"Net Threat Rising" says CR, zara claims otherwise
Jim Polaski
First,
"Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
" In order to understand the effects of online computer viruses and
spyware, Consumer Reports carried out an extensive survey across 3,200
US households.
Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
cent of Windows PC users."
Protection is not enough
The report also informs that over $9 billion has been spent in the past
two years fixing problems caused by such bad software bugs. This
reflects badly on the $2.6 billion US consumers spent on software to
protect themselves when online. The report also looks at the various
risks of spam and fraudulent emails."
more in the article
and the original at CR
"Use the Internet at home and you have a 1-in-3 chance of suffering
computer damage, financial loss, or both because of a computer virus or
spyware that sneaks onto your computer. That零 one of the unsettling
conclusions from our 2005 Consumer Reports State of the Net survey of
online consumers.
What else did we discover? Although American consumers invested more
than $2.6 billion in protection software over the past two years, they
still spent more than $9 billion for computer repairs, parts, and
replacement to solve problems caused by viruses and spyware. Those
problems were so extensive and so serious that they prompted almost 8
percent of all computer purchases by consumers during 2003 and 2004."
More in this article as well.
But it more or less, more actually, trashes the zara-troll's notion that
malware is no longer an issue for Windows, especially when, in spite of
utilities and AV wares, still spent $9 BILLION for repairs caused by
*viruses and spyware*.
Once again, the zara-troll goes down in flames. Flames. Poof!
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Mayor of R'lyeh
<jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>in an earlier thread.
>
>First,
>
>"Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
>
>http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
>
>" In order to understand the effects of online computer viruses and
>spyware, Consumer Reports carried out an extensive survey across 3,200
>US households.
>
>Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
>are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
>Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
>compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
>users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
>cent of Windows PC users."
This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
>Protection is not enough
>
>The report also informs that over $9 billion has been spent in the past
>two years fixing problems caused by such bad software bugs. This
>reflects badly on the $2.6 billion US consumers spent on software to
>protect themselves when online. The report also looks at the various
>risks of spam and fraudulent emails."
>
>more in the article
>
>
>and the original at CR
>
>http://tinyurl.com/czsf9
>
>"Use the Internet at home and you have a 1-in-3 chance of suffering
>computer damage, financial loss, or both because of a computer virus or
>spyware that sneaks onto your computer. That¹s one of the unsettling
>conclusions from our 2005 Consumer Reports State of the Net survey of
>online consumers.
>
>What else did we discover? Although American consumers invested more
>than $2.6 billion in protection software over the past two years, they
>still spent more than $9 billion for computer repairs, parts, and
>replacement to solve problems caused by viruses and spyware. Those
>problems were so extensive and so serious that they prompted almost 8
>percent of all computer purchases by consumers during 2003 and 2004."
>
>More in this article as well.
>
>But it more or less, more actually, trashes the zara-troll's notion that
>malware is no longer an issue for Windows, especially when, in spite of
>utilities and AV wares, still spent $9 BILLION for repairs caused by
>*viruses and spyware*.
>
>Once again, the zara-troll goes down in flames. Flames. Poof!
As does every Maccie who claims that there's no Mac viuses in the
wild.
--
Everyone should know that most cancer research is
largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research
organizations are derelict in their duties to the
people who support them.
Linus Pauling
TravelinMan
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:42:53 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >in an earlier thread.
> >
> >First,
> >
> >"Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
> >
> >http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
> >
> >" In order to understand the effects of online computer viruses and
> >spyware, Consumer Reports carried out an extensive survey across 3,200
> >US households.
> >
> >Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
> >are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
> >Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
> >compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
> >users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
> >cent of Windows PC users."
>
>
> This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
> bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
> every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
> likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
> declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
>
Well, there are many thousands of known PC viruses costing businesses tens of billions of dollars of damage
annually.
There are zero known OS X viruses in the wild.
Do the math.
Mayor of R'lyeh
So you're going with 'totally ignoringthe article'.
C Lund
Jim Polaski <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> quoted:
> "Macs
> are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
> Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
> compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
> users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
> cent of Windows PC users."
Hmm.. Anybody thinks the viruses and spyware detected on Macs were
either on OS 9 or on infected files received from PC owners?
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
TravelinMan
No, I'm going with "the readers must be mistaken on what constitutes
malware because 8% of them claim to see something that doesn't exist on
the Mac." That doesn't, of course, change the fact that malware remains
a serious problem with Windows, but not with Macs.
zara
"Yuri" <yu...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:1h1eskl.1l0hpi91klkhkaN%yu...@mailinator.com...
>C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
>> Hmm.. Anybody thinks the viruses and spyware detected on Macs were
>> either on OS 9 or on infected files received from PC owners?
>
>
> It did nothing, as it was really a System 6 virus that had lost most of
> its functionality on System 7 and higher.
>
> I'd be very interested to know which viruses were detected by that 20%
> of Mac owners, and how.
>
> My guess is that they were referring to PC viruses spread via email,
> which of course are inactive on the Mac - or they simply didn't know an
> application's bug from a virus.
Interesting spin.
Lars Träger
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:42:53 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >in an earlier thread.
> >
> >First,
> >
> >"Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
> >
> >http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
> >
> >" In order to understand the effects of online computer viruses and
> >spyware, Consumer Reports carried out an extensive survey across 3,200
> >US households.
> >
> >Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
> >are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
> >Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
> >compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
> >users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
> >cent of Windows PC users."
>
>
> This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
> bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
> every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
> likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
> declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
It doesn't say "infected", but "detected". That includes false alarms
AND the detection of PC viruses (which most Mac Anti Vir apps check
for).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/10/symantec_mac_false_alarm/
Badabing, many Mac users have "detected" "Hacktool.Underhand", but that
wasn't even there (and is not a virus anyway).
Lars T.
Jim Lee Jr.
Mr Ed Of Course
Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
> >Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
> >are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
> >Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
> >compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
> >users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
> >cent of Windows PC users."
>
>
> This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
> bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
> every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
> likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
> declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
Ok, I'll bite...
I think the article is bullshit (and I also think CR is often bullshit.
Those numbers are totally unqualified and make no sense however you
could possibly define them.
Suppose they're talking about "detecting" an infected file. I would
think that Mac users and Windows receive roughly the same amound of
infectious waste, but I could see how only 20% of Mac users would
actually identify it as a virus ...however if this is the definition,
then how could only 66% of Windows have identified receiving infected
files? Seeing how I can't go 5 minutes without receiving infectious
waste, it would seem to me that under this definition 34% of Windows
users couldn't identify a single piece of infected waste as such during
a 2 year span. That's BS.
If this is for people actually reporting having infected computers,
then I don't see how 20% of Mac users could be reporting this if there
are no known OS X viruses and pre-OS X viruses are extremely rare...and
yes 66% over 2 years does seem high for actual infections of PCs too.
ZnU
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:42:53 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >in an earlier thread.
> >
> >First,
> >
> >"Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
> >
> >http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
> >
> >" In order to understand the effects of online computer viruses and
> >spyware, Consumer Reports carried out an extensive survey across 3,200
> >US households.
> >
> >Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
> >are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
> >Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
> >compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
> >users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
> >cent of Windows PC users."
