Sorry, I wasn't imagining myself as the 'bot-sender' ; ) For the time being, I'm alerted to any multiple failed connection attempt (no matter what protocol, even http) -...should I give the results of my foresighted vigilance to the antivirus/trojan/fear company (none to whom I subscribe) that I pay every month (that I do not)?
The most effective anti-intrusion application I have seen out there is Cloudmark... never mind the MS platform. They've got the right idea, their idea can work for even for trojan/virus/botnet software.
The problem with this is that botnets have to come from ~somewhere~ - and that somewhere can be detected. It's what they're trying to ~do~ - and how often - that is important. I suppose the whole point of the article is that bots are becoming less 'intensive' - we have to spread our intrusion dectection defenses to detect attempts spread over a longer period of time, that's all.
The whole point of a cronjob log-combing program is to detect multiple failed login attempts across ~any~ protocol (I have open). When I do find a failed attempt, I do note it, but it is onlythe ~repeated~ attempts that I track down.
Um - detectable depending on what they want to access. I've deployed a daily login attempt/file access logarithm that will alert me to any intrusion attempt - it doesn't really matter to me how many other servers the intruder attempts to intrude; in fact, I don't even look.
If you want to look at the question objectively, all you have to do is examine the (vastly) available science and ask yourself "qui bono"? What would motivate a majority of the world's scientists to 'fabricate' climate change, or 'manipulate' the reasons behind climate change? Who are the most vociferous deniers, and what do they gain from their denial?
Personally speaking, I tend to group deniers - people who won't even try to examine the question objectively, but base their 'research' and 'conclusions' on predetermined opinions/positions - into two groups: Those paid by the very causers of the majority of CO2 emissions (and the emitters themselves, those who dare to come forward with their denial), and lonely blowhards seeking to attract attention to themselves through their 'controversial' opinion.
Not so sure that the networking speed is due only to the Linux OS switchover - The LSE obviously updated its hardware too.
I'd be really be interested in the makeup of the LSE network support - do they rely on their own developers/deployers, or do they have a support deal with Linux?
Don't forget that MS owes its fortune to its 'educating' the western world to its products while it was an emerging computer market - but, different from today, users then had little choice - the 'first' (later, 'most popular') product out there is most likely to be learned first, a trend that led to the 'interoperability market lock' MS has over western users today. Emerging computer markets today, on the other hand, do have other choices: this is what scares MS, as if they can't use their initial 'educate, majority rules' marketing strategy that has worked so well until now, they will fail - and utterly. Today new users can and ~will~ compare products for their capabilities, and make the most economic choice. Throw into that MS' dear price and OpenOffice's 'free-ness' - and go figure. In short, for emerging markets, and perhaps for the first time in its history, MS can depend only on the performance of its product to justify its price.
Which also brings into question our way of determining the 'value' of software - On one hand we have MS and its 'old market' values ("here's the tool, this is the price"), and on the other we have the Open Source movement giving their products out 'for free'. I see fault in both - the first depends on a consumer's 'tech ignorance' to take as much money as they 'can' from him (the software's price is not determined on how much work it took to create it), and the second... well, I see the value of the system as a whole (development, de-bugging, feature requests & updates), but I don't see how they can make money enough to keep it going, especially as it grows. So here as well, an emerging market user's choice is a confusing extreme: overpriced or free.
So, if MS is trying to sell into a market where it doesn't already have inter-operability dominance, and there exists a similar product for free, I can see reason for their fear - especially before shareholders expecting continuously increasing profits: the western world is saturated with MS products already.
Wait a sec - if the artist had used '01100101 01101000' (reading away from a middle '0', ), the binary would have translated into 'eh'. Now ~that~ would mean something Canadian!
Canadian planes should have 'NATOTAN' written on them to please the speakers of both languages ('NATO' 'stylishly' mirrored around the 'O'). Of course, for the Japanese, that acronym would read 'achieving a darker skin tone by slathering yourself in fermented beans'.
The binary is certainly just visual - it's the same both ways (a 16-digit sequence mirrored away (or towards) the '1' in the middle), and a 33-digit binary sequence doesn't mean anything at all, and neither does the 16 digit sequence... the best I could find was, leading towards the centre (with or) without the trailing '1': " Ë’ ". So it's just 'style', eh.
How tragically, almost-imaginatively, Canadian - and I'm speaking as a Canadian. And a Canadian graphic artist to boot!
