I can understand what you are saying. However, I believe the RIAA only succeeds at making untalented "artists" survive. If you have talent, most likely you will be able to develop a fanbase without the help of the RIAA. At least that's how it is in today's world. There are somanygoodbands out there that get free promotion from their fans regardless of their label affiliations or lack thereof. They may not be superstars, but they're not unknown.
Both the Grateful Dead AND Phish recorded for major labels. You made the other guys point. Well done!
His point was not specifically that RIAA artists succeed, but that a) you need top 10 hits to succeed at touring and b) you need airplay other than college radio to be successful. Maybe that's why I quoted him when refuting the specific points.
Well, emusic.com used to provide unlimited lame --preset standard downloads for as low as $9.99 a month. They now don't have unlimited downloads and I expect DRM to follow.
It certainly can be that. If AOL is anything like where I work, they can search for a MAC address at any access layer device and see when it came on, what IP it used, etc.
That said, it's great proof that the OSS model is vastly superior to an Army of Commercial Programmers.
Well, I wouldn't say it's necessarily proof. However, it is a great example that in some instances, throwing tons of money at a problem won't solve it better than it's already been solved.
but all academia hangs off of commercial backbone routers
Wow, you could not be any more wrong. Ever heard of Internet2 or Abilene? Look into it, it'll be delightfully refreshing.
The point about the routers is that they can force every one downstream of them to comply with the Trusted system. Any ISP using it denies service to any user without a Trusted PC. Backbone routers could enforce it on all ISP's and thus enforce it on ALL end users.
How does it exchange this proverbial trusted computing authorization across autonomous systems? Doing this at the access layer is not difficult, it just requires dynamic ACLs (WHICH ARE NOT NEW). Doing this across the backbone is a completely different story and requires a rewrite of how autonomous systems interoperate.
Orwell wrote an interesting piece entitled Politics and the English Language which shows how much more concerned people are with how things are said than successfully delivering the actual content of the message. It's an interesting read, check it out.
Except, that's Linux convention, not UNIX convention. On SunOS, you might have/dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0. On BSD you might have/dev/wd0a. Disk device notation is not standard, it varies quite frequently.
You seem to ignroe the point I made about Academia, and it's a big point. In addition, most Internet servers do not run on Microsoft servers. That's not changing anytime soon. Also, the majority of people I communicate with do not use Microsoft operating systems to write their email, so that's a relatively moot point. You still don't understand how data moves over the Internet. You don't magically deploy new routers and have this amazing DRM that traverses the entire the Internet. When I start seeing DRM-friendly exterior routing protocols cropping up in RFCs, I'll start running. Until then, it's not really an issue.
And once a signifigant number of ISP's use it they can enforce it end-to-end for the entire internet chain. Any ISP that doesn't use it could be locked out.
Clever a troll you are. Do you have any idea how the Internet works? Do you know how data moves? Apparently not. And what's the impetus for all major network operators to start using this fabled rights breaching technology? Even if 100% of American corporations start complying, you'd probably have 0% of significant American academia. Universities are VERY vocal when it comes to keeping their rights, and they have more available bandwidth than corporations. Your conspiracy theories are nice, but really, a crock.
I can't speak for Symantec or Trend Micro, but Cisco is far from stupid. First of all, all this stuff has to be configured. If you have an ISP who's using said equipment (AND has these features turned on), you can simply switch ISPs. Cisco isn't doing this in order to make everyone run a Microsoft DRM-happy PC. Who do you think works on Cisco equipment? It ain't people sitting on a dinky box running Windows.
In order to avoid over the shoulder type problems, the Safeword system is pretty good. It's a credit card sized calculator looking device that generates one time passwords upon successful PIN entry. Of course, if your PIN is found, and your safeword token stolen, it's just as bad.
Couple of points. You probably speak of how things were when everything was on the legacy network. Yes, that equipment was very much overloaded. However, with RUNET2000, most routers are yawning most of the time, the dorm routers being the exception and even those don't overload under normal conditions. Also, TD doesn't do port scans. You're probably thinking of IPS, whom I have no affiliation with.
I beg to differ that iptables scales better than ACLs. We're not talking cheap Cisco boxes here, some of these routers could be traded in for a nice luxury car and still get back some change. There is just a LOT of traffic on some of these boxes and there is no way in the world a PC could reliably handle all of it. Plus, a PC can't do any filtering in hardware at all.
I think it's a decent compromise. I mean, let's face it, most Windows users are far from competent. It's a nuisance for those that know enough to protect their system, but there needs to be some method to curb these outbreaks.
Hmm... an interesting idea to say the least. However, what I'd be most worried about is the effect this technique has on route summarization, since you now have stuff being routed out of where it's originally supposed to be. I'm not familiar with uRPF so there certainly might be something I'm missing.
Most likely these devices will be exempt. The equipment doesn't really care at what you're trying to access unless someone configuring the router tells it to. In that case, complain to your ISP, not Cisco.
