"Melissa" author goes STRAIGHT to JAIL !!
CJ
Andrew Lee
> He gets 20 months behind bars and a $5,000 fine....
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131426
Which planet have you been on recently - that's old news now!
-AJL
CJ
--
"Andrew Lee" <gla...@gladius.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns921D9C442...@194.238.50.13...
David H. Lipman
"CJ" <diff...@times.com> wrote in message
news:uf9pcaf...@corp.supernews.com...
DeeDee
Old news,The more pressing question is how did he avoid the statute 10 year
sentance tarrif?
Rgrds DeeDee
CJ
helpful" to the authorities. When it's your own ass that's "on the
line" then these virus criminals are happy to rat out each other and
fully disclose "virus writing technology secrets"
There is no honor among criminals...
--
- CJ
"DeeDee" <dee...@slam-virus-team.com> wrote in message
news:Xns921DA2FD02ABFde...@217.32.252.50...
Phil Carmody
>
> According the article he got a reduced sentence for being "extremely
> helpful" to the authorities. When it's your own ass that's "on the
> line" then these virus criminals are happy to rat out each other and
> fully disclose "virus writing technology secrets"
>
> There is no honor among criminals...
Computer programs are (hopefully) deterministic. Therefore, there's 'full disclosure' of virus writing technology secrets in the disassembly. Or can't the FBI understand x86 code?
Phil
Lance Delacroix
>Mars, Saturn, and most recently Venus ....
Did you say "penis"?
Lee Higdon
>
> There is no honor among criminals...
>
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
David H. Lipman
Was he a CRIMINAL or was he a VANDAL ???
Dave
"CJ" <diff...@times.com> wrote in message
news:uf9tetm...@corp.supernews.com...
Andrew Lee
news:Xv7J8.67210$Np5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
> CJ:
>
> Was he a CRIMINAL or was he a VANDAL ???
Is there a difference?
-AJL
Jeffrey A. Setaro
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> CJ:
>
> Was he a CRIMINAL or was he a VANDAL ???
>
>
Vandalism (or criminal mischief) is a criminal offense in most
jurisdictions.
Here in Connecticut criminal mischief ranges from a class C misdemeanor
to a class D felony depending on the value of the property damaged or
destroyed.
--
Cheers-
Jeff Setaro
jase...@sprynet.com
http://home.sprynet.com/~jasetaro/
PGP Key IDs DH/DSS: 0x5D41429D RSA: 0x599D2A99
CJ
that agency I can no longer speak for them in an official capacity.
--
--
- CJ
"Phil Carmody" <firstnam...@nokia.com> wrote in message
news:3CF4FB15...@nokia.com...
CJ
--
--
- CJ
"Lance Delacroix" <lance_d...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:aj0afuso4qf2aegkh...@4ax.com...
CJ
--
- CJ
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:Xv7J8.67210$Np5....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
Lee Higdon
"Jeffrey A. Setaro" <jase...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.175ed931c...@nntp.sprynet.com...
> Here in Connecticut criminal mischief ranges from a class C misdemeanor
> to a class D felony depending on the value of the property damaged or
> destroyed.
>
Or the number of characters in a gang-sign.
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
Lee Higdon
> Phil I suppose you might want to ask the FBI that. Since I retired from
> that agency I can no longer speak for them in an official capacity.
>
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
Lance Delacroix
>No - you - said penis. Do you have a fascination with penises?
Venus, penis.... weenis, meenis.
Albert Zschermansky
Humm... CJ seems me a lot to JC. Do you remember that letters? (hint:
someone called JED!). The way the topic is written could be from him
perfectly!
Oh, my God! I hope not!
Regards,
Yoko
FromTheRafters
> No - you - said penis. Do you have a fascination with penises?
I have grown sort of attached to one.
CJ
Jed is my twin brother......it's easy to tell us apart since I am the
good-looking one.
--
- CJ
"Albert Zschermansky" <yceb...@yahoo.es> wrote in message
news:99cdab75.02052...@posting.google.com...
CJ
chronic back pain!
--
- CJ
"FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net> wrote in message
news:ufaiu8a...@corp.supernews.com...
Art Kopp
>Good one..me too. Only trouble I have with mine is the constant and
>chronic back pain!
Put mommy on top.
>> > No - you - said penis. Do you have a fascination with penises?
>>
>> I have grown sort of attached to one.
Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
Reply to address should work.
CJ
Why didn't I think of that?? Do you do marriage counseling too? 8>)
--
- CJ
"Art Kopp" <art...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3cf56320...@news.epix.net...
Art Kopp
>Thanks Art,
> Why didn't I think of that?? Do you do marriage counseling too? 8>)
Nah. I'll stick with virus counseling. I prefer logical issues to
irrational issues. Besides, I've only been married since 1956 so I
don't know shit about it. Never will. Nobody ever will. It's hopeless.
>> >Good one..me too. Only trouble I have with mine is the constant and
>> >chronic back pain!
>>
>> Put mommy on top.
Art
Albert Zschermansky
> According the article he got a reduced sentence for being "extremely
> helpful" to the authorities. When it's your own ass that's "on the
> line" then these virus criminals are happy to rat out each other and
> fully disclose "virus writing technology secrets"
>
> There is no honor among criminals...
>
> --
> - CJ
Sorry, but... are you sure you aren't Jed? This (your) statement could
be cut&pasted from any of his posts... and the subyacent hate to
"virus criminals" (note the vehement adjective) recalls me alot this
man...
Guillermito
> > Phil I suppose you might want to ask the FBI that. Since I retired from
> > that agency I can no longer speak for them in an official capacity.
> >
> Guillermito, there you go. Question answered.
Hehe :) The thing is I believe (or at least, I hope) that this american
federal agency has standarts high enough *not* to hire Jed Connors or
his "twin". He was in the FBI, and I am Santa Claus.
--
Guillermito
http://www.guillermito.net
Lee Higdon
"Guillermito" <guill...@pipo.com> wrote in message
news:3CF612E1...@pipo.com...
aware of (besides the absence of a criminal history) that the FBI maintains,
is that its agents have a 4 year college degree, preferably in either
pre-law or accounting.
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
Lee Higdon
Alright, rod. See, I wasn't the only one ;).
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
Bart Bailey
>
> Alright, rod. See, I wasn't the only one ;).
nor I either
--
~Bart~
Lee Higdon
"Bart Bailey" <bar...@nethere.net> wrote in message
news:3CF69B69...@amsat.org...
Hey, Bart. Haven't seen you post in a while. Hope all is well.
--
Peace,
Lee Higdon
Bart Bailey
Been eating catfish at my sister's in Baton Rouge,
got back yesterday.
