The Lounge - CodeProject

obermd wrote:
it's all about volume on the attacker's side and redundancy on the victim's side

^ This.

If you have to stay online - you pretty much have to ignore the mom and pop shops--they will go down. Attacks have been measured in Tbps for quite a while now.

If they wanna bomb you out of the net they do, renting botnets is cheap as f and your server / hoster / provider can't basically do anything against it.

Rules for the FOSW ![^]

MessageBox.Show(!string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(_signature) 
    ? "This is my signature: " + Environment.NewLine + _signature
    : "404-Signature not found");

If you're really desperate to minimise downtime but can't run to ultra-robust providers, then you can mitigate the issue by hosting a backup site on another hosting provider. Keep your DNS nameservers on a 3rd service (preferably with alternative nameservers hosted in different locations). If/when your primary site goes down you can update your nameservers to point to your alternative host. This only works if you can define the nameservers with a short TTL (Time to Live) otherwise the DNS change takes longer to propagate than the DDoS attack (or other outage) lasts. You need to be on the ball and trigger the DNS change as soon as you spot the outage, so you'll need some monitoring software (hosted somewhere else again) to notify you of any issues. And of course you'll need to keep both sites up-to-date, and if there's a database involved either do regular or real-time syncs, or host it somewhere else again (preferably with a backup host for that too).
All in all it's a lot of faff and effort, you might get your site up and running a couple of hours before the attack ends (you might not), and you'll be paying double what you need to for your hosting - for maybe 6 hours' of extra uptime a year. Your choice!

And of course it will only partially work because some of your users will have providers who ignore your short TTL values and cache for much longer anyway Because Reasons(tm).

Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius

Those of you that don't already think I'm off probably haven't heard one of my early morning rants about random, broad topics.

Like the nature of humankind:

For those of you that believe (acknowledge?) we as a species are headed for unusually spectacular disaster, maybe after nature ~~downsizes~~ "right sizes" us we'll learn from our mistakes. I doubt it though, if only because I don't believe in free will. I think we're as much animals as our primate ancestors. Our behavior is just more complex, but no less "scripted" (for want of a better term). So in the end, we repeat ancient patterns with new window dressing, and get up to the same mistakes over and over again.

Then again, I think this isn't a bug. It's a feature. We're slaves to the complex adaptive systems we are entangled with, and our navigation of that requires those mistakes in order for us to maintain adaptivity. Even a mass die off, should it happen would be as necessary as it was inevitable. We do what we have to to survive, even if that means war, and exploiting people in our own back yard or on the other side of the planet. Even if it means we become victims of our own unsustainable success.

I think to change that means to fundamentally - and I mean fundamentally as profoundly as it can be expressed - change who we are and the way we operate. We need to change the very wiring in our walls - rewrite our neurons, and escape the meat cages we are in. I firmly believe that it's the meat that ultimately holds us back. Meat ties us to the earth, and forces us to live within its confines, subject to its cruel systems in order to receive its blessings. I don't think we'll move past animal stage until we redefine what it means to be human in the first place.

I'm not wedded to this view, it just seems the most likely to me.

*hides*

Real programmers use butterflies

modified 24-Jan-22 7:55am.

Without going into political and/or religious territory here, I think the problem facing mankind now is that there is a complete intolerance, thus hatred, for anyone having different views and opinions than our own.

We have gone from a race of semi-tolerant people to completely intolerant of anything that is not "us", or the flavor of the week for "us".

When I hear people say we need change, what I hear is that "people need to change so they are like me". I don't hear anything else other than that. This type of change is not good.

When the use of force and fraud are institutionalized and considered a legitimate means of achieving goals, what you describe is inevitable, because who gets to control those institutions becomes a major consideration.

Robust Services Core | Software Techniques for Lemmings | Articles
The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.

Slacker007 wrote:
When I hear people say we need change, what I hear is that "people need to change so they are like me". I don't hear anything else other than that.

I think we change because we are in the middle of a third cultural revolution and who knows where it will take us. Hear me out:

I see the invention of writing, many millennia ago as the first cultural revolution. Its impact was profound as it allowed us to externalize knowledge in a durable way. The worst inscription is a thousand times better than the best oral story because it is long lasting and immutable. We have the Epic of Gilgamesh, Iliad, and Ovid's Metamorphoses because they were written. We don't know much about the contemporaneous effects of this revolution because, well, nothing was written about it.

Maintaining and reproducing written records was an expensive and arduous task with scribes that had to periodically copy manuscripts that would otherwise decay. This all changed with the invention of Gutenberg's press, which I see as the second cultural revolution. All of a sudden one important hurdle was removed. It was still expensive to initially produce the information but the cost of reproducing it was drastically reduced. The same economic logic applied latter on to radio and television where costs of receiving information were a tiny fraction of costs for producing information.

All this gave a high role to the editor, the person in charge of selecting what is worth publishing or sending out in the ether. Because of the high costs associated with producing the information, only "good" information was worth producing. Publishing houses that had bad editors would quickly go under.

