a new key.
At the same time, several OS developers (e.g., Apple, various Linux distributions) are moving in a very different direction by open-sourcing their operating systems.
How do you feel this difference in policy will affect Microsoft in terms of new computer purchases (e.g., choosing a different OS - even a previous version of Windows) and upgrades to existing systems?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know where you get your info, but all of my OS X discs are interchangable.
I happened to be upgrading a G5 tower yesterday, and the disc had a scratch in it. Someone passed me an iBook "bundle" disc and it worked without a hitch.
-Phoenix
The benchmarks do not reflect native performance of the 3.6GHz systems, however, but rather provide an indication of how PowerPC-compiled applications will run under Rosetta on Intel-based systems.
This is something to keep in mind when reading the article; apparently the bench code is being translated from G3 PPC to Intel code on the fly by a pre-release version of Rosetta.
Even so...
The GCD Loop score for the Intel Mac, part of the CPU test, is a respectable 110, compared to dual-2.5GHz G5 Macs that score about 140.
and
Also, I can't say exactly what the Intel system they are using for the article is, but in the other referenced article, they indicate that the systems are currently using an Intel 900 graphics card (instead of the ATI/nVidia in the G5s). Something to keep in mind:
The Intel Mac scored well in both the Quartz graphics and OpenGL graphics tests--almost matching or exceeding dual-2.5GHz G5 score--although it's unknown which video card is powering the system.
Overall, I'd say that's a pretty positive review.
-Phoenix
IANAL, TINLA, etc...
;) so it does not make a valid contract, but that doesn't follow suit with this; the person paying for the license is granted use of the license (subject to the EULA).
Blatently stolen from the article (emphasis mine - sorry for so many bold areas):
"What does all of this mean? Well, I am sure you're bored by now, so I will summarize. If you ask an attorney about EULAs, he or she will likely say "they are enforceable, but there are some caveats." If you ask him about a terms of service agreement that you "sign" by clicking "I agree" each time you log into a service, he will likely say "that sounds pretty good to me." He will be right on both accounts. So, once again, true shrink wrap EULAs have been tested in most major jurisdictions and are valid contracts, subject to certain limitations. Terms of Service contracts, like the "EULA" found in MMOGs, are simply enforceable. There is a common perception that EULAs have not been tested in court. This is incorrect. They have been. In fact, very recently Blizzard's EULA was enforced in two separate cases and relief was granted based on the EULA's terms."
Also blatently stolen from the article:
"In that case the court determined that EULAs are enforceable because everyone knows what's in them, and everyone reasonably should expect to be bound by certain terms and conditions. Later cases came out, however that said EULAs are a special kind of contract that comes with certain restrictions. Companies that use EULAs must make sure they are "reasonable." There is a lot of case law defining what is reasonable"
In other words, EULAs are fine as long as they are standard EULAs. They cannot have provisions in them that make you give me all your money, they cannot make you format your computer, but they can have the 'standard' provisions.
In essence, EULAs and infringment are not things that can be blanket-covered, in the words of the author of the original article, "it depends, but in some cases the only way to tell is to go to court."
That said, if the EULA is within the bounds of "reasonable", it IS enforcable. His addition of the Terms of Service is questions of the specific topic he was addressing, not to say (your quote) "2. However, EULAs are invalid according to a sensible reading of the legal principles, so hopefully a higher court will reverse that bad ruling."
The reason is that if the EULA was not enforced at all, then you wouldn't actually be buying a license to the software, but rather the software itself. You would have free reign to do whatever you liked (including installing on as many computers as you liked and passing out copies for Halloween). That is the other part of the article; the reference to the ProCD case. In other words, violating the EULA _does_ invalidate the 'contract' of you buying the software license, and thus remove your ability to run it. Again, the EULA is part of the contract for the license.
As for the wedding ring story, I know at least one state (in the US) that it's accurate. True enough, YMMV on state law... The problem is not the legality of her obtaining the ring (gifts are not illegal, and Tom did give the ring away); it was the 'consideration' of marriage that turns the gift into a contract. Her not following through on her side means that she must return the ring.
As for your examples, they are great for shock value, but don't really apply.