Tnx for the concern
>
>
> --
> Peace,
>
> Lee Higdon
--
~Bart~
gmvoeth
Or a couple pounds of Prima-Cord wrapped around his skull
with a blasting cap attached to the cord to be set off by some
person wronged by the virus.
Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
"CJ" <diff...@times.com>
wrote in message news:uf9ofcb...@corp.supernews.com...
> He gets 20 months behind bars and a $5,000 fine....
>
> http://www.vnunet.com/News/1131426
>
> --
> - CJ
Big Wood
<gmv...@REMOVEworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>He deserves a high power rifle bullet in the medulla oblongata.
>Or a couple pounds of Prima-Cord wrapped around his skull
>with a blasting cap attached to the cord to be set off by some
>person wronged by the virus.
Oh no, those are much to quick. Something slow and painful... Ebola?
gmvoeth
Not even my worst enemy should be made to suffer.
A quick and easy death should get rid of the problem,
one soul at a time.
Be a good job for Dr. Kevorkian. <Poor soul>
"Big Wood" <Big...@thewoodpile.con>
wrote in message news:g00eiuo7u4i8nqtm3...@4ax.com...
Big Wood
<gmv...@REMOVEworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Are you some kind of sadist ?
At times, given the subject, of course.
>Not even my worst enemy should be made to suffer.
>
>A quick and easy death should get rid of the problem,
>one soul at a time.
That doesn't sound too bad either.
>Be a good job for Dr. Kevorkian. <Poor soul>
I'm sure it would be his pleasure.
DeeDee
I used to write viruses....I have never infected anybody...
Anytime one of you keyboard heroes wants to come try out your bullshit
,my name and address are public info.
Just prepare your families to get a box back marked "members missing".
D D Shelby
Warminster
Wiltshire
England
Big Wood
wrote:
Oh, someone took the jesting seriously. The internet is a large place,
perhaps you can find a sense of humor to download.
l0K1
wrote:
>Oh, someone took the jesting seriously. The internet is a large place,
>perhaps you can find a sense of humor to download.
Me thinks Dee Dee, is trying to short-cut and locate an upload for
free... ;o?
Mange hilsener,
Klaus
gmvoeth
Just like the Navy SEALS work.
"DeeDee" <D...@Demonoids.org> wrote in message news:Xns9243C4AF68748de...@217.32.252.50...
nicky
> > >>> >Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
I'm sure if you really think about it you can work out the difference
between a virus writer and a virus spreader.
Nicky
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.373 / Virus Database: 208 - Release Date: 01/07/02
Art Kopp
<nickyhatess...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > >>> >Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
>
>I'm sure if you really think about it you can work out the difference
>between a virus writer and a virus spreader.
I'm sure if you really think about it, Nicky, you can figure out that
if nobody ever wrote a virus people would not get infected. In fact,
if you really think very hard, you might be able to figure out that if
everyone quit writing viruses right now, it wouldn't be long before
practically noone would get infected.
l0K1
<nickyhatess...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> > >>> >Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
>
>I'm sure if you really think about it you can work out the difference
>between a virus writer and a virus spreader.
Yet more evidence for the need of an unequivocal lexicon on the whole
possible spectrum of malware development (thanks 4Q) and deployment!
HtH (cHeck out tHose goalposts... ;o),
Klaus
l0K1
wrote:
>you might be able to figure out that if everyone quit writing viruses right now,
Spo0Ky and I did such an estimation about 3 and a half years ago as
part and parcel of Pr0ject Zer0 of Virus Vacuum Implosion Theory!
>it wouldn't be long before practically noone would get infected.
Hardly! There's still so many slack safehex practices amongst EUers
for starters, that search and destroy of the globally dispersed viral
reservoirs would take at less a year of not much longer?
Anyways, there's still far too much ignorance, slackness, complacency
and/or supercilious arrogance about and amongst!
HtH,
Klaus
FromTheRafters
"l0K1" <brian...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d277cd0...@news.paradise.net.nz...
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 22:22:07 GMT, "nicky"
> <nickyhatess...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> > >>> >Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
> >
> >I'm sure if you really think about it you can work out the difference
> >between a virus writer and a virus spreader.
Or those in between these phases, whatever they're called.
> Yet more evidence for the need of an unequivocal lexicon on the whole
> possible spectrum of malware development (thanks 4Q) and deployment!
Yes, evidently. But, then again, if we killed all of the virus writers,
releasers, unleashers, and spreaders, we wouldn't have to worry
about an appropriate lexicon.
l0K1
wrote:
>Yes, evidently. But, then again, if we killed all of the virus writers,
>releasers, unleashers, and spreaders, we wouldn't have to worry
>about an appropriate lexicon.
A feisty redneck's ultimate dream however sub-conscious, never arising
to the surface?
Klaus
DeeDee
@news.epix.net:
> I'm sure if you really think about it, Nicky, you can figure out that
> if nobody ever wrote a virus people would not get infected. In fact,
> if you really think very hard, you might be able to figure out that if
> everyone quit writing viruses right now, it wouldn't be long before
> practically noone would get infected.
Vesselin Bontchev has stated he has created viruses.
Dr Fred Cohen has stated he has written viruses and shown others how to do
it.
Do the same rules apply to them?
What is a more sensible statement would be "If everybody that writes
viruses treats them with a degree of responsibility then no one would get
infected"
rgrds Dee
DeeDee
@news.paradise.net.nz:
> Hardly! There's still so many slack safehex practices amongst EUers
> for starters, that search and destroy of the globally dispersed viral
> reservoirs would take at less a year of not much longer?
>
> Anyways, there's still far too much ignorance, slackness, complacency
> and/or supercilious arrogance about and amongst!
Usefull and accurate post Brian...thats more like it....substance in
this..:)
rgrds Dee
Art Kopp
wrote:
>art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) wrote in news:3d276fba.11334815
>@news.epix.net:
>
>> I'm sure if you really think about it, Nicky, you can figure out that
>> if nobody ever wrote a virus people would not get infected. In fact,
>> if you really think very hard, you might be able to figure out that if
>> everyone quit writing viruses right now, it wouldn't be long before
>> practically noone would get infected.
>
>Vesselin Bontchev has stated he has created viruses.
>Dr Fred Cohen has stated he has written viruses and shown others how to do
>it.
>Do the same rules apply to them?
I stated no rules. I stated facts.
>What is a more sensible statement would be "If everybody that writes
>viruses treats them with a degree of responsibility then no one would get
>infected"
Nah. That's not sensible at all. What's sensible is to quit writing
viruses :)
>rgrds Dee
Nick FitzGerald
> art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) wrote in news:3d276fba.11334815
> @news.epix.net:
>
> > I'm sure if you really think about it, Nicky, you can figure out that
> > if nobody ever wrote a virus people would not get infected. In fact,
> > if you really think very hard, you might be able to figure out that if
> > everyone quit writing viruses right now, it wouldn't be long before
> > practically noone would get infected.
