IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Excessive amount?
>> The estimated $415,000 damages that he faces work out at a whopping 59 cents per second that the program ran. <<

That is a little in excess it seems.

If it was a screen-saver, then it probably is not wasting any signif work-time CPU.

I can understand the cost of the effort to uninstall it, but not running.

________________
oop.ismad.com
New Ah the bandwidth, man, the bandwidth!
It was using extra CPU cycles, but it was transmitting it over the Internet to a central server. As a result slowing down the bandwidth of other tasks over the Internet and possibly the local Intranet. Bandwidth theft sounds like the issue here. If so, better ditch those SETI programs.

My employer has a polciy against instant messenging and chat programs on the networked workstations. Also other programs, such as Real Networks Real Player are banned (Non-Licenced and Real Player sends information back to Real Networks so it scares the crap out of the PHBs so they banned it).
"I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!"Moe Howard
New Oh, c'mon, bandwidth minimal
I would bet almost any amount of money that the computers the screensaver was installed on had at least 10x more unauthorized bandwidth use by the users than by this screensaver.

SETI@home on the computers I've installed it to runs for a couple of days, then (even on a dialup connection) spends maybe two minutes sending data back to the central server. (OK, maybe three or five minutes if the server or connection is slow.)

If I were the employee, I'd ask for the logs showing internet usage and demonstrate there is NO FREAKING WAY it cost $400,000. (On the other hand, if that distributed screen server works differently from SETI@home, he still may be in some very hot water.)
French Zombies are zapping me with lasers!
New Maybe Bandwidth minimal
But the PHBs don't see it that way. Maybe they are also counting CPU time as well?

"I can see if I want anything done right around here, I'll have to do it myself!"  Moe Howard

New But those CPUs would have been just ticking over anyway.
So where's the cost savings of *not* running (=the cost of running) this ("screen-saver") software?

Are they going to try to figure it out from their electricity bill, perhaps?
     IT worker faces jail for installing... - (Fearless Freep) - (5)
         Excessive amount? - (tablizer) - (4)
             Ah the bandwidth, man, the bandwidth! - (orion) - (3)
                 Oh, c'mon, bandwidth minimal - (wharris2) - (2)
                     Maybe Bandwidth minimal - (orion) - (1)
                         But those CPUs would have been just ticking over anyway. - (CRConrad)

This is all frightfully unimportant, but since when has that been a reason not to post?
77 ms