A NAT box with no ports forwarded stops incoming connections from reaching my computer.
No it doesn't. Someone on the other side of your NAT box* can send packets to it with an internal destionation address and your box will happily forward the packets right in.
The only thing that stops this from happening are firewall rules in your 'NAT box'. These firewalls are completely independant of NAT. You can use the firewall rules without NAT, and you can use NAT without the firewall. NAT doesn't give a router any firewall capabilities.
And yes, you're right, most broadband routers have a firewall component... just as they have a NAT component.
*: By 'NAT box' I assume you mean a router doing only NAT.
What's wrong with PPPoE? I've been using it for years. My account currently has a static IP address and I've been hosting my own domain on it for a couple of years. PPPoE is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. It has some good benefits for both me and the ISP too.
Its just ass-backwards.
First you've got this inherently point-to-point link - the line running from your modem to the DSLAM.
Then usually (not entirely sure if this is still the case) you have a network protocol that all the DSL equipment (and other telecom equipement) speaks called ATM.
Then some stuff is added onto that to make it all carry ethernet packets, making your equipment and the ISP's equipment all act like it is on one big ethernet.
But then you've got PPPoE, which makes the ethernet work like a point-to-point link again!
First, these aren't RDBMSs you are talking about, but SQL DBMSs. Because they don't support any relational languages, they don't support relational databases (that's what you mean by 'logical structures'), and even if they did, SQL access would break Codd's 12 rules.
I will give you that most currently available DBMSes do not fully adhere to Codd's 12 relational rules (namely 6,7,9 and 12). But I don't see how adding SQL will break a database's conformance to the rules. Specificly which rules will be broken?
Second, these other languages do have to conform to SQL's limitations and stupidities, inclusive because the database is defined in non-relational SQL, and because SQL does mixes the logical and physical structures.
How does SQL mix the logical and physical structures?
you can create queries on your schema in any of these RDBMSes in relational algebra
Do that. Seriously, try it. Now how will that fare with databases defined with duplicates, NULLs, without real user-defined types etc?
I'll also concede that you can build a database in postgres or oracle that breaks the relational model (by allowing duplicate rows, for instance), but you don't have to create such a database in these DBMSses.
Not a very good scrolling control. You have to move your right hand back and forth between the mouse and the arrow keys, unless you use the mouse left handed.
The Relational Model pertains not to the physical level (DBMS engines) but to the interaction level (data languages).
No it doesn't. It pertains to how the data is logicaly structured. Nothing at all to do with the language you use to interact with it.
SQL is not relational. Therefore, a SQL DBMS is not relational, no matter if its engine is capable of supporting a relational language too.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. SQL may not be purely relational, but the language you use to work with the DBMS does not dictate wether or not the DB is relational.
Many RDBMSses allow you to use langauges other than SQL to interact with the data, in fact. In postgres for example, you can write stored procedures in other programming langauges. I hear Oracle has similar capabilities with Java.
In theory, you can create queries on your schema in any of these RDBMSes in relational algebra. You'd have to translate that to SQL to actually use it, but doing so does not make your database non-relational.
Did you check to see if this network card is on SuSE's supported hardware list? Most major distros publish a list of hardware they support out of the box.
Hmm. Very interesting. Still relatively honest, in similar cases I usually got something like stories about some commercial product that has features that are supposedly unique,
Yeah I get that too.
We have a client who is asking for a way to monitor web access on their network. They are basically asking (in their non-technical way) for a proxy server and something to show them the logs in a pretty format. Well, one of their requests is that the logs show them "how much time someone spends on each webpage". I explain to them (in a non-technical way) that that's impossible due to the stateless nature of HTTP. The best they can do is take the time between each page load as the data they're looking for.
