The fact remains
Dr.zara
Jim Lee Jr.
"Dr.zara" <drzs...@sunnet.net> wrote:
> No VISTA viruses in the wild. Spin, Mac users, spin.
At least yet. Give the script kiddies a chance. Spin, Wintwinks, spin.
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8
-hh
> No VISTA viruses in the wild. Spin, maccies, spin.
Gosh, as per the Wintroll's classical "Market Share" arguement, there
shouldn't be any malware...yet.
And this is at least the second time that Zara has been reminded of
this "inconvenient truth" that counters his trolling. Here's the last
time, complete with its "Put Up or Shut Up" challenge :
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/
6cbb4805edc66146?&hl=en>
Gosh, you didn't reply last time, even though your credibility takes a
hit by ignoring responses on threads with which you're the OP.
Shame, shame...
So....what Vista marketshare value are you going to commit to going on
record at?
Since you're effectively trying to claim that Vista is bulletproof and
will never be cracked, that means that you're effectively declairing a
market share equivalent to XP's current share...for round numbers,
90%.
If you're not comfortable with such a high value, all you have to do
is to say what number you're signing up to in lieu of 90%. Otherwise,
your silence equals your consent to 90% market share.
Assuming, of course, that Vista ever makes it that far.
-hh
--
<http://www.mac-essentials.de/stuff/iphone_readymech.pdf>
Dr.zara
"-hh" <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1171575858....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
WTF are you trying to say? Spit it out, in plain English. BTW: the link
you gave me doesn't work
-hh
> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
That your troll has been contradicted by your own arguements, IE:
"Gosh, as per the Wintroll's classical "Market Share" arguement, there
shouldn't be any malware...yet."
Plus, the last time you tried this troll (back in late December), you
were taken to task to *predict* the marketshare at which Vista falls -
- but chose to slink away.
To solve the latter from happening again, I've set your default value
at 90% market share until you change it.
> Spit it out, in plain English.
If Vista has any malware hits before the above 90%(*) value, you are
screwed, blued and tatooed.
(*) - subject to you volunteering a different value, which you were
originally invited to do back in December.
> BTW: the link you gave me doesn't work
Oh, it works just fine. However, if you're having any problems, it
would be because your newsreader failed to impliment the standard
convention of "<URL>". This flaw is common in sucky newsreaders, such
as MS-Outlook.
Here, poor MsBoy, this URL will work for you:
-hh
--
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Dr.zara
All I know is - No VISTA viruses, in the wild. None. And there never will
be. Huff and puff all you like. It was true in Dec, and it's true now. And
there are more VISTA OS's running than all mac operating systems put
together.
Dr.zara
words you have been attributing to me are not mine - either you know that
and are a plain liar - or you're just plain stupid.
NRen2k5
LMAO! Dumbfuck! Make up your mind! Is it a standard, or a convention!
It's a convention - which doesn't need to be followed, and not following
it isn't a flaw!
-hh
>
>
> All I know is - No VISTA viruses, in the wild. None. And there never will
> be.
That's all that I was waiting to hear: thank you!
> Huff and puff all you like. It was true in Dec, and it's true now.
Personally, I'm not surprised that it hasn't happened yet. Afterall,
consumer Vista has been out in the wild for less than a month. I just
merely doubt that MS is going to be successful in retaining a perfect
track record, even though your faith in their infallability is greater
than what MS representatives have themselves said.
Of course, because your claims are worth nothing, I don't really care
all that much what you say. Perhaps you could develop some non-zero
credibility if you were willing to back what you say with something
more worrthwhile. Such as being willing to bet real cash on the
truthfulness of your claim.
I'm willing to bet $1 per 1% marketshare percentage point - are you
willing to match this? Or go to $5 per?
The way it works is very simple: the "pot" starts with our full
amounts, held in escrow; we each get an endpoints (me: 0%, you: 100%),
and then the "Payoff Value" changes by the increment for each
marketshare percentage point.