Your stating of something (an offer), does not constitute a contract. It never will. You can "say" anything you want, but unless I accept the offer, there is _absolutely_ nothing to be said for it. Beyond that, your point could be that there is no gain on my part (other than getting away from you
As for the EULA not carrying any weight (reposted from above, from said article, and yes, I am being lazy and not looking up the cases, thankyouverymuch): "...very recently Blizzard's EULA was enforced in two separate cases and relief was granted based on the EULA's terms."
You do raise an interesting point in the PPS; I wonder if there is any case law on it.
IANAL, TINLA, etc.
Read the box.
All of the box.
Yes, even the smaller print.
Yes, even the smaller print on the bottom of the box.
Read the part where you have to agree to the EULA and Terms of Use.
Then, read it again.
Yes, you can read it through the clear shrinkwrap.
Yes, you can read it in the store.
Several states have tested EULAs, and by the by they are good contracts.
Too lazy to relink everything, check out my other post on this thread for further reading.
IANAL, TINLA, etc., etc., etc...
#2 is off. EULAs are valid legal documents. This comes from two reasons; first, there is a reasonable assumption that an EULA is required to run the software (as tested in the courts), as long as the EULA is "reasonable" itself, it holds up. Secondly (and more importantly for the mindset you have), the fact that there is an EULA is listed on the box of said game (all Blizzard games, and most software in general include this disclosure, just in case).
You are paying for the license to use software, knowing (both because you should know, and because it is on the box) that there is an EULA. It is part of the consideration (e.g., they get your money and your agreement to the EULA, you get the license to use the software).
Also, most EULAs (that I know of) contain clauses that allow them to update the EULA with sufficient notice (as per any normal contract).
That said, you are correct that Terms of Service (TOS) are, if anything, more ironclad. Since you have to agree to both before playing this particular game (which is also listed on the box), there's really no way around it.
If you are more interested, I talk about it more in this post which is attached to this article. This article (referenced in the slashdot post) gives some good information.
Short version, EULAs are just fine.
Long version, RTFA =)
Sorry if I condensed the content a little too much here, it's oversimplified, but has the gist.
Phoenix_SEC
Standard disclaimer, IANAL, TINLA (This Is Not Legal Advice), etc.
Common sense and law sometimes have little to do with each other =)
The problem I see is that there are 'conditions' which can be applied to items. I'll give you an example:
-Tom proposes to Amy (marriage proposal).
-As part of proposal Tom presents Amy with a ring (we'll say value $5,000.00 for fun).
-BEFORE the wedding, they break up.
Who owns the ring?
Tom. The gift was conditional on the acceptance of the marriage proposal (which must be seen through to the wedding - it is part of the consideration for the ring), and since the wedding didn't happen, the ring is still his.
EULAs can be looked at the same way. You have paid money to license the software, BUT, it is also conditional upon accepting the EULA. The tricky part is if the customer (you) has a reasonable expectation for the EULA to exist*. If, for instance, this was the very first EULA to ever exist, and nobody knew about it, it would probably be unenforceable. However, since customers know the EULA exists, there is an assumption that you will have to agree to it before you even purchased the software. As long as the terms of that agreement are "reasonable," you're stuck.
*Being written on the packaging is a good way to ensure that people know it's comming. To quote a random Blizzard box I have at my desk (WC3 Battle Chest for those interested) which has a fair amount of fine print on the bottom of the box:
"The use of this software product is subject to the terms of the enclosed End User License Agreement. You must accept the End User License Agreement before you can use this product. The World Editor contained in this product is provided strictly for your personal use. Use of the World Editor is subject to additional license restrictions contained inside the product and may not be commercially exploited. Use of Battle.Net is subject to the acceptance of the Battle.Net Terms of Use Agreement."
So, either by reasonable assumption, or in Blizzard's case, explicit writing on the box, you will need to accept the EULA. Since _that_ is known before payment, the owness is on the user.
Last tidbit is that since the EULA is not visible, it has to be "reasonable." This protects you (the customer) from getting software that you cannot possibly agree to (e.g., EULA specifies that you need to hand over you bank and credit information prior to use). If the EULA was completely unacceptable, you would have a recourse for getting your money back.
-Phoenix_SEC
Sorry for the lengthy reply, but eh.
