hpr-knowledge-base/hpr_transcripts/hpr1115.txt

Episode: 1115
Title: HPR1115: TGTM Newscast for 11/07/2012
Source: https://hub.hackerpublicradio.org/ccdn.php?filename=/eps/hpr1115/hpr1115.mp3
Transcribed: 2025-10-17 19:16:22

---

You're listening to Talk Geek To Me News, number 80, record for Wednesday, November
7, 2012.
You're listening to the Tech Only Hacker Public Radio Edition to get the full podcast,
including political, commentary, and other controversial topics.
Please visit www.talkgeektoMe.us.
Here are the vials statistics for this program.
Your feedback matters to me.
Please send your comments to dgatdeepgeek.us.
The webpage for this program is at www.talkgeektoMe.us.
You can subscribe to me on Identica as the username DeepGeek or you could follow me on Twitter.
My username there is dgtgtm as in DeepGeek Talk Geek To Me.
Before I start off the tech news, I want to announce that Talk Geek To Me News has
to be cut back.
It's just too time consuming and my personal life is increasing.
So as a temporary setback, we'll be producing two shows per month at this point.
The decision is not finalized.
I did set up a straw poll at http colon slash slash straw poll.me slash 4866 slash.
Did some choices as to what I can do with the project?
I hope you'll stop by even if it's just to abstain from voting, so I know you've been there.
However, I just have to produce less and I also want to do other things.
So we're having at least a reduction to shows a month instead of the normal three.
And possibly a different permanent situation will emerge, but we'll come as a last minute
reprise.
Also interested if somebody would like to do a newscast once or twice a month, I am
interested in hearing from you.
I would be certainly glad to publish.
And you might think if you know of the world news section of the show, you might think
that I might have a political requirement, but that's not the case.
The only requirement would have would be in regards to attribution and copyright rules.
So if you're interested in becoming an unwaged newscaster, please contact me and we can
go from there.
And now the tech roundup from democracynow.org, day 1025, 2012, WikiLeaks releases
trove of US files on jailing foreign prisoners.
Another WikiLeaks news, the whistleblown group, has just released a new case of files detailing
US guidelines for jailing foreign prisoners at military prisons from Iraq to Guantanamo
Bay.
According to WikiLeaks, the detainee policies includes one manual instructing how to disappear
prisoners into other government agencies while hiding their names from US military records.
From perspectives that MVDirona.com did Monday, October 29, 2012 by James Hamilton, AMD
announced a server targeted on-part.
I have been interested in and writing about microservice since 2007.
microservice can be built using any instruction set, architecture, but I'm particularly interested
in ARM processors and their application to server side workloads.
Today, advanced micro devices announced they are going to build an ARM CPU targeting
the server market.
This will be a 4 core 64 bit more than 2 gigahertz part that is expected to sample in 2013
and ship in volume in early 2014.
AMD is far from new to the microservice market.
In fact, much of my taskwork on microservice has been AMD powered.
What's different today is that AMD is applying their server processor skills while at the
same time leveraging the massive ARM processor ecosystem.
ARM processors power Apple iPhones, Samsung smartphones, tablets, disk drives, and applications
you didn't even know had computers in them.
The defining characteristic of server processor selection is to focus first and most on
raw CPU performance and accept the high cost and high power consumption that follows from
that goal.
The defining characteristics of microservice is we leverage the high-round client and
connect the device ecosystems and make a CPU selection on the basis of a price performance
and power performance with an emphasis on building balanced servers.
The case for microservice is anchored upon these four observations.
Volume economics.
Rather than draw on the small volume economics of the server market with microservice we leverage
the massive volume economics of the smart device world driven by cell phones, tablets,
and clients to give some scale to this observation IDC reports that there were 7.6 million
server units sold in 2010.
ARM reports that there were 6.1 billion ARM processors shipped last year.
The connected and embedded device market volumes are 1000 times larger than that of the server
market and the performance gap is shrinking rapidly.