Thus, for a $1 per 1% marketshare percentage point:
- your pot starts at $100, declines to $99 at 1% share, $98 at 2%
share, etc... declines to $0
- my pot starts at $0, grows to $1 at 1%, $2 at 2%, etc....and grows
to $100.
Obviously, the pot values are exactly equal ($50) at 50% marketshare.
Whatever the Market Share is when the Malware is found, that's when
the bet ends, which determines who lost and what the Payoff amount is
to be.
Now you can either put your money where your mouth is to build some
credibility, or you can avoid doing so, which will destroy some more
of your credibility. No skin off my teeth as to which you choose to
do, since I'm confidient that you're not going to win the bet.
-hh
-hh
>
> LMAO! Dumbfuck! Make up your mind! Is it a standard, or a convention!
It was formalized in 1998 in RFC 2396 - Uniform Resource Identifiers
(URI): Generic Syntax
<http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt>
Current versions are here:
<http://www.gbiv.com/protocols/uri/rfc/rfc3986.html>
<http://www.w3.org/Addressing/URL/5.1_Wrappers.html>
It is now also recommended by the MLA for non-softcopy reports in the
English Language:
<http://www.mla.org/style/style_faq/style_faq5>
Plus it has been adopted in various markdown syntaxs:
<http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/syntax#autolink>
Quite simply, enclosing URLs that could wrap across lines in angle
brackets enables application clients to recognize the entire word-wrap
broken string as a single URL and to make it clickable. The need for
the application client to do this is because it was this same client
that "broke" the URL in the first place by introducing word-wrap. As
such, the root cause is a defective word-wrap implimentation.
-hh
Dr.zara
Much too convuloted for me. Can you dream up something a little more
simple? Something like "I'll bet you $1000 that it will"?. Or " I'll bet
you $1,000,000?
>
> Now you can either put your money where your mouth is to build some
> credibility, or you can avoid doing so, which will destroy some more
> of your credibility. No skin off my teeth as to which you choose to
> do, since I'm confidient that you're not going to win the bet.
Do we use the same criteria as mac users? By criteria, I mean, can I use
some of the thousand excuses that you use, to excuse mac viruses?
-hh
>
> >> All I know is - No VISTA viruses, in the wild. None. And there never
> >> will be.
>
> > That's all that I was waiting to hear: thank you!
> > I'm willing to bet $1 per 1% marketshare percentage point - are you
> > willing to match this? Or go to $5 per?
> Much too convuloted for me. Can you dream up something a little more
> simple? Something like "I'll bet you $1000 that it will"?. Or " I'll bet
> you $1,000,000?
Sure, I can go simpler. Problem is that if you want to make it for
"real" money, I'll have to insist that the money be held in escrow by
a trusted third party.
I have a lawyer friend who would be willing to hold the money in
escrow, but he will want to receive some form of 'compensation'; he
probably be willing to do it for a reasonable donation to his local
charity.
Besides the actual cash amount that you're willing to risk, there's
also the question of what forms of malware do / do not "count", who
decides that, and a couple of other factors. If you want any chance
to earn some of my money, you'll have to lay these out in a proposal
for me to review, comment on, etc. I'm gonig to be busy next week, so
consider 1 March 07 to be your deadline.
-hh
Dr.zara
Yeah - I'm going to lay awake nights figuring it all out. Why don't you
hold your breath until I do. Cute sidestep though.
-hh
> > also the question of what forms of malware do / do not "count", who
> > decides that, and a couple of other factors. If you want any chance
> > to earn some of my money, you'll have to lay these out in a proposal
> > for me to review, comment on, etc. I'm gonig to be busy next week, so
> > consider 1 March 07 to be your deadline.
>
> Yeah - I'm going to lay awake nights figuring it all out. Why don't you
> hold your breath until I do. Cute sidestep though.
I'm not sidestepping at all: I've merely seen too many assholes
weasel out of bet offers.
Here, I've displayed nothing but willingness to lock down the
specifics into a firm contract.
And you've run away like the scalded polecat that you are.
Bye-bye. I'll be "suffering" in Spain next week.