Well, some other consultant out there is telling them that they will sell them a product that can show them the exact time everyone spends on a webpage, and they said that this is server-side only windows software. I'm pretty sure that this other consultant is pushing MS proxy server. I was going to set up a Squid transparent proxy for them - they already have a linux machine acting as a router. But I have a feeling they're giong to wind up paying a lot more money for this MS proxy server setup, and it won't do anything squid won't do.
But the other guy is good at playing the bullshit & buzzwords game, so they're probably going to pay a lot more money and go his route.
A friend of a friend asked me to help him with a final project for one of his classes at ITT Tech. This was a project in ASP for an online bookstore. He was nearing completion of his associates degree in Web Design, and when I got there to show him things, he knew nothing at all. Not even HTML...
Amen. I work at a consulting company that does web hosting for some clients on the side. Every 2 months I get someone calling me up asking me to move their site over to the frontpage server at the request of their new web designer.
The "web designer" always has a go at making things work on the unix server, but they get stuck trying to do something trivial like a no-frills form mailer. On the phone I mention to them that they could do this with Javascript or a simple CGI program on the server end that I'd even set up for them. They then go on and describe to me in a very roundabout manner (so as to avoid embarrasing themselves at all costs) that they've never even heard of these things before, and they don't understand anything but frontpage. So I move their site over, at greater monthly expense to the client.
I thought the dot-com bust would have shaken these people out of the IT industry and into mcdonald's and walmart where they belong. I really hoped it would, but it hasn't. It seems that the people who are good at lying, bullshit and buzzwords and wear a nice suit are lasting longer than the people who can tell a div tag from their ass hole.
They may enclose a bunch of legalese with the product, but that is irrelevant. I already purchased the copy. I don't need to agree to any license or contract to use something I already own.
Blizzard can get angry all they want, but the fact is that bnetd is none of their buisness. It is simply a matter of people using their private property (the bnetd code, and the copy of the game that Blizzard sold them) however they like. Once again, the DMCA gives anyone with a lot of money the right to tell other people what they can do with their own property by assuming them guilty.
It is possible that people use bnetd in conjunction with illegally obtained copies of blizzard games, but that has nothing at all to do with bnetd. Those people should be prosecuted for copyright infringement. No need to use the DMCA to prosecute people who did not commit a crime.
Not to mention that extra monitors are quite pricey.
Actually, they're quite cheap, if you had the space.
I have a triple-display setup at home. Three 17" CRTs. CRT monitors aren't very expensive these days. As for the video cards, I have one AGP Geforce2 on the center monitor, and I have two PCI Matrox Millenium II cards on the side displays. The Millenium IIs are $20/each on Ebay.
Now of course, given the hardware on the side displays they aren't very useful for running games, however this setup is incredibly useful for many other things (programming, web stuff). Also, I can have a game running fullscreen/accelerated on the center GeForce2 and have IRC or AIM or a web page or something running on the side displays.
Yes, you can design a game where some of the senstive stuff is done on the server. But some things are just too hard. I would guess cheats that give you extra visibility (map hacks) are one of them, because such cheats are so common.
What do you think will happen when the proxy server hands back packets at a slower rate?
Again, what does any of this have to do with a proxy?
The Router can slow the rate at which it forwards your packets, and yes that should effectively slow the application down.
But you still need some real upstream limits in case the remote machine is performing a DDOS attack (either because it was cracked or is being run by some retard who is intentionally performing the attack).
IANAA (I am not an admin) but shouldn't bandwidth capping be handled at the ISP's end, through a transparent proxy? Not through the cable modem?
What does a transparent proxy have to do with limiting bandwidth?
Anyway, you can't forcefully limit someone's transmit bandwidth at your end. Think about it... they can shout the packets across the wire as fast as they possibly can. You can either drop them beyond a certain threshold, or you can place them into a queue on your end and bring them out of the queue at a certain rate of your choosing (this is called 'policing'). What else are you going to do? In either case, the bandwidth of the actual wire is still being consumed by the sender. The receiver is just not playing along.
You can't force the remote end to transmit at a lower speed. Unless you trust the client and then monitor what it is doing like cable systems currently do.