>
>
> This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
> bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
> every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
> likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
> declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
The article uses poor methodology. Asking people about this stuff is
going to be horribly inaccurate. I get the "Do you think it could be a
virus?" question a few times a week from family and friends, and it
usually isn't (and never on the Mac, of course). Moreover, the question
was apparently asked about detection vs. infection. I've detected
thousands of viruses in the last year, and I don't even use antivirus
software -- they were all Windows worms sent to various e-mail
addresses, of course.
It's hard to think of a reliable way to find out actual information
about infection rate. All we know is that it's zero on the Mac -- since
there aren't any viruses -- and it's not zero on Windows. In my
experience, a very large fraction of casual Windows users get hit *hard*
by malware, but that's anecdotal.
Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers. Their satisfaction
surveys and the like are probably accurate enough (since those work the
same way for computers as for anything else), but I wouldn't put too
much stock in the rest of it.
[snip]
--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
Belphegor
zara wrote:
<snip>
oh zara, I just wish you had something to SAY but you never deliver...
that makes me sad.
Please fill the following space with something about 'why quantity does
not always match quality' in MORE than two sentences that would get at
least get a 'D' in fourth grade:
Josh McKee
wrote:
In other words you're going with:
"Of course the most likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus
findings while declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel."
Josh
Josh McKee
And despite repeatedly making this statement as to how much Windows is
costing your company you continue to empower your users to use it.
Josh
Josh McKee
wrote:
>
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>[snip]
>> >Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
>> >are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
>> >Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
>> >compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
>> >users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
>> >cent of Windows PC users."
>>
>>
>> This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
>> bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
>> every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
>> likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
>> declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
>[snip]
>
>Ok, I'll bite...
>
>I think the article is bullshit (and I also think CR is often bullshit.
> Those numbers are totally unqualified and make no sense however you
>could possibly define them.
Mayor has a second win under his belt.
Josh
Josh McKee
>In article <fah4g11pv6q5pre60...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:42:53 -0500, Jim Polaski
>> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >in an earlier thread.
>> >
>> >First,
>> >
>> >"Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
>> >
>> >http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
>> >
>> >" In order to understand the effects of online computer viruses and
>> >spyware, Consumer Reports carried out an extensive survey across 3,200
>> >US households.
>> >
>> >Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
>> >are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
>> >Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
>> >compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
>> >users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
>> >cent of Windows PC users."
>>
>>
>> This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
>> bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
>> every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
>> likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
>> declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
>
>The article uses poor methodology.
And here's another victory for the Mayor.
>Asking people about this stuff is going to be horribly inaccurate. I get
>the "Do you think it could be a
>virus?" question a few times a week from family and friends, and it
>usually isn't (and never on the Mac, of course). Moreover, the question
>was apparently asked about detection vs. infection. I've detected
>thousands of viruses in the last year, and I don't even use antivirus
>software -- they were all Windows worms sent to various e-mail
>addresses, of course.
>
>It's hard to think of a reliable way to find out actual information
>about infection rate. All we know is that it's zero on the Mac -- since
>there aren't any viruses -- and it's not zero on Windows. In my
>experience, a very large fraction of casual Windows users get hit *hard*
>by malware, but that's anecdotal.
>
>Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers.
And yet when they showed that Apple products rated at the top with
consumers the Mac zealots worshipped them.
Josh
zara
"Belphegor" <hue...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124233762.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quality is more times, perception, rather than reality.
What would you rather - a million dollars in CASH, or $100,000 in gold? The
Gold being a more "Quality" item than the paper.
>
Mike Dee
news:hAsMe.19179$Rm3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
>> My guess is that they were referring to PC viruses spread via
>> email, which of course are inactive on the Mac - or they simply
>> didn't know an application's bug from a virus.
>
> Interesting spin.
No spin there, email sent to my Mac can often contain viruses from
infected PC's... not much they can do at that point. There are no Mac
viruses AFAIK.
--
dee
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
Why don't you respond to my argument?
> >Asking people about this stuff is going to be horribly inaccurate. I
> >get the "Do you think it could be a virus?" question a few times a
> >week from family and friends, and it usually isn't (and never on the
> >Mac, of course). Moreover, the question was apparently asked about
> >detection vs. infection. I've detected thousands of viruses in the
> >last year, and I don't even use antivirus software -- they were all
> >Windows worms sent to various e-mail addresses, of course.
> >
> >It's hard to think of a reliable way to find out actual information
> >about infection rate. All we know is that it's zero on the Mac -- since
> >there aren't any viruses -- and it's not zero on Windows. In my
> >experience, a very large fraction of casual Windows users get hit *hard*
> >by malware, but that's anecdotal.
> >
> >Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers.
>
> And yet when they showed that Apple products rated at the top with
> consumers the Mac zealots worshipped them.
I see you snipped my explanation.
Josh McKee
Sorry, didn't think it was relevant. Here's the whole thing:
"Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers. Their satisfaction
surveys and the like are probably accurate enough (since those work
the same way for computers as for anything else), but I wouldn't put
too much stock in the rest of it."
Just goes to show the Mac zealot hypocrisy. When it favors the Mac
it's good. When it doesn't, it's bad.
Josh
Belphegor
You failed, spectacularly! F!
Not a single coherent sentence.
Even if you applied the most lenient interpretation to your gibberish,
everybody knows that 'gold' is just as much a commodity as currency.
Have you thought about investing into quality with your hypothetical $?
Have you thought about inflation or the fluctuation of commodities
against the dollar or real estate?
Neither Gold, nor money, is inherent of quality.
If quantity of either increases the value goes down respectively. It is
what you do with it that matters.
But I see you tried :)
Tom Bates
"zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
If I had $1Million in CASH, I could buy $100,000 in GOLD and still have
$900,000 in cash left over to do something else with, like invest.
Now, had I put that $900,000 in Apple in 1997, I'd have bought some
53,000 shares then and if I still held them today I'd have 212,000
shares today since it has split 2:1 twice. So today I'd have $ 9,800,000
more or less.
--
Yours,
Tom
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
You still haven't addressed my argument. You seem to think if you call
someone a "Mac zealot" you don't have to bother with, you know, actual
debate.
Mayor of R'lyeh
LOL! But only for the Mac side, right?
> I get the "Do you think it could be a
>virus?" question a few times a week from family and friends, and it
>usually isn't (and never on the Mac, of course). Moreover, the question
>was apparently asked about detection vs. infection. I've detected
>thousands of viruses in the last year, and I don't even use antivirus
>software -- they were all Windows worms sent to various e-mail
>addresses, of course.
>
>It's hard to think of a reliable way to find out actual information
>about infection rate. All we know is that it's zero on the Mac -- since
>there aren't any viruses -- and it's not zero on Windows. In my
>experience, a very large fraction of casual Windows users get hit *hard*
>by malware, but that's anecdotal.
So its a 'nuanced' denouncement of the Mac results and proclamation
that the PC side is Gospel, then?
>
>Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers. Their satisfaction
>surveys and the like are probably accurate enough
What Znu wrote:
>(since those work the same way for computers as for anything else),
What ZnU meant:
(since those tend to favor the Mac they're undoubtedly true unlike
this report which doesn't favor the Mac which means its false)
> but I wouldn't put too much stock in the rest of it.
>
>[snip]
Its from CR. The only question is - Who bought and paid for these
results?