-hh
George Graves
"Dr.zara" <drzs...@sunnet.net> wrote:
I doubt seriously if you know anything.
>And there never will
> be. Huff and puff all you like. It was true in Dec, and it's true now. And
> there are more VISTA OS's running than all mac operating systems put
> together.
Stewing in your own WinScum juices I see.
--
George Graves
Usenet is such a hostile place. Why would anyone want to go there?
Snit
gmgraves-FB6721...@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 2/16/07 6:49 PM:
>>> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
>>
>> All I know is - No VISTA viruses, in the wild. None.
>
> I doubt seriously if you know anything.
Have there been any reliable reports showing any? Not that I know of, but I
have not done much research on it.
--
€ OS X is partially based on BSD (esp. FreeBSD)
€ OS X users are at far less risk of malware then are XP users
€ Photoshop is an image editing application
Mitch
<nom...@email.com> wrote:
If you check, you'll find that the word 'standard' can be used that way
quite properly.
Not sure why you attack people for such a simple and normal usage.
Dr.zara
yeah -dance away-
-hh
> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171672301.8...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > "Dr.zara" <zarasp...@spoof.net> wrote:
> >> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Besides the actual cash amount that you're willing to risk, there's
> >> > also the question of what forms of malware do / do not "count", who
> >> > decides that, and a couple of other factors. If you want any chance
> >> > to earn some of my money, you'll have to lay these out in a proposal
> >> > for me to review, comment on, etc. I'm gonig to be busy next week, so
> >> > consider 1 March 07 to be your deadline.
>
> >> Yeah - I'm going to lay awake nights figuring it all out. Why don't you
> >> hold your breath until I do. Cute sidestep though.
>
> > I'm not sidestepping at all: I've merely seen too many assholes
> > weasel out of bet offers.
>
> > Here, I've displayed nothing but willingness to lock down the
> > specifics into a firm contract.
>
> > And you've run away like the scalded polecat that you are.
>
hardly. You have until 3/1
Dr.zara
No - it's your idea, you make the proposal - if I like it, then it's a go.
Maybe some others here would like to get in on a good thing. My bet, you
will keep side stepping indefinitely. Like I said, dance away.
-hh
>
> No - it's your idea, you make the proposal - if I like it, then it's a go.
I did make a proposal. You rejected it as too complex and made a
counter-offer.
Firm it up and its still a go: the only problem I have with your
counter was that it wasn't iron-bound, so you could weasle out of
paying.
> Maybe some others here would like to get in on a good thing.
Damn straight. Anyone else willing to side up on the same claim as
Zara's?
-hh
Tim Murray
> BTW: the link you gave me doesn't work
Ah, but of course, Outlook Express 6. In Hogwasher for the Mac, I just hold
the Command key and click the link. Perhaps something in Vista can deal with
a URL.
Tim Murray
I'll lay down $100 zara never steps up to the plate.
Tim Murray
> NRen2k5 <nom...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> LMAO! Dumbfuck! Make up your mind! Is it a standard, or a convention!
>
>
> It was formalized in 1998 in RFC 2396 - Uniform Resource Identifiers
> (URI): Generic Syntax
LOL. I love it when loud-mouths are calmly countered with links to top-notch
resources. Good work, hh.
Dr.zara
> "Dr.zara" <zarasp...@spoof.net> wrote:
>> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> > hardly. You have until 3/1
>>
>> No - it's your idea, you make the proposal - if I like it, then it's a
>> go.
>
> I did make a proposal. You rejected it as too complex and made a
> counter-offer.
>
> Firm it up and its still a go:
> the only problem I have with your
> counter was that it wasn't iron-bound, so you could weasle out of
> paying.
Surprise - another sidestep.
Streamline your proposal into something intelligable (simple) and we can
move on. But you will sidestep again, as you just proved. If you don't
come up with somethig solid, I'm just going to move on. I can't waste
anymore time here with a bore like you. BTW - do you have two nickles to
rub together? Or are you just blowing smoke up your own ass?