>
> Vesselin Bontchev has stated he has created viruses.
> Dr Fred Cohen has stated he has written viruses and shown others how to do
> it.
> Do the same rules apply to them?
Who has ever been infected with those viruses?
> What is a more sensible statement would be "If everybody that writes
> viruses treats them with a degree of responsibility then no one would get
> infected"
"More sensible" -- doubtful.
What you said is, (more or less) obviously (depending on what you mean by
"a degree of responsibility") correct, but the issue is not one of accuracy
but of moral behaviour. Unfortunately, "supporting" the position you
state, as the historically "liberal" Western "academic" (and often, also
"political") tradition has, has led to the current situation where hundreds
or thousands of pig-ignorant and irresponsible dipshits that write and in
some sense "release" viruses feel justified in what they have done -- we
need look no further than then that paragon of responsible malware
development and your "partner" in "Slam", need we...
Such morons feel justified in what they do because their standard for an
"acceptable" degree of responsibility is asking their "buddies" who are
'the only people we trust with our code' to "please not give it to anyone
else" or posting a disclaimer next to a publicly accessible web download
link or password protecting a ZIP file and either publishing the password
next to the download link or on another obviously linked page or sending it
by Email to whoever asks _or even less_.
Thus, while it's a nice idea _in theory_ we have more than sufficient proof
that it is an entirely fucking useless way to run the world because most of
the people who will mainly be responsible for making these hugely important
moral decisions _are entirely ill-equipped intellectually and/or ethically
to make such decisions "well"...
--
Nick FitzGerald
cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com
<gmv...@REMOVEworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
Nah, just one ant bite. For every affected PC, that is...
>--------------- ------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
When your mind goes blank, remember to turn down the sound
>--------------- ------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Art Kopp
>Nick FitzGerald
Ya know Nick, there was a American philosopher-historian named Will
Durant that I enjoyed reading when I was a kid. He once made a remark
concerning genius to the effect that what genius does is speak what
what we wish to say but lack the eloquence. That you have done here.
DeeDee
@news.epix.net:
> Nah. That's not sensible at all. What's sensible is to quit writing
> viruses :)
I'll stop following my leagl hobby when all the people of the world stop
following their morally deficent hobby of drinking alcohol.
There is no need for booze and it kills 1500 people a year here through
drunk driving.
I don't kill people with my hobby.
They enjoy what they do,I enjoy what I do...Nobody gets hurt then there is
no problem.
I find booze to be a distatefull habit that causes all sorts of social and
medical problems,however I respect other peoples rights and don't try to
legislate their morality.It would be nice if people would extend me the
same curtosy.
Otherwise it looks like..
I'll do what I like
You do what I say.
rgrds Dee
DeeDee
@news.iafrica.com:
Sounds fair..
I get no bites.
rgrds Dee
l0K1
wrote:
<snipped some genuinely fine stuff>
>Ya know Nick, there was a American philosopher-historian named Will
>Durant that I enjoyed reading when I was a kid. He once made a remark
>concerning genius to the effect that what genius does is speak what
>what we wish to say but lack the eloquence.
Though it's sometimes prone to loosing its tongue?
>That you have done here.
Yes, Nick speaks well when he chooses to!
Mange hilsener,
Klaus
l0K1
wrote:
>I get no bites.
What %age of Vxers would you reckon could 100% say that?
Just wondering,
Brian
PS. Btw fwiw, I've just sent 4Q details of my last week meeting with
the CCIP Director and his SideKick... ;o)
Big Wood
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 13:42:12 GMT, "gmvoeth"
><gmv...@REMOVEworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
>
>Nah, just one ant bite. For every affected PC, that is...
>
Fire ants <G>
DeeDee
>>Thus, while it's a nice idea _in theory_ we have more than sufficient
>>proof that it is an entirely fucking useless way to run the world
>>because most of the people who will mainly be responsible for making
>>these hugely important moral decisions _are entirely ill-equipped
>>intellectually and/or ethically to make such decisions "well"...
Taken from Nicks post...
As I have said a number of time Nick,I wrote viruses,as yet I have to see
proof that even 1 incident of somebody becomming infected with one of my
creations appear here?
You drink beer,you have not hurt anybody by doing so therefore I respect
your right to continue to do so.
I wrote viruses,I hurt nobody in doing so..and yet people who claim the
moral high ground insist on forcing their percieved values on me for the
actions of others.
If the government of my country see fit to trust me implicitly then who
are a few moralistic people to say otherwise?
I don't judge the value of peoples perceptions by their statements here,I
judge them by the degree of trust they get outside in the world where it
really matters.
If the moral views of some people here were really of such importance
then virus writing would have been made a criminal offence years ago.As
it stands this has not happened so it would follow that either the
persons in the avenues of power either think it does not warrant such
measures or the people making such representations are too full of hype
and self belief to be worth bothering with.
The law can be enforced and is done so every day,morals being subject to
interpretation and differences based on opinions cannot.
I don't try to force my moral position on others and yet they do not
extend me the same degree of curtosy.Have some of the people become so
used to getting their own way that they believe they hold a higher
position in life over others? I repect authority earned through blood and
guts not by stamping ones feet in an attempt to make people listen.
best wishes Dee
DeeDee
@news.paradise.net.nz:
> Though it's sometimes prone to loosing its tongue?
Also the ability to use the Queens command of the English language.
The difference between genius and insanity is a very small one.
rgrds Dee
Lee Higdon
> Thus, while it's a nice idea _in theory_ we have more than sufficient
> proof that it is an entirely fucking useless way to run the world
> because most of the people who will mainly be responsible for making
> these hugely important moral decisions _are entirely ill-equipped
> intellectually and/or ethically to make such decisions "well"...
>
>
Absolutely. But one can make the same argument about other responsible
decisions, like voting, or procreating and its consequence of providing
a suitable environment for upbringing. This is one of the unpleasant
prices we pay for wanting to make our own moral decisions.
--
Peace
Lee Higdon,
Plano, TX
Art Kopp
wrote:
>art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) wrote in
What you fail to understand or recognize is the fact that a
overwhelming majority of people view viruses and virus writers with
disdain. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "stupid people" being
snow jobbed by the media, or caricatures of pimply faced adolescents.
It also has nothing whatsoever to do with some minority taking some
sort of moral high ground. It has everything to do with viewing
malicous code ... and by simple extension those that write such code
.. as vile crud. Most people do view, and will continue to view,
viruses and other malicious code and their authors in that way.