ZnU
No, the methodology is just bad. If the Windows number has any
relationship to reality, it's probably just coincidence. They're asking
the wrong question (about detection vs. infection), and their results
don't even make sense in that context.
I suspect the actual rate of detection for viruses (note: not infection)
is near 100% on both platforms if one defines detection as "being aware
that a virus is present". Everyone gets virus-ridden e-mail
occasionally, and you can "detect" one of those without even having
antivirus software.
This tells us absolutely nothing useful about the *infection* rate,
which is what we're actually interested in.
> > I get the "Do you think it could be a
> >virus?" question a few times a week from family and friends, and it
> >usually isn't (and never on the Mac, of course). Moreover, the question
> >was apparently asked about detection vs. infection. I've detected
> >thousands of viruses in the last year, and I don't even use antivirus
> >software -- they were all Windows worms sent to various e-mail
> >addresses, of course.
> >
> >It's hard to think of a reliable way to find out actual information
> >about infection rate. All we know is that it's zero on the Mac -- since
> >there aren't any viruses -- and it's not zero on Windows. In my
> >experience, a very large fraction of casual Windows users get hit *hard*
> >by malware, but that's anecdotal.
>
> So its a 'nuanced' denouncement of the Mac results and proclamation
> that the PC side is Gospel, then?
Go ahead, make stuff up.
> >Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers. Their satisfaction
> >surveys and the like are probably accurate enough
>
> What Znu wrote:
> >(since those work the same way for computers as for anything else),
>
> What ZnU meant:
> (since those tend to favor the Mac they're undoubtedly true unlike
> this report which doesn't favor the Mac which means its false)
I see you're not actually arguing with my reasoning.
You don't need to understand anything about computers to do a survey on
customer satisfaction -- you ask pretty much the same questions you do
on a survey about toaster satisfaction.
The malware question is not the same sort of thing. CR's full reviews
about computers are generally trivial and focus on the wrong factors as
well.
> > but I wouldn't put too much stock in the rest of it.
> >
> >[snip]
>
> Its from CR. The only question is - Who bought and paid for these
> results?
This one looks like plain old incompetence to me. If the results were
fudged with the input of some tech industry company (presumably Apple)
they wouldn't be so transparently wrong.
Lars Träger
Josh McKee wrote:
> Mayor has a second win under his belt.
Nope, that's a beer-belly.
Lars T.
Jim Polaski
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
When you can demonstrate a Mac compromised by a virus or malware, you
might have something. Of course, you believe the mayor of nothing and
nowhere who has taken the article out of context. Which is to say, it
isn't clear. Macs can have viruses, PC viruses that is since there is no
known Mac virus, malware etc., in the wild.
Why don't you try to ignore the new virus that got corporations today,
the likes of CNN, Capitol Hill, Caterpillar and a few others. It didn't
even need email to propagate, just unpatched systems. At least most home
users were safe with XP.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
C Lund
yu...@mailinator.com (Yuri) wrote:
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > Hmm.. Anybody thinks the viruses and spyware detected on Macs were
> > either on OS 9 or on infected files received from PC owners?
The last I heard of viruses was back when I was using OS 9. There were
three "active" ones out there; 666/Sevendust, the Hong Kong Autostart
Worm, and Code [something]. And the autostart worm was mostly gone.
> I'd be very interested to know which viruses were detected by that 20%
> of Mac owners, and how.
> My guess is that they were referring to PC viruses spread via email,
> which of course are inactive on the Mac - or they simply didn't know an
> application's bug from a virus.
That is the most likely explanation.
The only reason we maccies have to run AV scans is as a courtesy to
our winserf colleagues who may or may not be infected.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> > My guess is that they were referring to PC viruses spread via email,
> > which of course are inactive on the Mac - or they simply didn't know an
> > application's bug from a virus.
>
> Interesting spin.
"Spin"? Care to look up some actual malware for OS X for us, zara? We
maccies would be very interested in anything you manage to find.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
> > Please fill the following space with something about 'why quantity does
> > not always match quality' in MORE than two sentences that would get at
> > least get a 'D' in fourth grade:
>
> Quality is more times, perception, rather than reality.
> What would you rather - a million dollars in CASH, or $100,000 in gold? The
> Gold being a more "Quality" item than the paper.
What makes gold more of a "quality" item than paper money? Gold is
just a raw element.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Mayor of R'lyeh
CR has demonstrated it for one out of every five Macs, Jim. Don't you
believe your own posting?
>
>Why don't you try to ignore the new virus that got corporations today,
>the likes of CNN, Capitol Hill, Caterpillar and a few others. It didn't
>even need email to propagate, just unpatched systems. At least most home
>users were safe with XP.
Exactly. These things normally hit corporations because most IT
mangers are incompetent idiots with delusions of little tin godhood.
If they'd just let the machines under their care auto update
everything would be fine. But most of them don't because then they
couldn't barge in while you're trying to work and put on a show about
updating the machines.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
How did I get a beer belly when I don't drink much beer anymore?
zara
"Tom Bates" <t...@offthehk.lk> wrote in message
news:tb-793FAC.21...@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
Great - but if had bought WalMart you would be a Billionaire. Do you
consider WalMart a "quality" company?
Travelinman
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Aug 2005 23:01:04 -0700, "Lars Träger" <Lars.T...@epost.de>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >
> >Josh McKee wrote:
> >
> >> Mayor has a second win under his belt.
> >
> >Nope, that's a beer-belly.
> >
> >Lars T.
>
> How did I get a beer belly when I don't drink much beer anymore?
What's the matter? Did you finally learn that Rolling Rock is lousy beer?
No, that couldn't be it- you don't care if a beer is lousy, as long as
it's cheap.
So why don't you drink much beer any more?
1. Too busy trying to prevent the latest malware on your PC
2. Spent all your money on your latest cheapo Dell box
3. Your 1972 LeBaron needs new tires
4. Too busy adjusting the fan speed and voltage on the front of your PC
zara
"C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:clund-134B5C....@amstwist00.chello.com...
Blow it out your ass Lund.
Travelinman
"zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
Your inability to answer his question is noted.
Jim Lee Jr.
Does that turn you on?
RichardK
> 3. Your 1972 LeBaron needs new tires
I wish people would stop picking on this. I mean, compared to
run-of-the-mill cars in the UK, a '72 LeBaron is a postively exciting
vehicle.
I'd like a '72 LeBaron almost as much as a boat-tail Riviera. Not as
much, but almost.
Richard
--
RichardK - 1980s in a can. http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/music/
Retro computing - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/retrotech/
Cars - 2004 Beetle Cabrio, 1989 Supra 3.0i, 1990 Sera, 1989 Volvo 740
MidiGuitar, AU/X. Apple 77-04. See links. Email - upgrade to 128 ;)
zara
"Travelinman" <now...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:nowhere-B306FE...@news.central.cox.net...
I'll answer to you - if you buried both for 500 years, which one would be as
good as new when you dug it up?
Jim Polaski
zara can't respond so he makes profane, moronic statements.
Tom Bates
"zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
No. IMHO, I happen to think they're a blight on business and have cause
tremendous harm to the economy, small towns and a few other things like
jobs.
However, your inability to address the real point is noted.
--
Yours,
Tom
Jim Polaski
Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:42:53 -0500, Jim Polaski
> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
> >in an earlier thread.