>> Maybe some others here would like to get in on a good thing.
>
> Damn straight. Anyone else willing to side up on the same claim as
> Zara's?
They don't know the "terms" of the bet either. No one does. Come up with
something - or Fuck off.
PS: try not to edit my responses - it only muddies up the waters.
Dr.zara
"Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C1FD459A...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
I wont have to - he's not going to come up with anything solid - only smoke.
The guy is a real Eel. But we can probably do something different.
-hh
> > counter-offer.
>
> > Firm it up and its still a go:
> > the only problem I have with your
> > counter was that it wasn't iron-bound, so you could weasle out of
> > paying.
>
> Surprise - another sidestep.
>
> Streamline your proposal into something intelligable (simple) and we can
> move on.
Here's the "simple" sumary for you:
The bet is for $1000.
You send $1000 to me today, and I'll hold the money for the duration
of the wager. This is fair because I have a 100% perfect track record
of paying my bets and:
- in order for you to win, Vista needs to suffer zero Malwares
forever.
What this means is that you, "Zara", will have to wait until the end
of time before you can claim that you've won, which means that you can
no chance of ever winning your bet. Regardless of how small my
chances of winning are, they're not literally zero like yours is,
which means that I will eventually win the bet. Which all means that
you've already lost the bet.
In intelligable (simple) terms, you've already lost, so pay up.
I accept Money Orders, Cash and Paypal.
-hh
Dr.zara
OK - post your address.
Jim Lee Jr.
"Dr.zara" <zara...@spoof.net> wrote:
> Streamline your proposal into something intelligable (simple) and we can
> move on. But you will sidestep again, as you just proved. If you don't
> come up with somethig solid, I'm just going to move on. I can't waste
> anymore time here with a bore like you. BTW - do you have two nickles to
> rub together? Or are you just blowing smoke up your own ass?
You misspelled "nickel" and "intelligible."
> They don't know the "terms" of the bet either. No one does. Come up with
> something, or fuck off.
>
> PS: try not to edit my responses, it only muddies up the waters.
I just edited your responses, will it give you hissy fits, twink?
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.8
Dr.zara
"Jim Lee Jr." <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:peejster01-EDA58...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
TSTA.
-hh
The address that I'm posting from is a valid one: "recscuba_google
(at) huntzinger.com"
Simply send me an email to that address (obviously, from a non-spoofed
email address on your part) and I'll reply privately to finalize your
arrangements for your debt payment.
-hh
Dr.zara
Done.
Peter Hayes
> No VISTA viruses in the wild. Spin, maccies, spin.
Any virus writer will wait until Vista has a viable market share so his
efforts will propogate. At the moment a Vista virus will be a poor
lonely thing with no new hosts to infect.
At the current Vista takeup rate it'll be several years before the
tipping point is reached.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Dr.zara
"Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1hts8ly.1l8mwpl1uwcigN%noti...@btinternet.com...
> Dr.zara <drzs...@sunnet.net> wrote:
>
>> No VISTA viruses in the wild. Spin, maccies, spin.
>
> Any virus writer will wait until Vista has a viable market share so his
> efforts will propogate. At the moment a Vista virus will be a poor
> lonely thing with no new hosts to infect.
>
> At the current Vista takeup rate it'll be several years before the
> tipping point is reached.
there are more copies of VISTA in circulation now - than all of OS X put
together.
Peter Hayes
George Graves
Mitch
Hayes <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >> No VISTA viruses in the wild. Spin, maccies, spin.
> > >
> > > Any virus writer will wait until Vista has a viable market share so his
> > > efforts will propogate. At the moment a Vista virus will be a poor
> > > lonely thing with no new hosts to infect.
> > >
> > > At the current Vista takeup rate it'll be several years before the
> > > tipping point is reached.
> >
> > there are more copies of VISTA in circulation now - than all of OS X put
> > together.
>
> So?
I think the implication was meant to suggest that virus writers would
never bother with Mac OS (assuming they could).
I still don't have any idea why that isn't taken as a major advantage.
