You can obviously tweak the values as neccesary. As for me, as I said, I use master/slave connections. I open up a single connection at the start of the day, and leave that open. All subsequent connects simply piggyback on top of that one and aren't counted.
Of course, for many connections it might be better to only count failed authentications, but I like the simplicity of this, not to mention how it's entirely protocol-agnostic.
I prefer the recent module to iptables. Works for any protocol on any port, simply limits the number of connect attempts from a given IP in a given timeframe, then bans for a specified time.
Because it's an iptables rule like any other, you can add source- or destination-based filters, set different rules for different subnets and whatnot. Works wonders.
For SSH, I allow five connections per five minutes. Plenty for me, as i tend to use master/slave connections anyway; and it means any attacker usually gets banned within five seconds.
The problem being, of course, that sometimes we actually *do* know better. It is a mindset that is not much appreciated in a sociological context - and with good reason - but that is well-known on the smaller scale of medicine. Given the choice to chop off a gangrenous hand or die from the infection, what would you choose?
I would assume, based on my own personal sample of 1, that a lot of used games sellers will be using the money that comes off their sale towards the purchase of new games, too.
However, with Steam actually bothering to bring the price of games down as they age - compared to traditional publishers who just take it out of the market if it no longer sells enough copies at full price - I find myself not particularly bothered, from a monetary perspective.
Wether I pay 15 bucks for a used copy, or the same amount for a Steam copy, my pockets don't feel the difference. Upside of Steam is that I don't risk getting scratched media or used DLC codes; downside is that I can't resell the game to get an additional 5 bucks towards another game.
All in all, it balances out and Steam makes my life easier. Which is not to say that I still don't like the idea of not being in full control of something I buy, but that's a different discussion.
Indeed. It is better than in the Republic of Bananastan, which is why they're not running the country all the way into the ground. However, as you point out, is is also not enough to fully stop them.
I'll take the ini files, thank you. At least I can edit those without a specialized tool, and even if one should go corrupt it doesn't prevent all the other ones from being read.
The world is full of stupid, greedy, power-hungry assholes who care nothing if their country goes down the drain, as long as they get whatever they want. The dollar being worth nothing is of little consequence if your hoard is in another currency, gold, or other valuables.
The only thing keeping US reps (and/most/ other firstworld politicos) vaguely in check, is the threat of being held accountable - the one thing that's not available in any random banana republic.
One would think the death of Osama can be seen as a game-changing event sufficient to, say, cut funding to the TSA in anticipation of it no longer being needed?
They could perfectly get off with "it was needed, it did a good job, but now that we cut the head off of the main terrorist organisation, we expect the need to go away after some last spasms."
Which still leaves the question of introducing something so poorly shielded into a potentially life-harbouring environment. I know quantum mechanics says the act of observing changes the observed, but I feel it would be bad form to change it with radiation:-)
Apart from the other replies here, I'm not sure we have the tech to build a reactor on a scale that we can also succesfully launch, if only due to the necessary shielding. We have nuclear submarines, and there's a few "maintenance-free" "home" reactors being developed, but much smaller than that? I dunno.
I would also be very hesitant to introduce something so potentially dangerous into an environment that we think may potentially harbour life - even if it's only bacterial. It'd be a shame to mass-murder the first alien species we encounter, wouldn't it?
Someone is running around, killing off Anonymous Cowards. I don't much care, though; haven't been targeted. That'd only be theoretical whining on my part.
Entirely correct, except that they can fuck up the site if you don't accept them. They can also do that when they have to ask you themselves, but from the ignorant user's point of view it is then the site that doesn't work properly, instead of the browser.
The difference is minor, I'll agree, and I'm not convinced that it is worth legislating over, but on the other hand it's not as if the industry is regulating itself. Time will tell.
Because right now, nobody sees your traffic? And if that really bothers you, you're unable to set one up yourself? Here's a hint: SOCKS proxying is built-in to openssh.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that there's a timeline, all movies are.
3000 mile, 5000 kilometer, 8000 pixel...
We must stop the Saturnians before their power becomes over nine thousand.
You can obviously tweak the values as neccesary. As for me, as I said, I use master/slave connections. I open up a single connection at the start of the day, and leave that open. All subsequent connects simply piggyback on top of that one and aren't counted.
Of course, for many connections it might be better to only count failed authentications, but I like the simplicity of this, not to mention how it's entirely protocol-agnostic.