> >
> >First,
> >
> >"Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
> >
> >http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
> >
> >" In order to understand the effects of online computer viruses and
> >spyware, Consumer Reports carried out an extensive survey across 3,200
> >US households.
> >
> >Based on the extensive research, the report categorically states: "Macs
> >are safer than Windows PCs for some online hazards. Only 20 per cent of
> >Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
> >compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
> >users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
> >cent of Windows PC users."
>
>
> This is interesting. Maccies either have to denounce this article as
> bullshit or admit that Mac viruses are real and infecting one out of
> every five Macs. I wonder which one they'll do? Of course the most
> likely thing they'll do is denounce the Mac virus findings while
> declaring the PC virus part to be Gospel.
>
> >Protection is not enough
> >
> >The report also informs that over $9 billion has been spent in the past
> >two years fixing problems caused by such bad software bugs. This
> >reflects badly on the $2.6 billion US consumers spent on software to
> >protect themselves when online. The report also looks at the various
> >risks of spam and fraudulent emails."
> >
> >more in the article
> >
> >
> >and the original at CR
> >
> >http://tinyurl.com/czsf9
> >
> >"Use the Internet at home and you have a 1-in-3 chance of suffering
> >computer damage, financial loss, or both because of a computer virus or
> >spyware that sneaks onto your computer. That¹s one of the unsettling
> >conclusions from our 2005 Consumer Reports State of the Net survey of
> >online consumers.
> >
> >What else did we discover? Although American consumers invested more
> >than $2.6 billion in protection software over the past two years, they
> >still spent more than $9 billion for computer repairs, parts, and
> >replacement to solve problems caused by viruses and spyware. Those
> >problems were so extensive and so serious that they prompted almost 8
> >percent of all computer purchases by consumers during 2003 and 2004."
> >
> >More in this article as well.
> >
> >But it more or less, more actually, trashes the zara-troll's notion that
> >malware is no longer an issue for Windows, especially when, in spite of
> >utilities and AV wares, still spent $9 BILLION for repairs caused by
> >*viruses and spyware*.
> >
> >Once again, the zara-troll goes down in flames. Flames. Poof!
>
> As does every Maccie who claims that there's no Mac viuses in the
> wild.
Ok, lets suppose you're right. Show us a "Mac virus, in the wild, that
can hobble the Mac OS. And we don't mean a "word Macro" virus either.
Those are well known and not current.
Cmon klyde, show us.
Jim Polaski
That's your interpretation. The article is not clear. Just because a Mac
user "detected" a virus does not mean they were infected. I get scads of
emails that AV declares "infected, and I don't get a thing on my box
infected since what comes through are "Win viruses".
But, since you don't use Macs, you'd not know that the last viruses were
back in the OS 7 days or thereabout.
Please tell us all your reading comprehension is better than you
demonstrate in reading the article...no on second thought, don't.
Because it isn't.
> >
> >Why don't you try to ignore the new virus that got corporations today,
> >the likes of CNN, Capitol Hill, Caterpillar and a few others. It didn't
> >even need email to propagate, just unpatched systems. At least most home
> >users were safe with XP.
>
> Exactly. These things normally hit corporations because most IT
> mangers are incompetent idiots with delusions of little tin godhood.
> If they'd just let the machines under their care auto update
> everything would be fine. But most of them don't because then they
> couldn't barge in while you're trying to work and put on a show about
> updating the machines.
Oh so you're going to try and claim the IT folks at these major
corporations are that stupid? I guess they WANT to have their boxes
infected and cause the company huge losses. I'm not saying EVERY It guy
is on top of everything either. But with the numbers of companies hit by
the virus yesterday, you're saying that a huge number of YOUR WINTEL
BRETHREN are stupid. So, you've indicted your buddies. How nice.
Travelinman
RichardK <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> wrote:
> Travelinman wrote:
>
> > 3. Your 1972 LeBaron needs new tires
>
> I wish people would stop picking on this. I mean, compared to
> run-of-the-mill cars in the UK, a '72 LeBaron is a postively exciting
> vehicle.
But Mayor doesn't live in the UK.
In the US, a 1972 LeBaron is about as bad a vehicle as you can get.
Travelinman
"zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
The million dollars in cash - if you stored it properly. Even better if
you used coins.
But what does that have to do with anything? Why don't you bury yourself
for 500 years and see if you're any better after that ordeal?
zara
This is another example of you reinventing the OP.
Travelinman
"zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
proving that zara is a mindless idiot.
RichardK
I'd have given that honour to the Renault Alliance GTA. But, whatever. I
just figure Mayor has enough valid targets without picking on an
innocent car.
Mayor of R'lyeh
>> >spyware that sneaks onto your computer. That¹s one of the unsettling
>> >conclusions from our 2005 Consumer Reports State of the Net survey of
>> >online consumers.
>> >
>> >What else did we discover? Although American consumers invested more
>> >than $2.6 billion in protection software over the past two years, they
>> >still spent more than $9 billion for computer repairs, parts, and
>> >replacement to solve problems caused by viruses and spyware. Those
>> >problems were so extensive and so serious that they prompted almost 8
>> >percent of all computer purchases by consumers during 2003 and 2004."
>> >
>> >More in this article as well.
>> >
>> >But it more or less, more actually, trashes the zara-troll's notion that
>> >malware is no longer an issue for Windows, especially when, in spite of
>> >utilities and AV wares, still spent $9 BILLION for repairs caused by
>> >*viruses and spyware*.
>> >
>> >Once again, the zara-troll goes down in flames. Flames. Poof!
>>
>> As does every Maccie who claims that there's no Mac viuses in the
>> wild.
>
>Ok, lets suppose you're right. Show us a "Mac virus, in the wild, that
>can hobble the Mac OS. And we don't mean a "word Macro" virus either.
>Those are well known and not current.
>
>Cmon klyde, show us.
I refer you to
http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=760009&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=333133&bmUID=1123738529881%94
which reports that one in every five Macs have had a virus. If you
don't believe CR take it up with them. I'm just the messenger.
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <3mh93bF...@individual.net>,
Really? Never looked a Renault did you?
Mayor of R'lyeh
<at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>Travelinman wrote:
>
>> 3. Your 1972 LeBaron needs new tires
>
>I wish people would stop picking on this. I mean, compared to
>run-of-the-mill cars in the UK, a '72 LeBaron is a postively exciting
>vehicle.
>
>I'd like a '72 LeBaron almost as much as a boat-tail Riviera. Not as
>much, but almost.
>
>Richard
I think your first $100 fillup would sour you a bit on them! 8)
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <sj46g1palb8cnn983...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16 Aug 2005 23:01:04 -0700, "Lars Träger" <Lars.T...@epost.de>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>> >
>> >Josh McKee wrote:
>> >
>> >> Mayor has a second win under his belt.
>> >
>> >Nope, that's a beer-belly.
>> >
>> >Lars T.
>>
>> How did I get a beer belly when I don't drink much beer anymore?
>
>What's the matter? Did you finally learn that Rolling Rock is lousy beer?
I've got one on my desk open now.
>
>No, that couldn't be it- you don't care if a beer is lousy, as long as
>it's cheap.
Actually that should read - I don't care what the price was so long as
I like the taste.