And all of that is different, then, say, a car?
There are people who use cars _as_ their jobs (e.g., taxi, bus, courier, etc).
There are people who rely on cars _for_ their jobs (e.g., anyone who has to drive to work).
There are people who use cars to relieve stress (e.g., most people I know have at some point.. a nice drive in the country, opening up on a deserted road, taking some nice curves at a good clip).
And yet, cars also cause an _unbelieveable_ amount of stress... traffic, pollution, accidents, etc., etc., etc...
This is one example.. you can pick almost any _broadly_ used piece of technology, and apply it there (e.g., phones, T.V., airplanes, etc).
I also have to believe that if you can't blame stress on technology, you don't have kids (and kids toys that have no off button =).
Does technology _cause_ stress? Directly, no. Only _you_ cause stress. Stress is an internal emotion that usually results from external forces such as pressure, etc., or other internal forces such as frustration, lack of sleep, etc.
Can technology be one of those forces? I'd say so.
Upgrading computers makes that much of a difference too...
I remember back in the days that I was playing Quake and Doom in 320 windows with 15-30 fps.. luckily, was solo or only one other player (ahh, the days of modems).
BUT, when I upgraded my computer, I owned; after playing with such crappy conditions, the upgrade made a huge difference.
Like almost everyone here, I'm a developer and have an opionion..
Anyway, it seems to me that this is all a point of discipline, or more specifically, lack thereof.
For some reason (which is probably best another thread), Software Engineering has lost the 'Engineering' aspect and become, well, just Software. This is _not_ good.
Take any engineering discipline out there, and think of _how_ projects are done. There are standard ways of conveying ideas, standards in diagrams, and in many cases, standards in documentation (though they may be loose). Any sufficiently accomplished EE can look at a schematic from any other and tell you what it is (understanding what's presented is a different story, but they will at least be able to _read_ it).
Software is.. well, just code.
At our company, we have a development process that was invented by our head honcho (read: founder, CTO, etc). It covers everything from documentation to code formatting to testing process. By using it, we've achieved a good codebase (over 1500 functions in the core libraries that can be accessed from any product/project) and have been using it for years. Likewise, anyone can look at code from anyone else, and it looks the same. You'd be amazed how much of a difference it makes.
Granted, we are a "small" company, so the same may not work for everyone (read: two people with sufficiently sized egos butting heads over the 'correct' way to code), but by using engineering instead of coding by the seat of our pants, it works.
I'll also say that we've had to do a few re-writes. Mostly, it's caused by engineers who have 'left' and weren't following convention or by new people who were still getting the hang of it. The code is impossible to follow, since documentation is the ugly bastard stepchild of software, and they didn't follow the conventions (e.g., someone using a 'standard' variable for a loop counter just because it was already defined). It's a mess, and it does need to be re-written. Basically, you just need to look at the additional time it will take you to support/improve the project 'as-is' vs. what a re-write will cost (often times, just re-writing modules is good enough, a thread here or there over time and it'll end up the way you want it to). Along those lines, there are several ways of doing re-writes; and some are better than others. If you go off into a box and design a new version of the same software, have the decency to name it something else. A re-write involves looking at the old documentation (if it's good, if not, it's off into the software), maintaining some semblance of backwards compatability, etc.
Well, that rant got a bit longer than intended. Ah, well. Bring engineering back into software development, and it will be a huge boon for the industry... or, we can just keep on re-inventing the wheel.
Unfortunately, the real trick is to get application specific data.
When cataloging information, you need to have things specific to the type of file and/or arena it is used.
For instance, the catalog for a movie file would need to contain: Film Title, Actors/Actresses, Director, Production Companies, Rendering Companies (if application), FX Companies... While none of that applies to say, a word document.
I work for a digial storage company, and we run into the same issues. Our storage system keeps track of no (as in zero) metadata. Then, it is up to applications to track their own (e.g., storage system sits there, if you want to use medical images, there is a medical-specific database that tracks data for that type of image, video server has it's own database with it's information, they all relate back to the main server).
Well, late for a meeting, would elaborate more..
