The problem with that solution is that if you lose the password, you're fsck'd when you clear the config of the router (as in, you can't get it back unless you have someone on site reading the password to you). It's much easier to just change the password when the device is connected to the network.
I think it's funny. Usually, when you open Cisco TAC about a "faulty" router not forwarding traffic anymore, Cisco will tell you it's your config's fault if it's not working properly.
Usually what happens is that the router doesn't have enough memory to store all the CEF (Cisco Express Forwarding) info, causing the router to not forward packets for certain subnets. I've seen it happen often enough to know. While Cisco is right, the problem is caused by a lack of memory for the config, I think it shouldn't stop forwarding the packets all together (as in stop using CEF if the table gets out of hand).
While I think Cisco is not completely to blame (badly scaled networks, not upgrading routers in time), it sucks that this will hit them. There are better solutions out there, but I have to say that Cisco's support is quite good and they're pretty fast. I work in an all-Cisco environment (for the routers) and they've been fast whenever we needed a router analyzed.
Actually, before saying stuff like that, inform yourself at least. For the past 6 months, in France, it has been free for me to call to Canada and the US with my normal phone. Since I'm canadian, this helped a lot. This comes with my internet services at a mere 17mbits (24 max, but im too far from the DSLAM) and TV for 30 euro a month (38 USD).
Now, who's having a heart attack again?
Oh yeah, and it has been free to call landline phones in France for a while now..
It's pretty simple. Sony will simply claim that there are marketing costs, server costs, bandwidth costs, and so on that amount to the same thing. To say otherwise would be to admit that they could be selling the downloads at lower cost to the consumer than the equivalent CD.
I highly doubt that this would count as "breakage". Those are normal fees covered by the distribution process. Server costs and bandwidth costs are distribution fees. Unless you need to get a refund when a transfer fails, one which cannot be restarted (?), then yes, it would be justified. But since you can re-transfer (and good ol' TCP/IP checks to make sure that YOUR copy doesn't break on its way) there's no reason for such a fee. A download cannot be "broken" like a physical media can.
Sony may even capitulate so far as to actually update the contracts, so that it spells out, for online sales, how much money goes to marketing, bandwidth, etc. At the end of the day, however, I highly doubt that the artist will see a larger percentage of the sales than they did before. Nor will the consumer see any kind of savings.
Like I just said, this is already covered. I think it's cheaper to set up a website than to set up a pressing factory. These costs (server/bandwidth) are largely covered by the "normal" cost of creating a CD. The packaging part, however, does not come into play with online stores. So, hmmm, why does Sony get a bigger part of the cake when the song is sold online? Sony distributes, and even in that case, Sony is not even distributing, they're just in the middle, cashing.
Artist -> Sony -> iTMS -> Customer
1. The artist creates content.
2. Sony then says "Sounds great!".
3. Sony *HELPS* the band for the masters.
4. Sony sells the song to iTMS.
5. iTMS sells to the customer.
The recording label want to make it seem like creating entertainment is actually a risky business, that's all. I highly doubt is it.
Agreed, Intel makes more money. I think there's a big difference tho. Intel are devs. They risk a lot every time they come out with a new CPU. And, they have competition. Yes, they make a lot of profit, but they're pushing technology forward (and their prices decrease over time, so they need to dish out new products fast).
Walmart has the security of selling what sells. Lower profits, yes.. comes with the job.
Right. Basically anyone who is a potention buyer should be sued if he doesnt pay for it? Seems to me like its a very bad way to see things.
Everybody is a potential buyer, not just the ones who actualy listen to songs they have not paid for. Basically, you can't take money from people who don't want to give it to you.
If you go into a store without buying anything, can they sue you? If not, why? Because you didn't take anything from them, you just looked around.
I think the RIAA should just put out numbers like EARTH_POPULATION-PEOPLE_WHO_BOUGHT_THE_CD*PRICE_OF _THE_CD=DIRECT_MONEY_LOSS, that would work better.
Re:Redundant Systems and Fluid Dynamics
on
Fluid Logic Chips
·
· Score: 1
Isnt that what CPUs are? a "better" way to implement these gates? Smaller, more efficient. Altho I doubt this is some kind of great achievement (like the conversion from lamps to transistors), it is neato.
