But what they're describing here is *theoretically* a technique for preventing DoS attacks... Even though you are under the influence of malicious code, your services are "protected" from going down.
So they're good.
Except:
Their technique is a combination of proxy servers, URLSpy-style query validation, clustered servers, and comparative validation. So:
how are they preventing anything, if every hit on the service produces 3 hits on the backend?
how are you protected from exploits against known vulnerabilities?
how are you protected from viruses propagating across your various systems?
how are you defending against Denial of Service when your "proxy server" can choose to deny service at will?
That said, I have always had the opposite reflex;:wq in Word... That might have something to do with not using WinWord for anything non-trivial until after the invention of "Auto-Save"...
The key point is that now is the time when many companies are making that decision... Now is when the barriers to entry for an application server environment must be few, and far between...
At the moment, the entry to J2EE is pretty well blocaded by the $$$,000 that IBM and BEA are charging. So companies will invest in the initially cheaper MS environment.
If there is a "portable" (and hence more preferable) solution available, and it stacks up cheaper, then it will hit MS as hard as it hits IBM/BEA...
So in the 10+ years that you've been working with computers, you've used: (just a sample of what you've been exposed to)
DOS+Win3/3.1/3.11 * Filenames were Filename.ext 8.3 limited, all uppercase. * Every program installed in its own DIRECTORY, and you had a Program Manager, into which you had to put the icons for the programs which you used. * You either had a profusion of GROUPS in your Program Manager, or you knew how to rearrange all your icons and create/delete groups through an arcane menu structure. * Turning your computer off involved clicking a switch or pressing a button on the case.
Win95 * Most programs install in the Program Files FOLDER, and you started programs by clicking on items in a Menu accessed by clicking a button in a corner of the screen. Some programs still seem to install in other random places on the drive. * Editing the contents of the menu involved creating and deleting files in certain special direc^H^H^H^H^H FOLDERS in the system. * Turning your computer off involved running the Shutdown command on the Start menu, then pressing a button on the case. * Switching applications is done by clicking the taskbar item. * Ctrl-Alt-Delete no longer reboots the machine, but brings up the Close Programs dialog. * My Documents was a folder under C:\ * Long filenames were supported. You could use any case except all uppercase. Filenames which differed only by case were, however, considered identical.
Win98 * Most programs install in the Program Files FOLDER, and you started programs by clicking on items in a Menu accessed by clicking a button in a corner of the screen. * You edit the menu by right-clicking on the menu items to access another menu. * Turning your computer off involved running the Shutdown command on the Start menu. * Logout and Suspend switched places. * Clicking a program's taskbar entry can minimize it. * My Documents appeared on your Desktop
Win2000 * You probably can't install programs, unless you are the administrator. * Turning off the computer involves a dropdown menu instead of a set of radio buttons. * Ctrl-Alt-Delete no longer brings up the Close Programs Dialog, but a Login Information dialog. * Windows pops up "speech bubbles" telling you to install security upgrades.
WinME - I haven't used this enough to comment on it's differences.
WinXP * You log in by clicking on your name. * Your Start menu now is two-columns wide, with the stuff you used previously relegated to the end, unbolded. * Turning off the computer involves the Turn Off Computer command, which gives you buttons for Turn Off, Reboot, and Log Off (or suspend, or somesuch).
And you're telling me you can't use a system where the start menu says "K" and the Filesystem is case sensitive, and your My Documents folder is called Home.
Programs install into - \Program Files\ -/usr/bin/
There are dozens of things you don't touch under - \Windows\System\ -/dev/
When you install your Printer you - install some drivers and select the LPT1 port - install some drivers and select the lp0 port
When you want to run programs you click on the - 4-coloured square in the bottom-left of the screen - Foot/Letter K/Hat/<other WM icon> in the bottom left of the screen (I know, all the really good WMs [WindowMaker, fvwm classic, etc] don't use silly start icons, but your average distro boots Gnome or KDE, so thats what you get if you need someone to explain what/dev means.)
Who needs a full-length CS course just to use a computer?
First of all, on what do you base the claim that your processor (or even your whole computer) gives off 70watts of heat? (FWIW, my powersupply claims 300w - although the drives probably account for most of that...)
Rather than your assumption that the processor must give off all its energy as heat, I am merely suggesting that the opposite would be true if the author's assumption holds. In the absence of any discriminating evidence between the two, I could just as easily believe that
*the information converted is independent of the energy consumed (70w electricity => 70w waste heat), or *information conversion releases "waste heat" much like any other energy conversion(70w electricity+100w information => 99w processed information+71w waste heat), or even *(my personal preference, though it pro'lly conflicts with the author's assumption) that information is matter-like, and its conversion is work done. This would mean that your 70watts of electricity went into 10w work (processing) done on information, and 60w waste heat.
Interestingly, anecdotal evidence would lend support to the latter 2 - my CPU runs hotter when processing large amounts of data, by either generating more order (and therefore more waste heat) or by doing more work (and therefore making more waste heat).