My conductor analysis semicast estimates that by 2015 there will be two ARM processors
for every person in the world.
In 2010 ARM reports that on average there were 2.5 ARM-based processors in each smartphone.
The connected and embedded device market is 1000 times that of the server world.
Having watched and participated in the industry for nearly three decades, one reality seems
to dominate all others, high-valon economics drives innovation and just about always wins.
As an example IBM mainframe ran just about every important server side workload in the
mid-80s, but they were largely swept aside by higher volume risk servers running unix.
At the time I loved risk systems, database systems would just scream on them and they offered
customers excellent press performance, but the same trend played out again.
The higher volume x86 processors from the client world swept the superior war performing
risk systems side, and verily what we see happening about once a decade is a high-valon
lower price technology takes over the low end of the market.
When this happens many engineers correctly point out that these systems can't hold a
candle to the previous generation server technology and then incorrectly believe they won't
get replaced.
The new generation is almost never better in absolute terms, but they all are better
price performers, so they first are adapted for the less performance critical applications.
Once this happens, the die is cast and the outcome is just about assured.
The high-valon plots move up the market and eventually take over even the most performance
critical workloads of the previous generation.
We see the same scenario played out roughly once a decade.
Not CPU bound, most discussion out industry centers on the more demanding server workloads
like databases, but in reality many workloads are not pushing CPU limits and are instead
storage, networking, and memory bound.
There are two major classes of workloads that don't need or can't fully utilize more
CPU.
Some workloads simply do not require the highest performing CPUs to achieve their SLAs.
You can pay more and buy a higher performing processor, but it will achieve little for
these applications.
Some workloads just don't require more CPU performance to meet their goals.
The second class of workloads is characterized by being blocked on networking, storage,
or memory, and the buy memory bound, I don't mean the memory is too small.
In this case, it isn't the size of the memory that is the problem, but the bandwidth.
The processor looks to be fully utilized from an operating system perspective, but the
bulk of its cycles are waiting for memory.
Disk and CPU bound systems are easier to detect by looking for which is running close to
100% utilization while the CPU load is rate lower.
Memory bound is more challenging to detect, but it's super common, so worth talking about.
Most server processors are super scalar, which is to say they can retire multiple instructions
each cycle.
On many workloads less than one instruction is retired each cycle.
You can see this by mining instructions per cycle, because the processor is waiting for
memory transfers.
If a workload is bound on network, storage, or memory, spending more on a faster CPU will
not deliver results.
The same is true for non-demanding workloads.
They too are not bound on CPU, so a fast apart won't help in this case either.
Price performance.
Device price performance is far better than current generation service CPUs, because there
is less competition in the server processors, prices are far higher, and price performance
is relatively low compared to the device world, using server plots performance is excellent,
but price is not.
Let's use an example again.
A service CPU is hundreds of dollars, sometimes approaching $1,000, whereas the ARM processor
in an iPhone comes in at just under $15.
By general rule of thumb, in comparing ARM processors with service CPUs, is that they
are capable of one core of the processing rate, at roughly $1.10 the cost.
And super important, the massive shipping volume of the ARM ecosystem feeds the innovation
and completion, and this performance gap shrinks the performance gap with each processor generation.
Each generation improvement captures more possible server workloads, while further improving
price performance.
Most modern servers run over 200 watts and many are well over 500 watts, while microservice
can weigh in at 10 to 20 watts.
No where is power performance more important than employable devices, so the pace of power
performance innovation in the ARM world is incredibly strong, in fact I've long used
mobile devices as a window into future innovations coming to the server market.
The technologies you've seen in the current generation of cell phones has a very high probability
of being used in a future server CPU generation.
This is not the first ARM-based server processor that has been announced and even more announcements
are coming over the next year, in fact that is one of the strengths of the ARM ecosystem.
The R&D investments can be leveraged over huge shipping volume for many producers to bring
more competition, lower cost, more choice, and faster pace of innovation.
