Nature generally selects proteins that fold well, because it leads to some stable function. Nature therefore selects DNA sequences that code for such proteins. Rare/nonexistant DNA sequences code for rare/nonexistant proteins that are unlikely to have a stable fold. It is probably worth investigating just in case a few of those have interesting function. The research equivalent of going through someone's garbage. $1 million doesn't go very far these days, so it sounds about right. Why is this in the headlines, again?
Well then, it is only fair to say that AllofMP3 is in the export business, and therefore exempt? It does not import anything into the US (the customer does the importing).
Heck, they'd probably sell it on the black market for a bundle and use something cheaper.
Selling it on the black market to who? If they turn around and sell it to the wrong people and it's used against the west, it would end in nuclear war. The risk simply wouldn't be worth the reward.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention to what goes on in Russia lately, but you should look into the stories of Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya, Paul Klebnikov, Artyom Borovik and a few others
Has it occurred to you that those killings are aimed at destabilizing the Russian government. At making that government look evil. I mean, what government agent/agency would use several million dollars worth of pollonium just to knock out one guy? Heck, they'd probably sell it on the black market for a bundle and use something cheaper. The money just isn't there. Money is in the hands of Boris Berezovsky and similar. The motivation isn't there either, why knock these people out at all? It isn't like they were denting the government's popularity, they weren't even scratching it. I figure, with elections are only a couple of years away, the oligarchs don't want Putin's nominee beating one of their own.
There's no solution for DOS that I'm aware of (other than staggering capacity)
But there are slightly better and worse attempts at a solution. EveryDNS seems to have dealt with the problem gracefully. That makes me interested in what method they used, as it was probably one of the better ones (and I should learn about those).
Never going down is infinitely expensive. Always being offline costs nothing (unless one is stupid enough to pay for it).
Those two cases are easy, boring and unrealistic. The interesting stuff is in-between.
If you want to see where the rubber meets the road, sit in on meeting with a big customer and watch what happens when they say "I don't want my site to ever be down" and the sales rep tells them what that would cost. Then you'll see them say either "I don't care. It can never go down", or "OK, what would it cost for it to almost never goe down?
You have again missed my point. At the end of the day, those people that make cost estimate have already through about how to deal with DOS and have already asked their engineers/admins to minimise the cost for a given range of operation. The technical how is of interest to us, because cost minimization is entirely dependant on that how.
I think you are arguing that investment in resources is more important than technicality (i.e., the more money you pour on a problem, the better it resolves itself). I'm arguing that someone at some point has to actually think about how to resolve it, regardless of cost. That someone is the resource you have paid for. So we're saying the same thing backwards. To me, it is more interesting to see how the resources go about solving the problem efficiently, not that a larger quantity of resources must be allocated to solve a larger problem. I'm going to give up trying to get that across now.
Still clueless! I'd suggest reading Sun Tzu's the Art of War. Generals who can lose minimally while outnumbered are worth a hundred of those, that can win while outnumbering. Those who can only win while outnumbering are better used as infantry.
With huge pipes, great network guys and globally distributed servers, a DOS attack becomes something interesting to wtch while having some coffee.
Right. And with GOD on your side, armageddon becomes something interesting to watch while having some coffee.
Pop quiz, hotshot. You are the only network guy on station, your distributed servers are all getting pounded equally hard, everyone on the network is losing money and the traffic doesn't stop. What do you do? What do you do?
Rarely does anyone care what you can do without resource limitations. This is because there are always resource limitations. Network guys cost, bandwidth costs, smart Cisco boxes costs. Wires cost money. Electricity costs, rackspace costs. Will you minimize the cost of a DOS attack (including the cost of network equipment you paid before the attack started), or are you going to watch it continue over some coffee?
only more than the botnet, which although way too much for a single server on a 10 Mb ethernet connection, doesn't mean squat to hundreds of servers doing IP Anycast scattered around the world
Let me update you on the figures: 70,000 botnet computers, 1Mbit each, equal 70Gbit of traffic. At least one such network has been recently reported.
