We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
‘Watching America’ getting hammered by DOS attack Hosting company ‘Watching America’ are currently under a sustained (two days and counting) denial-of-service attack and as a result various blogs may be hard or impossible to access as a result. Consider this a public service announcement. Methinks some lynchings are in order.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
So if you want to know how to design a computer chip, I’m your man, but this software stuff is a bit over my head.
Perry et. al.
If a computer suffers a DOS attack, doesn’t the incoming message have a source address attached?
If so, why can’t the computer respond in kind? I would suspect that a DOS probably utilizes multiple attacks from the same source address, so why not respond to it if the count goes above…say four?
I may be simplistic on this but if a battleship can launch a return salvo to incoming, why can’t a computer?
thanks for any insight and if you want, I could respond with some chip design insights (especially DRAM design)
Uain-