Now if we were writing this about you it should read - I don't care
whether or not I like the taste so long as it was expensive enough.
Beer drinking is about the price tag not the flavor.
>So why don't you drink much beer any more?
>1. Too busy trying to prevent the latest malware on your PC
Ad-Aware does that for me.
>2. Spent all your money on your latest cheapo Dell box
I've never advocated Dell or any other OEM. I always advocate rolling
your own.
>3. Your 1972 LeBaron needs new tires
I don't own one so it could hardly need new tires.
>4. Too busy adjusting the fan speed and voltage on the front of your PC
I never did play with the voltages and I leave the fan on high most of
the time.
How about
5) I never really was a heavy beer drinker and as I've gotten older
the amount has gone down.
Elizabot v2.0.2
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:53:55 -0500, Travelinman <now...@nospam.net>
> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>
>
>>In article <sj46g1palb8cnn983...@4ax.com>,
>>Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>How did I get a beer belly when I don't drink much beer anymore?
>>
>>What's the matter? Did you finally learn that Rolling Rock is lousy beer?
>
>
> I've got one on my desk open now.
>
> 5) I never really was a heavy beer drinker and as I've gotten older
> the amount has gone down.
So now you only drink 2 or 3 a day instead of a case. Gotcha.
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
RichardK
> <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> chose to bless us with the following
> wisdom:
>
>
>>Travelinman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>3. Your 1972 LeBaron needs new tires
>>
>>I wish people would stop picking on this. I mean, compared to
>>run-of-the-mill cars in the UK, a '72 LeBaron is a postively exciting
>>vehicle.
>>
>>I'd like a '72 LeBaron almost as much as a boat-tail Riviera. Not as
>>much, but almost.
>>
>>Richard
>
>
> I think your first $100 fillup would sour you a bit on them! 8)
Mayor, filling up my 2004 Beetle costs nearly $100 ;)
I've had a 1982 Eldorado 4100HTi (shame the engines are so crap really,
because the chassis on the '82 kicks European arse - ABS on the back,
disks all round, independent rear suspension, and deeply stable), and my
gf drove a 1976 Cadillac Miller-Meteor (go look up what that is if you
don't already know, but a few hints: black, tints, 24 foot long, and the
8.2 liter V8 under the hood).
Richard (115 cars in 12 years, and counting - looks like a '72 Beetle
might be the latest addition).
Mayor of R'lyeh
If that were the case then the detection rate for both camps should
have been nearly 100%.
>
>But, since you don't use Macs, you'd not know that the last viruses were
>back in the OS 7 days or thereabout.
>
>Please tell us all your reading comprehension is better than you
>demonstrate in reading the article...no on second thought, don't.
>Because it isn't.
LOL! My reading comprehension is 'poor' because I didn't read into it
a bunch of Maccie spin. Instead I read what it said. Hilarious!
>
>> >
>> >Why don't you try to ignore the new virus that got corporations today,
>> >the likes of CNN, Capitol Hill, Caterpillar and a few others. It didn't
>> >even need email to propagate, just unpatched systems. At least most home
>> >users were safe with XP.
>>
>> Exactly. These things normally hit corporations because most IT
>> mangers are incompetent idiots with delusions of little tin godhood.
>> If they'd just let the machines under their care auto update
>> everything would be fine. But most of them don't because then they
>> couldn't barge in while you're trying to work and put on a show about
>> updating the machines.
>
>Oh so you're going to try and claim the IT folks at these major
>corporations are that stupid?
In my experience they're not stupid just vainglorious.
> I guess they WANT to have their boxes infected and cause the company huge losses.
They want situations where they're needed to save the day.
> I'm not saying EVERY It guy
>is on top of everything either. But with the numbers of companies hit by
>the virus yesterday, you're saying that a huge number of YOUR WINTEL
>BRETHREN are stupid. So, you've indicted your buddies. How nice.
Its only Maccies that feel that every other user of their favored
platform are their 'brothers'.
Josh McKee
>In article <vv25g15js0u7hil9c...@4ax.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:50:06 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <lsu4g1dipp8lqljqo...@4ax.com>,
>> >> >The article uses poor methodology.
>> >>
>> >> And here's another victory for the Mayor.
>> >
>> >Why don't you respond to my argument?
>> >
>> >> >Asking people about this stuff is going to be horribly inaccurate. I
>> >> >get the "Do you think it could be a virus?" question a few times a
>> >> >week from family and friends, and it usually isn't (and never on the
>> >> >Mac, of course). Moreover, the question was apparently asked about
>> >> >detection vs. infection. I've detected thousands of viruses in the
>> >> >last year, and I don't even use antivirus software -- they were all
>> >> >Windows worms sent to various e-mail addresses, of course.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's hard to think of a reliable way to find out actual information
>> >> >about infection rate. All we know is that it's zero on the Mac -- since
>> >> >there aren't any viruses -- and it's not zero on Windows. In my
>> >> >experience, a very large fraction of casual Windows users get hit *hard*
>> >> >by malware, but that's anecdotal.
>> >> >
>> >> >Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers.
>> >>
>> >> And yet when they showed that Apple products rated at the top with
>> >> consumers the Mac zealots worshipped them.
>> >
>> >I see you snipped my explanation.
>>
>> Sorry, didn't think it was relevant. Here's the whole thing:
>>
>> "Consumer Reports isn't so good with computers. Their satisfaction
>> surveys and the like are probably accurate enough (since those work
>> the same way for computers as for anything else), but I wouldn't put
>> too much stock in the rest of it."
>>
>> Just goes to show the Mac zealot hypocrisy. When it favors the Mac
>> it's good. When it doesn't, it's bad.
>
>You still haven't addressed my argument. You seem to think if you call
>someone a "Mac zealot" you don't have to bother with, you know, actual
>debate.
There's nothing to address. Mac zealots are hypocrites and incapable
of rational discussion. All they can do is be pedantic over the words
used to communicate a thought instead of the thought itself. Such
"discussions" get old and uninteresting.
Josh
Josh McKee
It seems that these companies should set all but their critical
systems to auto update. Since patches were already available prior to
the outbreak having done so would have saved them a lot of headaches.
Josh
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
You're still doing it.
--
"It's in our country's interests to find those who would do harm to us and get
them out of harm's way."
-- George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., April 28, 2005
Josh McKee
Perhaps you missed the last sentence where I said:
"Such "discussions" get old and uninteresting."
Josh
Jim Lee Jr.
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
Then why are you here, McKee? Go to a Windoze group.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<Eliz...@NsOpSyPmAaMc.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 06:53:55 -0500, Travelinman <now...@nospam.net>
>> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>In article <sj46g1palb8cnn983...@4ax.com>,
>>>Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>How did I get a beer belly when I don't drink much beer anymore?
>>>
>>>What's the matter? Did you finally learn that Rolling Rock is lousy beer?
>>
>>
>> I've got one on my desk open now.
>>
>
>
>> 5) I never really was a heavy beer drinker and as I've gotten older
>> the amount has gone down.
>
>So now you only drink 2 or 3 a day instead of a case. Gotcha.
I only drink a case a day when you're over here and won't leave no
matter how much I ask you to.
Josh McKee
To have discussion with those who aren't zealots.
Josh
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
The "Nothing Mac users say counts because they're a bunch of Mac users!"
thing is pretty old an uninteresting itself.