I preached about this to Blizzard Entertainment for ages (via email, and on their forums) and they STILL don't get it.
Blizzard has been ignoring you because you don't know what you're talking about. It is simply not possible to design a game that has all sensitive computation being done on the server. The game will not be playable over the internet. It simply won't perform well enough.
You can't. The expansion bays on the bottom of the gamecube are all different sizes/shapes. A given expansion device can only go in one particular slot, so you can't have two of them on one gamecube.
Also, one of the three ports is not the same type of interface as the others. I think there are two labeled 'serial' and another labeled 'hi-speed'.
Now we know that nearly all these "facts" were wrong.
No, we don't know they are wrong. There was proof of these systems before the war.
No, clearly there was no proof of them. If not, then where exactly is this proof? Why are so many people demanding it from the bush administration but not receiving it?
Look at this: It took a long time to find Saddam Hussein after the war, despite the facts that we knew he existed before. It is a lot harder to find his terrorist weapons systems (they don't need ventilated spider-holes for one thing).
Does Saddam Hussein weigh 500 tons? And why does noone know where these weapons are now, even with Hussein and his cohorts in custody and available for questioning? The Bush administration sure had a pretty good idea on their whereabouts just before the invasion.
And why are you calling them 'terrorist' weapon systems now? Were they 'terrorist' weapons systems when the US equipped Hussein with them in the 80s?
The pop pushers will offer 'good deals' to universitys
Where exactly are these 'good deals'? I recently graduated from a 'pepsi university'. Our corporate shill took his kickback, but all the sugarwater prices in the vending machines were still the same as they are anywhere else. Except they only carry pepsi now...
Slashdot Mirror
What does that have to do with anything? You made the following statement:
and he just gave you a list of MS patches that messed up another piece of software.
A NAT box with no ports forwarded stops incoming connections from reaching my computer.
No it doesn't. Someone on the other side of your NAT box* can send packets to it with an internal destionation address and your box will happily forward the packets right in.
The only thing that stops this from happening are firewall rules in your 'NAT box'. These firewalls are completely independant of NAT. You can use the firewall rules without NAT, and you can use NAT without the firewall. NAT doesn't give a router any firewall capabilities.
And yes, you're right, most broadband routers have a firewall component... just as they have a NAT component.
*: By 'NAT box' I assume you mean a router doing only NAT.
What's wrong with PPPoE? I've been using it for years. My account currently has a static IP address and I've been hosting my own domain on it for a couple of years. PPPoE is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. It has some good benefits for both me and the ISP too.
Its just ass-backwards.
First you've got this inherently point-to-point link - the line running from your modem to the DSLAM.
Then usually (not entirely sure if this is still the case) you have a network protocol that all the DSL equipment (and other telecom equipement) speaks called ATM.
Then some stuff is added onto that to make it all carry ethernet packets, making your equipment and the ISP's equipment all act like it is on one big ethernet.
But then you've got PPPoE, which makes the ethernet work like a point-to-point link again!
I would advice anybody to get a router, even if it's just for the firewalling properties of being NATed
NAT does not offer any firewalling properties... NAT has nothing to do with firewalls. They are two separate and unrelated things.
First, these aren't RDBMSs you are talking about, but SQL DBMSs. Because they don't support any relational languages, they don't support relational databases (that's what you mean by 'logical structures'), and even if they did, SQL access would break Codd's 12 rules.
I will give you that most currently available DBMSes do not fully adhere to Codd's 12 relational rules (namely 6,7,9 and 12). But I don't see how adding SQL will break a database's conformance to the rules. Specificly which rules will be broken?
Second, these other languages do have to conform to SQL's limitations and stupidities, inclusive because the database is defined in non-relational SQL, and because SQL does mixes the logical and physical structures.
How does SQL mix the logical and physical structures?
you can create queries on your schema in any of these RDBMSes in relational algebra
Do that. Seriously, try it. Now how will that fare with databases defined with duplicates, NULLs, without real user-defined types etc?
