From: Lusotec on
RayLopez99 wrote:
>> A modern coder who doesn't know SQL injection exploits? That doesn't make
>> much sense, my friend. Are you seriously a programmer of any sort? It's
>> cool if your not man, I don't really care either way. I'm just interested
>> in why you think the way you do..
>
> No, I'm just saying that using certain conventions found in .NET, such
> as what they call Stored Procedures (from memory), you negate SQL
> injection exploits.

Silly boy! Badly written stored procedures are just as vulnerable to SQL
injections as any other SQL code.

> Also in ASP.NET you can set a switch in your XAML/
> HTML file like "ValidateRequest="false" to allow (or deny) "<" ">"
> characters.

Great, that will stop SQL injections ... NOT!

> C++ used to be my favorite language but nobody save scientists code in
> that anymore

Only scientists? Are you really this clueless?!

> ...no eye candy. Switch to C# and join the fun!

You switched to C# because C++ has no eye candy? LOL!

>(..)
> XAML in .NET allows you to break up (mostly) the art (front end GUI) from
> the science (back end engine).

Separation of core logic and presentation is nothing new and definitely was
not pioneered in, or is exclusive to XAML.

Regards.

From: Leythos on
In article <8mAqn.442$rf2.341(a)newsfe04.ams2>,
steve.houghREMOVE(a)THISblueyonder.co.uk says...
> Thinking about it, some of you folks out of the AV group are belligerent
> little buggers aint'cha?
>

You seem to have perfectly described yourself.

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on
In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>,
none(a)none.invalid says...
>
> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
> >philnblanc(a)comcast.net says...
> >> I also am going to continue to urge people to turn theirs off when not
> >> in use, and I urge you all to do the same - but NOT because it will
> >> extend the life of the components.
> >>
> >
> >If you consider the following:
> >
> >Your LCD monitor goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used
> >Your Hard-Drive goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used
> >Your CPU throttles down in XX minutes under no load
> >Your case fans throttle down when the heat decreases
> >
> >If you use your computer for 12-16 hours per day, how much money does it
> >save you over 1 year to turn it off for 8 hours per day?
> >
> >Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power
> >saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the
> >computer completely off?
>
> If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus off
> state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is
> just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will
> vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power,
> causing the result to vary.

Why would you make an "Assumption" instead of actually learning how much
your system is using?

--
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.
Trust yourself.
spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Char Jackson on
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:59:14 -0400, ToolPackinMama
<philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>On 3/24/2010 8:19 PM, Leythos wrote:
>
>> Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power
>> saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the
>> computer completely off?
>>
>
>No, do you?

It's pretty easy to check with something like this:

P3 Kill A Watt Electricity Load Meter and Monitor
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882715001

From: Char Jackson on
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:06:39 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com>
wrote:

>In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>,
>none(a)none.invalid says...
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <hoe7t9$umc$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >philnblanc(a)comcast.net says...
>> >> I also am going to continue to urge people to turn theirs off when not
>> >> in use, and I urge you all to do the same - but NOT because it will
>> >> extend the life of the components.
>> >>
>> >
>> >If you consider the following:
>> >
>> >Your LCD monitor goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used
>> >Your Hard-Drive goes to sleep in XX minutes if not used
>> >Your CPU throttles down in XX minutes under no load
>> >Your case fans throttle down when the heat decreases
>> >
>> >If you use your computer for 12-16 hours per day, how much money does it
>> >save you over 1 year to turn it off for 8 hours per day?
>> >
>> >Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power
>> >saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the
>> >computer completely off?
>>
>> If you assume a power savings of 50 watts (low power state versus off
>> state) and a KWh cost of $.10, my back of the napkin calculation is
>> just under $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will
>> vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power,
>> causing the result to vary.
>
>Why would you make an "Assumption" instead of actually learning how much
>your system is using?

A better question would be why would you, or anyone else here, be the
least bit interested in what *my* system is all about? The only thing
that should be important to you is *your* system. I know about my
system(s), but I don't have any information about yours, so you'll
have to figure it out for yourself. My example should help get you
started.