Nick is correct IMO in saying that this is all a reflection of a
failure of our collective legal, political, social and academic
systems. The will of the majority cannot be allowed to be undermined
by a relatively small number of irresponsible dipshits.
DeeDee
@news.epix.net:
> What you fail to understand or recognize is the fact that a
> overwhelming majority of people view viruses and virus writers with
> disdain. This has nothing whatsoever to do with "stupid people" being
> snow jobbed by the media, or caricatures of pimply faced adolescents.
> It also has nothing whatsoever to do with some minority taking some
> sort of moral high ground. It has everything to do with viewing
> malicous code ... and by simple extension those that write such code
> .. as vile crud. Most people do view, and will continue to view,
> viruses and other malicious code and their authors in that way.
Yes I agree Art but my point is do they make such judgements from the
position of intelligence and information or just from the broad brush?
As I stated I have written viruses over a number of years and as yet NONE
of my work has affected other people (nor will it ever do) but by the
wording of your post you suggest I am and should be viewed as "Vile crud"?
As you say above?
"It has everything to do with viewing
malicous code ... and by simple extension those that write such code"
I have seen people drink beer,people who are under the effects of beer
(alcohol) have and continue to cause the death of others when driving.
"and by simple extension" therefore those that drink beer are all drunk
drivers.
As I have just been informed by mail from somebody with more knowledge of
the US legal system DUI drivers kill 60,000 people in the US each year and
yet there is no huge moral outcry against beer.
What both you and Nick do not seem to appear to accept is that an
individual can create replicating code without ever doing harm but you
still broad brush every coder (viral) into the pool of malicious persons
out to do harm.
"Nick is correct IMO in saying that this is all a reflection of a
failure of our collective legal, political, social and academic
systems. The will of the majority cannot be allowed to be undermined
by a relatively small number of irresponsible dipshits."
The will of the majority has no bearing in fact on the laws and
implementation of the laws.Laws are absolute and if read correctly cannot
be read more than one way.Morals are not absolute,all they do is reflect
opinion and differing values in those opinions hence are a verbalisation of
free speech.
I dislike Alcohol,however it is legal.
You dislike virus writing,however it is legal.
Neither of us is wrong,we are just different.Where the situation arrises of
conflict is when one from either group represents their opinion as fact
when in all actuallity all either of us is doing is offering opinion.
best wishes Dee
Lee Higdon
The will of the majority cannot be allowed to be undermined
> by a relatively small number of irresponsible dipshits.
>
Art, all due respect and this is not meant to diparage you in anyway.
You're a straight shooter and I would presume, without hesitation, a
very ethical person. However, (there's always a however any time one is
praised) that statement would be very distubing to a lot of folks (no,
not just Libertarian scum and ACLUers).
Just from the perspective of you being an American citizen (others can
substitute whatever citizenship would be appropriate in their case) you
have an inalienable right to be an irresponsible dipshit, as long as you
don't violate the person or property of another.
This whole virus writing issue shouldn't be one, with the focus on
whether or not one knowingly causes damage or harm to the property of
another.
Art Kopp
>Art Kopp wrote:
LOL! :) I can see where my statement would rattle some fellow
American spirits.
I've been disgusted for decades with "rights abusers" of various kinds
who have not the brains or decency to realize that their rights end
when they infringe upon the rights of others. I have no patience with
the "I got rights" assholes who have no concept of courtesy and the
_responsibilities_ that come along with the _privilege_ of living in a
"free" nation.
And I'm fed up with all those who defend the irresponsible "I got
rights" assholes.
DeeDee
@worldnet.att.net:
> This whole virus writing issue shouldn't be one, with the focus on
> whether or not one knowingly causes damage or harm to the property of
> another.
My point exactly Lee..
From Dave Harley's book Viruses Revealed "Do no harm"
To me it is a simple case of No harm no foul...
Straight shooting is fine(I agree with it totally) but it pays to ensure
you first have the correct targets.
best wishes Dee
nicky
"Big Wood" <Big...@thewoodpile.con> wrote in message
news:tgdgiugb0lbaq7bqn...@4ax.com...
or maybe anyone convicted of deliberately spreading a virus could be
followed around by Brien with a cattle prod which would be used everytime
the offender attempted to use a computer...keeps barlev occupied and the
thought of being followed around by him everyday may act as a deterrent in
itself :))))))))
Bart Bailey
Sometimes walking that fine line can be a confusing experience,
with "helping" hands being extended from both sides. ;-)
--
Bart
Bart Bailey
>
>
> And I'm fed up with all those who defend the irresponsible "I got
> rights" assholes.
Well, you've got a right to your opinion.
you fed up with me for saying that? ;-)
--
Bart
Bart Bailey
>
> Straight shooting is fine(I agree with it totally) but it pays to ensure
> you first have the correct targets.
......and don't "accidentally" hit something that isn't a correct target.
--
Bart
Art Kopp
wrote:
Not if you don't infringe on my rights. Have you?
Bart Bailey
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:20:27 GMT, Bart Bailey <bar...@nethere.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Art Kopp wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> And I'm fed up with all those who defend the irresponsible "I got
> >> rights" assholes.
> >
> >Well, you've got a right to your opinion.
> >you fed up with me for saying that? ;-)
>
> Not if you don't infringe on my rights. Have you?
NTMK
--
Bart
FromTheRafters
<cquirke...@nospam.iafrica.com> wrote in message
news:3d277ab8...@news.iafrica.com...
> On Sat, 06 Jul 2002 13:42:12 GMT, "gmvoeth"
> <gmv...@REMOVEworldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Anyone writing viruses should get the death sentence.
>
> Nah, just one ant bite. For every affected PC, that is...
Now, that's an acceptable punishment. Nice going, Chris.
Sorry RaiD, need some calamine for that?
l0K1
wrote:
>Now, that's an acceptable punishment. Nice going, Chris.
Yeah, cute choice... :o)
>Sorry RaiD, need some calamine for that?
If not for blisters, the following might come in very handy for
"magic" carpets -
http://www.fabriclink.com/carpet/Calaminelotion.html
HtH,
Brian
PS. The weather's promising to clear, so we're off up to Turoa... ;o)
http://www.ruapehunz.com/ski_nz/default_skiarea/ski_areas.html
kurt wismer
Art Kopp wrote:
[snip]
> I'm sure if you really think about it, Nicky, you can figure out that
> if nobody ever wrote a virus people would not get infected.
while this is true . . .
> In fact,
> if you really think very hard, you might be able to figure out that if
> everyone quit writing viruses right now, it wouldn't be long before
> practically noone would get infected.
this does not follow...
this is reducible to the "av companies need us to write viruses so they
can make money" fallacy... to which i always point to
stoned.empire.monkey... 10 years old and still on the wildlist...