Um. So you don't apply any ACLs? You let every machine behind your network apply its own filtering? If thats the case, then shame on you, you're crippling your network. There's a reason the big Cisco boxes can run ACLs on the ASICs. When you do that, there's basically zero performance degredation. Being able to get to a website on 7654 is no use if your whole network utilization is at 100% because of worm traffic propagating through that port.
Did you read the article? The software doing the intelligent part will reside on the user's computer. The router will determine if the host attempting to make a connection has the relevant software installed. If not, it will be ACL'd. There's little the router is doing except creating the access control lists on the fly. Even if there was intelligence in the router, it would have to be done in a big box like a 6509 with a Content Switch card. FYI, the Content Switch card has a separate processor FOR EACH OSI LAYER. So, it can analyze each separately and do traffic shaping like that.
We sort of do this at Rutgers University This summer was absolutely crazy for the network, due to all the worms and such. A new policy was instituted which requires users to visit a website which checks their operating system. If they're running Windows, they are *required* to download a scanner that checks for the relevant worms and installs Anti-Virus software. Users running alternative operating systems are completely exempt. It just says "There are currently no additional requirements for running Linux on the residential network." We've just begun shutting people off who fail to comply with the policy. I, for one, like it. However, the routers start to get overloaded if they have too many access control lists because they have trouble running them on the ASICs. So, they have to run in software mode, which starts to slow things down.
Most of it's not even used (at least the 640-607 exam, which was just retired). The new exam is a little better, but still, it has a lot of stuff that has its niche in supporting older technologies. Granted, a lot of older technology exists, but its very rapidly being phased out. I'd say about 1/3 of the stuff on the exam I have completely forgotten. However, I know a lot of stuff that's NOT on the exam (i.e. Multi-Layered Switching).
Can't beat a handbuilt house
on
Pre-Fab Homes?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'm sorry, a prefab home may be cheaper, but you cannot put a price on work done by true craftsmen. There's nothing like a nice house with done by hand trim and bricks that have each been touched by someone's hands. Of course, if you don't know any real craftsmen and cannot do it yourself, then a prefab is probably a safer bet. A factory built house that's true is better than a hand built one thats crooked.
We probably use the same phones you do... the Cisco ones are pretty standard from what I've seen. They also support roaming profiles. They allow you to basically tell the system where you are so you can get all your calls as usual.. just somewhere else than normal. So, if you know you'll be at a coworker's desk for a while, you can have your calls show up there.
Slashdot Mirror
I can understand what you are saying. However, I believe the RIAA only succeeds at making untalented "artists" survive. If you have talent, most likely you will be able to develop a fanbase without the help of the RIAA. At least that's how it is in today's world. There are so many good bands out there that get free promotion from their fans regardless of their label affiliations or lack thereof. They may not be superstars, but they're not unknown.
His point was not specifically that RIAA artists succeed, but that a) you need top 10 hits to succeed at touring and b) you need airplay other than college radio to be successful. Maybe that's why I quoted him when refuting the specific points.
Well, emusic.com used to provide unlimited lame --preset standard downloads for as low as $9.99 a month. They now don't have unlimited downloads and I expect DRM to follow.
Yes.
How many fans would they have if the only airplay they got was by begging a college radio station to play their demo tape?
Lots.
It certainly can be that. If AOL is anything like where I work, they can search for a MAC address at any access layer device and see when it came on, what IP it used, etc.
Well, I wouldn't say it's necessarily proof. However, it is a great example that in some instances, throwing tons of money at a problem won't solve it better than it's already been solved.
Wow, you could not be any more wrong. Ever heard of Internet2 or Abilene? Look into it, it'll be delightfully refreshing.
The point about the routers is that they can force every one downstream of them to comply with the Trusted system. Any ISP using it denies service to any user without a Trusted PC. Backbone routers could enforce it on all ISP's and thus enforce it on ALL end users.
How does it exchange this proverbial trusted computing authorization across autonomous systems? Doing this at the access layer is not difficult, it just requires dynamic ACLs (WHICH ARE NOT NEW). Doing this across the backbone is a completely different story and requires a rewrite of how autonomous systems interoperate.
Orwell wrote an interesting piece entitled Politics and the English Language which shows how much more concerned people are with how things are said than successfully delivering the actual content of the message. It's an interesting read, check it out.
Except, that's Linux convention, not UNIX convention. On SunOS, you might have /dev/dsk/c0t0d0s0. On BSD you might have /dev/wd0a. Disk device notation is not standard, it varies quite frequently.
You seem to ignroe the point I made about Academia, and it's a big point. In addition, most Internet servers do not run on Microsoft servers. That's not changing anytime soon. Also, the majority of people I communicate with do not use Microsoft operating systems to write their email, so that's a relatively moot point. You still don't understand how data moves over the Internet. You don't magically deploy new routers and have this amazing DRM that traverses the entire the Internet. When I start seeing DRM-friendly exterior routing protocols cropping up in RFCs, I'll start running. Until then, it's not really an issue.
