Who cares, it's not real programming anyway. To teach someone programming, you have to convey both the concepts - ok they get that - and the ability to grok structures made of text. No structures made of text grokking, no programmer.
Many years ago I was a network admin at a state agency which was converting from all 3270 (IBM mainframe terminal) wiring, which of course is coax - to IBM TokenRing, which started with expensive STP (shielded twisted pair) wiring but was transitioning to UTP. There was a cool little device which would run the token ring over coax; it required two coax wires. Worked great.
Thing is, coax is great wiring - the shielding makes the signal run across the inner wire very clean. This is why it is used for cable tv. Cat5, I believe, is widely used not because it is better than coax but because it is cheaper.
Still, as said by others, Ethernet over Cat5 goes as far as depending upon certain of the wires being twisted along with certain others. Anyone who has crimped a rj45 knows that you can't even mix the pairs, let alone hook up to coax.
Whitehead, British math professor and author of the Principia, was visiting Harvard as a guest lecturer. He was lecturing on logic, and every time he talked about P(a), the American students would burst out laughing. The stodgy professor was quite confused, as this had never happened in England. He asked for advice from a Harvard professor whom he knew, when he bumped into him in the hallway.
The professor explained that the American students were not as genteel or demure as those in England, and were reacting to a double entendre when Whitehead talked about "the p-ness of a". Whitehead blushed, thanked the professor for explaining, and returned to the lecture hall the next day, determined to avoid further outbursts. He picked up where he had left off, now discussing A(p).
(Not sure if he made up the joke, but I heard this from Professor David McCarty many years ago.)
After getting some great analyses from the community, I reloaded ten contiguous days of the firewall logs, re-visualized, and produced this next video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K4QmpTCtDc
I think the stripes across all countries have to be some sort of backscatter/ISP network phenomenon that is a secondary effect of the botnet activity, as was suggested by several people. So I filtered out those stripes by eliminating any countries with fewer than 200 total inbound packets over the ten days. This leaves what is really interesting: botnets becoming active and going dormant, and portscans - one clearly visible from Sweden; shown in this new video.
All you have to do is click once on the green cube at the origin and you have the description of the axes... but as that is not enough, I am going to add a feature with better axis descriptions. Optional of course.:)
These are all inbound packets; it may be that one or more machines outside this firewall but inside the next firewall up are compromised and spoofing. These are all denied when they hit this firewall.
The spoofing makes sense; really good point. The scary thing is it kind of looks like something on the inside of this network may be participating in the botnet, I suppose...
I looked at the traffic by destination port and hour, and it looks like botnet activity: all of the traffic producing those stripes is aimed at either port 137 (windows networking) or no port (icmp).
Thanks for your comment; this is the type of informed response I was hoping to get with my post.
Only change of perspective makes something 3D; this is the point of using a virtual world, so that the user can fly around building a spatial awareness.
I do not want to produce a one-time "plot". I want to show data for what it is. If it doesn't look as nice as Tufte would have made it look, I don't care. The point is not to look nice... it's to provide the ability for people to see what is in databases, without bias. And I still don't think Tufte's paradigms work with as much data as these 3d ones do.
Everyone always wants me to have labels on the graphs. I don't put them there unless you roll over the data, because I want you to see the patterns in the data without bias first.
I should not have called this graph "crazy looking". It is actually pretty simple and makes it quite clear what is going on, as you can see from the comments submitted by people talking about botnets.
Finally, I am not interested in producing graphs which show you everything "at a glance". Use a pie chart for that. I am making graphs which facilitate a deeper understanding of larger amounts of data than Tufte dreamed of showing using his 2D paradigms.
I just looked at it by port and hour... and the stripes come from activity targeted to port 137, and portless (ICMP type).
The people at this particular agency are not idiots, and all this is denied by the firewall... but I find it fascinating to see the botnets in action. And that cluster of activity coming from Russia is really interesting too.
Would you at least agree that if it is deployed on an appliance sitting behind the firewall, and not public on the Internet, that it is not contributing to the problem?
Webstart lets us package everything as an appliance which can be placed behind a customer's firewall and gives their people access to the local piece of the software without requiring installs.
