And how about compared to turning it off when you're not using it?
"Under these assumptions, running BOINC costs about $3/month more than leaving your computer on but idle, and about $8.80/month more than leaving it off all the time.
There may also be an environmental cost. If your electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, the extra electricity usage produces greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. If this is the case, we recommend that you not leave your computer on just to run BOINC, or that you reduce your overall energy use to compensate. "
Err, blackle is nonsense in the modern world, IMHO.
LCD/TFT screens don't work that way. There is a bright light that's always on, and the colours and darkness come about by blocking portions of said light, not by generating more of it.
Of course, once OLED comes in that'll change again.
Come to think of it, you're right, I haven't noticed power switches on power sockets whenever I've been in the US (quite a lot over the years). Guess you don't notice the absence of little things like that.
Ghirardelli do an ok bit of chocolate. OTOH, Hersheys is like some sort of brown soap.
Actually unplugging everything would be more hassle, having the switch right there on the socket is a good thing, IMHO. I'm not obsessive about this and have a home server and a router that are UPS'd and on all the time. If anyone can get any use out of the spare cycles on my 266MHz ARM box then they're welcome to 'em...
I don't know, but given that people have PSUs rated from 250W - 1KW these days, I would have thought fairly significant, assuming a pretty high utilisation of "spare" cycles.
I know we've managed to cut our electricity bill in half lately by moving to energy saving bulbs and making sure we actually switch stuff off at the socket when it's not in use.
Also, there's that whole "not using more than you need" thing to do with electricity having to come from somewhere, and that simewhere usually being a source of CO2 and other nasties.
It's the not-so-idle electricty bill that'll turn up when I let people use my PC's spare cycles all the time.
That's why it's off, in stand by or auto throttling the processor. That's why letting people use your "idle" cycles is not as simple a charitable proposition as it sounds.
"How about voting for the lesser of two evils now"
What if I really object to both of their platforms and think that both will continue to take us further in the wrong direction? What if I'm not really sure there is a lesser of two evils?
At this point I guess we move into the territory of voting for one of the third parties not because you agree with them, but as a protest against the republicrats.
Good for you, OTOH a lot of folks are, and even many that aren't are concerned about the extreme measure being proposed (like the treaty that would provide for border guards to sieze/copy data on entry, under the excuse of copyright compliance checking)
"Pot smoker? Nope-doesn't apply."
Again, there a lot of people (me included) that don't smoke it but think it is an inportant issue from the standpoint of social freedom, of not criminalising people unnecessarily, and of stopping a lucrative line of trade from gangs.
"Violent video games? Sorry, no games for me, I have more work to do and I like to play outside. Don't think they should be banned, but don't have a real concern if they are either."
You should perhaps be interested in the freedom of speech/art implications.
"Porn? Off the internets? Won't happen because it drives a huge portion of our economy whether its opponents want to admit it or not."
Well true, that one's probably safe!
But these are real issues. the fact that they affect groups you currently don't feel part of doesn't mean they aren't important and don't strike (tiny, tiny blows) at the foundations of our society.
I don't think these are frivolous adolescent worries, I think they are very real dangers to our societies, very real issues. Education, economy and war are important, no denying, but freedom ought to be a concern too.
Good answer!! There definitely is need of a new political group. Tech literate, socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I meet so many people that agree with that stance but don't feel they have representation at all.
I love the villianization companies such as Time Warner, who has the fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets, which in turn protects their employees and shareholders.
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them?
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"?
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music?
Another straw man.
Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to try to change the law? And to abuse the court system by presenting weak cases? And try a scatter-gun scare tactic approach 0on universities and other folks? This is news to me.
So I think I can blame them for their lack of ethics if nothing else.
And who should I blame for legislation favouring specific business sectors over and above the interests of the populace and the technical crowd? Oh right, politicians who are in the pockets of the same media companies and hol,d their intrerests above those of society as a whole, or at least are quite prepared to hear a one-sided story. Which is, coincidentally, what we're talking about here, which politician should get your mandate. The one in bed with the coporations that are taking actions I disagree with wouldn't get my vote, were I a US voter.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient.
The market is not perfect, consumers are not always enlightened and competition is not always free and fair. That said it's not the business model I argue with, it's the ethics and the politics.
Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
This is releveant to what, how? I'm not asking for radical overnight change, I'm looking for politicians and political parties that will stop us going even further in the wrong direction, then consider what to do from there.
