Granted you're only joking, but seriously image.google.com with it's "safe search" is not something I'm anxious to show my kid when she grows up a bit more.
If you'd really want to teach a kid about internet. Google is one of the tougher cookies. Being able to find what you're looking for is one thing, and quite an essential one obviously, but the flip side is that all that not-for-kids stuff is also there just one click away.
Mine is less than a year, but I'm already puzzled as to how I should handle it once it becomes relevant.
>> Russia recently announced that it was considering adding Microsoft to a list of companies with high market share that might be subject to additional scrutiny under that country's antitrust laws, > > So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued?
You create a one-hit-wonder, then perhaps no. But you dominate a market quite a while, regardless of how superior your product is, then yes, you should be subject to scrutiny. Not outright sued ofcourse, the gp never said that.
There is a good goddamn reason we have antitrust laws. It's just that now that the companies have gone so global that the countries into which they roll in the profits too seldom tend to go after them.
>> You aren't an atheist, you're afraid of religion. A true atheist wouldn't be afraid of it, they just wouldn't care.
> An atheist wouldn't be afraid of God, which is quite a different thing to fear than religion. There are many legitimate reasons to fear religion, not the least of which is the way in which it warps the minds of the young.
And I would be as annoyed if any books were removed even religious ones but should a safe search include some of the more extreme religious books with more extreme views? It's a slippery slope.
I find _all_ of the religious ones quite offensive and I think a safe search should not include any of them either. There. And while we're at it, I particularly don't any computer books that target microsoft followers, they could go, too. And music, come on, there's nothing "safe" in rnb, just can't stand that shite. And...
Removed material include: Annie Proulx's Brokeback mountain.
Radclyffe Hall's The Well of Loneliness. (the only "sex scene" in The Well of Loneliness consists in its entirety of the words "And that night they were not divided.")
Alex Beecroft: False Colours, m/m historical romance, just broken through and ranking in top 10 historical novels-- i.e. non-romance, non-gay-- and then it suddenly disappeared entirely from the rankings. The novel is NOT erotica, contains only one non-explicit sex scene, but the central premise features two male characters falling in love.
Why is it that every description of this problem that I've read so far does not present a problem. The sockstresss.com itself provides a horrible description of it in the front page. All it appears to do is open up multiple tcp sockets.
Apparently the source IPs are not spoofed, thus the syn cookies are not at play, so how can it not hit a max connections per source IP? Any tcp service worth didley must use that in some form or the other.
If someone has some (f)actual information about this, please, provide a few links...
A good buyer for RedHat? I can't see one, because anyone big enough to buy that, imho, is not suitable to control it.
Any company some involved with computers/sw will have vested interests in steering it towards their own goals and in the towards damnation. Any company totally unrelated to computers would be in it for the money and we know how that story usually ends.
A good owner for RedHat? I'd say Torvalds or Cox, but I don't see either one on the potential buyers list...
> Attention wannabe comedians: > > There is a 42 reference in this story. This your cue...
Attention wannabe smart-asses. The story has what it takes to spaw a lot of obligatory jokes, so here's your chance to take a crack at a cue-post that's bound to be more redundant than the obligatories.
>> "Somehow, attempting an argumentum ad misericordiam - a basic liberal trait - is a 'liberal' thing to conservatives. It's funny, really. The grandparent is a 'beautiful' illustration of the rational mindset."
> There, fixed that for you.
No, that wan't a go for their sense of pity, but a go of their sense of humanity.
Now, I could have a go at your mindset here, but I'll pass. This is not a funny topic.
What is it with people thinking that what the 3rd world needs are computers? What they need is clean water, learn better agriculture, and to get an education that will allow them to live a better life.
Microsoft "donating" licenses to schools in 3rd world has little to do with what the 3rd world needs and everything to do with what Microsoft need from the 3rd, i.e. to get a 90% market dominance as it has done everywhere else already.
The real question is: What is it with people thinking that when Microsoft donates Software licenses it's doing charity?
Doesn't it cost more to keep paying these rare programmers than to just update/convert/replace the systems?
This is not an analogy in any meaningful way, but what the hell.
You have an old car. Repairs cost money annually, more and more every year. Why not buy a new car and be done with it all that?
Well, guess what? New cars are just as buggy as the old ones. But now it's all electronicky, leds, chips and usb ports and no mechanic with grease in his overalls can do anything to fix it.
It is shiny, it's new and it has a lot more blinkenlights and a female voice telling you that the windshield is getting a bit dirty.
But cheaper? No, it isn't.