Jim Polaski
> >> >spyware that sneaks onto your computer. That惹� one of the unsettling
So you're going to repost what I posted then claim you're the messenger?
What a pile you are klyde!
I have had lots of viruses on my Mac, but they're WINDOWS VIRUSES. Too
bad understanding that is so far over your meager head. The article
reports Mac users "detecting" a virus, and anyone with any understanding
knows that Mac AV utils will report finding a Windows based Virus.
That said, you did evade the question. Show us a Mac compromised by a
virus on OS X. Not an obscure refernce to, but a compromised machine.
Cmon klyde show us. More than likely, you'll do nothing but dance and try to move
the goalposts while twisting facts. At least you're consistent.
Jim Lee Jr.
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:10:55 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
> <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <s3g7g114ff9q5jd96...@4ax.com>,
> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
> >
> >> There's nothing to address. Mac zealots are hypocrites and incapable
> >> of rational discussion. All they can do is be pedantic over the words
> >> used to communicate a thought instead of the thought itself. Such
> >> "discussions" get old and uninteresting.
> >>
> >> Josh
> >
> >Then why are you here, McKee? Go to a Windoze group.
>
> To have discussion with those who aren't zealots.
>
> Josh
So you admit there are Windoze zealots?
Josh McKee
Please note where I made a distinction between Mac users and Mac
zealots. Mac users can carry on a discussion. Mac zealots cannot.
Josh
Josh McKee
<peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>In article <5al7g1pub0u2b8nkr...@4ax.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 00:10:55 GMT, "Jim Lee Jr."
>> <peejs...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <s3g7g114ff9q5jd96...@4ax.com>,
>> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There's nothing to address. Mac zealots are hypocrites and incapable
>> >> of rational discussion. All they can do is be pedantic over the words
>> >> used to communicate a thought instead of the thought itself. Such
>> >> "discussions" get old and uninteresting.
>> >>
>> >> Josh
>> >
>> >Then why are you here, McKee? Go to a Windoze group.
>>
>> To have discussion with those who aren't zealots.
>>
>> Josh
>
>So you admit there are Windoze zealots?
Yes.
Josh
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
That's not really workable. If a significant fraction of your desktops
run into problems because of some incompatibility introduced by an
update, that can be just as damaging as if the same thing happens with
one or two critical systems.
Josh McKee
>In article <6ug7g110rqifo5kuf...@4ax.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:49:18 -0500, Jim Polaski
>> <jpol...@NOSPMync.net> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <cc46g11qr54tdfrbh...@4ax.com>,
>> > Mayor of R'lyeh <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> Exactly. These things normally hit corporations because most IT
>> >> mangers are incompetent idiots with delusions of little tin godhood.
>> >> If they'd just let the machines under their care auto update
>> >> everything would be fine. But most of them don't because then they
>> >> couldn't barge in while you're trying to work and put on a show about
>> >> updating the machines.
>> >
>> >Oh so you're going to try and claim the IT folks at these major
>> >corporations are that stupid?
>>
>> It seems that these companies should set all but their critical
>> systems to auto update. Since patches were already available prior to
>> the outbreak having done so would have saved them a lot of headaches.
>
>That's not really workable. If a significant fraction of your desktops
>run into problems because of some incompatibility introduced by an
>update, that can be just as damaging as if the same thing happens with
>one or two critical systems.
It has been my experience that patches, at least Windows patches, are
less likely to cause downtime compared with malware outbreaks.
Josh
Mayor of R'lyeh
>> >> >spyware that sneaks onto your computer. That惹� one of the unsettling
If you're not going to believe an article that you posted thn I can't
help you. I do have to ask why you posted in when you believed it all
to be a lie though.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> chose to bless us with the following
wisdom:
>Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:05:47 +0100, RichardK
>> <at...@NOSPAMbtconnect.com> chose to bless us with the following
>> wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>Travelinman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>3. Your 1972 LeBaron needs new tires
>>>
>>>I wish people would stop picking on this. I mean, compared to
>>>run-of-the-mill cars in the UK, a '72 LeBaron is a postively exciting
>>>vehicle.
>>>
>>>I'd like a '72 LeBaron almost as much as a boat-tail Riviera. Not as
>>>much, but almost.
>>>
>>>Richard
>>
>>
>> I think your first $100 fillup would sour you a bit on them! 8)
>
>Mayor, filling up my 2004 Beetle costs nearly $100 ;)
I forgot that wasn't a big deal in Europe. Of course over there it
would probably be more like $300.
>
>I've had a 1982 Eldorado 4100HTi (shame the engines are so crap really,
>because the chassis on the '82 kicks European arse - ABS on the back,
>disks all round, independent rear suspension, and deeply stable), and my
>gf drove a 1976 Cadillac Miller-Meteor (go look up what that is if you
>don't already know, but a few hints: black, tints, 24 foot long, and the
>8.2 liter V8 under the hood).
>
>Richard (115 cars in 12 years, and counting - looks like a '72 Beetle
>might be the latest addition).
--
"I have had lots of viruses on my Mac..."
Jim Polaski
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
That's probably highly dependent on the kind of network-level security
in place. Also, there's the blame factor. If machines go offline because
of a worm that the boss can hear about on CNN, he might not be too
pissed; these things happen to everyone in this crazy world, right? If,
on the other hand, they go offline because of a patch that got installed
when it "didn't really need to be", that might be another matter.
Wally
"zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "Travelinman" <now...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:nowhere-B306FE...@news.central.cox.net...
>> In article <5yFMe.20830$Rm3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>> "zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
>>> news:clund-134B5C....@amstwist00.chello.com...
>>>> In article <CLvMe.19830$Rm3....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
>>>> "zara" <zspo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Please fill the following space with something about 'why quantity
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> not always match quality' in MORE than two sentences that would get
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> least get a 'D' in fourth grade:
>>>>>
>>>>> Quality is more times, perception, rather than reality.
>>>>> What would you rather - a million dollars in CASH, or $100,000 in
>>>>> gold?
>>>>> The
>>>>> Gold being a more "Quality" item than the paper.
>>>>
>>>> What makes gold more of a "quality" item than paper money? Gold is
>>>> just a raw element.
>>>
>>> Blow it out your ass Lund.
>>
>> Your inability to answer his question is noted.
>
> I'll answer to you - if you buried both for 500 years, which one would be as
> good as new when you dug it up?
Oh dear! the question was about "quality" and the answer comes in the form
of a question about condition...........anybody surprised? LOL
The 'Dead Sea Scrolls' should have been left where they were, after all they
were in such terrible condition! ;=)
Josh McKee
What do you consider network-level security?
Josh
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
1) Aggressive firewall settings -- block everything unless there's a
specific need for it, and watch all traffic for suspicious activity.
2) Careful control over machines plugged into the 'safe' side of the
network. In particular, disallow laptops that are used on other
networks from being plugged in on the 'safe' side of the firewall if
at all possible.
3) There's almost no legitimate reason for executables of any kind to be
sent through e-mail. Kill them all on the server.
4) Don't let users download and install software.
Taking these fairly simple steps is likely to reduce the malware threat
to levels where you've probably got enough breathing room to actually
test patches before rolling them out.
