Windows is vulnerable to boot viruses because it uses the BIOS services for its I/O. Most Unixes will replace the BIOS services with their own routines.
LILO (or BootEasy or whatever you use) will get trashed by a boot virus, meaning no propogation. If it doesn't get trashed, then the virus code is replaced by the OS's native disk access code early on during the boot process.
-- Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi
I would have to argue that there are a good number of coders who are not hackers. I have worked with many people who write code for the sole purpose of getting a paycheck, and do not have the Hacker Nature. The term hacker has traditionally described something more than just somebody who writes code. That is important.
-- Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi
The first flaw is assuming that infinite timetravel would follow all possiblities, including somebody coming back here. It is possible, although infinitely unlikely, for an infinite number of monkeys to not produce the script to Hamlet.
The second flaw is that your statement fails to take into account possible restrictions on timetravel. For instance, perhaps only forwards travel, or only travel that we can't notice (a la Callahan's).
The third flaw is the statement that there are three flaws, when in fact there are only two.
-- Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi
Isn't that near impossible? Is there really any way to control ALL of the content that passes thru a web server?
In this case, the legislation is apparently requiring the use of systems that will block from a list of URLs (or IPs). That is very easy to do.
In doing this don't you infringe on basic human rights of privacy issues? (I'm in the US not sure about other countries.)
Basic human rights are, by definition, not tied to one's nationality. Different philosophies have different ideas of what basic human rights are. In America, people discussing basic human rights refer to those laid down in the Declaration of Independence. These are enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The interpretation of these has been hashed over by greater scholars than I.
The rights concerning privacy and censorship are laid down for Americans in the Bill of Rights. This is why the CDA could be shot down: because what it attempted was forbidden by the US Constitution. The US government has provisions for the judicial branch to declare laws as unconstitutional.
I am not familiar with the Australian laws and legal system, but would be keen to hear from somebody who does.
It is worth noting that this is not a privacy issue, but rather a censorship issue, unless blocked URLs are logged.
Does anyone else see this as a potential problem? Obviously there will have to be software written to do this. People to monitor this. Many other potential issues. This is ludicris!
The software is trivial to write. Some parts have been written, and the rest combine programs that are already availible. Look at your ISP's home page; they have a link to that sort of software.
Clearly, lots of people feel strongly about this. This means that there will be funding to hire people to maintain the lists.
The issue isn't a technical one. There are no technical impediments to implementing this. It's easy. The issue is one of censorship and of law.
-- Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi
Slashdot Mirror
Windows is vulnerable to boot viruses because it uses the BIOS services for its I/O. Most Unixes will replace the BIOS services with their own routines.
LILO (or BootEasy or whatever you use) will get trashed by a boot virus, meaning no propogation. If it doesn't get trashed, then the virus code is replaced by the OS's native disk access code early on during the boot process.
--
Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi
I would have to argue that there are a good number of coders who are not hackers. I have worked with many people who write code for the sole purpose of getting a paycheck, and do not have the Hacker Nature. The term hacker has traditionally described something more than just somebody who writes code. That is important.
--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi
Oh, why not.
The first flaw is assuming that infinite timetravel would follow all possiblities, including somebody coming back here. It is possible, although infinitely unlikely, for an infinite number of monkeys to not produce the script to Hamlet.
The second flaw is that your statement fails to take into account possible restrictions on timetravel. For instance, perhaps only forwards travel, or only travel that we can't notice (a la Callahan's).
The third flaw is the statement that there are three flaws, when in fact there are only two.
--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi
In this case, the legislation is apparently requiring the use of systems that will block from a list of URLs (or IPs). That is very easy to do.
Basic human rights are, by definition, not tied to one's nationality. Different philosophies have different ideas of what basic human rights are. In America, people discussing basic human rights refer to those laid down in the Declaration of Independence. These are enumerated life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The interpretation of these has been hashed over by greater scholars than I.
The rights concerning privacy and censorship are laid down for Americans in the Bill of Rights. This is why the CDA could be shot down: because what it attempted was forbidden by the US Constitution. The US government has provisions for the judicial branch to declare laws as unconstitutional.
I am not familiar with the Australian laws and legal system, but would be keen to hear from somebody who does.
It is worth noting that this is not a privacy issue, but rather a censorship issue, unless blocked URLs are logged.
The software is trivial to write. Some parts have been written, and the rest combine programs that are already availible. Look at your ISP's home page; they have a link to that sort of software.
Clearly, lots of people feel strongly about this. This means that there will be funding to hire people to maintain the lists.
The issue isn't a technical one. There are no technical impediments to implementing this. It's easy. The issue is one of censorship and of law.
--
Fourth law of programming:
Anything that can go wrong wi