Phoenix
Every so often, it's a good idea to do a dry-run of a recovery (on a blank system - NOT your main system). Too many times I've seen people who have current backups that a) are on bad media that was not flagged by the backup procedure or b) only parts are recoverable (e.g., database backups that can only be loaded onto the original system).
Sadly, I've also seen backup software with bugs that make a full (sometimes even a partial) recovery impossible. Most people just assume that since the computer says it's backed up, it is.. riiight.
Phoenix_SEC
Not sure about other models, but the new Inspirons have upgradeable video (e.g., pull out the Radeon-M and replace it with a GF4-go).
Can't remember what it's called off the top of my head, but they have a standard connect for it now.
Good point... I hadn't mentioned it because I had no idea what the timeframe was. That sounds pretty good though (assuming perfect storage conditions).
Thanks
There's one small problem with your space calculation though; how do you retrieve anything?
When moving any media to shelf (digital or analog), you need to be able to retrieve it. The type of setup you are speaking of does not satisfy that requirement. Typically, when storing tapes like that, you need to set up shelves on wheels (any idea how heavy those tapes are?) that allow dense storage while allowing the tapes to be cataloged and retrievable. This is expensive to setup and maintain.
Finally, a few points to keep in mind with this type of setup...
1) The 'tape monkeys' get expensive fast. They need to catalog and properly place the tapes. They need to move the tapes from the room(s) with the vcr's to the storage location (at the very least down the hall); it takes time to move them there. Also don't forget that most people you are paying at the 'monkey' level don't really care about your organization, and will lose/misplace/damage tapes (on accident) from time to time.
2) VCR's break down rather frequently when recording 24/7. You will be replacing them each at least once per year (extremely conservative). Granted, they are cheap, and easy to replace, but the numbers do add up.
3) Your footage is analog. Seeing as how this was posted on slashdot, I'm guessing they want to actually do something with the video, and I'm guessing it will have to be digital for that.
If you're interested in storing a few petabytes of data, take a look at my other post (and you are right about distributing the storage).
Yes, casinos do have that much video; if you can get them to talk about it (after dealing with them for less than six months), my hat goes off to you. =)
Actually, the main problem with checking with the casinos is that they themselves are trying to move to digital. Untill recently, the technology simply was not available, so they were stuck using analog (and rack after rack of tapes).
You're right about the capture though, you need to either use cards that do the processing or move it to seperate machines (video encoder/decoders).
As for the server downtime, getting a reliable video server, setting up everything correctly, and going from there means very little (if any) downtime. This depends on how much money you are willing to spend; remember many tv stations broadcast from digital signals, and their downtime is minimal.
Cliff, interesting problem; but I have a solution.
The company I work for, Software Engineering Corporation (www.sencorsoft.com) makes storage software. I won't get into too much detail about it (you can check our website for more information), but I'll just say that it scales well.
One of the finer points of the system is that you can distribute the storage and still query any single point for data stored in any other point. To achieve the throughput you want (and the long-term storage capacity), I would recommend building several systems with a RAID for online storage (enough to cache storage and retrieval operations, would depend on how long each segment of video is) and a tape library for nearline storage (or dvd if you prefer, but for this type of system, I would recommend tape).
Depending on where you wanted to go from there, you could either shelve the media (take the media offline) or purchase additional library units (keep everything nearline). Since the retrieval time is not important for you, and the costs of the latter would be incredible, the former would probably be more palatable.
If you want more information, let me know (either post a reply or send me an email; my email name is gino.canessa, the domain is sencorsoft.com).
Some tips in general also...
1) RAID
--- Using large amounts of RAID is both extremely expensive and unncessary. Since you do not need instant access to everything, I wouldn't even consider it (also, assuming you keep everything for a few months, it would be the largest amount of RAID ever sold by any company =).
2) HSM limitations
--- Most HSM's need a single point of reference. Given that you will be using multiple units for encoding, it would probably not make sense to reduce that to a single point (bottleneck), so you would want to have your storage distributed. In traditional HSM's, each storage system is independant of the others, so when you wanted to retrieve something, you would have to know where it was instead of the archive finding it for you. Also, many HSM's run into problems when you start leaving the terabyte range of data (e.g., petabytes of data).