This is a good day for customers, a good day for the server ecosystem, and I'm excited
to see AMD help drive the next phase in the evolution of the ARM server market.
The pace of innovation continues to accelerate industry-wide and it's going to be an exciting
rest of the decade.
I'm torrentfreak.com.
By Ernesto Data October 31, 2012, six directs evidence re-reviewed to fix RIAA lobbying controversy.
Starting next month, the file sharing habits of millions of Victorant users in the United
States will be monitored as part of an agreement between the MPAA, RIAA, and five major ISPs.
The Pories launched the Center for Copyright Information last year, which will be responsible
for the implementation of the plan, to guarantee the accuracy of the evidence behind the copyright
infringement accusations.
The Pories agreed to hire an impartial and independent technology expert.
However, their commitment to this promise was questioned last week when the expert turned
out to be Strauss Friedberg, a former RIAA lobbying group.
The CCI is clearly well aware of the sensitivities generated by this particularly unfortunate
pick.
Quote recent reports that a former employee of Strauss Friedberg lobbied several years
ago on behalf of RIAA matters unrelated to CCI have raised questions about the impartiality
of Strauss Friedberg, unquote CCI's executive director Jill Lesser now states, the CCI
is convinced that despite this history, Strauss Friedberg is capable of delivering an independent
review.
However, to reassure the public that it was carried out properly, CCI will hire a new
expert to go over the evidence review.
To read the rest of the log, follow the links in the show notes from eff.org,
they had to remember the 2nd 2012 by Corrine McSherry and Masha Hoffman.
The 2012 DMCA rulemaking, what we got, what we didn't, and how to improve the process
next time.
Last week, the librarian of Congress issued his final decision, limiting copyright owner's
ability to sue you for making full use of the works you buy.
The short version, it's a mixed bag.
On one hand, the librarian looked to the future, bordering existing exemptions from
extracting clips from DVDs to include clips from movies distributed online as well.
At the same time, the librarian refused to expand an exemption for jail-breaking smartphones
to include the smartphone's cousin, the tablet, even though there is a little practical
difference between the two devices.
Equally illogically, the librarian refused to grant an exemption for jail-breaking video
game consoles.
Now the long version.
In case you haven't been following the trivial process, here's some background.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits circumventing digital rights management, and
other technological measures used to protect copyright works, while this ban was meant
to deter copyright infringement the law is misused to chill innovation, free speech, and
fair use.
The one ray of light, every three years the US copyright office convenes a rulemaking to
consider granting exemptions to the DMCA's ban on second wrenching to mitigate the
harms the law has caused to legitimate non-infringing uses of copyright materials.
The copyright office pours over-exemption proposals submitted by the public with the
pros and cons and then offers recommendations to the librarian of congress who ultimately
grants or denies the exemptions.
In the 2012 rulemaking EFF asked the librarian to protect the jail-breaking of smartphones,
electronic tablets, and video game consoles, libering them to run operating systems and
applications from any source, not just those approved by the manufacturer.
EFF also asked for legal protections for artists and critics who use excerpts from DVDs or
downloading services to create new remixed works.
Our goal was to build on and expand exemptions that EFF won in the 2009 rulemaking proceeding
for jailbreakers and remixed artists.
The group simply sought to build on exemptions for educational uses, filmmaking, and multimedia
e-books.
Hundreds of pages of materials for and against these exemptions were submitted to the copyright
office, including a petition with more than 27,000 signatures and support the proposed
jail-breaking exemptions.
Then this past summer witnesses gathered on several days of hearings on both coasts.
The office heard from industry representatives and proponents, of course, but equally,
if not more important, was the testimony from users who would be directly affected, such
as Vittor's Jonathan McIntosh, Antisha Turk, and software developer Brad Lassie from
Mozilla.
Until 2009, the only people out to circumvent DVD encryption for fair use purposes were
film and media studies professors.