PS, in physics we call it "waste heat" because it is UNRECOVERABLE! In fact, that is almost the sole reason you cannot have a perpetual motion machine... the energy change (from stored to motion) gives off waste heat!
First of all, on what do you base the claim that your processor (or even your whole computer) gives off 70watts of heat? (FWIW, my powersupply claims 300w - although the drives probably account for most of that...)
Rather than your assumption that the processor must give off all its energy as heat, I am merely suggesting that the opposite would be true if the author's assumption holds. In the absence of any discriminating evidence between the two, I could just as easily believe that
*the information converted is independent of the energy consumed (70w electricity => 70w waste heat), or
*information conversion releases "waste heat" much like any other energy conversion(70w electricity+100w information => 99w processed information+71w waste heat), or even
*(my personal preference, though it pro'lly conflicts with the author's assumption) that information is matter-like, and its conversion is work done. This would mean that your 70watts of electricity went into 10w work (processing) done on information, and 60w waste heat.
Interestingly, anecdotal evidence would lend support to the latter 2 - my CPU runs hotter when processing large amounts of data, by either generating more order (and therefore more waste heat) or by doing more work (and therefore making more waste heat).
PS, in physics we call it "waste heat" because it is UNRECOVERABLE! In fact, that is almost the sole reason you cannot have a perpetual motion machine... the energy change (from stored to motion) gives off waste heat!
You seem to be saying that the CPU is "producing" information ("convert"ing energy). The reality is that a CPU (or at least my CPU) is a "processor" of information, not a producer, and by changing the form of information, it should produce waste heat, rather than use up energy. Hence, 70watts in, 71 watts out. And an arbitrary number of bits get processed in the bargain.
Slashdot Mirror
But what they're describing here is *theoretically* a technique for preventing DoS attacks... Even though you are under the influence of malicious code, your services are "protected" from going down.
So they're good.
Except:
Their technique is a combination of proxy servers, URLSpy-style query validation, clustered servers, and comparative validation. So:
- how are they preventing anything, if every hit on the service produces 3 hits on the backend?
- how are you protected from exploits against known vulnerabilities?
- how are you protected from viruses propagating across your various systems?
- how are you defending against Denial of Service when your "proxy server" can choose to deny service at will?
Just my $0.02Why does your proof not show that sqrt(2) is a rational fraction between 1 and 2?
I still remember ^K^S from the WordStar days...
:wq in Word... That might have something to do with not using WinWord for anything non-trivial until after the invention of "Auto-Save"...
That said, I have always had the opposite reflex;
And both WordStar and WordPerfect shone out against the similarly dated versions of WinWord...
The key point is that now is the time when many companies are making that decision... Now is when the barriers to entry for an application server environment must be few, and far between...
At the moment, the entry to J2EE is pretty well blocaded by the $$$,000 that IBM and BEA are charging. So companies will invest in the initially cheaper MS environment.
If there is a "portable" (and hence more preferable) solution available, and it stacks up cheaper, then it will hit MS as hard as it hits IBM/BEA...
Turning lights on and off requires only a digital output, doesn't it?
Actually, it has more to do with them HAVING NUCLEAR WEAPONS (not newcooler weapons like them Ummerakains have.)
All the worlds nuclear powers have permanent Security Council seats.
OMG, I'm feeding the trolls....
I'm a bit the same, except that I assume either Linux or DOS.
Good ol' days of debug & mbasic
Serial being serial, they only have 1 DATA pin. the other pins are used for control.
Parallel ports have 8 data out pins, 8 status pins which can be used for data in, and a few (3 IIRC) control pins.
So Parallel is easier because you don't have to decode the serial data (demultiplexing)
So in the 10+ years that you've been working with computers, you've used: (just a sample of what you've been exposed to)
DOS+Win3/3.1/3.11
* Filenames were Filename.ext 8.3 limited, all uppercase.
* Every program installed in its own DIRECTORY, and you had a Program Manager, into which you had to put the icons for the programs which you used.
* You either had a profusion of GROUPS in your Program Manager, or you knew how to rearrange all your icons and create/delete groups through an arcane menu structure.
* Turning your computer off involved clicking a switch or pressing a button on the case.
Win95
* Most programs install in the Program Files FOLDER, and you started programs by clicking on items in a Menu accessed by clicking a button in a corner of the screen. Some programs still seem to install in other random places on the drive.
* Editing the contents of the menu involved creating and deleting files in certain special direc^H^H^H^H^H FOLDERS in the system.
* Turning your computer off involved running the Shutdown command on the Start menu, then pressing a button on the case.
* Switching applications is done by clicking the taskbar item.
* Ctrl-Alt-Delete no longer reboots the machine, but brings up the Close Programs dialog.
* My Documents was a folder under C:\
* Long filenames were supported. You could use any case except all uppercase. Filenames which differed only by case were, however, considered identical.