--
"nothing changes 'cause it's all the same
the world you get's the one you give away
it all just happens again
way down the line"
Art Kopp
wrote:
>Art Kopp wrote:
>[snip]
>> I'm sure if you really think about it, Nicky, you can figure out that
>> if nobody ever wrote a virus people would not get infected.
>
>while this is true . . .
>
>> In fact,
>> if you really think very hard, you might be able to figure out that if
>> everyone quit writing viruses right now, it wouldn't be long before
>> practically noone would get infected.
>
>this does not follow...
>
>this is reducible to the "av companies need us to write viruses so they
>can make money" fallacy... to which i always point to
>stoned.empire.monkey... 10 years old and still on the wildlist...
Of course. You're neglecting the fact that in a hypothetical static
situation with no new malware being written and released it would be
techically feasible to effectively block all known malware both at the
individual (nowdays powerful) PC level with original equipment
hardware/software and at the ISP level.
I don't see the "unknown" malware problem being resolved in the
forseeable future. It seems like a losing battle to me. So is user
education and so is forcing a requirement of passing a computer guru
examination before you can go on line.
So the question in my mind is, how do we stop the proliferation and
spawning of a increasing number of dipshits who irresponsibly
write/release malicous code?
Raid
> Now, that's an acceptable punishment. Nice going, Chris.
Only if the following two conditions are met:
1. Those who double click and thus infect themselves, and the office
of which they work; are to be executed immediatly following the death
of the said virus writer. NO stays are accepted.
2. Those individuals who insist upon not updating, or not using at all
an Antivirus product; are to be hung by the neck until dead.
The virus problem will not magically go away; even if virus writers
stopped today. User education is the only real cure. And both sides
know that's not going to happen soon.
> Sorry RaiD, need some calamine for that?
Nah. I'm fine. You should ask those who've lost data either to one of
my viruses, (which would be rare; only a few contained harmful
payloads) or due to the ill concieved advice offered by some so called
"experts" here. In reference, I remind you of the hillarious postings
regarding myself, Nick fitzgerald, and an infected poster. The virus
was Irok; and boy did it make many "experts" look stupid indeed. :)
The experts of the antivirus industry were so unsure about Irok, some
of them still have my words from those posts as to it's description
offered on their website; As if they wrote it from studying the virus.
Laugh Laugh.
Regards,
Raid
Raid
> Who has ever been infected with those viruses?
Whos' been infected with one of Dalts?
> need look no further than then that paragon of responsible malware
> development and your "partner" in "Slam", need we...
I'm not Pax's partner. And I'm not in Slam, I quit slam roughly 2
years ago. Nick ol chap, I thought you were the house expert on virus
writers. What's wrong with you old man? Age finally kicking in?
> Such morons feel justified in what they do because their standard for an
Yes well; Atleast my moronic self didn't try to tell people affected
by IRok that the're data was a total Loss. Nor did I make a total ass
of myself arguing with an infected user, when he was able to recover
100% of his files, despite your ignorance.
> link or password protecting a ZIP file and either publishing the password
> next to the download link or on another obviously linked page or sending it
> by Email to whoever asks _or even less_.
In my case, the zips were not simply password protected. I encrypted
the zipfile itself with a 3rd party program. Those interested in the
passphrase could email for it yes, but they were not always provided
with the password if I couldn't verify they were atleast known by
someone in the active scene.
Despite the ignorant claims you make year after year out of hate, We
are not the ignorant bastards you'd like the public to think we are.
> the people who will mainly be responsible for making these hugely important
> moral decisions _are entirely ill-equipped intellectually and/or ethically
> to make such decisions "well"...
The side you represent has no moral comparison to make with the side I
represent. You blindly lead customers into a false sense of security
with the Av hype your side markets. Atleast we're honest about what
our products will and will not do.
Regards,
Raid
FromTheRafters
"Raid" <raid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e1a0c2a2.02070...@posting.google.com...
> "FromTheRafters" <!00...@nomad.net> wrote in message
news:<uihfooj...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> > Now, that's an acceptable punishment. Nice going, Chris.
>
> Only if the following two conditions are met:
>
> 1. Those who double click and thus infect themselves, and the office
> of which they work; are to be executed immediatly following the death
> of the said virus writer. NO stays are accepted.
No mercy for virus spreaders.;o)
But death is too harsh, which is why I thought
Chris' ant bite idea for the author was good.
The severity would be directly proportional
to the 'success' of the virus' survivability in the
wild. The more infections, the more bites.
> 2. Those individuals who insist upon not updating, or not using at all
> an Antivirus product; are to be hung by the neck until dead.
Spreaders! (sorry grandma and sis)
> The virus problem will not magically go away; even if virus writers
> stopped today. User education is the only real cure. And both sides
> know that's not going to happen soon.
User education, or removal of them from the loop. Give them
the choice of which autoupdating AV system to use, but not
the choice of whether or not to use one.
> > Sorry RaiD, need some calamine for that?
>
> Nah. I'm fine. You should ask those who've lost data either to one of
> my viruses, (which would be rare; only a few contained harmful
> payloads) or due to the ill concieved advice offered by some so called
> "experts" here. In reference, I remind you of the hillarious postings
> regarding myself, Nick fitzgerald, and an infected poster. The virus
> was Irok; and boy did it make many "experts" look stupid indeed. :)
Must have been prior to my lurking the group.
> The experts of the antivirus industry were so unsure about Irok, some
> of them still have my words from those posts as to it's description
> offered on their website; As if they wrote it from studying the virus.
> Laugh Laugh.
I understand there is some difficulty analyzing works
disassembled from binary form.
I notice the vbs e-mail harvesting from the Norton sites
description. By the first 60, does that mean in alpha-numeric
order?
Art Kopp
> At least we're honest about what
>our products will and will not do.
This is truly hilarious Raidy. It's on a par with your remark that
your viruses are freeware. You should come up with a few more one
liners like this. You'd make a fortune as a stand-up comic :)
DeeDee
@news.epix.net:
>> At least we're honest about what
>>our products will and will not do.
>
> This is truly hilarious Raidy
Hilarious...but also true.
I got an .nfo from one of RaiDs viruses somewhere here...It does indeed say
that it will do possibly irepairable harm to a users files.
To the letter of copyright they are indeed freeware...(no charge is
required for their use or reproduction).