In 2009, that category was expanded to include all college and university professors, film and
media studies students, documentary filmmakers, and non-commercial Vittor's.
Now the librarian has expanded further covering K-12 educators, all college students, multimedia
e-book authors, and professionals who have been commissioned to make videos for non-profit
purposes.
The new exemption also permits breaking encryption on online content, not just DVDs.
That's a big one for fair use creativity, and we are proud to have helped make it happen
to read the rest of the section on video exemptions, follow links in the show notes.
On the article, on the jail-breaking exemptions.
In 2009, EFF won an exemption allowing users to modify smartphones, so that they could
install independent software not necessarily authorized by the phones manufacturer, carrier
or platform provider, a process known as jail-breaking, for iPhones, and rooting for Android
phones.
This time, we asked the librarian not only to review this exemption, but expand it to cover
tablets.
This shouldn't have been a hard sell.
In all important respects, tablets are simply larger mobile devices, right down to using
the same access controls to restrict the program's users can install.
They just aren't marketed as phones, even though they can also be used to make calls.
The good news is that the librarian renewed EFF's exemption request for smartphones, relying
on the copyright offices finding that jail-breaking is fair use.
The copyright office note in particular that the 2009 exemption hasn't harmed the market
for smartphones, and the renewal may even make smartphones more attractive to consumers.
Score one for the jailbreakers.
Unfortunately, as with the video exemptions, this call-out applies only to tool users,
not tool makers, that means you can rely on this exemption to jail-breaking your phone,
but not to distribute jail-breaking code to others.
The bad news is that the librarian refused to extend the exemption to tablets, claiming
it was too hard to know which devices fall in this category.
This is disappointing because the access controls on tablets and smartphones raise identical
problems for consumers, and there is no reason why users should face the MCA liability
for jail-breaking one, but not the other, especially as the functionality's devices continues
to blur.
EFF separately asks that an exemption be granted for users to jailbreak video game consoles,
so that academic researchers and independent homebrew developers can take full advantage
of their console's potential without risk of DMCA liability.
The librarian denied this exemption after the copyright office expressed concern that
jail-breaking even full-adjimate uses would lead to more infringing activity.
The office was wrong, both on reasoning and policy.
People who want to play in infringing games aren't going to be intimidated by the little
additional DMCA liability.
Despite an exemption, the only people hindered by the DMCA threat all legitimate users,
like researchers and independent software developers.
More generally, if you buy a device, whether it's a phone, a video game console, a tablet,
or an ebook reader, it's yours, and you should barely run any software you like on it.
There's no principled reason to allow users this freedom on some devices, but not others.
We hope that in the future rule-making, the librarian will recognize this fact, to read
the rest of this article, follow links in the show notes.
From EFF.org updated October 31, 2012 by Cindy Cohen and Julie Samuels, make a upload
and the government's attack on cloud computing.
Yesterday, EFF on behalf of its client, Kyle Goodwin, filed a brief proposing, a process
for the court in the make-up upload case to hold the government accountable for the actions
it took and failed to take when it shut down make-up upload service and denied third
parties, like Mr. Goodwin, access to their property.
The government also filed a brief of its own, calling for a long, drone-out process that
would require third parties, often individuals, or small companies, to travel to courts
far away and engage in multiple hearings just to get their own property back.
Even worse, the government admitted that his access Mr. Goodwin's make-up upload account
and reviewed the content of his files, by doing so the government has taken a significant
and frightening step.
It apparently searched through the data it seized for one purpose when its target was
make-up upload in order to use it against Mr. Goodwin, someone who was hurt by its actions,
but who was plainly not the target of any criminal investigation, much less one against
make-up upload.
This is, of course, a bold attempt to shift the focus to Mr. Goodwin, trying to distract
both the press and the court from the government's failure to take any steps, much less the
reasonable steps required by law, to protect property rights of third parties, either before
a warrant was executed or afterward.
