AV companies rarely name the virus by the name the virus author wants. This is done so that there is, hopefully, less incentive to write a virus.
Re:Does this mean...
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
War is mearly becoming symbolic.
Only to one side (in this case the US/UK/Etc.).
Having an enormous bomb landing on your village is far from symbolic.
The real test will be when two technologically advanced nations start fighting - I strongly suspect we'll be seeing huge numbers of civilian casualties on each side instead of the 'ideal' where it's just the drones that get destroyed.
When humans fight they want to see real damage to the opposition - would the US be satisified if all they destroyed in Afganistan were unmanned drones, weapons and installations?
Not sure where the bizarre comments about AI and automating the court process came from... but this just seems like a logical and justifiable extension of the current use of remote attendence at hearings. I'm not sure if it is the same in the US or not, but in the UK at least it is possible for witnesses to give evidence from outside the courtroom by TV in cases where intimidation of the witness is likely - usually in rape or chile abuse cases. The court can see the witness, but the witness can not see, and therefore is less influenced by, the courtroom and especially the defendent.
In your original post you say it's reasonable to expect a country to defend its borders. Does that not then imply that it is up to that country to kept illegal material out and not that everybody else in the world is responsible for not sending objectionable material there.
That's how it works with material goods - if X is illegal in a country then X is seized at the borders. The country's customs/coastguard/etc. is responsible for keeping X out, they don't send a note to the rest of the world saying "X isn't welcome here, please don't send any"
1) By putting information on a website you are not 'dropping it on France'. The French can request it and, until they do, the information is not in France.
2) You say The burden is on the business... to obey the laws of the land where they operate. What does 'operate' mean in your example? If my server is in the US and is obeying US laws, when does it operate in France?
As soon as the server is connected to the internet? As soon as someone in France accesses it? Or never?
And 3) Travelling to another country is different to a webserver. There is only one of you - and you know where you are. Is it reasonable to expect every server owner to know, understand and obey the laws in every country of the world? I don't think it is reasonable.
By NT I meant NT/2K/XP - they're all the same really!
It's probably a minor change for Win9x/WinMe.
I don't know anything about the Flash scripting language - but it is using OS tools to do the actual infection of other files...this makes it less likely to be very cross-platform.
Not this one... it uses cmd.exe (from Windows NT) to write a script for debug (the DOS/Windows so-called debugger). So it looks like it's NT/x86 specific.
The difference is that whistleblowers inform the appropriate authorities. If the company you work for is breaking the law then you tell the police (and are protected) or you can email 35000 people and take your chances.
Slashdot Mirror
AV companies rarely name the virus by the name the virus author wants. This is done so that there is, hopefully, less incentive to write a virus.
War is mearly becoming symbolic.
Only to one side (in this case the US/UK/Etc.).
Having an enormous bomb landing on your village is far from symbolic.
The real test will be when two technologically advanced nations start fighting - I strongly suspect we'll be seeing huge numbers of civilian casualties on each side instead of the 'ideal' where it's just the drones that get destroyed.
When humans fight they want to see real damage to the opposition - would the US be satisified if all they destroyed in Afganistan were unmanned drones, weapons and installations?
Not sure where the bizarre comments about AI and automating the court process came from ... but this just seems like a logical and justifiable extension of the current use of remote attendence at hearings. I'm not sure if it is the same in the US or not, but in the UK at least it is possible for witnesses to give evidence from outside the courtroom by TV in cases where intimidation of the witness is likely - usually in rape or chile abuse cases. The court can see the witness, but the witness can not see, and therefore is less influenced by, the courtroom and especially the defendent.
In your original post you say it's reasonable to expect a country to defend its borders. Does that not then imply that it is up to that country to kept illegal material out and not that everybody else in the world is responsible for not sending objectionable material there.
That's how it works with material goods - if X is illegal in a country then X is seized at the borders. The country's customs/coastguard/etc. is responsible for keeping X out, they don't send a note to the rest of the world saying "X isn't welcome here, please don't send any"
1) By putting information on a website you are not 'dropping it on France'. The French can request it and, until they do, the information is not in France.
... to obey the laws of the land where they operate. What does 'operate' mean in your example? If my server is in the US and is obeying US laws, when does it operate in France?
2) You say The burden is on the business
As soon as the server is connected to the internet? As soon as someone in France accesses it? Or never?
And 3) Travelling to another country is different to a webserver. There is only one of you - and you know where you are. Is it reasonable to expect every server owner to know, understand and obey the laws in every country of the world? I don't think it is reasonable.
because...?
... it's not fraud. Who has lost anything?
There's Winux whcih infects PE and ELF format files on Linux and Windows. Fortunately,according to the description, it doesn't work very well .
Specifically it's about creative.exe
The infoworld article in the update is about something completely different from December 2000
By NT I meant NT/2K/XP - they're all the same really!
It's probably a minor change for Win9x/WinMe.
I don't know anything about the Flash scripting language - but it is using OS tools to do the actual infection of other files...this makes it less likely to be very cross-platform.
Not this one ... it uses cmd.exe (from Windows NT) to write a script for debug (the DOS/Windows so-called debugger). So it looks like it's NT/x86 specific.
McAfee information is here
Looks like it isn't very likely to succeed - it needs Windows NT and the stand alone version of the flash player.
Just proof of concept really.
The difference is that whistleblowers inform the appropriate authorities. If the company you work for is breaking the law then you tell the police (and are protected) or you can email 35000 people and take your chances.
I know it's not Duke Nukem Forever, but what is Duke Nukem Endangered Species?