RaiDs statement may well be funny but it is also technically accurate.
rgrds Dee :)
Art Kopp
wrote:
>art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) wrote in news:3d2a1d1c.26278364
That you felt the need to point the technical accruacy of this
ridiculous stuff is even funnier :)
DeeDee
@news.epix.net:
> That you felt the need to point the technical accruacy of this
> ridiculous stuff is even funnier :)
>
:))
I'm such an asshole sometimes :))
rgrds Dalt
kurt wismer
Art Kopp wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 11:39:57 -0500, kurt wismer <ku...@sympatico.ca>
[snip]
> >this is reducible to the "av companies need us to write viruses so they
> >can make money" fallacy... to which i always point to
> >stoned.empire.monkey... 10 years old and still on the wildlist...
>
> Of course. You're neglecting the fact that in a hypothetical static
> situation with no new malware being written and released it would be
> techically feasible to effectively block all known malware both at the
> individual (nowdays powerful) PC level with original equipment
> hardware/software and at the ISP level.
it's technically feasible, yes, but i didn't neglect anything... you are
neglecting the fact that the virus problem is not solely a technological
problem... there are people involved, sometimes stupid people, sometimes
stubborn people, sometimes forgetful people, etc...
in the real world, viruses would not cease to be a problem if virus
writers stopped writing them...
> I don't see the "unknown" malware problem being resolved in the
> forseeable future. It seems like a losing battle to me. So is user
> education and so is forcing a requirement of passing a computer guru
> examination before you can go on line.
so many losing battles... i don't see any of those as being losing
battles, personally... at least one of them can't be realistically
justified, however...
> So the question in my mind is, how do we stop the proliferation and
> spawning of a increasing number of dipshits who irresponsibly
> write/release malicous code?
you don't... you can't... like roaches, the best you can do is try and
control the numbers... unlike roaches, you don't control the numbers by
killing them, but rather by helping them along the golden path to
responsible conduct...
the virus problem is a multifaceted problem, there are a number of
avenues one can follow trying to mitigate the problem, but there is not
now nor will there ever be a complete solution to the problem...
Bart Bailey
> art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) wrote in news:3d2a1d1c.26278364
> @news.epix.net:
>
> >> At least we're honest about what
> >>our products will and will not do.
> >
> > This is truly hilarious Raidy
>
> Hilarious...but also true.
>
> I got an .nfo from one of RaiDs viruses somewhere here...It does indeed say
> that it will do possibly irepairable harm to a users files.
In my curious collecting days, I too received the entire IroK family, and each
one of them had at least two or more explicit cautions as to what they were.
Additionally, the whole package came as an encrypted dat file with no
instructions about decryption or extension renaming, so there was next to zero
chance that anyone would ever "accidentally" be able to run one of them.
> To the letter of copyright they are indeed freeware...(no charge is
> required for their use or reproduction).
>
> RaiDs statement may well be funny but it is also technically accurate.
yep, I never paid a penny, but then again, I haven't paid for my copy of XP-Pro
either <g>
>
>
> rgrds Dee :)
--
Bart
Art Kopp
wrote:
>Art Kopp wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 11:39:57 -0500, kurt wismer <ku...@sympatico.ca>
>[snip]
>> >this is reducible to the "av companies need us to write viruses so they
>> >can make money" fallacy... to which i always point to
>> >stoned.empire.monkey... 10 years old and still on the wildlist...
>>
>> Of course. You're neglecting the fact that in a hypothetical static
>> situation with no new malware being written and released it would be
>> techically feasible to effectively block all known malware both at the
>> individual (nowdays powerful) PC level with original equipment
>> hardware/software and at the ISP level.
>
>it's technically feasible, yes, but i didn't neglect anything... you are
>neglecting the fact that the virus problem is not solely a technological
>problem... there are people involved, sometimes stupid people, sometimes
>stubborn people, sometimes forgetful people, etc...
Hmm. I do feel that that in my hypothetical situation a technological
solution seems quite possible ... a solution that would negate the
factors of user ignorance, naivety, stupidity, laziness, etc.
>in the real world, viruses would not cease to be a problem if virus
>writers stopped writing them...
I really don't see why not since I postulated a rapid
development/deployment of new hardware/software blocking of all known
viruses. People would tend to flock to the new "protected" PCs.
Unprotected PCs would quickly go the way of the dodo bird. Old
unprotected PCs couldn't spread worms to new PCs anyway. The "instant
relics" would simply become irrelevant and not part of the equation.
But it's fruitless to argue and speculate on such a hypothetical and
unlikely scenario.
>> I don't see the "unknown" malware problem being resolved in the
>> forseeable future. It seems like a losing battle to me. So is user
>> education and so is forcing a requirement of passing a computer guru
>> examination before you can go on line.
>
>so many losing battles... i don't see any of those as being losing
>battles, personally... at least one of them can't be realistically
>justified, however...
>
>> So the question in my mind is, how do we stop the proliferation and
>> spawning of a increasing number of dipshits who irresponsibly
>> write/release malicous code?
>
>you don't... you can't... like roaches, the best you can do is try and
>control the numbers... unlike roaches, you don't control the numbers by
>killing them, but rather by helping them along the golden path to
>responsible conduct...
I have never proposed killing the diphsits. I've proposed nailing as
many as we can and sentencing them to five years of manual labor
shrink wrapping McAfee and Norton av retail boxes This threat
literally terrorizes them :)
>the virus problem is a multifaceted problem, there are a number of
>avenues one can follow trying to mitigate the problem, but there is not
>now nor will there ever be a complete solution to the problem...
I agree but I'd like to see action rather than words. Also, I perceive
among some of the technically knowledgeable that post here a smug "I
know how to protect myself and to hell with the stupid users" attitude
that bugs me sometimes. I really feel badly for all the innocent PC
users that have work to do with their PCs and become infected, not
because they're stupid or lazy but because computers are a
technological mystery to them. The arrogance and insensitivy of some
vx and av types both sometimes makes me want to punch them out :)
Reminds me of the cartoon of two buzzards sitting in a tree. One turns
to the other and says "Patience hell, I'm going to kill somebody".
Sometimes I feel that way myself :)
Raid
> This is truly hilarious Raidy. It's on a par with your remark that
> your viruses are freeware. You should come up with a few more one
> liners like this. You'd make a fortune as a stand-up comic :)
Er, last time I checked; My name was Raid. Not raidy; a few friends
refer to me as Raidy, but you and I are hardly friends.
I wasn't being funny on purpose... I believe computers are more
complicated then the general public's opinion. I don't believe for one
second the entire virus situation is because of the virus writers. I
do believe greed, user carelessness, and outright stupidity account
for the real problem. I also believe you are in the majority of the
stupid people now using Pcs.
Regards,
Raid
Frederic Bonroy
> I don't believe for one second the entire virus situation is because
> of the virus writers. I do believe greed, user carelessness, and
> outright stupidity account for the real problem.