There is nothing you can practically do to prevent someone on the internet from sending a packet addressed to you, nor two packets, nor 1000000. There is nothing you can practically do to prevent the source address on each of those packets to be different. If a DOSer has much bigger pipes than you, you are sunk, unless you can do something very smart. For a start, getting remote access to your server during a DOS attack is tricky unless you have redundancy. Then you need to profile the traffic, find patterns which you can filter.
The non-triviality of a (D)DOS is the reason why everyone is interested to learn how to defend against such attacks. This is why we want to hear how EveryDNS handled the problem so well. A second-rate admin would not be able to. While I appreciate your sentiment regarding "survival of the fittest". I feel it can be better expressed as "survival of the fittest admin for the job".
And lets not try to discuss how, if they can carry this out, you are going to catch them
As there are lots of admins on/., it is only natural that they want to get fitter through learning how to deal with such attacks. Therefore the how is very important and very much worth discussing. Problems don't magically resolve themselves, though it may seem like that because professional and dedicated people spend much of their time figuring out how to deal with them effectively.
Microsoft has access to most of its source code so it isn't all that difficult for it to prove - to itself at any rate - that there are IP infringements contained in Linux.
Translation: Microsoft has a weak hand in this game. It is easy to prove, yet they haven't tried to. If they had a full hand, they could point out at least one infringement to strengthen their case that there are cases to answer.
This also shows clear ill intent. If the problem was the infringement, the normal thing to do is to tell the infringer first, so that the infringement stops. Microsoft chose not to disclose their concerns. This means that in Microsoft's eyes, infringement won't stop. It follows, that Microsoft wants, what they believe to be infringement, to continue. Therefore, the infringement is not the problem, their grudge against GNU/Linux is. QED.
There's another way to avoid damage due to stress. As an alternative, some accelerometers monitor the movement of heated air in a cavity (source). Surprisingly, they can be made MEMS and are cheaper than the mechanical ones (though usually with a factor-of-two loss of accuracy).
A much more useful instrument would be a microphone (or emf, rpm sensor) on the fans and some software coupled to that that predicts when the fan is about to fail. Also maybe for hard drives. I know sofware is used in cash machines that tracks the activities of the transducers and actuators, then sends a "fix me" notification to HQ, often many hours before a mechanical failure becomes serious enough to disable the machine; and that has been very successful.
Not if "being switched off" is part of the function of the program (windows). So authors are allowed to stop their programs from working; by means of integrating an 'off' function. Using the task manager to kill programs is illegal however, as is switching off a computer while apps are still running (power companies, better not cause any power cuts now!). But using the local/remote exit functionality is fine as long as it is part of the normal functioning of the computer system... *breaks into laughter*
Put mirrors on the ground. It is well known that snow and sand reflect more energy back out into space than a rainforest does. Just put mirrors on top of every human construction. There's your 2%. And to make it commercially viable, use solar panels and put them in lots more places!
Slashdot Mirror
Guake is available in Gnome
Which is a PITA when the IEEE does it. Look! Free searchable online papers in pdf format!... NOT*!
*apologies, watched the Borat trailer too many times
Target lock, one-two-seven-point-zero-point-zero-point-one. Confirm.
Roger alpha one.
*radio noise*
Come in alpha one..
*radio noise*
Come in..
And in financial news, "Economists Disagree On How, When To Invest Money"
And even those that do sometimes shoot themselves in the foot
Nature generally selects proteins that fold well, because it leads to some stable function. Nature therefore selects DNA sequences that code for such proteins. Rare/nonexistant DNA sequences code for rare/nonexistant proteins that are unlikely to have a stable fold. It is probably worth investigating just in case a few of those have interesting function. The research equivalent of going through someone's garbage. $1 million doesn't go very far these days, so it sounds about right. Why is this in the headlines, again?
Well then, it is only fair to say that AllofMP3 is in the export business, and therefore exempt? It does not import anything into the US (the customer does the importing).
damn you.
I thought that was the moon race; Russians won the Space race...
This calls for a new term. It is a spork!
Always being offline costs nothing (unless one is stupid enough to pay for it).
Those two cases are easy, boring and unrealistic. The interesting stuff is in-between.