Again, the reaon for running locally is so that people can choose what to visualize, whether it be an Excel spreadsheet or a SQL query hitting any JDBC-accessible db, and the server doesn't have to have the data - only the visualization definition.
While I could certainly take the same application and require people out there on the Internet to install it in order to try out our beta, rather than just clicking it and then approving it to run via webstart, I'm not in the business of making things more difficult.
You've found a nice little point to make about security - more power to you. It would be cool if Slashdot had a "simultaneous post" thing so we could end this thread without one of us having to have the last word.
The ability is there, and I'm using it. You know it's weird that I'm having this frustrating argument with a guy who hand-codes his html, optimizes for lynx, and is (or was?) an Amiga user. These are all things I respect, and have in common with you. And hey, even a total hatred of EJB, despite my use of Java.
It's not web content. I have no interest in "web content". The program is actually an instance of Glasshouse; it can access an Excel file locally and transmit visualization definitions to, and respond to commands received from, a virtual world through use of a protocol we created called CICP. The web is just a way to launch it.
One benefit of this is we don't have to be in the business of storing people's data files. They never get uploaded; the application running on people's local pc's produces the visualizations. This also allows visualization of a database inside the firewall, within a virtual world that is outside the firewall.
Look mon. Java is a sweet technology; the java app run through webstart (rather than applet within a browser sandbox [though you can still use the JApplet class:)]) is a great way to write code which can access the local filesystem, open sockets, do all the things a real programmer would want to do.
Besides, one needs JRE or JDK 6 anyway to run the lg3d-wonderland application.
Come on. Microsoft, whom you may or may not dislike strongly (I worked there in Redmond for a year and I am not a fan), screwed Java in a big way by "embracing and extending" it... J++ or whatever the **** they were calling it. The power of the Java applet-cation remains largely untapped while people keep muddling around with web-based applications. All those layers. They are actually counterproductive sometimes!
Arkowitz
Slashdot Mirror
...for a mollusk.
Shouldn't it be EITHER fraud OR obstruction of justice?
you are having too much fun dabbling and playing
Who cares, it's not real programming anyway. To teach someone programming, you have to convey both the concepts - ok they get that - and the ability to grok structures made of text. No structures made of text grokking, no programmer.
This is retarded. 10 x .999 = 9.99... it does not equal 9.999... that example proof in the slashdot post is total bull$h1t!
Many years ago I was a network admin at a state agency which was converting from all 3270 (IBM mainframe terminal) wiring, which of course is coax - to IBM TokenRing, which started with expensive STP (shielded twisted pair) wiring but was transitioning to UTP. There was a cool little device which would run the token ring over coax; it required two coax wires. Worked great.
Thing is, coax is great wiring - the shielding makes the signal run across the inner wire very clean. This is why it is used for cable tv. Cat5, I believe, is widely used not because it is better than coax but because it is cheaper.
Still, as said by others, Ethernet over Cat5 goes as far as depending upon certain of the wires being twisted along with certain others. Anyone who has crimped a rj45 knows that you can't even mix the pairs, let alone hook up to coax.
Here's a good one:
Whitehead, British math professor and author of the Principia, was visiting Harvard as a guest lecturer. He was lecturing on logic, and every time he talked about P(a), the American students would burst out laughing. The stodgy professor was quite confused, as this had never happened in England. He asked for advice from a Harvard professor whom he knew, when he bumped into him in the hallway.
The professor explained that the American students were not as genteel or demure as those in England, and were reacting to a double entendre when Whitehead talked about "the p-ness of a". Whitehead blushed, thanked the professor for explaining, and returned to the lecture hall the next day, determined to avoid further outbursts. He picked up where he had left off, now discussing A(p).
(Not sure if he made up the joke, but I heard this from Professor David McCarty many years ago.)
After getting some great analyses from the community, I reloaded ten contiguous days of the firewall logs, re-visualized, and produced this next video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K4QmpTCtDc I think the stripes across all countries have to be some sort of backscatter/ISP network phenomenon that is a secondary effect of the botnet activity, as was suggested by several people. So I filtered out those stripes by eliminating any countries with fewer than 200 total inbound packets over the ten days. This leaves what is really interesting: botnets becoming active and going dormant, and portscans - one clearly visible from Sweden; shown in this new video.