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea.
Then the only reasonable choice becomes not to vote at all.
The main parties want to (continue to) criminalise me and restrict my freedoms in the name of security|children|money. Both are moving in the wrong direction, too. The third parties (notably libertarians) are a bunch of nutbags.
Actually, I work for one of the world's biggest tech firms.
"So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests."
See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".
I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.
"Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?"
I'm sorry if my use of the word "corporation" set off your hippie and/or student radar. Neither is the case here and I'm quite capable of backing up my previous comments without resorting to impugning the intelligence of those I argue against. I suggest you try the same, nice ad hominem though.
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want
In other words the people of the United States of America, those that the POTUS is supposed to represent and to serve, right?
they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies.
Didn't say they were, I said the likes of the republican's apparent tech spokesperson was against their interests.
"They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests."
Do you live in a fantasy world? Tech advances are a means to an end for some companies, not all, and not the only means. Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges. Yes, a lot of tech comes from large corps, they are good for that, but please don't pretend that corporate influence, especially on politicians, is always a good thing. Especially given this person's prior record.
In the arena of copyright law, the likes of Time Warner are clearly directly opposed to what the people of the country want and are arguably going well beyond what's best for society and business in general. They don't respect privacy, they engage in campaigns of scaring the population into compliance with their take on IP...
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
Back at you. You've swallowed the "money is always" right line a little too far there. Tell me, in your world, do companies always act in the best interests of the whole population? Or are there no incidences of monopolistic behaviour, unethical behaviour, exploitation of cheap foreign child labour etc etc?
It's currently a civil offense, look for it to be criminal in the next term as both candidates are in the pockets of the media corps.
"Just because you want it to be legal to smoke yourself stupid and lazy to the detriment to society"
Prove that it is to the detriment of society. You can't.
"I will not vote for XXX because he wont let me break the law!!!! Seriously, grow up."
I will not vote for XXX because he will not do anything about changing the law on an issue that directly affects me. My yes, what horribly childish reasoning.
"I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside"
The fact he's an ex-exec from a business that is a prime player in some of the most suppressive, anti-progress, anti-freedom and anti-privacy organisations, organisations which consistently try to criminalise vast swathes of people and totally miss the point on technological issues.... Well that puts him on my blacklist.
Whatever your "it" is, his presence ought to set off some BIG alarm bells.
As I said in my original post - I'm not USian and have no affiliation to either party. I have a preference for democrats but their "family friendly" policies make me sick - but a Time Warner exec as a tech advisor? Seriously, don't vote for this guy.
True, all this Rep vs Dem stuff ought to be academic.
You a copyright infringer? They want you behind bars. Pot smoker? Behind bars. Violent video games? Banned. Porn? Off the internets.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there more sold on the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, than are sold on the "don't give your mandate to someone that wants to put you in jail!".
Not voting for people with views like those should be an obvious choice. Unfortunately it seems not.
"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"
"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"
Who are you going to place more faith in there? As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.
(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)
Well that's true, but you still have to communicate with parties who don't use encryption, or at least you do if you want a functional, general purpose email system.
Whilst it's not good protection if you've already attracted serious suspicion to yourself, it ought to keep you clear of random traffic scans and any consequences associated with your ISP retaining large quantities of packet logs.
And yes, if you are into doing this fully and properly, you would find a large variety of unrelated hosts that would allow you to form encrypted connections and send dummy messages on a (p)random basis. And receive of course. Then you don't give anyone away and you have a large amount of useless data for a good needle/haystck setup.
So I'm a frequent (ish) traveller for $HUGE_CORP, the logical upshot of this is that no data travels with you anywhere.
If I'm crossing the border of one of these countries then they can take any data a storage device, copy it and then do pretty much what they like with it.
Like (and this has happenned with corporate communications, I'm looking at you USA) pass it on to $COUNTRY's local competition to $HUGE_CORP. So we already don't travel with sensitive data if we can, but this would mean keeping the company laptop as simply a remote comms device and hoping that wherever you are there's good net conectivity. Otherwise you risk compromising the company.
Good work RI/MPAA, you've not only pissed off the citizens, but made my professional life more difficult too.
Slashdot Mirror
You could always wait or something based on Nvidia Tegra....
