Prev: AVG with Google Chrome
Next: Seriously, has anybody ever seen a serious virus problem inWindows when using AV protection?
From: Lusotec on 25 Mar 2010 07:00 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 25 Mar 2010 08:05 In article <8mAqn.442$rf2.341(a)newsfe04.ams2>, steve.houghREMOVE(a)THISblueyonder.co.uk says... > Thinking about it, some of you folks out of the AV group are belligerent > little buggers aint'cha? > You seem to have perfectly described yourself. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on 25 Mar 2010 08:06 In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>, none(a)none.invalid says... > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> > wrote: > > >In article <hoe7t9$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 $15 a year in savings. Obviously, the actual numbers will > vary depending on the specific system and the local cost of power, > causing the result to vary. Why would you make an "Assumption" instead of actually learning how much your system is using? -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Char Jackson on 25 Mar 2010 12:26 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 00:59:14 -0400, ToolPackinMama <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On 3/24/2010 8:19 PM, Leythos wrote: > >> Do you actually know the power level difference when all of the power >> saving features, except suspend/hibernation, are used vs. turning the >> computer completely off? >> > >No, do you? It's pretty easy to check with something like this: P3 Kill A Watt Electricity Load Meter and Monitor http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882715001
From: Char Jackson on 25 Mar 2010 12:34
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 08:06:39 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote: >In article <1dklq5pl1slkc856n8c2tu8t0fu14cet5e(a)4ax.com>, >none(a)none.invalid says... >> >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:19:14 -0400, Leythos <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> >> wrote: >> >> >In article <hoe7t9$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. |