'Fair and balanced' means looking at the work first, only then passing judgement on (preferrably to) the person who did it.
'Unfair and biased' means rooting for (or against) a team, no matter what it does, in adopting a judgement based on cherrypicked facts (or inventions).
Death panels, secret muslims, communist and nazi comparisons, anyone? (Looking astonished) Why, look at the (our) facts! Thanks to Fox News, the term 'fair and balanced' makes me cringe today.
I really don't understand why so many people think that the government should follow the 'for-profit' business model that is killing us today: rather, it should be a completely transparent 'non-profit' business - whose performance is judged by the voters. Cash wasted? Vote 'em out. Not investing excess in research and development of new energies? Vote 'em out.
With that model, as any profit made comes out of our pockets anyways, at least the voter will have a say in what the government does with our tax money.
Everyone should provide evidence for any claim they make, no matter the stance or opinion; unfounded blanket statements, often blatently wrong, is what makes this place sometimes so tiring.
I couldn't agree more. Most everything is run by the 'accounting guys' these days - and people like they are only interested in / can only understand a product that is already marketed and making money - an innovation-killing attitude for sure. How is it possible for one with a new idea to 'prove' that it will sell - in a way that profit-uber-alles guys can understand and accept? A task well-nigh impossible.
Steve Jobs reigns over all in Apple, but his position as 'unique innovation creator/guide' there is also a danger: if he doesn't forward an apprentice/heir soon, his company will be in danger both on the innovation and shareholder fronts.
There's one point in the above that the article misses entirely: the mac OS's tweakability has changed with its move to Unix; it hasn't disappeared. True that learning to work through the terminal is not a piece of cake, but the fact that the mac OS is based entirely on *nix distros (most often the very same available to the *nix community) means that you can 'tweak' your computer like you never could before... depending of course on your *nix knowledge level.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I wasn't imagining myself as the 'bot-sender' ; ) For the time being, I'm alerted to any multiple failed connection attempt (no matter what protocol, even http) - ...should I give the results of my foresighted vigilance to the antivirus/trojan/fear company (none to whom I subscribe) that I pay every month (that I do not)?
The most effective anti-intrusion application I have seen out there is Cloudmark... never mind the MS platform. They've got the right idea, their idea can work for even for trojan/virus/botnet software.
The problem with this is that botnets have to come from ~somewhere~ - and that somewhere can be detected. It's what they're trying to ~do~ - and how often - that is important. I suppose the whole point of the article is that bots are becoming less 'intensive' - we have to spread our intrusion dectection defenses to detect attempts spread over a longer period of time, that's all.
Does that include laziness?
The whole point of a cronjob log-combing program is to detect multiple failed login attempts across ~any~ protocol (I have open). When I do find a failed attempt, I do note it, but it is onlythe ~repeated~ attempts that I track down.
If I had mod points, I would mod you 'funny' ; )
How do you define 'under the radar'?
LOL - logarithm == internal cronjob. Anomaly detection/alerts.
Um - detectable depending on what they want to access. I've deployed a daily login attempt/file access logarithm that will alert me to any intrusion attempt - it doesn't really matter to me how many other servers the intruder attempts to intrude; in fact, I don't even look.
If you want to look at the question objectively, all you have to do is examine the (vastly) available science and ask yourself "qui bono"? What would motivate a majority of the world's scientists to 'fabricate' climate change, or 'manipulate' the reasons behind climate change? Who are the most vociferous deniers, and what do they gain from their denial?
Personally speaking, I tend to group deniers - people who won't even try to examine the question objectively, but base their 'research' and 'conclusions' on predetermined opinions/positions - into two groups: Those paid by the very causers of the majority of CO2 emissions (and the emitters themselves, those who dare to come forward with their denial), and lonely blowhards seeking to attract attention to themselves through their 'controversial' opinion.
Not so sure that the networking speed is due only to the Linux OS switchover - The LSE obviously updated its hardware too.
I'd be really be interested in the makeup of the LSE network support - do they rely on their own developers/deployers, or do they have a support deal with Linux?
Right on.
