Wow guys. I created that scenario as a greatly simplified example to try to show that the cost of replacing a hard drive is insignificant when compared to other costs in IT. Nothing more. Having multiple fail-overs, scaling horizontally, and pushing to other bottlenecks are all great ideas, but they just cloud up the central point I was making of labor costing more than the hard drive.
In which country? In some countries, high import duties and a weak local currency mean that the price of a hard drive is worth a lot more hours of labor than it would be in, for example, the United States or the United Kingdom. And across how many machines does your app run? In the USA. Let's say I have an app that is so dependent on performance that the hit taken by running a slower hard drive is currently a show stopping issue. A new Seagate 7200.10 400GB hard drive costs right around $100 in the US, heck we'll call it $150 for OMGNeedItNow shipping or local retail price. Let's figure that there is believed to be a performance issue in the code, but that no one has worked on the project for 6 months to 1 year. Figure it takes about 2 hours for a developer to get the correct code out of the repository, track down the code that is believed to be responsible for the performance issue. Let's say the coder is a mid-career coder pulling 75k/year + benefits. Toss on taxes, insurance, 401k, utility, and all the other joyful expenses employers have to cough up and it probably costs the employer $120k/year to have that coder sitting there. Spread that $120k over 2080 hours and you get $57.70/hr.
In the 2 hours it took to have that coder look at the problem, you have spent $115, and you do not have a new design, test plan, assembly, or distributable yet. That little performance issue could take 40+ hours to actually get out the door, or close to $2300.
Compared to just replacing the hard drive for $150.
Nothing sucks more than swapping out drives. Spoken like a man who's never been kicked in the nuts...
I'd rather hot swap a failed raid drive than bring down a server to increase memory or redesign a solution from scratch in order to achieve the same performance gains. Heck, for the cost of having a coder just look at the I/O intensive code I could have bought another hard drive.
So you don't think AMD's growth in market share and sound pummeling in benchmarks had anything to do with Intel's decision to abandon Burst and Rambus? I'm not saying that they were the only reason Intel changed course. But if Intel had no competition, they could have dragged that crap out for years of iterative improvements.
Yes, but by switching to 45nm fabrication they are increasing the yield of their production facility, so they can produce more products for the same amount of raw material. Switching to 45nm chips is in Intel's best interests long term. Short term, selling down 65nm stock and spinning up production of 45nm tooling is in their best interest.
That said, I want AMD to come out with some kick ass chips. If it weren't for AMD forcing innovation down Intel's throat we would still be stuck with that crap they called the Pentium 4. If AMD continues to lag behind in performance and sales, it will only lead to slower development tracks from Intel.
Sure, we can do that. Just before you make any calls we'll need you to lay copper directly from your location, to the location of the person you are trying to reach.
Hello, it's the freaking internet, you're call is going to get routed to hell and back. Encrypted or not, you're going to be bouncing from routers to ISPs, to backbones, and back down the other side, and depending on your flavor you may even have a 3rd party provider to talk to in the loop.
Read the article. They are not blaming MS for the failure, they are blaming their own code. It was just because of the mass reboot that their own flaw became apparent. Headline is factually inaccurate.
Good question. And maybe I'm on crack or something, but I thought Bush and Asscroft/Gonzo pushed some policy through that changed the requirements of class action lawsuits to require not just people of the same class, but that some number of people had to be from the same state. (intermission) Yeah, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness _Act_of_2005
So she will likely have the case bumped up to federal court, where it will promptly be dismissed.
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I thought they did have fees, but they were based on revenue and had an insignificant impact on the overall cost of station opperations.
KN looked at the situation, figured the would have to pay $500 an hour for legal over a court case that would likely drag on 6+ months. Have the lawyer(s) work only 40 hours a week for 6 months would have cost them over $500,000. They took the smart move, paid the settlement, and left the challenge for someone with more to lose.
This practice is nothing more than legal extortion.
I'm not familiar with Russian law, but this is probably why the case was dismissed. The Lawyers involved attempted to prosecute the case as if it were in a civil court, where burdens are much lighter. If they walked into a criminal court, where the Judge is used to seeing everything filed perfectly, solid basis for accusations, and paperwork, signatures, and warrants to back up anything that was being presented, with their dicks in their hands and a half-assed case.... No wonder why the just tossed 'em out.