Neither are corporate rewrites that are done for all the wrong reasons. Replacing something that has worked for decades and does it's job sufficiently well with something that's assumed to be better just because it was written with a language that's probably better but by programmers are likely to be worse, is not, well, cheaper.
Dare I elaborate, if you wanted to make up a generic unfalsifiable claim on purpose that's probably what you would come up with.
Nope, you whould go with the "god created it that way" argument. Not only would that be unfalsifiable, not to mention silly, but you'd have a horde of know-nothings defending that argument with zeal.
It's funny now, but I sort of wonder what kind of world we live in where you're "pathetic" for not being in a relationship. That part is sort of sad, really.
Apparently you live in a different world. This is/. Rather than pathetic it's more like status quo here.
As a result, you can now interact with the server without having to maintain ANY TCP session state, or just a single word (the server's initial seq #), allowing the attacker to use vastly fewer resources to tie up server resources.
But someone here said they claimed they could do the dos with 10ish pps.
Really no need to deduce the seqence number and go stateless to keep up with that. To send 10 packets per second you could store the tcp state to a tape drive.
They -at Outpost24- are basically doing TCP/IP without the per connection timeout timers. By keeping the state in a SYN-cookie-like hashtable and drinking directly from the firehose (network). This enables their scan program to work faster and with less resources than the server they are connecting to. As far as I get it, this part is already publicly available in their Unicornscan program.
Errr, what does that mean? Could you elaborate a bit.
I mean, I understand syn-cookies and I've even implemented a tcp-stack serveral years ago, but I don't understand all that drinking from the firehose, working faster and with less resources...
Unless they can crack the syn-cookies, i.e. send correct cookies with spoofed ips, the server will not accept more than a few connections from any said source.
Slashdot Mirror
> The Large Hardon Collider?
^^^^^^
Sounds a bit gay to me...
But yes, the (currently existing) large hadron collider would be nothing compared that.
ads like that here? please...
They don't only start with 1. The 100% end with 1
"There are only 10 kinds of people..."
I take it that you belong to the one's that don't.
>> "Did not finish" in racing parlance
>
> (Non-native English speakers might not be familiar with this particular acronym expansion.)
It's internationally used atleast in sailing along with the DNS, DNC etc...
Google is evil so thank you Microsoft!
Granted you're only joking, but seriously image.google.com with it's "safe search" is not something I'm anxious to show my kid when she grows up a bit more.
If you'd really want to teach a kid about internet. Google is one of the tougher cookies. Being
able to find what you're looking for is one thing, and quite an essential one obviously, but the flip side is that all that not-for-kids stuff is also there just one click away.
Mine is less than a year, but I'm already puzzled as to how I should handle it once it becomes relevant.
If parking tickets where 2cents I could park where ever I'd like. I think the same holds for Microsoft in this case.
Fuck Germany. They need Microsoft more than Microsoft needs them.
Come on, nobody needs microsoft that much...
>> Russia recently announced that it was considering adding Microsoft to a list of companies with high market share that might be subject to additional scrutiny under that country's antitrust laws,
>
> So if I create a prodcut that EVERYONE loves and EVERYONE MUST HAVE I should be put under scrutiny and sued?
You create a one-hit-wonder, then perhaps no. But you dominate a market quite a while, regardless of how superior your product is, then yes, you should be subject to scrutiny. Not outright sued ofcourse, the gp never said that.
There is a good goddamn reason we have antitrust laws. It's just that now that the companies have gone so global that the countries into which they roll in the profits too seldom tend to go after them.
>> You aren't an atheist, you're afraid of religion. A true atheist wouldn't be afraid of it, they just wouldn't care.
> An atheist wouldn't be afraid of God, which is quite a different thing to fear than religion. There are many legitimate reasons to fear religion, not the least of which is the way in which it warps the minds of the young.
And not just the young...
http://news.google.com/news?q=creationism+evolution+schools
And I would be as annoyed if any books were removed even religious ones but should a safe search include some of the more extreme religious books with more extreme views? It's a slippery slope.
I find _all_ of the religious ones quite offensive and I think a safe search should not include any of them either. There. And while we're at it, I particularly don't any computer books that target microsoft followers, they could go, too. And music, come on, there's nothing "safe" in rnb, just can't stand that shite. And ...
Removed material include:
Annie Proulx's Brokeback mountain.
Radclyffe Hall's The Well of Loneliness.
(the only "sex scene" in The Well of Loneliness consists in its entirety of the words "And that night they were not divided.")
Alex Beecroft: False Colours, m/m historical romance, just broken through and ranking in top 10 historical novels-- i.e. non-romance, non-gay-- and then it suddenly disappeared entirely from the rankings. The novel is NOT erotica, contains only one non-explicit sex scene, but the central premise features two male characters falling in love.