Don't forget that MS owes its fortune to its 'educating' the western world to its products while it was an emerging computer market - but, different from today, users then had little choice - the 'first' (later, 'most popular') product out there is most likely to be learned first, a trend that led to the 'interoperability market lock' MS has over western users today. Emerging computer markets today, on the other hand, do have other choices: this is what scares MS, as if they can't use their initial 'educate, majority rules' marketing strategy that has worked so well until now, they will fail - and utterly. Today new users can and ~will~ compare products for their capabilities, and make the most economic choice. Throw into that MS' dear price and OpenOffice's 'free-ness' - and go figure. In short, for emerging markets, and perhaps for the first time in its history, MS can depend only on the performance of its product to justify its price.
Which also brings into question our way of determining the 'value' of software - On one hand we have MS and its 'old market' values ("here's the tool, this is the price"), and on the other we have the Open Source movement giving their products out 'for free'. I see fault in both - the first depends on a consumer's 'tech ignorance' to take as much money as they 'can' from him (the software's price is not determined on how much work it took to create it), and the second... well, I see the value of the system as a whole (development, de-bugging, feature requests & updates), but I don't see how they can make money enough to keep it going, especially as it grows. So here as well, an emerging market user's choice is a confusing extreme: overpriced or free.
So, if MS is trying to sell into a market where it doesn't already have inter-operability dominance, and there exists a similar product for free, I can see reason for their fear - especially before shareholders expecting continuously increasing profits: the western world is saturated with MS products already.
And I can only count to 21. Well, 20 in public.
ATNO time?
Wait a sec - if the artist had used '01100101 01101000' (reading away from a middle '0', ), the binary would have translated into 'eh'. Now ~that~ would mean something Canadian!
Canadian planes should have 'NATOTAN' written on them to please the speakers of both languages ('NATO' 'stylishly' mirrored around the 'O'). Of course, for the Japanese, that acronym would read 'achieving a darker skin tone by slathering yourself in fermented beans'.
The binary is certainly just visual - it's the same both ways (a 16-digit sequence mirrored away (or towards) the '1' in the middle), and a 33-digit binary sequence doesn't mean anything at all, and neither does the 16 digit sequence... the best I could find was, leading towards the centre (with or) without the trailing '1': " Ë’ ". So it's just 'style', eh.
How tragically, almost-imaginatively, Canadian - and I'm speaking as a Canadian. And a Canadian graphic artist to boot!
'Fair and balanced' means looking at the work first, only then passing judgement on (preferrably to) the person who did it.
'Unfair and biased' means rooting for (or against) a team, no matter what it does, in adopting a judgement based on cherrypicked facts (or inventions).
Death panels, secret muslims, communist and nazi comparisons, anyone? (Looking astonished) Why, look at the (our) facts! Thanks to Fox News, the term 'fair and balanced' makes me cringe today.
I really don't understand why so many people think that the government should follow the 'for-profit' business model that is killing us today: rather, it should be a completely transparent 'non-profit' business - whose performance is judged by the voters. Cash wasted? Vote 'em out. Not investing excess in research and development of new energies? Vote 'em out.
With that model, as any profit made comes out of our pockets anyways, at least the voter will have a say in what the government does with our tax money.
...andGodForbidTheyAlsoFindTheEnterKeyHack?<br>Eeek!
Everyone should provide evidence for any claim they make, no matter the stance or opinion; unfounded blanket statements, often blatently wrong, is what makes this place sometimes so tiring.
I couldn't agree more. Most everything is run by the 'accounting guys' these days - and people like they are only interested in / can only understand a product that is already marketed and making money - an innovation-killing attitude for sure. How is it possible for one with a new idea to 'prove' that it will sell - in a way that profit-uber-alles guys can understand and accept? A task well-nigh impossible.
Steve Jobs reigns over all in Apple, but his position as 'unique innovation creator/guide' there is also a danger: if he doesn't forward an apprentice/heir soon, his company will be in danger both on the innovation and shareholder fronts.
You're the one who's making a claim; it is you who should be providing evidence.
Or shall we engage in a jolly bout of selective-factual software sophism? No, thanks.
Hey, you think he's got it bad: my childhood was based on COBOL, then I had to relive it all again through C++. Today I'm a diagnosed schizophrenic.
There's one point in the above that the article misses entirely: the mac OS's tweakability has changed with its move to Unix; it hasn't disappeared. True that learning to work through the terminal is not a piece of cake, but the fact that the mac OS is based entirely on *nix distros (most often the very same available to the *nix community) means that you can 'tweak' your computer like you never could before... depending of course on your *nix knowledge level.
...and these are?