Wow, the first ISR post in the thread. 3rd top level post. And it's rated redundant...
Who the heck rated this? Screwy McHasnoclue?
I mean, it's a cliche, using a cliche is not in and of itself redundant. The 20+ copies of this post made through out the day further down the thread will be redundant, but this first use is not.
I'm not familiar with the software in question, but are they meaning to say that the company did nothing for a month, then they posted the vulnerabilities publicly, and in less than 7 days the company became aware of the post, tested the vulnerabilities, designed a solution, corrected the code, and had a software update tested and ready for deployment?
If so, that is some AMAZING response time. But I would venture a guess that they had already been working on the corrections. The public posting may have made a couple of coders work over time, and cut the testing phase out of the cycle, but for them to do the whole thing in less than 7 days is highly unlikely.
Not only that, but since they would have either had to cut short, or cut out entirely the testing phase of the release, it is MORE likely that security issues remain, or that new security issue have been created and not found.
Agreed, the outcome of the case itself is petty. Provided the breathalyser is functioning correctly (easy enough to test with a simple double blind survey with a number of devices of the same function). But it would be nice to see a precedence set that affirms the right of a person to review the code of a digital object being used to "testify" against them.
And in the over all "good" side of this argument, more eyes can make better software. Even if this guy gets off with nothing due to the source, it can only drive to make the source better.
I agree with your points, save one:
It cannot be applied in the manner you imagine without a warrant. That should read: "It should not be applied in the manner you imagine without a warrant."
We have already seen that members of the AG, DoJ, FBI, and White house have no qualms with stepping over the line of what should and should not be done. Just because there is a law in place doesn't mean the current leadership will choose to enforce it.
The issue is the step between LEGAL limitations and PRIVATE limitations. LEGALLY, what the girl did was clearly and obviously within the scope of fair use, it was legal. However, the private entity doing the screening has the right to say what you can and can not do (to some extent at least) on their private property. They can say 'No recording devices aloud' and 'Absolutely no reproductions', and they can boot you out of their property for violating those rules. But they can not take legal actions against you (unless you signed a contract, in which case it would be contract law in a civil case).
They can call the cops and tell them that the suspect the girl of violating the law. And if the the cops come and ask the girl if she was recording the movie and she says "yes" (or even if she says "no" but they see the cam-corder) they have the right to take her into custody for questioning.
In this case, IF the company does not drop the charges, it will go to court (provided the Judge doesn't dismiss it immediately), the girl's lawyer will prove that her acts legally fall under fair use, and at the end of the day, she will walk out unpunished, copy rights will be unchanged, the theater will still have her $6.50 for the matinée and the Lawyers on both sides will pocket a fat load of cash.
Ahh, I see, I was interpreting the word "innovation" completely differently. (read: wrong) I have never listened to a song on the radio, and been inspired by it to create a new song, or to attempt to innovate a new styling of music. So in that sense, you are correct, radio has never been a major source of musical innovation, But.... Radio is still the primary means through which the majority of people listen to and discover music. So it is the primary was for the population at large to discover the innovation of the artists.
And if Radio went away, I would be very very sad. I would lose http://www.wjjo.com/ one of the best rock stations in the US and http://www.themic921.com/ who host both the Stephanie Miller show and most of the Air America lineup. Sure, both of those stations have web broadcasting, but the place I listen to the most music is my car. And its highly unlikely that I'll keep a WiFi signal running on my 30 mile commute out into the country side every day.
Or maybe he, too, is as clueless as those others who still think "radio is the most important tool for disseminating musical innovation..." I would argue that it still is... for now. Not that I expect it to remain so for much longer, but it is currently. Heck, 10 years from now the FCC will probably be auctioning off all FM frequencies. (Who would have thought in the mid 90's that UHF/VHF frequencies would all get auctioned off?)