It sure seems like a strong reason to buy Mac to me.
Peter Hayes
> In article <1htsm23.nzlugqwxlga3N%noti...@btinternet.com>, Peter
> Hayes <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> No VISTA viruses in the wild. Spin, maccies, spin.
> > > >
> > > > Any virus writer will wait until Vista has a viable market share so his
> > > > efforts will propogate. At the moment a Vista virus will be a poor
> > > > lonely thing with no new hosts to infect.
> > > >
> > > > At the current Vista takeup rate it'll be several years before the
> > > > tipping point is reached.
> > >
> > > there are more copies of VISTA in circulation now - than all of OS X put
> > > together.
> >
> > So?
>
> I think the implication was meant to suggest that virus writers would
> never bother with Mac OS (assuming they could).
Yes, although I was hoping Zara would address the proposition that virus
writers were biding their time until a viable propogation environment
was in place. That environment will take a few months assuming Vista
flies off the shelves, but since all reports suggest this is very far
from being the case it will be a year or more before it comes about.
> I still don't have any idea why that isn't taken as a major advantage.
> It sure seems like a strong reason to buy Mac to me.
Indeed.
Other than the philosophical objections to "closed" architectures that
the Linux folks have, there seems no reason why anyone would persist
with Windows when an excellent alternative exists.
Mitch
Hayes <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > I think the implication was meant to suggest that virus writers would
> > never bother with Mac OS (assuming they could).
>
> Yes, although I was hoping Zara would address the proposition that virus
> writers were biding their time until a viable propogation environment
> was in place. That environment will take a few months assuming Vista
> flies off the shelves, but since all reports suggest this is very far
> from being the case it will be a year or more before it comes about.
If that had any real necessity at all. I don't see why people assume
every single threat from before can't work -- some might still be
effective.
> > I still don't have any idea why that isn't taken as a major advantage.
> > It sure seems like a strong reason to buy Mac to me.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Other than the philosophical objections to "closed" architectures that
> the Linux folks have, there seems no reason why anyone would persist
> with Windows when an excellent alternative exists.
Psychological inertia is a strong force, and in this case it also
requires knowing that the alternative is practical by learning about
it. Since research is not something consumers like to do, alternatives
have to grow slowly.
There is no way for growth to happen much faster, if Windows does "well
enough" to work. Few care to do the effort to learn what the
alternatives are like.
Peter Hayes
> In article <1httu2n.81ikg3uhjgmdN%noti...@btinternet.com>, Peter
> Hayes <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think the implication was meant to suggest that virus writers would
> > > never bother with Mac OS (assuming they could).
> >
> > Yes, although I was hoping Zara would address the proposition that virus
> > writers were biding their time until a viable propogation environment
> > was in place. That environment will take a few months assuming Vista
> > flies off the shelves, but since all reports suggest this is very far
> > from being the case it will be a year or more before it comes about.
>
> If that had any real necessity at all. I don't see why people assume
> every single threat from before can't work -- some might still be
> effective.
Yes, you're right. I made the false assumption that Microsoft had closed
off all current exploits.
> > > I still don't have any idea why that isn't taken as a major advantage.
> > > It sure seems like a strong reason to buy Mac to me.
> >
> > Indeed.
> >
> > Other than the philosophical objections to "closed" architectures that
> > the Linux folks have, there seems no reason why anyone would persist
> > with Windows when an excellent alternative exists.
>
> Psychological inertia is a strong force, and in this case it also
> requires knowing that the alternative is practical by learning about
> it. Since research is not something consumers like to do, alternatives
> have to grow slowly.
Microsoft have managed to dumb down Joe Public to the point that most
don't even know alternatives exist, much less know what questions to
ask, witness the Hitachi/BeOS fiasco which wasn't about preserving
Microsoft's "corporate image" but had everything to do with ensuring few
ever realised alternatives exist.
> There is no way for growth to happen much faster, if Windows does "well
> enough" to work. Few care to do the effort to learn what the
> alternatives are like.
And upon such laziness are empires built.