Clever a troll you are. Do you have any idea how the Internet works? Do you know how data moves? Apparently not. And what's the impetus for all major network operators to start using this fabled rights breaching technology? Even if 100% of American corporations start complying, you'd probably have 0% of significant American academia. Universities are VERY vocal when it comes to keeping their rights, and they have more available bandwidth than corporations. Your conspiracy theories are nice, but really, a crock.
I can't speak for Symantec or Trend Micro, but Cisco is far from stupid. First of all, all this stuff has to be configured. If you have an ISP who's using said equipment (AND has these features turned on), you can simply switch ISPs. Cisco isn't doing this in order to make everyone run a Microsoft DRM-happy PC. Who do you think works on Cisco equipment? It ain't people sitting on a dinky box running Windows.
In order to avoid over the shoulder type problems, the Safeword system is pretty good. It's a credit card sized calculator looking device that generates one time passwords upon successful PIN entry. Of course, if your PIN is found, and your safeword token stolen, it's just as bad.
Couple of points. You probably speak of how things were when everything was on the legacy network. Yes, that equipment was very much overloaded. However, with RUNET2000, most routers are yawning most of the time, the dorm routers being the exception and even those don't overload under normal conditions. Also, TD doesn't do port scans. You're probably thinking of IPS, whom I have no affiliation with.
I beg to differ that iptables scales better than ACLs. We're not talking cheap Cisco boxes here, some of these routers could be traded in for a nice luxury car and still get back some change. There is just a LOT of traffic on some of these boxes and there is no way in the world a PC could reliably handle all of it. Plus, a PC can't do any filtering in hardware at all.
I think it's a decent compromise. I mean, let's face it, most Windows users are far from competent. It's a nuisance for those that know enough to protect their system, but there needs to be some method to curb these outbreaks.
Hmm... an interesting idea to say the least. However, what I'd be most worried about is the effect this technique has on route summarization, since you now have stuff being routed out of where it's originally supposed to be. I'm not familiar with uRPF so there certainly might be something I'm missing.
Most likely these devices will be exempt. The equipment doesn't really care at what you're trying to access unless someone configuring the router tells it to. In that case, complain to your ISP, not Cisco.
Um. So you don't apply any ACLs? You let every machine behind your network apply its own filtering? If thats the case, then shame on you, you're crippling your network. There's a reason the big Cisco boxes can run ACLs on the ASICs. When you do that, there's basically zero performance degredation. Being able to get to a website on 7654 is no use if your whole network utilization is at 100% because of worm traffic propagating through that port.
Did you read the article? The software doing the intelligent part will reside on the user's computer. The router will determine if the host attempting to make a connection has the relevant software installed. If not, it will be ACL'd. There's little the router is doing except creating the access control lists on the fly. Even if there was intelligence in the router, it would have to be done in a big box like a 6509 with a Content Switch card. FYI, the Content Switch card has a separate processor FOR EACH OSI LAYER. So, it can analyze each separately and do traffic shaping like that.
We sort of do this at Rutgers University This summer was absolutely crazy for the network, due to all the worms and such. A new policy was instituted which requires users to visit a website which checks their operating system. If they're running Windows, they are *required* to download a scanner that checks for the relevant worms and installs Anti-Virus software. Users running alternative operating systems are completely exempt. It just says "There are currently no additional requirements for running Linux on the residential network." We've just begun shutting people off who fail to comply with the policy. I, for one, like it. However, the routers start to get overloaded if they have too many access control lists because they have trouble running them on the ASICs. So, they have to run in software mode, which starts to slow things down.
Most of it's not even used (at least the 640-607 exam, which was just retired). The new exam is a little better, but still, it has a lot of stuff that has its niche in supporting older technologies. Granted, a lot of older technology exists, but its very rapidly being phased out. I'd say about 1/3 of the stuff on the exam I have completely forgotten. However, I know a lot of stuff that's NOT on the exam (i.e. Multi-Layered Switching).
I'm sorry, a prefab home may be cheaper, but you cannot put a price on work done by true craftsmen. There's nothing like a nice house with done by hand trim and bricks that have each been touched by someone's hands. Of course, if you don't know any real craftsmen and cannot do it yourself, then a prefab is probably a safer bet. A factory built house that's true is better than a hand built one thats crooked.
Hmm... How'd you get them to transfer your number? Was it a special request, or is this something they normally attempt?
We probably use the same phones you do... the Cisco ones are pretty standard from what I've seen. They also support roaming profiles. They allow you to basically tell the system where you are so you can get all your calls as usual.. just somewhere else than normal. So, if you know you'll be at a coworker's desk for a while, you can have your calls show up there.