Though that might need to wait a while and isn't x86 friendly. Not that that matters. Debian on ARM is great.
Oh it's a word. Copywritten by a copywriter. They write copy.
You're correct in that it has nothing to do with copyright.
And how about compared to turning it off when you're not using it?
"Under these assumptions, running BOINC costs about $3/month more than leaving your computer on but idle, and about $8.80/month more than leaving it off all the time.
There may also be an environmental cost. If your electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, the extra electricity usage produces greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. If this is the case, we recommend that you not leave your computer on just to run BOINC, or that you reduce your overall energy use to compensate. "
Weel, that would depend if it's just the money or the associated energy use and atmospheric pollution that's on your mind.
I'm sure I've seen them in other places...
Maybe Singapore (OK, so they use british standard sockets).... Hmmm.
Err, blackle is nonsense in the modern world, IMHO.
LCD/TFT screens don't work that way. There is a bright light that's always on, and the colours and darkness come about by blocking portions of said light, not by generating more of it.
Of course, once OLED comes in that'll change again.
Come to think of it, you're right, I haven't noticed power switches on power sockets whenever I've been in the US (quite a lot over the years). Guess you don't notice the absence of little things like that.
Ghirardelli do an ok bit of chocolate. OTOH, Hersheys is like some sort of brown soap.
Actually unplugging everything would be more hassle, having the switch right there on the socket is a good thing, IMHO. I'm not obsessive about this and have a home server and a router that are UPS'd and on all the time. If anyone can get any use out of the spare cycles on my 266MHz ARM box then they're welcome to 'em...
Real figures?
I don't know, but given that people have PSUs rated from 250W - 1KW these days, I would have thought fairly significant, assuming a pretty high utilisation of "spare" cycles.
I know we've managed to cut our electricity bill in half lately by moving to energy saving bulbs and making sure we actually switch stuff off at the socket when it's not in use.
Also, there's that whole "not using more than you need" thing to do with electricity having to come from somewhere, and that simewhere usually being a source of CO2 and other nasties.
It's the not-so-idle electricty bill that'll turn up when I let people use my PC's spare cycles all the time.
That's why it's off, in stand by or auto throttling the processor. That's why letting people use your "idle" cycles is not as simple a charitable proposition as it sounds.
How?
A bit of code (unless I'm missing something) is going to be smaller than your average image. What's the gain?
Other than for google of course.
"How about voting for the lesser of two evils now"
What if I really object to both of their platforms and think that both will continue to take us further in the wrong direction?
What if I'm not really sure there is a lesser of two evils?
At this point I guess we move into the territory of voting for one of the third parties not because you agree with them, but as a protest against the republicrats.
"Copyright infringer? Not really-doesn't apply."
Good for you, OTOH a lot of folks are, and even many that aren't are concerned about the extreme measure being proposed (like the treaty that would provide for border guards to sieze/copy data on entry, under the excuse of copyright compliance checking)
"Pot smoker? Nope-doesn't apply."
Again, there a lot of people (me included) that don't smoke it but think it is an inportant issue from the standpoint of social freedom, of not criminalising people unnecessarily, and of stopping a lucrative line of trade from gangs.
"Violent video games? Sorry, no games for me, I have more work to do and I like to play outside. Don't think they should be banned, but don't have a real concern if they are either."
You should perhaps be interested in the freedom of speech/art implications.
"Porn? Off the internets? Won't happen because it drives a huge portion of our economy whether its opponents want to admit it or not."
Well true, that one's probably safe!
But these are real issues. the fact that they affect groups you currently don't feel part of doesn't mean they aren't important and don't strike (tiny, tiny blows) at the foundations of our society.
I don't think these are frivolous adolescent worries, I think they are very real dangers to our societies, very real issues. Education, economy and war are important, no denying, but freedom ought to be a concern too.
Good answer!! There definitely is need of a new political group. Tech literate, socially liberal but fiscally conservative. I meet so many people that agree with that stance but don't feel they have representation at all.
I love the villianization companies such as Time Warner, who has the fiduciary responsibility to protect their assets, which in turn protects their employees and shareholders.
They have a wider view of what constitutes an asset and the lengths to which they should be able to go to protect them than a lot of people think is good for society. Is it ok for us to become a police state in order to protect their assets? Or do we draw the line somewhere?
I'd have to assume you reference their music and film divisions and how they "criminalise" people who illegally copy copyrighted material.