The malware threat is, in my experience, much more significant for
casual home users. They don't have an IT department to protect them from
themselves.
robertoblanco
"Wally" <wa...@wally.world.net> wrote in message
news:BF2A3EE8.3787%wa...@wally.world.net...
Oh dear - maybe you should have read the thread in it's entirety - then you
would have seen how we got from "there' to "here". Typical Maccie
bullshit - take a fact and ask all kinds of irrelevant questions.
Josh McKee
I suspect that most companies that were hit by this latest worm
already had this.
>2) Careful control over machines plugged into the 'safe' side of the
> network. In particular, disallow laptops that are used on other
> networks from being plugged in on the 'safe' side of the firewall if
> at all possible.
Please elaborate. How would you go about enforcing this?
>3) There's almost no legitimate reason for executables of any kind to be
> sent through e-mail. Kill them all on the server.
>
>4) Don't let users download and install software.
Being as this latest one was a worm it's unlikely that either of these
were the delivery vector for most of the affected companies.
>Taking these fairly simple steps is likely to reduce the malware threat
>to levels where you've probably got enough breathing room to actually
>test patches before rolling them out.
These suggestions appear more disruptive than merely applying patches
when they're released.
>The malware threat is, in my experience, much more significant for
>casual home users. They don't have an IT department to protect them from
>themselves.
IT departments don't appear to be doing much better than individuals.
While I understand the concerns a corporation has with "blindly"
installing untested patches what's being done now doesn't appear to be
working. It's almost to the point of pay me now or pay me later.
Josh
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
I would hope so.
> >2) Careful control over machines plugged into the 'safe' side of the
> > network. In particular, disallow laptops that are used on other
> > networks from being plugged in on the 'safe' side of the firewall if
> > at all possible.
>
> Please elaborate. How would you go about enforcing this?
If you're really serious about it, don't give an IP to anything without
an approved MAC address. Or, better yet, if you've got managed switches,
enforce MAC address restrictions there.
> >3) There's almost no legitimate reason for executables of any kind to be
> > sent through e-mail. Kill them all on the server.
> >
> >4) Don't let users download and install software.
>
> Being as this latest one was a worm it's unlikely that either of these
> were the delivery vector for most of the affected companies.
True in this case. I'm speaking in general.
> >Taking these fairly simple steps is likely to reduce the malware threat
> >to levels where you've probably got enough breathing room to actually
> >test patches before rolling them out.
>
> These suggestions appear more disruptive than merely applying patches
> when they're released.
They're not disruptive at all if they're well planned and IT is actually
responsive to users' needs (if, for instance, a user needs a port opened
or needs some app installed). Of course, I realize that doesn't quite
describe the situation at some companies.
> >The malware threat is, in my experience, much more significant for
> >casual home users. They don't have an IT department to protect them from
> >themselves.
>
> IT departments don't appear to be doing much better than individuals.
In my experience, they're doing quite a lot better, actually. I
encounter lot of home users with computers rendered nearly unusable --
on an ongoing basis -- by malware. In contrast, while malware outbreaks
do occur on corporate and academic networks, they're typically isolated
and eradicated within hours or a day or two at the outside. You don't
see entire corporate networks rendered useless by automatic pop-up ads.
> While I understand the concerns a corporation has with "blindly"
> installing untested patches what's being done now doesn't appear to be
> working. It's almost to the point of pay me now or pay me later.
The ability of these sorts of worms to get inside corporate networks
despite the firewall policies any sane network admin will put in place
suggests to me that many corporations aren't taking the laptop issue
(and the similar issue of allowing peoples' home computers on the 'safe'
side of the firewall via VPN) very seriously. I expect this will start
to change.
Of course, using Windows less also helps. Ask any biologist about the
relationship between genetic diversity and disease resistance.
Josh McKee
>In article <4njcg11ss3fmh4bkd...@4ax.com>,
> Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:49:01 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>> >> What do you consider network-level security?
>> >
>> >1) Aggressive firewall settings -- block everything unless there's a
>> > specific need for it, and watch all traffic for suspicious activity.
>>
>> I suspect that most companies that were hit by this latest worm
>> already had this.
>
>I would hope so.
Then it would be reasonable to conclude that this isn't as much help
as it's made out to be?
>> >2) Careful control over machines plugged into the 'safe' side of the
>> > network. In particular, disallow laptops that are used on other
>> > networks from being plugged in on the 'safe' side of the firewall if
>> > at all possible.
>>
>> Please elaborate. How would you go about enforcing this?
>
>If you're really serious about it, don't give an IP to anything without
>an approved MAC address. Or, better yet, if you've got managed switches,
>enforce MAC address restrictions there.
I would be willing to bet that this recent worm outbreak was the
result of an authorized device connecting to the network.
>> >3) There's almost no legitimate reason for executables of any kind to be
>> > sent through e-mail. Kill them all on the server.
>> >
>> >4) Don't let users download and install software.
>>
>> Being as this latest one was a worm it's unlikely that either of these
>> were the delivery vector for most of the affected companies.
>
>True in this case. I'm speaking in general.
Doesn't matter. People will bring malware in through their Yahoo or
Hotmail accounts.
>> >Taking these fairly simple steps is likely to reduce the malware threat
>> >to levels where you've probably got enough breathing room to actually
>> >test patches before rolling them out.
>>
>> These suggestions appear more disruptive than merely applying patches
>> when they're released.
>
>They're not disruptive at all if they're well planned and IT is actually
>responsive to users' needs (if, for instance, a user needs a port opened
>or needs some app installed). Of course, I realize that doesn't quite
>describe the situation at some companies.
They're very disruptive.
>> >The malware threat is, in my experience, much more significant for
>> >casual home users. They don't have an IT department to protect them from
>> >themselves.
>>
>> IT departments don't appear to be doing much better than individuals.
>
>In my experience, they're doing quite a lot better, actually.
They are? Then how come we keep hearing about large outbreaks?
>I encounter lot of home users with computers rendered nearly unusable --
>on an ongoing basis -- by malware.
Unlikely to ever be resolved as a lot of malware is installed by
clueless users.
>In contrast, while malware outbreaks do occur on corporate and academic
>networks, they're typically isolated and eradicated within hours or a day or two
>at the outside. You don't see entire corporate networks rendered useless by
>automatic pop-up ads.
So what? I see corporate networks rendered useless by malware that
takes advantage of flaws already patched.
>> While I understand the concerns a corporation has with "blindly"
>> installing untested patches what's being done now doesn't appear to be
>> working. It's almost to the point of pay me now or pay me later.
>
>The ability of these sorts of worms to get inside corporate networks
>despite the firewall policies any sane network admin will put in place
>suggests to me that many corporations aren't taking the laptop issue
>(and the similar issue of allowing peoples' home computers on the 'safe'
>side of the firewall via VPN) very seriously. I expect this will start
>to change.
And how do you propose that this will change? Seriously...I'd like to
know because if you've got a solution we can make a lot of money.
>Of course, using Windows less also helps. Ask any biologist about the
>relationship between genetic diversity and disease resistance.
That sounds suspiciously like a market share argument.
Josh
Steve Carroll
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
Let's take a look at your latest "market share argument":
Regarding whether or not viruses affect OSX, a poster recently wrote to
you:
"That, Josh, is because NO Mac OS X systems have been affected."
