Apple Spreads Firmware Virus To Disable iPhones
John Slade
a virus that would disable modified iPhones. Those suspicions have now
become fact. Apple's newest firmware upgrade for the iPhone has that virus.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070929/ap_on_hi_te/apple_iphone_12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Software update disables hacked iPhones
Sat Sep 29, 6:17 AM ET
Apple Inc. has issued a software update that creates problems for iPhones
modified to work with a cellular carrier other than AT&T Inc. and disables
at least some unofficial programs installed on other iPhone handsets.
Apple warned earlier this week that the iPhone update - which adds access to
the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store and fixes some security flaws - could
permanently disable phones running programs that untether phones from its
exclusive partner's network.
Several gadget enthusiast Web sites, including Gizmodo and Engadget, as well
as online postings from hacker communities reported that, depending on which
unlocking program was used, certain modified phones no longer worked after
they installed Thursday's software update. In some cases, the phones worked,
but only with the original SIM card that ties the phone to AT&T.
Some sites also reported uncondoned third-party applications on the iPhones
became disabled after the update.
Some hackers had characterized Apple's warning as "a scare tactic." Despite
Apple's history of playing cat-and-mouse games with hackers in the past,
company officials insisted they were "not proactively" trying to make hacked
iPhones useless.
It was unclear how many iPhone owners had unlocked their phones, but the
programs - including several that can be downloaded for free - appeared to
be particularly popular with European consumers. Apple isn't selling the
iPhone or initiating the service in Europe until November, so the unlocking
software allowed Europeans who bought iPhones in the United States to use
the $399 devices.
Installing Apple's latest iPhone update is optional.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people that run Apple are control freaks in the extreme. This is the
second time they've put out a firmware virus that would disable one of their
products if third party hardware was added. Apple is the "Big Brother" of
the technology industry thank goodness they only have a 3% market share of
the OS world.
John
Snit
RJSLi.1021$ih1...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com on 9/30/07 12:24 PM:
> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced with
> a virus
And you were wrong.
OK.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
John
"Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C32548AB.92F60%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT network.
Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will not work
because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite firmware.
The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone which Apple
refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in the garbage can.
MuahMan
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gMOdnaUA2LK1YWLb...@netlojix.com...
Doesn't matter to the Mactard Apple apologists. Apple can do no wrong.
Mactardation is a religon that doesn't allow the questioning of their diety
Steve Jobs. They are fucking idiots.
Snit
gMOdnaUA2LK1YWLb...@netlojix.com on 9/30/07 12:42 PM:
>
> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C32548AB.92F60%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> stated in post
>> RJSLi.1021$ih1...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com on 9/30/07 12:24 PM:
>>
>>> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced
>>> with
>>> a virus
>>
>> And you were wrong.
>>
>> OK.
>
> Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
> disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT network.
> Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will not work
> because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite firmware.
> The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone which Apple
> refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in the garbage can.
While I can understand people not being happy with Apple, to call the update
a virus is simply incorrect.
--
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
Friedman
Jesus
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> stated in post
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C32548AB.92F60%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> stated in post
> >> RJSLi.1021$ih1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com on 9/30/07 12:24 PM:
>
> >>> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced
> >>> with
> >>> a virus
>
> >> And you were wrong.
>
> >> OK.
>
> > Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
> > disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT network.
> > Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will not work
> > because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite firmware.
> > The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone which Apple
> > refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in the garbage can.
>
> While I can understand people not being happy with Apple, to call the update
> a virus is simply incorrect.
>
> --
> The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is
> generally employed only by small children and large nations. - David
> Friedman
Depends on whether or not it was deliberate, which is debatable unless
we actually hear from somebody in Apple who's not trying to do PR crap.
Snit
1191182427.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com on 9/30/07 1:00 PM:
> On Sep 30, 3:48 pm, Snit <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> stated in post
>> gMOdnaUA2LK1YWLbnZ2dnUVZ_oKhn...@netlojix.com on 9/30/07 12:42 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Snit" <C...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C32548AB.92F60%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>> "John Slade" <hhitma...@pacbell.net> stated in post
>>>> RJSLi.1021$ih1....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com on 9/30/07 12:24 PM:
>>
>>>>> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced
>>>>> with
>>>>> a virus
>>
>>>> And you were wrong.
>>
>>>> OK.
>>
>>> Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
>>> disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT network.
>>> Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will not work
>>> because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite firmware.
>>> The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone which Apple
>>> refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in the garbage can.
>>
>> While I can understand people not being happy with Apple, to call the update
>> a virus is simply incorrect.
>
> Depends on whether or not it was deliberate, which is debatable unless
> we actually hear from somebody in Apple who's not trying to do PR crap.
Even if Apple did this deliberately... which if they did it may or may not
have been for "bad" reason (it could also be to beef up security or
something) it is still not a virus.
--
Try not to become a man of success, but rather try to become a man of value.