That said, the internet is the future. As others have mentioned, at what point in history have so many musicians, fans, and managers been able to communicate so directly? To attempt to motivate musicians to stay away from the Internet is akin to telling musicians to stay in their garage. So in that respect, Elton John's comments are (IMO) more damaging to the music culture of this world than the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow guys. I created that scenario as a greatly simplified example to try to show that the cost of replacing a hard drive is insignificant when compared to other costs in IT. Nothing more. Having multiple fail-overs, scaling horizontally, and pushing to other bottlenecks are all great ideas, but they just cloud up the central point I was making of labor costing more than the hard drive.
-Rick
In the 2 hours it took to have that coder look at the problem, you have spent $115, and you do not have a new design, test plan, assembly, or distributable yet. That little performance issue could take 40+ hours to actually get out the door, or close to $2300.
Compared to just replacing the hard drive for $150.
Hardware is cheap. Labor is not.
-Rick
I'd rather hot swap a failed raid drive than bring down a server to increase memory or redesign a solution from scratch in order to achieve the same performance gains. Heck, for the cost of having a coder just look at the I/O intensive code I could have bought another hard drive.
-Rick
-Rick
So you don't think AMD's growth in market share and sound pummeling in benchmarks had anything to do with Intel's decision to abandon Burst and Rambus? I'm not saying that they were the only reason Intel changed course. But if Intel had no competition, they could have dragged that crap out for years of iterative improvements.
-Rick
Yes, but by switching to 45nm fabrication they are increasing the yield of their production facility, so they can produce more products for the same amount of raw material. Switching to 45nm chips is in Intel's best interests long term. Short term, selling down 65nm stock and spinning up production of 45nm tooling is in their best interest.
That said, I want AMD to come out with some kick ass chips. If it weren't for AMD forcing innovation down Intel's throat we would still be stuck with that crap they called the Pentium 4. If AMD continues to lag behind in performance and sales, it will only lead to slower development tracks from Intel.
-Rick
Sure, we can do that. Just before you make any calls we'll need you to lay copper directly from your location, to the location of the person you are trying to reach.
Hello, it's the freaking internet, you're call is going to get routed to hell and back. Encrypted or not, you're going to be bouncing from routers to ISPs, to backbones, and back down the other side, and depending on your flavor you may even have a 3rd party provider to talk to in the loop.
-Rick
Read the article. They are not blaming MS for the failure, they are blaming their own code. It was just because of the mass reboot that their own flaw became apparent. Headline is factually inaccurate.
-Rick
ooooo, now there's something I can take to my legislature!
-Rick
Good question. And maybe I'm on crack or something, but I thought Bush and Asscroft/Gonzo pushed some policy through that changed the requirements of class action lawsuits to require not just people of the same class, but that some number of people had to be from the same state. (intermission) Yeah, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_Action_Fairness _Act_of_2005
So she will likely have the case bumped up to federal court, where it will promptly be dismissed.
-Rick
1) Extend the trial ...
;)
2) Sue for legal expenses
3) Gouge Elektra for $200,000 due to extra court costs due to motions
4)
5) Profit
Step 4 has something to do with getting the lawyer who just got a $200,000 paycheck to cut you in on the deal
-Rick
Wow, thanks for the heads up. I thought they did have fees, but they were based on revenue and had an insignificant impact on the overall cost of station opperations.
-Rick
There has to be some cut off though... I mean, talk radio doesn't pay a SoundExchange fee... do they?
-Rick
KN looked at the situation, figured the would have to pay $500 an hour for legal over a court case that would likely drag on 6+ months. Have the lawyer(s) work only 40 hours a week for 6 months would have cost them over $500,000. They took the smart move, paid the settlement, and left the challenge for someone with more to lose.
This practice is nothing more than legal extortion.
-Rick
I'm not familiar with Russian law, but this is probably why the case was dismissed. The Lawyers involved attempted to prosecute the case as if it were in a civil court, where burdens are much lighter. If they walked into a criminal court, where the Judge is used to seeing everything filed perfectly, solid basis for accusations, and paperwork, signatures, and warrants to back up anything that was being presented, with their dicks in their hands and a half-assed case.... No wonder why the just tossed 'em out.
-Rick
Wow, the first ISR post in the thread. 3rd top level post. And it's rated redundant...