You have again missed my point. At the end of the day, those people that make cost estimate have already through about how to deal with DOS and have already asked their engineers/admins to minimise the cost for a given range of operation. The technical how is of interest to us, because cost minimization is entirely dependant on that how.
I think you are arguing that investment in resources is more important than technicality (i.e., the more money you pour on a problem, the better it resolves itself). I'm arguing that someone at some point has to actually think about how to resolve it, regardless of cost. That someone is the resource you have paid for. So we're saying the same thing backwards. To me, it is more interesting to see how the resources go about solving the problem efficiently, not that a larger quantity of resources must be allocated to solve a larger problem. I'm going to give up trying to get that across now.
Right. And with GOD on your side, armageddon becomes something interesting to watch while having some coffee.
Pop quiz, hotshot. You are the only network guy on station, your distributed servers are all getting pounded equally hard, everyone on the network is losing money and the traffic doesn't stop. What do you do? What do you do?
Rarely does anyone care what you can do without resource limitations. This is because there are always resource limitations. Network guys cost, bandwidth costs, smart Cisco boxes costs. Wires cost money. Electricity costs, rackspace costs. Will you minimize the cost of a DOS attack (including the cost of network equipment you paid before the attack started), or are you going to watch it continue over some coffee?
Let me update you on the figures: 70,000 botnet computers, 1Mbit each, equal 70Gbit of traffic. At least one such network has been recently reported.
Learn to spell, get a clue.
There is nothing you can practically do to prevent someone on the internet from sending a packet addressed to you, nor two packets, nor 1000000. There is nothing you can practically do to prevent the source address on each of those packets to be different. If a DOSer has much bigger pipes than you, you are sunk, unless you can do something very smart. For a start, getting remote access to your server during a DOS attack is tricky unless you have redundancy. Then you need to profile the traffic, find patterns which you can filter.
The non-triviality of a (D)DOS is the reason why everyone is interested to learn how to defend against such attacks. This is why we want to hear how EveryDNS handled the problem so well. A second-rate admin would not be able to. While I appreciate your sentiment regarding "survival of the fittest". I feel it can be better expressed as "survival of the fittest admin for the job".
As there are lots of admins on
He has already said he doesn't want to. Just like George Washington did.
Check out SqueakyMoPho.
Translation: Microsoft has a weak hand in this game. It is easy to prove, yet they haven't tried to. If they had a full hand, they could point out at least one infringement to strengthen their case that there are cases to answer.
This also shows clear ill intent. If the problem was the infringement, the normal thing to do is to tell the infringer first, so that the infringement stops. Microsoft chose not to disclose their concerns. This means that in Microsoft's eyes, infringement won't stop. It follows, that Microsoft wants, what they believe to be infringement, to continue. Therefore, the infringement is not the problem, their grudge against GNU/Linux is. QED.
I would be disappointed if they only went to Microsoft's competitors. I'd be sure to skim through some of them, if they do become generally available.
There's another way to avoid damage due to stress. As an alternative, some accelerometers monitor the movement of heated air in a cavity (source). Surprisingly, they can be made MEMS and are cheaper than the mechanical ones (though usually with a factor-of-two loss of accuracy).
A much more useful instrument would be a microphone (or emf, rpm sensor) on the fans and some software coupled to that that predicts when the fan is about to fail. Also maybe for hard drives. I know sofware is used in cash machines that tracks the activities of the transducers and actuators, then sends a "fix me" notification to HQ, often many hours before a mechanical failure becomes serious enough to disable the machine; and that has been very successful.
Not if "being switched off" is part of the function of the program (windows). So authors are allowed to stop their programs from working; by means of integrating an 'off' function. Using the task manager to kill programs is illegal however, as is switching off a computer while apps are still running (power companies, better not cause any power cuts now!). But using the local/remote exit functionality is fine as long as it is part of the normal functioning of the computer system... *breaks into laughter*
Put mirrors on the ground. It is well known that snow and sand reflect more energy back out into space than a rainforest does. Just put mirrors on top of every human construction. There's your 2%. And to make it commercially viable, use solar panels and put them in lots more places!
Being allowed to leave is only really beneficial when you're also being allowed to enter somewhere else.