This changed with the "digital revolution" that dramatically reduced costs for publishing information (my post is a living proof of this situation). Now anyone can produce and distribute information and this is what I call the third cultural revolution. Now it costs nothing to produce information and there is no economic incentive to editorialize it, hence the deluge of fake news, conspiracy theories and alternate facts. We simply are not prepared for the onslaught of information on this scale.

For the second cultural revolution we can evaluate its effects on society. I can trace a straight line form the Gutenberg press to the French revolution (Martin Luther's Ninety-five theses, Protestantism, religious wars, French encyclopedists, French revolution). The third revolution is however too close to us to be able to appreciate its effects. As Zhou Enlai purportedly said on the influence of the French revolution, "it's too early to say".

The question remains: if Gutenberg invented the guillotine what did Zuckerberg invent

Mircea

Our social system is under stress. There are some papers out on the dual phase evolution of complex adaptive systems which I think can help us understand the machinations behind why we fight.

Dual-phase evolution in complex adaptive systems | Journal of The Royal Society Interface[^]

Unfortunately it takes quite a bit of background to make sense of it, but I'll see if I can get to a point without turning this into some sort of half-baked TED talk.

If I understand it correctly, and that's a pretty tall "if", then we are experiencing a compressed timeline of adaptive change as the stress causes that - and within that realm we are in the "poorly connected" phase of the process. That's not destructive/unproductive for us - none of this is strictly constructive or destructive or productive vs unproductive - it's just the nature of it.

The conflict drives adaptation. The fact that we fight, and fight a lot right now is because we must. The conflict drives social innovation, forces us to reexamine and maybe bury existing institutions to make way for new ones, etc.

It's ugly, it's messy. People get hurt. But that's life - and the alternative is worse.

I think the best move here, aside from attempting to understand what makes us do this, is to do so for the purpose of navigating yourself through the mess so you wind up on the other side in one piece, rather than worry about correcting the trajectory of us as a whole. There's something bigger than us going on right now - a reset - and we're front row spectators, all of us. But spectators, still. We can't control this no matter how much we want to. At best we can try to lean the handbasket we're in through the turns, but we can't change the overarching trajectory. Not at this phase. The reset is coming. Arguably it has already started in some places.

Real programmers use butterflies

I'm a vegetarian and never occurred to me that I less prone to 'human' behavior as is...
I do think however that the urge to try to define what human is/means is a sure way to hatred (because I'm always will be human!!!)...
As any living thing on earth we too do follow our needs (instinct?) - what sets us aside is the ability to choose not to...

"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012

I posted this once, to another thread on another forum. May be the only poetry you will see from me. Hope you like it.

The Genius of the Individual

You are steeped
in the miracle of life
that neither religion nor science explains

To war? To Love?
What boundaries are these?

For without war, does love hold its flavor?
And without love, would anything be worth fighting for?

For millennium these questions have rung
through the hallways of history
Tragedy, comedy, kindness, and pain
Etched on the souls of every living human
making every present moment
an exquisite balance of choices

Stupidity has no meaning if all are genius
and material possessions hold no meaning
if all are poor

Do you choose money?
Do you choose poverty?
and if so, why?

Some say we are doomed
and can only be destroyed

Yet they can't explain
that we've outlived the prophets of old
who claimed this very thing

This orb of earth continues spinning
and the birds, they still do sing.
Waiting for the choices
that we still will bring

Do we continue fighting?
Or do we dance and sing?
What happens when we put down our arms
and celebrate the miracle of our being?

Or is the celebration fighting,
loving,
killing,
friendship,
hatred,
kindness,
slaughter,
creation,
treachery
Expressions of our very being?

In the lover is the fighter
and in the fighter is peace defined
And in the genius, stupidity,
and in the ignorant, the sublime

No matter what is done
the miracle of existence surrounds everyone
The core of our being united
to the greatest philosophy ever told

Perhaps it's just choices
on the path as we grow old

Does the lover love?
and does the fighter fight?
What happens when we've learned
that fighting does not love make?

There is an inner portion to each of us
balancing this question for ourselves
As we continue going forward

making history

Learning

Loving

Being

Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++

I have no clue what you're talking about.

In my mind and what I'm trying to achieve is to eat less meat, but better meat (better producers, better shops... ) ; try to reduce my meat intake.

CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair

I don't know if I entirely agree with the premise of this thread, but with age has come the realization that both I, and humanity, has been down this road before. I think of myself charitably-well reasoned, deliberate in my considerations and sound in my judgement- but people that I think are a danger to humanity think of themselves in the same manner. And since our positions don't come close to matching, at least one of us is wrong.

I also realize that me considering an abstract situation and me considering a real situation that is unfolding in front of me will generate multiple reactions that usually are wrong to some degree. Abstract problems are frequently pretty well defined in both their causes and consequences. Real problems can have entire cargo ships worth of undeclared baggage and consequences that I may not find out about until decades later, completely changing my point of view about what had happened and how reasonable both my and other peoples reaction to it was, in hindsight.