I prefer the recent module to iptables. Works for any protocol on any port, simply limits the number of connect attempts from a given IP in a given timeframe, then bans for a specified time.
Because it's an iptables rule like any other, you can add source- or destination-based filters, set different rules for different subnets and whatnot. Works wonders.
For SSH, I allow five connections per five minutes. Plenty for me, as i tend to use master/slave connections anyway; and it means any attacker usually gets banned within five seconds.
The problem being, of course, that sometimes we actually *do* know better. It is a mindset that is not much appreciated in a sociological context - and with good reason - but that is well-known on the smaller scale of medicine. Given the choice to chop off a gangrenous hand or die from the infection, what would you choose?
I would assume, based on my own personal sample of 1, that a lot of used games sellers will be using the money that comes off their sale towards the purchase of new games, too.
The EU was trying to do something about that, IIRC. Dunno how far along they got.
Yep, I thought as much.
However, with Steam actually bothering to bring the price of games down as they age - compared to traditional publishers who just take it out of the market if it no longer sells enough copies at full price - I find myself not particularly bothered, from a monetary perspective.
Wether I pay 15 bucks for a used copy, or the same amount for a Steam copy, my pockets don't feel the difference. Upside of Steam is that I don't risk getting scratched media or used DLC codes; downside is that I can't resell the game to get an additional 5 bucks towards another game.
All in all, it balances out and Steam makes my life easier. Which is not to say that I still don't like the idea of not being in full control of something I buy, but that's a different discussion.
Indeed. It is better than in the Republic of Bananastan, which is why they're not running the country all the way into the ground. However, as you point out, is is also not enough to fully stop them.
I'll take the ini files, thank you. At least I can edit those without a specialized tool, and even if one should go corrupt it doesn't prevent all the other ones from being read.
The world is full of stupid, greedy, power-hungry assholes who care nothing if their country goes down the drain, as long as they get whatever they want. The dollar being worth nothing is of little consequence if your hoard is in another currency, gold, or other valuables.
The only thing keeping US reps (and /most/ other firstworld politicos) vaguely in check, is the threat of being held accountable - the one thing that's not available in any random banana republic.
Wine? This was about Microsoft putting maximum specs on ULPCs. If you're gonna be an apologist, at least apoligize for the topic at hand :-)
You hopeless optimist, you.
Another way in which MS has been actively holding back technological progress, then.
Heh, was gonna post pretty much the same, but you beat me to it.
Working on a laptop, so primary is smaller than secondary - hence, primary holds browser, secondary holds assload of terminals.
One would think the death of Osama can be seen as a game-changing event sufficient to, say, cut funding to the TSA in anticipation of it no longer being needed?
They could perfectly get off with "it was needed, it did a good job, but now that we cut the head off of the main terrorist organisation, we expect the need to go away after some last spasms."
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a donkey loaded with disks.
> yaori
Mmm, Maori yaoi.
Which still leaves the question of introducing something so poorly shielded into a potentially life-harbouring environment. I know quantum mechanics says the act of observing changes the observed, but I feel it would be bad form to change it with radiation :-)
Apart from the other replies here, I'm not sure we have the tech to build a reactor on a scale that we can also succesfully launch, if only due to the necessary shielding. We have nuclear submarines, and there's a few "maintenance-free" "home" reactors being developed, but much smaller than that? I dunno.
I would also be very hesitant to introduce something so potentially dangerous into an environment that we think may potentially harbour life - even if it's only bacterial. It'd be a shame to mass-murder the first alien species we encounter, wouldn't it?
Someone is running around, killing off Anonymous Cowards. I don't much care, though; haven't been targeted. That'd only be theoretical whining on my part.
They just stole the technology from another race, you know.
Hmm... Bill ? Steve ? Blood test, please ?
Entirely correct, except that they can fuck up the site if you don't accept them. They can also do that when they have to ask you themselves, but from the ignorant user's point of view it is then the site that doesn't work properly, instead of the browser.
The difference is minor, I'll agree, and I'm not convinced that it is worth legislating over, but on the other hand it's not as if the industry is regulating itself. Time will tell.
You might be fully right, but how does the browser differentiate ?
Because right now, nobody sees your traffic? And if that really bothers you, you're unable to set one up yourself? Here's a hint: SOCKS proxying is built-in to openssh.