Awww Raid, you have said some really idiotic things in the past but
this is really the climax. I have the impression that you are
unconciously and desperately searching for an excuse for spreading
viruses, and all you can come up with is the same silly reasoning.
Try to be more imaginative for heaven's sake. :-)
Did it ever occur to you that your point of view might be shared only
by virus writers? In that case wouldn't that make it a somewhat biased,
maybe even invalid point of view?
Art Kopp
>art...@nowhere.com (Art Kopp) wrote in message news:<3d2a1d1c...@news.epix.net>...
>
>> This is truly hilarious Raidy. It's on a par with your remark that
>> your viruses are freeware. You should come up with a few more one
>> liners like this. You'd make a fortune as a stand-up comic :)
>
>Er, last time I checked; My name was Raid. Not raidy; a few friends
>refer to me as Raidy, but you and I are hardly friends.
True enough, Mr. Raid.
>I wasn't being funny on purpose... I believe computers are more
>complicated then the general public's opinion.
Computers are a total technical mystery to the general public Mr.
Raid.
>I don't believe for one
>second the entire virus situation is because of the virus writers.
Why not? Still don't understand that if there were no viruses there
would be no virus problem Mr. Raid? Doesn't seem that difficult to
comprehend.
>I do believe greed, user carelessness, and outright stupidity account
>for the real problem.
You are absolutely misguided in that belief, Mr. Raid. Which is a
polite way of saying you are quite obviously completely wrong.
> I also believe you are in the majority of the
>stupid people now using Pcs.
I am far from stupid Mr. Raid. You seem to have a penhant for scoring
zero. Why is that, Mr. Raid? I don't think for one second that you are
stupid. You must just be so blind and filled with hatred that you
cannot see much of anything clearly at all.
I do think you have a talent for generating humor though, whether you
realize it or not.
DeeDee
75150.news.dfncis.de:
> Did it ever occur to you that your point of view might be shared only
> by virus writers? In that case wouldn't that make it a somewhat biased,
> maybe even invalid point of view?
On the subject of idiotic Frederic...how does ones opinion hold less
validity than anothers?
My personal opinion (view) of Camp Xray is that they should all be executed
without further waste of public money.
Many civil rights people do not agree with me..
Neither of us are right..just offering opinions..
Too many people confuse opinion with fact.Raid has as much right to his
opinion (views) as you or I do.
rgrds Dee
Frederic Bonroy
> My personal opinion (view) of Camp Xray is that they should all be
> executed without further waste of public money.
Without making sure that they are actually culpable of something first?
> Many civil rights people do not agree with me..
>
> Neither of us are right..just offering opinions..
Then ask the detainees in Camp Xray what their opinion is. Obviously,
their opinion is predictable since they are directly concerned just
like Raid is concerned when he talks about virus writers.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some opinions carry
some bias and should be treated accordingly.
Bart Bailey
All opinions carry bias, that's why they're called opinions, rather than
facts.
--
Bart
Bart Bailey
>
>
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some opinions carry
> some bias and should be treated accordingly.
All opinions carry bias, that's why they're called opinions, rather than
facts.
--
Bart
Bart Bailey
causing a few of my posts to be duplicated.
not sure what happened but a quick phone chat appears to have resolved it.
--
Bart
Frederic Bonroy
> > Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some opinions carry
> > some bias and should be treated accordingly.
>
> All opinions carry bias,
Even more so when you are directly concerned.
kurt wismer
Art Kopp wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:28:56 -0500, kurt wismer <ku...@sympatico.ca>
[snip]
> >it's technically feasible, yes, but i didn't neglect anything... you are
> >neglecting the fact that the virus problem is not solely a technological
> >problem... there are people involved, sometimes stupid people, sometimes
> >stubborn people, sometimes forgetful people, etc...
>
> Hmm. I do feel that that in my hypothetical situation a technological
> solution seems quite possible ...
well if we're only dealing with hypothetical situations . . . i could
imagine a hypothetical situation in which the virus problem has a
theatrical solution... or maybe a pharmaceutical solution...
> a solution that would negate the
> factors of user ignorance, naivety, stupidity, laziness, etc.
nope, no can do...
> >in the real world, viruses would not cease to be a problem if virus
> >writers stopped writing them...
>
> I really don't see why not since I postulated a rapid
> development/deployment of new hardware/software blocking of all known
> viruses.
assuming immediate adoption by everyone, everywhere, that would only
nullify the threat posed by current viruses and viruses currently in
production... i see no reason why it would halt the production of new
viruses...
new viruses, you'll agree, are a part of the virus problem...
> People would tend to flock to the new "protected" PCs.
tendancies void my previously mentioned assumption... if we're dealing
with real world tendencies then there will be people who never adopt
your 'protected' pc's and thus the virus problem will not be solved,
only mitigated...
> Unprotected PCs would quickly go the way of the dodo bird. Old
> unprotected PCs couldn't spread worms to new PCs anyway. The "instant
> relics" would simply become irrelevant and not part of the equation.
in the real world, nothing ever goes away... not completely... not
viruses, not virus writers, and not virally susceptible computers...
[snip]
> >you don't... you can't... like roaches, the best you can do is try and
> >control the numbers... unlike roaches, you don't control the numbers by
> >killing them, but rather by helping them along the golden path to
> >responsible conduct...
>
> I have never proposed killing the diphsits.
sorry, i didn't mean to imply you did... though there have been some
who've suggested it, i just wanted to make it explicit that my analogy
ended where it did...
[snip]
> >the virus problem is a multifaceted problem, there are a number of
> >avenues one can follow trying to mitigate the problem, but there is not
> >now nor will there ever be a complete solution to the problem...
>
> I agree but I'd like to see action rather than words.
well, i do what i can but there's a limit to what i can do... i don't
see me ever getting into a position where i can make concrete inroads
into technical solutions (a job in the av industry? in toronto? nah)...
i used to do more... i used to respond to just about every request for
help i saw... now a days there's a legion of helpful folks doing just
that, i realized i don't have to go after each and every one anymore,
and if certain select persons have answered then i know i can probably
ignore the rest of the thread...
i also used to engage vx folks in debate, to bring up ideas and problems
and the like... there don't seem to be many of them here anymore
though... and of those that are left that i can name off the top of my
head (2), 50% of them i can find no real fault with...
and i am trying real hard to motivate myself to work on my website (i've
found replacement links for most of the broken links on the papers
section and found a heap of new papers)... among other enhancements i
would ideally like to make...