Geez...
more: http://community.livejournal.com/meta_writer/11992.html
Why is it that every description of this problem that I've read so far does not present a problem.
The sockstresss.com itself provides a horrible description of it in the front page. All it appears to do is open up multiple tcp sockets.
Apparently the source IPs are not spoofed, thus the syn cookies are not at play, so how can it not hit a max connections per source IP? Any tcp service worth didley must use that in some form or the other.
If someone has some (f)actual information about this, please, provide a few links...
If they'd played that loud on land at me I'd jump to the ocean. qed.
A good buyer for RedHat? I can't see one, because anyone big enough to buy that, imho, is not suitable to control it.
Any company some involved with computers/sw will have vested interests in steering it towards their own goals and in the towards damnation. Any company totally unrelated to computers would be in it for the money and we know how that story usually ends.
A good owner for RedHat? I'd say Torvalds or Cox, but I don't see either one on the potential buyers list...
> Attention wannabe comedians:
>
> There is a 42 reference in this story. This your cue...
Attention wannabe smart-asses. The story has what it takes to spaw a lot of obligatory jokes, so here's your chance to take a crack at a cue-post that's bound to be more redundant than the obligatories.
>> "Somehow, attempting an argumentum ad misericordiam - a basic liberal trait - is a 'liberal' thing to conservatives. It's funny, really. The grandparent is a 'beautiful' illustration of the rational mindset."
> There, fixed that for you.
No, that wan't a go for their sense of pity, but a go of their sense of humanity.
Now, I could have a go at your mindset here, but I'll pass. This is not a funny topic.
What is it with people thinking that what the 3rd world needs are computers? What they need is clean water, learn better agriculture, and to get an education that will allow them to live a better life.
Microsoft "donating" licenses to schools in 3rd world has little to do with what the 3rd world needs and everything to do with what Microsoft need from the 3rd, i.e. to get a 90% market dominance as it has done everywhere else already.
The real question is:
What is it with people thinking that when Microsoft donates Software licenses it's doing charity?
Doesn't it cost more to keep paying these rare programmers than to just update/convert/replace the systems?
This is not an analogy in any meaningful way, but what the hell.
You have an old car. Repairs cost money annually, more and more every year.
Why not buy a new car and be done with it all that?
Well, guess what? New cars are just as buggy as the old ones. But now it's all electronicky, leds, chips and usb ports and no mechanic with grease in his overalls can do anything to fix it.
It is shiny, it's new and it has a lot more blinkenlights and a female voice telling you that the windshield is getting a bit dirty.
But cheaper? No, it isn't.
Neither are corporate rewrites that are done for all the wrong reasons. Replacing something that has worked for decades and does it's job sufficiently well with something that's assumed to be better just because it was written with a language that's probably better but by programmers are likely to be worse, is not, well, cheaper.
Okay, seriously, can anyone with sources verify if this is real? I mean, I might expect this from Liberals - but from Labor?
Ok, I know absolutely nothing about aussie politics, but not very liberal your liberals?
Or perhaps just not very literal about being liberal?
$115
It was in the gp comments.
Damn, that's a good one!
-1, Unfalsifiable
Dare I elaborate, if you wanted to make up a generic unfalsifiable claim on purpose that's probably what you would come up with.
Nope, you whould go with the "god created it that way" argument. Not only would that be unfalsifiable, not to mention silly, but you'd have a horde of know-nothings defending that argument with zeal.
It's funny now, but I sort of wonder what kind of world we live in where you're "pathetic" for not being in a relationship. That part is sort of sad, really.
Apparently you live in a different world. This is /.
Rather than pathetic it's more like status quo here.
As a result, you can now interact with the server without having to maintain ANY TCP session state, or just a single word (the server's initial seq #), allowing the attacker to use vastly fewer resources to tie up server resources.
But someone here said they claimed they could do the dos with 10ish pps.
Really no need to deduce the seqence number and go stateless to keep up with that. To send 10 packets per second you could store the tcp state to a tape drive.
They -at Outpost24- are basically doing TCP/IP without the per connection timeout timers. By keeping the state in a SYN-cookie-like hashtable and drinking directly from the firehose (network). This enables their scan program to work faster and with less resources than the server they are connecting to. As far as I get it, this part is already publicly available in their Unicornscan program.
Errr, what does that mean? Could you elaborate a bit.
I mean, I understand syn-cookies and I've even implemented a tcp-stack serveral years ago, but I don't understand all that drinking from the firehose, working faster and with less resources...
Unless they can crack the syn-cookies, i.e. send correct cookies with spoofed ips, the server will not accept more than a few connections from any said source.