Who the heck rated this? Screwy McHasnoclue?
I mean, it's a cliche, using a cliche is not in and of itself redundant. The 20+ copies of this post made through out the day further down the thread will be redundant, but this first use is not.
-Rick
I'm not familiar with the software in question, but are they meaning to say that the company did nothing for a month, then they posted the vulnerabilities publicly, and in less than 7 days the company became aware of the post, tested the vulnerabilities, designed a solution, corrected the code, and had a software update tested and ready for deployment?
If so, that is some AMAZING response time. But I would venture a guess that they had already been working on the corrections. The public posting may have made a couple of coders work over time, and cut the testing phase out of the cycle, but for them to do the whole thing in less than 7 days is highly unlikely.
Not only that, but since they would have either had to cut short, or cut out entirely the testing phase of the release, it is MORE likely that security issues remain, or that new security issue have been created and not found.
I'm not sure I'd call this one a "win" just yet.
-Rick
Agreed, the outcome of the case itself is petty. Provided the breathalyser is functioning correctly (easy enough to test with a simple double blind survey with a number of devices of the same function). But it would be nice to see a precedence set that affirms the right of a person to review the code of a digital object being used to "testify" against them.
And in the over all "good" side of this argument, more eyes can make better software. Even if this guy gets off with nothing due to the source, it can only drive to make the source better.
-Rick
That Step 4) is a gag order. And you left out Step 6) where the owning company sues you for all of the profits in Step 5).
-Rick
We have already seen that members of the AG, DoJ, FBI, and White house have no qualms with stepping over the line of what should and should not be done. Just because there is a law in place doesn't mean the current leadership will choose to enforce it.
-Rick
The issue is the step between LEGAL limitations and PRIVATE limitations. LEGALLY, what the girl did was clearly and obviously within the scope of fair use, it was legal. However, the private entity doing the screening has the right to say what you can and can not do (to some extent at least) on their private property. They can say 'No recording devices aloud' and 'Absolutely no reproductions', and they can boot you out of their property for violating those rules. But they can not take legal actions against you (unless you signed a contract, in which case it would be contract law in a civil case).
They can call the cops and tell them that the suspect the girl of violating the law. And if the the cops come and ask the girl if she was recording the movie and she says "yes" (or even if she says "no" but they see the cam-corder) they have the right to take her into custody for questioning.
In this case, IF the company does not drop the charges, it will go to court (provided the Judge doesn't dismiss it immediately), the girl's lawyer will prove that her acts legally fall under fair use, and at the end of the day, she will walk out unpunished, copy rights will be unchanged, the theater will still have her $6.50 for the matinée and the Lawyers on both sides will pocket a fat load of cash.
-Rick
Ahh, I see, I was interpreting the word "innovation" completely differently. (read: wrong) I have never listened to a song on the radio, and been inspired by it to create a new song, or to attempt to innovate a new styling of music. So in that sense, you are correct, radio has never been a major source of musical innovation, But.... Radio is still the primary means through which the majority of people listen to and discover music. So it is the primary was for the population at large to discover the innovation of the artists.
And if Radio went away, I would be very very sad. I would lose http://www.wjjo.com/ one of the best rock stations in the US and http://www.themic921.com/ who host both the Stephanie Miller show and most of the Air America lineup. Sure, both of those stations have web broadcasting, but the place I listen to the most music is my car. And its highly unlikely that I'll keep a WiFi signal running on my 30 mile commute out into the country side every day.
-Rick
from animals around the world. And I have to say, the fecal matter of the North American Badger is by far the best.
All hail the Badger, its shit is the best smelling crap in the whole world!
-Rick
oh come now, it's not that bad.... There's only 13 adds on the page consuming about 1/3 of the screen real estate... plus the Star Tribune branding.
Okay... so where's the print link again?
-Rick
That said, the internet is the future. As others have mentioned, at what point in history have so many musicians, fans, and managers been able to communicate so directly? To attempt to motivate musicians to stay away from the Internet is akin to telling musicians to stay in their garage. So in that respect, Elton John's comments are (IMO) more damaging to the music culture of this world than the Internet.
-Rick