I'll also concede that you can build a database in postgres or oracle that breaks the relational model (by allowing duplicate rows, for instance), but you don't have to create such a database in these DBMSses.
Not a very good scrolling control. You have to move your right hand back and forth between the mouse and the arrow keys, unless you use the mouse left handed.
Looks more like a key on the keyboard than a mouse button to me.
The Relational Model pertains not to the physical level (DBMS engines) but to the interaction level (data languages).
No it doesn't. It pertains to how the data is logicaly structured. Nothing at all to do with the language you use to interact with it.
SQL is not relational. Therefore, a SQL DBMS is not relational, no matter if its engine is capable of supporting a relational language too.
You really have no idea what you're talking about. SQL may not be purely relational, but the language you use to work with the DBMS does not dictate wether or not the DB is relational.
Many RDBMSses allow you to use langauges other than SQL to interact with the data, in fact. In postgres for example, you can write stored procedures in other programming langauges. I hear Oracle has similar capabilities with Java.
In theory, you can create queries on your schema in any of these RDBMSes in relational algebra. You'd have to translate that to SQL to actually use it, but doing so does not make your database non-relational.
Did you check to see if this network card is on SuSE's supported hardware list? Most major distros publish a list of hardware they support out of the box.
Our client wants problems solved and doesn't care about "Average Handle Times"
Could you please tell us who that client is?
Hmm. Very interesting. Still relatively honest, in similar cases I usually got something like stories about some commercial product that has features that are supposedly unique,
Yeah I get that too.
We have a client who is asking for a way to monitor web access on their network. They are basically asking (in their non-technical way) for a proxy server and something to show them the logs in a pretty format. Well, one of their requests is that the logs show them "how much time someone spends on each webpage". I explain to them (in a non-technical way) that that's impossible due to the stateless nature of HTTP. The best they can do is take the time between each page load as the data they're looking for.
Well, some other consultant out there is telling them that they will sell them a product that can show them the exact time everyone spends on a webpage, and they said that this is server-side only windows software. I'm pretty sure that this other consultant is pushing MS proxy server. I was going to set up a Squid transparent proxy for them - they already have a linux machine acting as a router. But I have a feeling they're giong to wind up paying a lot more money for this MS proxy server setup, and it won't do anything squid won't do.
But the other guy is good at playing the bullshit & buzzwords game, so they're probably going to pay a lot more money and go his route.
Taco bell sometimes, walmart no... I don't understand what your point is.
A friend of a friend asked me to help him with a final project for one of his classes at ITT Tech. This was a project in ASP for an online bookstore. He was nearing completion of his associates degree in Web Design, and when I got there to show him things, he knew nothing at all. Not even HTML...
Amen. I work at a consulting company that does web hosting for some clients on the side. Every 2 months I get someone calling me up asking me to move their site over to the frontpage server at the request of their new web designer.
The "web designer" always has a go at making things work on the unix server, but they get stuck trying to do something trivial like a no-frills form mailer. On the phone I mention to them that they could do this with Javascript or a simple CGI program on the server end that I'd even set up for them. They then go on and describe to me in a very roundabout manner (so as to avoid embarrasing themselves at all costs) that they've never even heard of these things before, and they don't understand anything but frontpage. So I move their site over, at greater monthly expense to the client.
I thought the dot-com bust would have shaken these people out of the IT industry and into mcdonald's and walmart where they belong. I really hoped it would, but it hasn't. It seems that the people who are good at lying, bullshit and buzzwords and wear a nice suit are lasting longer than the people who can tell a div tag from their ass hole.
No, I purchased a copy of a copyrighted work.
They may enclose a bunch of legalese with the product, but that is irrelevant. I already purchased the copy. I don't need to agree to any license or contract to use something I already own.