This fight has gone out of proportion. This RIAA thing, to me, looks like a QuakeFest with real people's lives. 150k for a song, and nobody really lost anything (as compared to really stealing a cd from a store). I dont even see the logic behind IP.
Also, when you buy a car, what would you do if the dealer said "You can watch the car, but it would be IP theft if you actualy tried the car without buying it.", because it would be the same situation, except that car companies want to sell their cars because they are GOOD. And people should SEE FOR THEMSELVES _BEFORE_ buying the product.
Granted, a car is a greater investment. But I dont see anywhere in the law where it says "Applicable only if it costs less than , otherwise, IP theft does not occur.". If I download MP3s of a band, and that I actualy like more than 3 song, I'll buy the cd, because I will beleive they DESERVE it. If I dont like it? Well I'll delete the mp3 and never listen to it again..?
The entertainment industry is having major issues, and file swapping is not the problem. All the movies, lately, have been shitty. We dont see GREAT movies anymore. Once in a while we do, and then its worth paying the fee to go watch it in a theatre, and then buy the DVD.
Is it so bad to try-and-buy for the industry? You bet your ass it is! Why? Because most of the music just plain SUCKS. They sell you that one CD (1 easy payment of $15.99) which has 1 or 2 good songs on it. That's $8/song.
Also, if I bought the cd, then lost it, did my license end? I think not. Will they send you a new one? Dream on it. Downloading it seems to be the only solution (other than buying a 2nd license for the same person). But then, how can you prove you had it in the first place? Well, you can't. That's the beauty of it, you pay them by buying cds, they sue you because you downloaded it! It's a win-win situation.
Also, I have been wondering about something. What if 2 person buy 1 cd, they each pay half of it. Which means, they both own "half a license". I am not to sure what the law has to say about that one tho. But I was thinking, what if 100 people paid 20 cent each? Would it be legal for the 100 people to listen to it? Just a thought.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that solution is that if you lose the password, you're fsck'd when you clear the config of the router (as in, you can't get it back unless you have someone on site reading the password to you). It's much easier to just change the password when the device is connected to the network.
You can't fix stupidity with software.
I would think that the Japanese backbone qualifies as a "massive network" ;)
I think it's funny. Usually, when you open Cisco TAC about a "faulty" router not forwarding traffic anymore, Cisco will tell you it's your config's fault if it's not working properly.
Usually what happens is that the router doesn't have enough memory to store all the CEF (Cisco Express Forwarding) info, causing the router to not forward packets for certain subnets. I've seen it happen often enough to know. While Cisco is right, the problem is caused by a lack of memory for the config, I think it shouldn't stop forwarding the packets all together (as in stop using CEF if the table gets out of hand).
While I think Cisco is not completely to blame (badly scaled networks, not upgrading routers in time), it sucks that this will hit them. There are better solutions out there, but I have to say that Cisco's support is quite good and they're pretty fast. I work in an all-Cisco environment (for the routers) and they've been fast whenever we needed a router analyzed.
Actually, before saying stuff like that, inform yourself at least. For the past 6 months, in France, it has been free for me to call to Canada and the US with my normal phone. Since I'm canadian, this helped a lot. This comes with my internet services at a mere 17mbits (24 max, but im too far from the DSLAM) and TV for 30 euro a month (38 USD).
Now, who's having a heart attack again?
Oh yeah, and it has been free to call landline phones in France for a while now..
Maybe, next time, you should travel with a canadian flag on your bags, eh?
It's pretty simple. Sony will simply claim that there are marketing costs, server costs, bandwidth costs, and so on that amount to the same thing. To say otherwise would be to admit that they could be selling the downloads at lower cost to the consumer than the equivalent CD.
I highly doubt that this would count as "breakage". Those are normal fees covered by the distribution process. Server costs and bandwidth costs are distribution fees. Unless you need to get a refund when a transfer fails, one which cannot be restarted (?), then yes, it would be justified. But since you can re-transfer (and good ol' TCP/IP checks to make sure that YOUR copy doesn't break on its way) there's no reason for such a fee. A download cannot be "broken" like a physical media can.
Sony may even capitulate so far as to actually update the contracts, so that it spells out, for online sales, how much money goes to marketing, bandwidth, etc. At the end of the day, however, I highly doubt that the artist will see a larger percentage of the sales than they did before. Nor will the consumer see any kind of savings.