There's that. Then there's the legislation like the DMCA which criminalises things like DVD decoding on unlicensed devices.
If upholding copyright law and defending their property is "suppressive", "anti-progress", "anti-freedom", and "anti-privacy", then what do you expect from them?
They do more than uphold, they try everything they can to extend copyright and other law in ways that are detrimental to society. See the treaty discussed on slashdot earlier today which would allow border guards to take copies of people's private data stores in order to check for noncompliance. I would like some ethics from them. But this isn't about what I expect from them, it's about giving your electoral mandate to someone who aligns with their interests.
Close a up shop because you deem their business model to be "obsolete"?
Straw man, and not one of my opinions.
It's to make sure that people know that they will be backed up, which in turn encourages innovation. If the pharmaceutical companies didn't have patent protection from the government, they would not be able to stay in business. Although this isn't quite the same as protection of things like music and film, the idea is similar.
Thanks, I have a good understanding of IP law, perhaps you ought to check up on it yourself if you feel the need to illustrate a copyright example by using patents.
Why should a company spend all of the time promoting an artist, who are mutually bound by contracts, if you can just go download the music?
Another straw man.
Do I like how big business operates with regard to art? Not particularly, but artists need to make the change. Don't blame the companies for doing what they have the fiduciary responsibility of doing.
They have a fiduciary responsibility to try to change the law? And to abuse the court system by presenting weak cases? And try a scatter-gun scare tactic approach 0on universities and other folks? This is news to me.
So I think I can blame them for their lack of ethics if nothing else.
And who should I blame for legislation favouring specific business sectors over and above the interests of the populace and the technical crowd?
Oh right, politicians who are in the pockets of the same media companies and hol,d their intrerests above those of society as a whole, or at least are quite prepared to hear a one-sided story. Which is, coincidentally, what we're talking about here, which politician should get your mandate. The one in bed with the coporations that are taking actions I disagree with wouldn't get my vote, were I a US voter.
I'm all for free market capitalism, but I'm not so laissez-faire that I think anarchy is the way to go. Let the market decide if Time Warner's media component is the right business model going forward. Things tend to not change overnight, so don't be impatient.
The market is not perfect, consumers are not always enlightened and competition is not always free and fair. That said it's not the business model I argue with, it's the ethics and the politics.
Some of the worst decisions are made with haste.
This is releveant to what, how?
I'm not asking for radical overnight change, I'm looking for politicians and political parties that will stop us going even further in the wrong direction, then consider what to do from there.
Can't argue there, but at least they have an advisor with a tech, rather than media exec, background.
No one in their right mind should vote for somone who advocates that kind of change, no matter how much they think it's a good idea.
Then the only reasonable choice becomes not to vote at all.
The main parties want to (continue to) criminalise me and restrict my freedoms in the name of security|children|money. Both are moving in the wrong direction, too.
The third parties (notably libertarians) are a bunch of nutbags.
So what do you do?
Actually, I work for one of the world's biggest tech firms.
"So I'm pretty mystified by how you see it as conceivable that "corporate interests" are opposed to "technical interests."
See DRM, the multiple court cases over DeCSS, the whole DMCA and its restrictions over discussion of security, the massive abuse of the patent system (effectively cutting out or severely crippling many of your "thousand tiny tech start-ups you won't hear about".
I'm pretty mystified that you could have missed out on these themes over the past few years.
"Or are you thinking you still live in some quaint 18th century world where the individual inventor can do it all himself, and there is no real need to form large cooperating teams of technical folks and provide them with good support staff and plenty of capital investment -- i.e. found "a corporation"?"
I'm sorry if my use of the word "corporation" set off your hippie and/or student radar. Neither is the case here and I'm quite capable of backing up my previous comments without resorting to impugning the intelligence of those I argue against. I suggest you try the same, nice ad hominem though.
As for "popular" interests: the "popular" interests are what the vast seething market of consumers want
In other words the people of the United States of America, those that the POTUS is supposed to represent and to serve, right?
they don't give a flying fsck about technical interests at all, because they're not techies.
Didn't say they were, I said the likes of the republican's apparent tech spokesperson was against their interests.
"They want their tech stuff to Just Work and be incredibly cheap, if not free. They're not the least bit interested in coolness, or advancing the art in amazing ways, or any of those other geeky kinds of goals you might find among people who seek each other out and associate into a corporation so that they can spend the productive part of their lives advancing those technical interests."