Blizzard can get angry all they want, but the fact is that bnetd is none of their buisness. It is simply a matter of people using their private property (the bnetd code, and the copy of the game that Blizzard sold them) however they like. Once again, the DMCA gives anyone with a lot of money the right to tell other people what they can do with their own property by assuming them guilty.
It is possible that people use bnetd in conjunction with illegally obtained copies of blizzard games, but that has nothing at all to do with bnetd. Those people should be prosecuted for copyright infringement. No need to use the DMCA to prosecute people who did not commit a crime.
Not to mention that extra monitors are quite pricey.
Actually, they're quite cheap, if you had the space.
I have a triple-display setup at home. Three 17" CRTs. CRT monitors aren't very expensive these days. As for the video cards, I have one AGP Geforce2 on the center monitor, and I have two PCI Matrox Millenium II cards on the side displays. The Millenium IIs are $20/each on Ebay.
Now of course, given the hardware on the side displays they aren't very useful for running games, however this setup is incredibly useful for many other things (programming, web stuff). Also, I can have a game running fullscreen/accelerated on the center GeForce2 and have IRC or AIM or a web page or something running on the side displays.
They do this to lower their cost of providing electricity to you.
Or, more likely these days, to buy the CEO a new bentley.
Because porn corrupts the mind and soul. Try and argue that doesn't but reality makes a better case.
If porn corrupts your mind and soul, then why don't you just not watch it?
Yes, you can design a game where some of the senstive stuff is done on the server. But some things are just too hard. I would guess cheats that give you extra visibility (map hacks) are one of them, because such cheats are so common.
What do you think will happen when the proxy server hands back packets at a slower rate?
Again, what does any of this have to do with a proxy?
The Router can slow the rate at which it forwards your packets, and yes that should effectively slow the application down.
But you still need some real upstream limits in case the remote machine is performing a DDOS attack (either because it was cracked or is being run by some retard who is intentionally performing the attack).
IANAA (I am not an admin) but shouldn't bandwidth capping be handled at the ISP's end, through a transparent proxy? Not through the cable modem?
What does a transparent proxy have to do with limiting bandwidth?
Anyway, you can't forcefully limit someone's transmit bandwidth at your end. Think about it... they can shout the packets across the wire as fast as they possibly can. You can either drop them beyond a certain threshold, or you can place them into a queue on your end and bring them out of the queue at a certain rate of your choosing (this is called 'policing'). What else are you going to do? In either case, the bandwidth of the actual wire is still being consumed by the sender. The receiver is just not playing along.
You can't force the remote end to transmit at a lower speed. Unless you trust the client and then monitor what it is doing like cable systems currently do.
I preached about this to Blizzard Entertainment for ages (via email, and on their forums) and they STILL don't get it.
Blizzard has been ignoring you because you don't know what you're talking about. It is simply not possible to design a game that has all sensitive computation being done on the server. The game will not be playable over the internet. It simply won't perform well enough.
You can't. The expansion bays on the bottom of the gamecube are all different sizes/shapes. A given expansion device can only go in one particular slot, so you can't have two of them on one gamecube.
Also, one of the three ports is not the same type of interface as the others. I think there are two labeled 'serial' and another labeled 'hi-speed'.
No, clearly there was no proof of them. If not, then where exactly is this proof? Why are so many people demanding it from the bush administration but not receiving it?
Does Saddam Hussein weigh 500 tons? And why does noone know where these weapons are now, even with Hussein and his cohorts in custody and available for questioning? The Bush administration sure had a pretty good idea on their whereabouts just before the invasion.
And why are you calling them 'terrorist' weapon systems now? Were they 'terrorist' weapons systems when the US equipped Hussein with them in the 80s?
The pop pushers will offer 'good deals' to universitys
Where exactly are these 'good deals'? I recently graduated from a 'pepsi university'. Our corporate shill took his kickback, but all the sugarwater prices in the vending machines were still the same as they are anywhere else. Except they only carry pepsi now...