Like I just said, this is already covered. I think it's cheaper to set up a website than to set up a pressing factory. These costs (server/bandwidth) are largely covered by the "normal" cost of creating a CD. The packaging part, however, does not come into play with online stores. So, hmmm, why does Sony get a bigger part of the cake when the song is sold online? Sony distributes, and even in that case, Sony is not even distributing, they're just in the middle, cashing.
Artist -> Sony -> iTMS -> Customer
1. The artist creates content.
2. Sony then says "Sounds great!".
3. Sony *HELPS* the band for the masters.
4. Sony sells the song to iTMS.
5. iTMS sells to the customer.
The recording label want to make it seem like creating entertainment is actually a risky business, that's all. I highly doubt is it.
Naa, all you have to do is get one of those Soul-Detectors.
Well, I think it's OBVIOUS! It's SOUND!
The sound goes in the ear and discharges your shit in your pants.
The same applies for women.
They were in space, or else the ship would not ignite when they fall down.
I thought France helped.. like.. a lot?
Doesnt their IP end with .uk tho? Does the rule apply to routers/dhcpds?
HAR! Router!
Agreed, Intel makes more money. I think there's a big difference tho. Intel are devs. They risk a lot every time they come out with a new CPU. And, they have competition. Yes, they make a lot of profit, but they're pushing technology forward (and their prices decrease over time, so they need to dish out new products fast).
Walmart has the security of selling what sells. Lower profits, yes.. comes with the job.
Right. Basically anyone who is a potention buyer should be sued if he doesnt pay for it? Seems to me like its a very bad way to see things.
F _THE_CD=DIRECT_MONEY_LOSS, that would work better.
Everybody is a potential buyer, not just the ones who actualy listen to songs they have not paid for. Basically, you can't take money from people who don't want to give it to you.
If you go into a store without buying anything, can they sue you? If not, why? Because you didn't take anything from them, you just looked around.
I think the RIAA should just put out numbers like EARTH_POPULATION-PEOPLE_WHO_BOUGHT_THE_CD*PRICE_O
Isnt that what CPUs are? a "better" way to implement these gates? Smaller, more efficient.
Altho I doubt this is some kind of great achievement (like the conversion from lamps to transistors), it is neato.
And then someone will make a EULA where if you change your hardware, you can't use the software anymore! No, wait..
This fight has gone out of proportion. This RIAA thing, to me, looks like a QuakeFest with real people's lives. 150k for a song, and nobody really lost anything (as compared to really stealing a cd from a store). I dont even see the logic behind IP.
Also, when you buy a car, what would you do if the dealer said "You can watch the car, but it would be IP theft if you actualy tried the car without buying it.", because it would be the same situation, except that car companies want to sell their cars because they are GOOD. And people should SEE FOR THEMSELVES _BEFORE_ buying the product.
Granted, a car is a greater investment. But I dont see anywhere in the law where it says "Applicable only if it costs less than , otherwise, IP theft does not occur.". If I download MP3s of a band, and that I actualy like more than 3 song, I'll buy the cd, because I will beleive they DESERVE it. If I dont like it? Well I'll delete the mp3 and never listen to it again..?
The entertainment industry is having major issues, and file swapping is not the problem. All the movies, lately, have been shitty. We dont see GREAT movies anymore. Once in a while we do, and then its worth paying the fee to go watch it in a theatre, and then buy the DVD.
Is it so bad to try-and-buy for the industry? You bet your ass it is! Why? Because most of the music just plain SUCKS. They sell you that one CD (1 easy payment of $15.99) which has 1 or 2 good songs on it. That's $8/song.
Also, if I bought the cd, then lost it, did my license end? I think not. Will they send you a new one? Dream on it. Downloading it seems to be the only solution (other than buying a 2nd license for the same person). But then, how can you prove you had it in the first place? Well, you can't. That's the beauty of it, you pay them by buying cds, they sue you because you downloaded it! It's a win-win situation.
Also, I have been wondering about something. What if 2 person buy 1 cd, they each pay half of it. Which means, they both own "half a license". I am not to sure what the law has to say about that one tho. But I was thinking, what if 100 people paid 20 cent each? Would it be legal for the 100 people to listen to it? Just a thought.
Anyway, its getting late.