Your reply, a tacit agreement that the poster is correct, also has you
providing your reason for this condition:
"So? With its small market share there's not a lot of incentive."
You still have yet to provide any proof why this is the only reason. Can
I expect it any time soon?
ZnU
Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:24:14 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> >In article <4njcg11ss3fmh4bkd...@4ax.com>,
> > Josh McKee <jtm...@rm-bogus-ac.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:49:01 -0400, ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> >> What do you consider network-level security?
> >> >
> >> >1) Aggressive firewall settings -- block everything unless there's a
> >> > specific need for it, and watch all traffic for suspicious activity.
> >>
> >> I suspect that most companies that were hit by this latest worm
> >> already had this.
> >
> >I would hope so.
>
> Then it would be reasonable to conclude that this isn't as much help
> as it's made out to be?
It's a huge help, in the sense that the situation would be much, much
worse without it. It's just not a 100% solution. But nothing is really
-- I mean, except ditching Windows, and not even that will work forever.
You have to focus on defense in depth.
> >> >2) Careful control over machines plugged into the 'safe' side of the
> >> > network. In particular, disallow laptops that are used on other
> >> > networks from being plugged in on the 'safe' side of the firewall if
> >> > at all possible.
> >>
> >> Please elaborate. How would you go about enforcing this?
> >
> >If you're really serious about it, don't give an IP to anything without
> >an approved MAC address. Or, better yet, if you've got managed switches,
> >enforce MAC address restrictions there.
>
> I would be willing to bet that this recent worm outbreak was the
> result of an authorized device connecting to the network.
Sure, but it was probably a device that shouldn't have been trusted.
> >> >3) There's almost no legitimate reason for executables of any kind to be
> >> > sent through e-mail. Kill them all on the server.
> >> >
> >> >4) Don't let users download and install software.
> >>
> >> Being as this latest one was a worm it's unlikely that either of these
> >> were the delivery vector for most of the affected companies.
> >
> >True in this case. I'm speaking in general.
>
> Doesn't matter. People will bring malware in through their Yahoo or
> Hotmail accounts.
See above. This isn't a 100% solution, it's just something very helpful.
> >> >Taking these fairly simple steps is likely to reduce the malware threat
> >> >to levels where you've probably got enough breathing room to actually
> >> >test patches before rolling them out.
> >>
> >> These suggestions appear more disruptive than merely applying patches
> >> when they're released.
> >
> >They're not disruptive at all if they're well planned and IT is actually
> >responsive to users' needs (if, for instance, a user needs a port opened
> >or needs some app installed). Of course, I realize that doesn't quite
> >describe the situation at some companies.
>
> They're very disruptive.
Specifically how? These *are* all implemented in many places, and people
still manage to get work done.
> >> >The malware threat is, in my experience, much more significant for
> >> >casual home users. They don't have an IT department to protect them from
> >> >themselves.
> >>
> >> IT departments don't appear to be doing much better than individuals.
> >
> >In my experience, they're doing quite a lot better, actually.
>
> They are? Then how come we keep hearing about large outbreaks?
Huh? Saying organizations are doing better than individuals isn't the
same thing as saying organizations never have problems.
> >I encounter lot of home users with computers rendered nearly
> >unusable -- on an ongoing basis -- by malware.
>
> Unlikely to ever be resolved as a lot of malware is installed by
> clueless users.
>
> >In contrast, while malware outbreaks do occur on corporate and
> >academic networks, they're typically isolated and eradicated within
> >hours or a day or two at the outside. You don't see entire corporate
> >networks rendered useless by automatic pop-up ads.
>
> So what? I see corporate networks rendered useless by malware that
> takes advantage of flaws already patched.
Which is why you want to patch as soon as possible... after testing.
> >> While I understand the concerns a corporation has with "blindly"
> >> installing untested patches what's being done now doesn't appear to be
> >> working. It's almost to the point of pay me now or pay me later.
> >
> >The ability of these sorts of worms to get inside corporate networks
> >despite the firewall policies any sane network admin will put in place
> >suggests to me that many corporations aren't taking the laptop issue
> >(and the similar issue of allowing peoples' home computers on the 'safe'
> >side of the firewall via VPN) very seriously. I expect this will start
> >to change.
>
> And how do you propose that this will change? Seriously...I'd like to
> know because if you've got a solution we can make a lot of money.
Security practices are already much tighter than they were a few years
back, and I expect this trend to continue.
> >Of course, using Windows less also helps. Ask any biologist about the
> >relationship between genetic diversity and disease resistance.
>
> That sounds suspiciously like a market share argument.
Huh? It has nothing to do with market share. If the Mac, Linux and
Windows each had 33% of the market, you'd still be safer having a mix of
all three than having a monoculture.
news
> in an earlier thread.
>
> First,
>
> "Macs 'much safer' online than Windows, report confirms"
>
> http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=12361
>
> "
> Only 20 per cent of
> Mac owners surveyed reported detecting a virus in the past two years,
> compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. Just 8 per cent of Mac
> users reported a spyware infection in the last six months against 54 per
> cent of Windows PC users."
Anyone have any idea how 20% (one in every five!) managed to find a
virus? It kind of makes studies like these worthless as indicators of
anything objective.
or could it be 'virus envy'?
Andy
Snit
dfa4ag$23q$1...@reader01.news.esat.net on 9/2/05 11:05 AM:
Based on the fear - caused almost entirely by people's experience on Windows
- almost any problem or concern is blamed, by some people, on a virus.
Computer users will always have some problems - esp. new users who have
user-related problems that they do not recognize as such. Many of these
problems are blamed on "viruses", even if people have no idea what a virus
is.
With Windows you have two things going on - people who think they have
viruses when they do not, and people who do not know they do, they just know
Windows is flakey. I find the 54% stat on Windows to be, possibly, high -
depending on the population. Windows machines often have malware of some
sort, but not that many have *viruses* specifically... non-viral spyware and
adware is more common.
So yeah, these stats are certainly questionable ... downright laughable with
the stats for Macs.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Tim Murray
> compared with 66 per cent of Windows PC owners. "
Bullocks. No more accurate than surveying my neighbors with a crayon and a
clipboard.
What was the nature of the survey? "Hello, Mr. Smith, this is CR calling, and
so on..." Useless, with the low knowledge of most home users.
How many Mac users, or even Windows users for that matter, said they had a
virus because they believed those pop-ups "Your computer is infected. Please
click here to rid your PC of viruses?" My mother-in-law thinks she's
infected every day, but thankfully she has a Mac, and she's clean.
How many users said "yes" because they intercepted one, yet did not really
become infected?
How many said they had no infection at all, but did and did not know it?
> Just 8 per cent of Mac users reported a spyware infection in the last
> six months against 54 per cent of Windows PC users.
I would bet dollars to donuts the Mac numbers are 8 per cent too high (not
really, mathematically, but you get my point), and the Windows users 40 per
cent too low. Indeed, I'm the local geek in my community, and I have never
ever encountered a "clean" Windows machine, other than the first hour after a
clean format and install from CD.
Tim Murray
(in article <0001HW.BF3FA81E...@newsgroups.bellsouth.net>):
I'm top-posting to my own post because for part of it I realized I was
thinking of only infected numbers. As far as the detection is concerned,
lots of Mac users don't even use detection software. The could be different
behaviors, too.