I think we often do underestimate the adaptive pressures that shape our behaviours, or worse, think we're above them.

These last 2 years have been eye opening in that regard.

cheers
Chris Maunder

Quote:
I don't think we'll move past animal stage until we redefine what it means to be human in the first place.

Exactly!

Latest Articles:
ASP.NET Core Web API: Plugin Controllers and Services

Our meat cages are both a blessing and a curse, but I don't know how we could possibly escape them. Unless you've got something like digital in mind, but that comes with new problems. After all, it put Dodge in Hell*. Laugh | :laugh:

*Fall; or, Dodge in Hell - Wikipedia

If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.

I am alluding to transhumanism in some form, though I don't know that discrete circuits and otherwise digital tech could get us there.

Real programmers use butterflies

honey the codewitch wrote:
For those of you that believe (acknowledge?) we as a species are headed for unusually spectacular disaster, maybe after nature downsizes "right sizes" us we'll learn from our mistakes

I've been hearing all my life that humans were on the path to extinction. Clearly that's true for all species...but I've always questioned how long-term we're talking about. On a geological scale? Well, duh. In the next 100 years? 1,000? 10,000? Million? At which point does it no longer matter - and who makes that arbitrary call?

Looking at the numbers, more humans exist now that ever have in the past, and I haven't seen any hard numbers showing this trend is gonna reverse itself any time soon (defining "soon" is left as an exercise to the reader). COVID's done nothing here to "help", irrespective of what the mass media has been trying to portray. It's a rounding error imperceptible from previous years. People are dying, but they're still being replaced at a faster rate.

Growth is on a decline, and that's been trending for decades - I attribute that to some large swath of the population coming to their senses (forced to, economically?) and realizing it's no longer necessary (or make sense) to have families with 8 kids. It's about time. My dad was one of 9 kids. My grandfather was one of 14. But all numbers I can find show population is still on the increase. By the tens of millions. Each year.

I agree we can't keep doing what we're doing without there being horrific consequences. But we're kidding ourselves if we think the population can keep growing, but it'll be alright in the end if only we traded SUVs for electric cars and all had solar panels on our roofs. Nobody ever wants to talk about the real solution, because nobody wants to acknowledge the implications.

Sorry if I missed your point. Smile | :)

I'd argue not that we're on a path to extinction - we might be - but more I'm arguing that we're likely going to experience a significant downsizing of the human population within the coming generations - I don't exactly how far out, because everything is a moving target, at best. That's not extinction. In the big picture, it's simple, ruthless culling.

Global human population growth is still increasing, just slower than it has been since its peak in 1989.

I'm simply arguing we're likely going to see that graph of steady growth get a crater in it.

Real programmers use butterflies

I was just listening to one of Neil deGrasse Tyson's podcasts yesterday. His guest pointed out (and rightly so) that we've had plagues before, that wiped out large percentages of the human population. We've never gone extinct, but we just need one sufficient large rock to take care of that.

And George Carlin is absolutely right in his earth plus plastic skit, the earth has survived much worse than we as puny humans could throw at it even if we tried our best.

I agree, and even the rock won't get us without a fight, which is why I don't bet against us. Smile | :)

Real programmers use butterflies

We need to start by shedding the delusion that the wealthiest, most ruthless among us, are the most admirable people. At the root of everything, that's the problem. We just can't say no to them, and it's them who are dragging us down in the race to the bottom.

Only reasonable people read our opinions. We have yet to learn to communicate with the masses. Except DJT the ex, who now has his wings clipped. I assume twitter is a bird. But he understands stupid.

I won't weigh in on other countries and cultures but here in the US I think some of that we got saddled with by way of the Puritans.

Forgive me because I have to mention religion here, but none of this is intended to weigh in on religion or a specific religion. This is about groups of people and the way they treated others:

The Puritans did not flee England because of religious persecution as the popular yarn goes. The reality is they were chased out of England because they insisted everyone had to live like they do and so they made a lot of enemies. Everyone wanted them gone.

Although nobody here calls themselves a Puritan anymore they have plenty of ideological descendants in the states today.

They brought with them the notion that if you're prosperous, it's because you are righteous. That's a big seller in the US even today.

It's a funny thing, because their religion almost says the opposite, but here we are.

Real programmers use butterflies

Indeed, the Puritans were Calvinists, and Calvinism had a deep influence in American society. The logic goes like this. Since God is all-wise and all-powerful, if you are rich, it can only be because he sees that you're a good person and he's made you rich. You must be a morally upstanding person if you're rich because, if you were not good, God would send bad things your way to punish you. Then you would be poor.

And yes, the poor are poor because they're lazy, vice-ridden fornicators. If only they worked hard and followed the straight and narrow, God would make them rich. It's so easy, and yet they don't do it. That's because the poor are bad on purpose. They're just no good.

And since God has decreed that the poor are not good people, then it stands to reason that helping the poor is tantamount to undermining God's punishment. Now you can see what informs America's attitudes about welfare.

Welcome to the Lounge