And of course, if the government is so well-positioned that it can search through Mr. Goodwin's
files and opine on their content, and it is not at all clear that this second search
was authorized, presumably it can also find a way to return them.
But in addition, the government's approach should terrify any user of cloud computer
services, not to mention the providers.
The government maintains that Mr. Goodwin lost his property rights in his data by storing
it on a cloud computing service, specifically the government argues that both the contract
between make-up upload and Mr. Goodwin, a standard cloud computing contract, and the contract
between make-up upload and the server host Copatia, also a standard agreement, likely limit
any property interest he may have in his data.
If the government is right, no provider can both protect itself against sudden losses,
like those due to a hurricane, and also promise its customers that their property rights will
be maintained when they use the service.
Nor can they promise that their property might not suddenly disappear, with no reasonable
way to get it back if the government comes in with a warrant.
Apparently, your property rights become severely limited if you allow someone else to host
your data on the standard cloud computing arrangements.
This argument isn't limited in any way to make a upload, and would apply if the third
party host was Amazon's S3, or Google Apps, or Apple iCloud.
The government's tactics here demonstrate another chilling thing.
If users do try to get the property back, the government won't hesitate to comb through
their property to try to find an argument to use against them.
The government also seeks to place a virtually insurmountable practical burden on users by
asking the court to do a slow-walking, multi-step process that takes place in a far-away court.
Most third parties who use cloud computing services to store their business records, or
personal information, are not in a position to attend even one court appearance in Virginia.
Much less, the multiple ones, the government envisions its submission to the court.
Ultimately, if the government doesn't feel any obligation to respect the rights of
make-up upload customers, and it clearly doesn't, it's not going to suddenly feel differently
if the target of its next investigation is a more mainstream service.
The scope of its seizure here was breathtaking, and they took no steps to engage in what
the law calls minimization, either before it searches and seizures or afterwards, by taking
steps to return property to cloud computing users, who it knew would be hurt.
And now the government is trying to use standard contractual language to argue that any user
of a cloud computing service has, at best, severely limited ownership rights in their property.
Those who have been watching on the sidelines thinking that the issue, in this case, are
just about make-up upload, should take heed.
Other headlines in the news to read these stories, follow links in the show notes.
S3 hacked again, LV-0 keys leaked, CFW released, security whole, reportedly unpatchable.
The Internet Radio Fairness Act, what it is, why it's needed.
News from thestand.org, perspectives.nvderona.com, and allgov.com, used under a range permission,
news from tortfreak.com and eff.org, used under permission of the Creative Commons by Attribution
License.
News from Venezuelaanalysis.com, and democracynow.org, used under permission of the Creative Commons
by Attribution, non-commercial, no-dervous license.
News sources retain their respective copyrights.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Talk Geek To Me.
Here are the vials statistics for this program.
Your feedback matters to me, please send your comments to dgatdeepgeek.us.
The webpage for this program is at www.talkgeektome.us.
You can subscribe to me on Identica, as the username DeepGeek, or you could follow me
on Twitter.
My username there is dgtgtm, as in DeepGeek Talk Geek To Me.
This episode of Talk Geek To Me is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution, share
like 3.0 on-port license.
This license allows commercial reuse of the work, as well as allowing you to modify the
work, as you share like the same rights you have received under this license.
Thank you for listening to this episode of Talk Geek To Me.
You have been listening to Hacker Public Radio, or Hacker Public Radio does not.
We are a community podcast network that releases shows every weekday Monday through Friday.
Today's show, like all our shows, was contributed by a HBR listener by yourself.
Have you ever considered recording a podcast, then visit our website to find out how easy
it really is.
Hacker Public Radio was founded by the Digital.Pound and the Infonomicom Computer Club.
HBR is funded by the binary revolution at binref.com, or binref projects are crowd-responsive
by linear pages.
From shared hosting to custom private clouds, go to lunarpages.com for all your hosting
needs.
On list otherwise stasis, today's show is released under a creative comments, attribution,
share alike, free those own license.