3) Hardware choice
--- Several other people mentioned this, and I feel it is an important point as well. Many software solutions only work with specific media types or harware vendors. The last thing you want is to be vendor or media-locked a year from now when the next big thing in storage comes along and your chosen vendor doesn't support it.
Hope this helps...
If you don't feel like setting it up with the assistant, just use the field chooser on your inbox and have it display the To: and Cc: fields... that way you'll know at a glance who it was sent to.
Also has the added bonuses of making it easier if you have multiple accounts being routed to the same inbox and being able to see if someone else important (e.g., your boss) was copied on the message.
Phoenix_SEC
I think that was exactly his point =).
Phoenix_SEC
Sorry to jump in (which means that I'm not, but you get the idea =)...
But, I have to disagree here. Perhaps I'm just lucky with the company I've found, but the people here really do care; let me explain.
I work for a (now growing) small software company. Over the past five or so years, I've seen the owners do some pretty amazing things. They've helped people with residency issuses (H1's), stayed to help on projects they weren't involved in, and sent people home when they wanted to stay too late on a project. Holidays off, flexible hours, you name it and if it's within their power, it's done.
Don't get me wrong, we've all had to pull weekends every once in a while, and I'm sure that most people here could be making a few extra bucks somewhere else, but I work for an honest software company run by honest people. Strange concept, isn't it?
I think it's sad that that's the attitude you and so many others (rightfully) have, but I (niavely, perhaps) think it's important to remember that not every single person is based on Machievelli (sp). A good group is, I'll give you that, but if you're willing to look into a company before signing the dotted line (and realize what you're after as well), I think more people could have expericences similar to mine.
Ah! What was that crack about 'what you're after,' you ask? Simple, really... think of what you're looking for in a company, and see how that reflects on your position (e.g., if you're looking only for top salary, expect a company that is interested in only your productivity).
Thanks for the rant space..
The site seems to be down right now, but I've used findlaw in the past for information. They do have a section specific for forms too.
You can get a general flavor by doing a search for 'findlaw' on google and opening up the cached versions.
Hope this helps,
Phoenix_SEC
I have an MS Shirt.
As a side note, check this out (http://msdn.microsoft.com/resources).
Thanks,
Phoenix_SEX
Not to nitpick (which means I will =)... "I believe 'mauve' has the most RAM." -Phoenix_SEC
I don't recall saying anything about paying for a new license, but just to clarify...
My point is that MS is keeping a very tight leash on where you install their OS, and in doing so will be inconveniencing users.
I see it as quite similar to the 'copy protection' schemes that will disallow playing audio cd's from your computer - they will cut back on piracy from certain groups, but the cost to the average consumer is incredible.
As a side note, I slept through the reading comprehension of the ACT, and part of the SAT English =).
Phoenix_SEC
Here's a link to the article I'm referencing, and following is the excerpt that caught my attention.
d ows.idg/index.html
According to this, at least, it seems the 'full license' would be affected too.
Thanks,
Phoenix_SEC
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/03/27/next.win
Microsoft's stepped-up copy protection may prompt even more howls from users, however. During installation, Windows Product Activation will scan your system's hardware and create a "fingerprint" that you'll be required to transmit to Microsoft, along with the unique product key, within 30 days of installation.
If you alter enough of the system's characteristics recorded in this fingerprint -- by upgrading video, storage, and other components, for example -- you may have to call Microsoft and convince a representative that you're not a software pirate before you can use the system again. The feature's main purpose, of course, is to prevent people from installing a single copy of XP on multiple computers, something determined crackers will surely view as a challenge.
Doug, I was reading a review of Windows XP today, and came across some interesting information on the new licensing scheme. From what I read, the XP will use the current hardware configuration to generate an id string (I believe they called it a fingerprint), which you then tell Microsoft, over the phone, to get the license key for your machine. In an end-user environment (especially laptops), configurations change constantly, and thus the user would be calling in regularly to get a new key.
At the same time, several OS developers (e.g., Apple, various Linux distributions) are moving in a very different direction by open-sourcing their operating systems.
How do you feel this difference in policy will affect Microsoft in terms of new computer purchases (e.g., choosing a different OS - even a previous version of Windows) and upgrades to existing systems?
Thanks in advance,
Phoenix_SEC