|
|
|
Can't wait to see the photos that are sent back.
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed! I wonder if this telescope can suffer similar focus issues as Hubble?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
NASA did finally figure out what caused Hubble's focus issues. The mirror didn't drop to temperature in the way anticipated. JSWT has 18 mirror segments, each of which can be individually focused, specifically to avoid the same issues has Hubble.
|
|
|
|
|
Cool! Thanks. 
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Hope not, fingers crossed!
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: Hope not, fingers crossed!
Exactly, it's not as though it can be fixed.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PedantMode] Tsk tsk! The telescope named after him is. The man, I am quite sure, is still buried in Arlington National Cemetery. [/PedantMode] 
|
|
|
|
|
It's a little known fact* that his soul was embedded in the machine shortly before launch replacing the guidance computer. (This is a regular procedure as souls are lighter than computers and this save significantly on launch mass).
* "Little known fact" as in "total lie"
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Now, if you had said his sole had been embedded in the machine, I would have thought it a bit fishy, but probably would have accepted it. 
|
|
|
|
|
I use smarterasp.net webhosting and yesterday my sites became unavailable.
I checked the main site and discovered it wasn't even available. 
After a long while it seemed to come back.
But then today the main site is all strange and my sites still were not working properly.
I sent them a message and they replied that they were being DDoSed. Oy!!!
So, i'm seriously considering switching to another webhosting company (probably winhost.com).
Do Webhosts have an effective way to avoid DDoS attacks?
Is this just considered normal business on the Internet?
Is there just no way to escape this if bad actors decide to attack?
Any network engineers who can explain this better? thanks
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Is there just no way to escape this if bad actors decide to attack?
Not really. Your website is a sitting target (if your legitimate clients can find you, so can the black hats). A black hat with enough motivation could assemble a DDoS botnet large enough to bring down almost any site.
Assuming that your site is hosted on a commercial server, there is nothing that you can do in mitigation. There are techniques that can be used by the web hosts, but whether they are used depends on the size of their operation, the availability guarantee (e.g. 3 nines or 99.9% is approx. 8.75 hours of downtime a year), etc. Basically, you pays your money and you takes your choice.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been with WinHost for a few years now and haven't had any problems with them.
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Good to know. I will most likely move.
I had moved to smarterasp.net about 7 years ago (moved from godaddy for similar reasons).
I guess I just keep hopping (and hoping). 
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is there was at one time, don't know whether they're still around a company that bought up successful sites and ruined them. I was with a company a long time and this company bought them oput and within 2 months it turned to shi..I bailed!
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't call a move every seven years "hopping." 
Anyway, unless your sites are extremely critical and you can move them before the attack is over, consider waiting a day or two. If the attack was random, just for the lulz, what are the chance they'll hit this site again? You wouldn't want to move and then it's your new hosts turn to get DDoSed two weeks later! 
|
|
|
|
|
Not much you can do about this. We've seen DDoS attacks take down huge numbers of web-sites over the past few years. DDoS is the easiest attack to perform but one of the hardest to defend against as it's all about volume on the attacker's side and redundancy on the victim's side.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