Do you live in a fantasy world? Tech advances are a means to an end for some companies, not all, and not the only means. Large companies exist to make money. In fact for public companies that's a legal requirement or the board can face charges. Yes, a lot of tech comes from large corps, they are good for that, but please don't pretend that corporate influence, especially on politicians, is always a good thing. Especially given this person's prior record.
In the arena of copyright law, the likes of Time Warner are clearly directly opposed to what the people of the country want and are arguably going well beyond what's best for society and business in general. They don't respect privacy, they engage in campaigns of scaring the population into compliance with their take on IP...
Sheesh, get a clue. Or a job. Find out how the world actually works instead of regurgitating mindless slogans from the 19th century.
Back at you. You've swallowed the "money is always" right line a little too far there. Tell me, in your world, do companies always act in the best interests of the whole population?
Or are there no incidences of monopolistic behaviour, unethical behaviour, exploitation of cheap foreign child labour etc etc?
"Unlike pirating music"
It's currently a civil offense, look for it to be criminal in the next term as both candidates are in the pockets of the media corps.
"Just because you want it to be legal to smoke yourself stupid and lazy to the detriment to society"
Prove that it is to the detriment of society. You can't.
"I will not vote for XXX because he wont let me break the law!!!! Seriously, grow up."
I will not vote for XXX because he will not do anything about changing the law on an issue that directly affects me. My yes, what horribly childish reasoning.
Think before you post, moron.
"I have no idea what Chuck Fish's interests are but if you want to change the market, it might be best to do it with someone who knows the market--or even has the ability to change it from the inside"
The fact he's an ex-exec from a business that is a prime player in some of the most suppressive, anti-progress, anti-freedom and anti-privacy organisations, organisations which consistently try to criminalise vast swathes of people and totally miss the point on technological issues.... Well that puts him on my blacklist.
Whatever your "it" is, his presence ought to set off some BIG alarm bells.
As I said in my original post - I'm not USian and have no affiliation to either party. I have a preference for democrats but their "family friendly" policies make me sick - but a Time Warner exec as a tech advisor? Seriously, don't vote for this guy.
True, all this Rep vs Dem stuff ought to be academic.
You a copyright infringer? They want you behind bars.
Pot smoker? Behind bars.
Violent video games? Banned.
Porn? Off the internets.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people out there more sold on the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, than are sold on the "don't give your mandate to someone that wants to put you in jail!".
Not voting for people with views like those should be an obvious choice. Unfortunately it seems not.
"Chuck Fish, an attorney for the McCain campaign and former Time Warner executive"
"Daniel Weitzner, an MIT computer scientist"
Who are you going to place more faith in there?
As usual republicans == corporate interests over technical or popular interests.
(BTW, before you accuse me of being a shill or a partisan or an idiot democrat, I'm not even USian and don't get to vote on this. I'm just calling it like I see it)
Well that's true, but you still have to communicate with parties who don't use encryption, or at least you do if you want a functional, general purpose email system.
Whilst it's not good protection if you've already attracted serious suspicion to yourself, it ought to keep you clear of random traffic scans and any consequences associated with your ISP retaining large quantities of packet logs.
And yes, if you are into doing this fully and properly, you would find a large variety of unrelated hosts that would allow you to form encrypted connections and send dummy messages on a (p)random basis. And receive of course. Then you don't give anyone away and you have a large amount of useless data for a good needle/haystck setup.
Use encryption opportunistically, that helps, any comms between known hosts in your web of trust are then impenetrable to anyone but you.
Ditto, I have a small, low power box with my own setup.
I have control over the whole thing and nobody gets my data.
So I'm a frequent (ish) traveller for $HUGE_CORP, the logical upshot of this is that no data travels with you anywhere.
If I'm crossing the border of one of these countries then they can take any data a storage device, copy it and then do pretty much what they like with it.
Like (and this has happenned with corporate communications, I'm looking at you USA) pass it on to $COUNTRY's local competition to $HUGE_CORP.
So we already don't travel with sensitive data if we can, but this would mean keeping the company laptop as simply a remote comms device and hoping that wherever you are there's good net conectivity. Otherwise you risk compromising the company.
Good work RI/MPAA, you've not only pissed off the citizens, but made my professional life more difficult too.