> Also, I perceive
> among some of the technically knowledgeable that post here a smug "I
> know how to protect myself and to hell with the stupid users" attitude
> that bugs me sometimes.
yes, i know it well... i ranted and raved about it years ago... then i
realized i was making myself into a kook, so i said to hell with them
and did things the way i felt they should be done... in the process i've
probably committed the same sin to some extent myself, but i try to keep
myself in check...
l0K1
wrote:
As midnight approaches, this especially caught my eye, enough so to
add -
>i used to do more... i used to respond to just about every request for
>help i saw... now a days there's a legion of helpful folks doing just that,
Yep, bless them and THEIR helpers, with sites like Art's and Clay's as
examples, that newbies etc can be readily directed to!
>i realized i don't have to go after each and every one anymore,
>and if certain select persons have answered then i know i can probably
>ignore the rest of the thread...
Interesting point. In corollary, today noticing how much I've already
fallen behind from only 24 hours absence, short cuts are rather in
order, for all concerned!
Cul8r,
Brian
Art Kopp
wrote:
<snip>
>assuming immediate adoption by everyone, everywhere, that would only
>nullify the threat posed by current viruses and viruses currently in
>production... i see no reason why it would halt the production of new
>viruses...
>
>new viruses, you'll agree, are a part of the virus problem...
Sorry Kurt but it seems you forgot the premise of no new or "unknown"
malicious code being generated.
>> People would tend to flock to the new "protected" PCs.
>
>tendancies void my previously mentioned assumption... if we're dealing
>with real world tendencies then there will be people who never adopt
>your 'protected' pc's and thus the virus problem will not be solved,
>only mitigated...
>
>> Unprotected PCs would quickly go the way of the dodo bird. Old
>> unprotected PCs couldn't spread worms to new PCs anyway. The "instant
>> relics" would simply become irrelevant and not part of the equation.
>
>in the real world, nothing ever goes away... not completely... not
>viruses, not virus writers, and not virally susceptible computers...
We were not discussing "what is". We were discussing a improbable
"what would happen if".
And this "what would happen if" would have to include malicious
"repackaging" in various ways of existing malicious code. I'm thinking
of things such as the endless new packing methods used to fool
scanners for one thing. All such techniques would fall in the broad
category of "virus/malware authorship and releasing" which would have
to stop so that the technical problems with "unknown" malware would no
longer exist.
>> I have never proposed killing the diphsits.
>
>sorry, i didn't mean to imply you did... though there have been some
>who've suggested it, i just wanted to make it explicit that my analogy
>ended where it did...
>
>[snip]
>> >the virus problem is a multifaceted problem, there are a number of
>> >avenues one can follow trying to mitigate the problem, but there is not
>> >now nor will there ever be a complete solution to the problem...
>>
>> I agree but I'd like to see action rather than words.
>
>well, i do what i can but there's a limit to what i can do...
And I never meant to imply that _you_ don't do what you can :) I had
in mind political and legal clampdowns.
>i don't
>see me ever getting into a position where i can make concrete inroads
>into technical solutions (a job in the av industry? in toronto? nah)...
>
>i used to do more... i used to respond to just about every request for
>help i saw... now a days there's a legion of helpful folks doing just
>that, i realized i don't have to go after each and every one anymore,
>and if certain select persons have answered then i know i can probably
>ignore the rest of the thread...
I recall when I first started haunting acv that you did respond and
help profusely. Those were fun days with you and George Wenzel seeming
to "hold the fort" along with a few like BPB, Nick, Dr. Solomon,
Jimmy Kuo and others whose names I can't recall offhand. Too bad acv
has lost certain regular posters who are real experts.
>i also used to engage vx folks in debate, to bring up ideas and problems
>and the like...
I remember that.
>there don't seem to be many of them here anymore
>though... and of those that are left that i can name off the top of my
>>head (2), 50% of them i can find no real fault with...
I don't have patience with anyone who writes/shares irresponsibly
regardless of their various "causes" or how much of a "nice and
interesting guy" they may seem to be. I recall being annoyed with
Pierre V. who appeared to be so in awe of the intellects and technical
abilities of certain vx. I have no admiration or respect for such
anti-social creeps with various "causes" whos crud gets spread to
innocent PC users. There are plenty of truly intelligent people in the
world with their heads screwed on to look up to.
>and i am trying real hard to motivate myself to work on my website (i've
>found replacement links for most of the broken links on the papers
>section and found a heap of new papers)... among other enhancements i
>would ideally like to make...
I'm retired and it never ceases to amaze me how precious little time
there is. I never get around to doing half the stuff I'd like to do.
>
>> Also, I perceive
>> among some of the technically knowledgeable that post here a smug "I
>> know how to protect myself and to hell with the stupid users" attitude
>> that bugs me sometimes.
>
>yes, i know it well... i ranted and raved about it years ago... then i
>realized i was making myself into a kook, so i said to hell with them
>and did things the way i felt they should be done... in the process i've
>probably committed the same sin to some extent myself, but i try to keep
>myself in check...
>
>--
>"nothing changes 'cause it's all the same
> the world you get's the one you give away
> it all just happens again
> way down the line"
>
>
Art
l0K1
wrote:
>Sorry Kurt but it seems you forgot the premise of no new or "unknown"
>malicious code being generated.
Wrt PZ/VVIT that's what Spo0Ky and I "agreed" upon, but our reckonings
on such a hypothetical construe had in-build time limitations of say
one year only.
>We were not discussing "what is". We were discussing a improbable
>"what would happen if".
Very improbable, but nonetheless it's still theoretically interesting
to contemplate the consequences thereof.
>And I never meant to imply that _you_ don't do what you can :) I had
>in mind political and legal clampdowns.
More so than education, Sarah's favoured line of "attack"?
>Too bad acv has lost certain regular posters who are real experts.
Obviously they have better things to do?
>I'm retired and it never ceases to amaze me how precious little time
>there is. I never get around to doing half the stuff I'd like to do.
Know that feeling only too we!!... :o(
Mange hilsener,
Brian
Andrew Lee
> DeeDee wrote:
>
>>
>> Straight shooting is fine(I agree with it totally) but it pays to ensure
>> you first have the correct targets.
>
> ......and don't "accidentally" hit something that isn't a correct target.
acceptable collateral damage ;-)
!ekoj a tsuj s'ti ,taht naem yllaer t'nod I ,oN
-AJL
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of my employers.
Bart Bailey
> Bart Bailey <bar...@nethere.net> a écrit news:3D28A2FE...@amsat.org:
>
> > DeeDee wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Straight shooting is fine(I agree with it totally) but it pays to ensure
> >> you first have the correct targets.
> >
> > ......and don't "accidentally" hit something that isn't a correct target.
>
> acceptable collateral damage ;-)
?gniddew nahgfA na ekiL
> !ekoj a tsuj s'ti ,taht naem yllaer t'nod I ,oN
--
Bart