All you have to do is click once on the green cube at the origin and you have the description of the axes... but as that is not enough, I am going to add a feature with better axis descriptions. Optional of course. :)
These are all inbound packets; it may be that one or more machines outside this firewall but inside the next firewall up are compromised and spoofing. These are all denied when they hit this firewall.
The spoofing makes sense; really good point. The scary thing is it kind of looks like something on the inside of this network may be participating in the botnet, I suppose...
I looked at the traffic by destination port and hour, and it looks like botnet activity: all of the traffic producing those stripes is aimed at either port 137 (windows networking) or no port (icmp). Thanks for your comment; this is the type of informed response I was hoping to get with my post.
Only change of perspective makes something 3D; this is the point of using a virtual world, so that the user can fly around building a spatial awareness.
I do not want to produce a one-time "plot". I want to show data for what it is. If it doesn't look as nice as Tufte would have made it look, I don't care. The point is not to look nice... it's to provide the ability for people to see what is in databases, without bias. And I still don't think Tufte's paradigms work with as much data as these 3d ones do.
Everyone always wants me to have labels on the graphs. I don't put them there unless you roll over the data, because I want you to see the patterns in the data without bias first.
I should not have called this graph "crazy looking". It is actually pretty simple and makes it quite clear what is going on, as you can see from the comments submitted by people talking about botnets.
Finally, I am not interested in producing graphs which show you everything "at a glance". Use a pie chart for that. I am making graphs which facilitate a deeper understanding of larger amounts of data than Tufte dreamed of showing using his 2D paradigms.
I just looked at it by port and hour... and the stripes come from activity targeted to port 137, and portless (ICMP type). The people at this particular agency are not idiots, and all this is denied by the firewall... but I find it fascinating to see the botnets in action. And that cluster of activity coming from Russia is really interesting too.
Any company not giving Nikola Tesla explicit credit for this can go frak themselves.
Well it seems the only thing you will accept is if it's in a box with a firefox.
What if we deployed it in a boat, with a goat?
Would you at least agree that if it is deployed on an appliance sitting behind the firewall, and not public on the Internet, that it is not contributing to the problem?
Webstart lets us package everything as an appliance which can be placed behind a customer's firewall and gives their people access to the local piece of the software without requiring installs.
Again, the reaon for running locally is so that people can choose what to visualize, whether it be an Excel spreadsheet or a SQL query hitting any JDBC-accessible db, and the server doesn't have to have the data - only the visualization definition.
While I could certainly take the same application and require people out there on the Internet to install it in order to try out our beta, rather than just clicking it and then approving it to run via webstart, I'm not in the business of making things more difficult.
You've found a nice little point to make about security - more power to you. It would be cool if Slashdot had a "simultaneous post" thing so we could end this thread without one of us having to have the last word.
Are you against people creating any software designed to run locally on a PC, or just programs written in Java?
The ability is there, and I'm using it. You know it's weird that I'm having this frustrating argument with a guy who hand-codes his html, optimizes for lynx, and is (or was?) an Amiga user. These are all things I respect, and have in common with you. And hey, even a total hatred of EJB, despite my use of Java.
It's not web content. I have no interest in "web content". The program is actually an instance of Glasshouse; it can access an Excel file locally and transmit visualization definitions to, and respond to commands received from, a virtual world through use of a protocol we created called CICP. The web is just a way to launch it. One benefit of this is we don't have to be in the business of storing people's data files. They never get uploaded; the application running on people's local pc's produces the visualizations. This also allows visualization of a database inside the firewall, within a virtual world that is outside the firewall.
what? no pro-Java meta-moderatoroators? I should get a 4 on this at least...
Look mon. Java is a sweet technology; the java app run through webstart (rather than applet within a browser sandbox [though you can still use the JApplet class :)]) is a great way to write code which can access the local filesystem, open sockets, do all the things a real programmer would want to do.
Besides, one needs JRE or JDK 6 anyway to run the lg3d-wonderland application.
Come on. Microsoft, whom you may or may not dislike strongly (I worked there in Redmond for a year and I am not a fan), screwed Java in a big way by "embracing and extending" it... J++ or whatever the **** they were calling it. The power of the Java applet-cation remains largely untapped while people keep muddling around with web-based applications. All those layers. They are actually counterproductive sometimes!
Arkowitz