Yes. In the purest form of DDC, you would need to implement a compiler, an OS to host it, and possibly the hardware to run that OS, from scratch. The saving grace is that it doesn't have to be a very good compiler, or a very fun OS to use, or a very fast computer. As long as it generates correctly compiled code, you can use it to compile your good compiler.
Meanwhile, on your Dell running Red Hat, you compile your good compiler (we'll just say it's GCC) using your existing copy of GCC. Now you've got two second generation compilers. Their internal code should differ drastically, but their output should be identical.
Use each of them to compile GCC once again, and you should have two identical executable blobs.
In a less thorough version of the same exercise, you can just use two compilers that don't share a pedigree, and hence are unlikely to be infected with the same compiler-resident bug. Even in the strict form, however, you "only" have to generate a working compiler, not a highly optimized and highly optimizing compiler.
It's not like it could be a weekend project for me, but it also doesn't mean duplicating 20 years of development work. You still end up with GCC (or whatever), and you add the ability to trust your code at the price of developing a compiler.
Last I checked, there was a bit of code (something to do with rendering graphics, I think) that didn't want to compile as position-independent code. They fixed it so it could on 64 bit, but said it would take too many registers and thus hurt performance on x86 32 bit. I was pleased with performance before they made that change. While I'm happy about any improvement, since they made the change the whole program been incompatible with my (hardened) system.
I know it's kind of a long shot, but does anyone happen to know if Google has introduced a toggle for those of us who would like to compile with low-performance PIE, or of a third party patch to do this?
There's a lot of nitpicking about what is or is not technically a virus. The common use is to mean any piece of software that is malicious, but I assume you want something specifically benign. So, that leaves the question of what "type of virus" you want to emulate.
I saw someone mention demonstrating the autorun feature with a program that installs itself and sets autorun. This could give an opportunity to demonstrate how to delist such processes from the startup routine.
Do you want something that spreads? That could be thin ice, as well as being more difficult to do yourself, since it would need to take advantage of a vulnerability or misconfiguration.
You might find something they'll enjoy, like a game, and piggyback a do-nothing "trojan" with it. Give it to a kid you can count on to play it during class, as well as share it with his friends, and tell him not to play it during class. The payload of the trojan should execute during class a few days later. Maybe just pop up a dialogue every 30 seconds indicating the "infected" state, or maybe something with a little more pizazz,like setting a jolly roger desktop background. Then (after making a note of who ended up "infected") you can start the lesson on security, trusting executables, autorun, startup processes, etc.
The kids might (or might not) think you're cool because you wrote a virus, but as has been mentioned, higher ups might not. I would keep the phrase "It's not really a virus" on my lips the whole day.
If your friend was in a situation with cops that seemed that serious, and he was shouting and trying to pull something out of his pocket, your friend was being stupid.
Yeah, the police should have had their records straight. Yeah, they might have been too quick to use brute force. But at the point they're looking at what they think are a couple of car thieves who are being loud and appear to be trying to draw weapons, you can expect someone to get fucked up.
There are plenty of stories about abusive cops. That isn't one.
I'm not sure where you get sirens. If you mean the lights, I don't see those, either. Upon closer inspection, I do see the seal on the door of a car behind him, with another trooper getting out.
The motorcyclist looks back just before that on the ramp, and I can't see any lights or marked cars. Presumably he didn't either.
You raise a good point, though. It's muted right up until the end for some reason, and could obviously be cooked.
I saw another good point floating around: The cop only momentarily had his weapon out, when the bike was rolling back, and it probably looked like the guy was about to bolt. It still amounts to a few moments when the only information the guy appears to have is that there is a stranger yelling at him to get off his bike, and the stranger has a gun.
I saw the video. The cop is in an unmarked car and plain clothes. He pulls up past the motorcycle while it's stopped at an exit, veers in front of it, stops, and gets out with a gun drawn, saying, "Get off the motorcycle. Get off the motorcycle! Get off the motorcycle. State police."
So what if this guy had been exercising the second amendment, and happened to be an overconfident quick-draw artist, and got "lucky" enough to shoot first?
Right up until he says "State police," it doesn't look like a traffic stop to me. It looks like a crime in progress. Even then, pretty much anyone can say "police". He could at least flash a badge. The video did cut off right there, but that was more than enough time for something bad to happen.
Yes, I'm sure he'll see reason, now.
I think you're right (possibly excepting the exact definition of "fascism"), but damn.
It's one thing if your doctor tells you you have a somewhat uncommon infection with a lengthy name, and prescribes an expensive treatment, when you actually have a cold and just need rest.
It's another if he tells you your bill will be higher because he wouldn't use anything of lower quality than a ruby encrusted stethoscope and sterling silver one time use tongue depressors.
OK, yeah, if you're cool you'll clue in anyone about to do something stupid, but at some point you've pretty well got a right to laugh at them, too.
Actually, it sounds like he's living in my world. I have that conversation with my girlfriend about twice a week.
The scenario you lay out does have a happy ending. Within a week, the problem solves itself. Specifically, the current problem leaves you for Ronaldo. Then you just have to work out the more long term problem of how you ended up dating bitch-face to begin with, and how to avoid it in the future.
This is all fine and good...
Um
Only through hard work and perseverance can one truly suffer.