Win98
* Most programs install in the Program Files FOLDER, and you started programs by clicking on items in a Menu accessed by clicking a button in a corner of the screen.
* You edit the menu by right-clicking on the menu items to access another menu.
* Turning your computer off involved running the Shutdown command on the Start menu.
* Logout and Suspend switched places.
* Clicking a program's taskbar entry can minimize it.
* My Documents appeared on your Desktop
Win2000
* You probably can't install programs, unless you are the administrator.
* Turning off the computer involves a dropdown menu instead of a set of radio buttons.
* Ctrl-Alt-Delete no longer brings up the Close Programs Dialog, but a Login Information dialog.
* Windows pops up "speech bubbles" telling you to install security upgrades.
WinME - I haven't used this enough to comment on it's differences.
WinXP
* You log in by clicking on your name.
* Your Start menu now is two-columns wide, with the stuff you used previously relegated to the end, unbolded.
* Turning off the computer involves the Turn Off Computer command, which gives you buttons for Turn Off, Reboot, and Log Off (or suspend, or somesuch).
And you're telling me you can't use a system where the start menu says "K" and the Filesystem is case sensitive, and your My Documents folder is called Home.
Programs install into /usr/bin/
/dev/
/dev means.)
- \Program Files\
-
There are dozens of things you don't touch under
- \Windows\System\
-
When you install your Printer you
- install some drivers and select the LPT1 port
- install some drivers and select the lp0 port
When you want to run programs you click on the
- 4-coloured square in the bottom-left of the screen
- Foot/Letter K/Hat/<other WM icon> in the bottom left of the screen
(I know, all the really good WMs [WindowMaker, fvwm classic, etc] don't use silly start icons, but your average distro boots Gnome or KDE, so thats what you get if you need someone to explain what
Who needs a full-length CS course just to use a computer?
About as intuitive as installing under
\Program Files\app-name
and making "shortcuts" under
\Documents and Settings\username\Start Menu\Programs
Apples with Apples...
Do you want to explain how running a 6 year old machine as an X display counts as using it?
Sure, my old 386s make great thin clients (think X & ssh, with a fast network card). How does that make them a "useful" machine today?
If you're a "true" developer, why not just a 286 and ssh - vim looks just fine in 80x24!
As has been stated elsewhere... apples with apples, please.
First of all, on what do you base the claim that your processor (or even your whole computer) gives off 70watts of heat? (FWIW, my powersupply claims 300w - although the drives probably account for most of that...)
Rather than your assumption that the processor must give off all its energy as heat, I am merely suggesting that the opposite would be true if the author's assumption holds. In the absence of any discriminating evidence between the two, I could just as easily believe that
*the information converted is independent of the energy consumed (70w electricity => 70w waste heat), or
*information conversion releases "waste heat" much like any other energy conversion(70w electricity+100w information => 99w processed information+71w waste heat), or even
*(my personal preference, though it pro'lly conflicts with the author's assumption) that information is matter-like, and its conversion is work done. This would mean that your 70watts of electricity went into 10w work (processing) done on information, and 60w waste heat.
Interestingly, anecdotal evidence would lend support to the latter 2 - my CPU runs hotter when processing large amounts of data, by either generating more order (and therefore more waste heat) or by doing more work (and therefore making more waste heat).
PS, in physics we call it "waste heat" because it is UNRECOVERABLE! In fact, that is almost the sole reason you cannot have a perpetual motion machine... the energy change (from stored to motion) gives off waste heat!
First of all, on what do you base the claim that your processor (or even your whole computer) gives off 70watts of heat? (FWIW, my powersupply claims 300w - although the drives probably account for most of that...) Rather than your assumption that the processor must give off all its energy as heat, I am merely suggesting that the opposite would be true if the author's assumption holds. In the absence of any discriminating evidence between the two, I could just as easily believe that *the information converted is independent of the energy consumed (70w electricity => 70w waste heat), or *information conversion releases "waste heat" much like any other energy conversion(70w electricity+100w information => 99w processed information+71w waste heat), or even *(my personal preference, though it pro'lly conflicts with the author's assumption) that information is matter-like, and its conversion is work done. This would mean that your 70watts of electricity went into 10w work (processing) done on information, and 60w waste heat. Interestingly, anecdotal evidence would lend support to the latter 2 - my CPU runs hotter when processing large amounts of data, by either generating more order (and therefore more waste heat) or by doing more work (and therefore making more waste heat). PS, in physics we call it "waste heat" because it is UNRECOVERABLE! In fact, that is almost the sole reason you cannot have a perpetual motion machine... the energy change (from stored to motion) gives off waste heat!
You seem to be saying that the CPU is "producing" information ("convert"ing energy). The reality is that a CPU (or at least my CPU) is a "processor" of information, not a producer, and by changing the form of information, it should produce waste heat, rather than use up energy. Hence, 70watts in, 71 watts out. And an arbitrary number of bits get processed in the bargain.