--Albert Einstein
zara
Don't play the semantics' game, Snit. We all know that apple is the Scum of
the earth.
Tim Murray
>
> Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
> disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT network.
> Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will not work
> because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite firmware.
> The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone which Apple
> refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in the garbage can.
>
Where have you read it was permanent? According to the article Apple warned
of it, but no one reported a totally dead phone ... at least not in that
article.
Jesus
No, not totally dead. I've been reading reports of people unbricking
their iPhones, albeit without the phone capability.
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
> 1191182427.734666.112...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com on 9/30/07 1:00 PM:
# S: (n) virus, computer virus (a software program capable of
reproducing itself and usually capable of causing great harm to files
or other programs on the same computer) "a true virus cannot spread to
another computer without human assistance"
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=virus)
Well, it causes great harm to the iPhone if it was unlocked and it
spreads from Apple's servers to users' iPhone with the users'
assistance... it may be a stretch, but it works! :-)
Tim Murray
Cite? Don't get me wrong: I think it's awful for Apple to brick a phone,
especially since Congress grants you the right to unlock it. But I still
wonder where you heard of it.
Snit
>>> Depends on whether or not it was deliberate, which is debatable unless
>>> we actually hear from somebody in Apple who's not trying to do PR crap.
>>
>> Even if Apple did this deliberately... which if they did it may or may not
>> have been for "bad" reason (it could also be to beef up security or
>> something) it is still not a virus.
>
> # S: (n) virus, computer virus (a software program capable of
> reproducing itself and usually capable of causing great harm to files
> or other programs on the same computer) "a true virus cannot spread to
> another computer without human assistance"
> (http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=virus)
>
> Well, it causes great harm to the iPhone if it was unlocked and it
> spreads from Apple's servers to users' iPhone with the users'
> assistance... it may be a stretch, but it works! :-)
A very big stretch.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Snit
GiTLi.4154$z7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net on 9/30/07 1:07 PM:
But Steve said that was me! :)
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Edmund Burke
Jesus
Jesus
> "Jesus" <rustybucket...@gmail.com> stated in post
So? I still made it work! Yay for me. :-)
MuahMan
Gee, a Mactard Apple apologist playing semantics. What a suprise. If it
looks like a virus, acts like a virus, and smells like a virus.... IT'S A
FUCKING VIRUS. Unless it's an Apple virus in which case it's an "update"
that renders your $3000 iPhones useless trash.
Snit
> So? I still made it work! Yay for me. :-)
Not quite as big of a deal as that whole walking on water thing... though my
personal favorite was the wine trick. What kind of wine was that, anyway?
I am assuming it was not two-buck chuck. :)
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
Snit
g_2dnfNACI8MmJ3a...@comcast.com on 9/30/07 1:22 PM:
> Gee, a Mactard Apple apologist playing semantics. What a suprise. If it
> looks like a virus, acts like a virus, and smells like a virus.... IT'S A
> FUCKING VIRUS.
OK: you're a virus. :)
> Unless it's an Apple virus in which case it's an "update"
> that renders your $3000 iPhones useless trash.
Um, but it doesn't.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
zara
And you belive that to be true?
zara
"Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> wrote in message
news:mnTLi.60942$7e6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
You're getting more ill, with each passing day. apple is the Scum of the
earth. Wake up!
Tim Murray
Okay, but how did those phones get bricked? A "real", tested hack that was
countered by Apple? Or were they botched hacks?
Jesus
They got bricked by updating the firmware on unlocked iPhones. More
background here: http://hackint0sh.org/forum/showthread.php?s=912de882d6f83e38e1367f2d2a4497fe&t=9016
(Note the initial claims of lying. Is that common to all Mac
forums? ;-))
Snit
>>> Don't play the semantics' game, Snit. We all know that apple is the Scum of
>>> the earth.
>>>
>>>
>> But Steve said that was me! :)
>>
> And you belive that to be true?
Of course not... fair enough.
--
The answer to the water shortage is to dilute it.
Tim Murray
The thread never said that person's phone was bricked.
Tim Murray
You should read before you post: I said if Apple was doing that I thought it
was awful.
Jesus
> On Sep 30, 2007, Jesus wrote:
>
> >> Okay, but how did those phones get bricked? A "real", tested hack that was
> >> countered by Apple? Or were they botched hacks?
>
> > They got bricked by updating the firmware on unlocked iPhones. More
> > background here:
> > fe& t=9016
>
> > (Note the initial claims of lying. Is that common to all Mac forums? ;-))
>
> The thread never said that person's phone was bricked.
Perhaps I'm using a liberal definition of "bricked"... his phone
wouldn't do anything useful. :-)
Gene Jones
> The people that run Apple are control freaks in the extreme. This is the
> second time they've put out a firmware virus that would disable one of their
> products if third party hardware was added. Apple is the "Big Brother" of
> the technology industry thank goodness they only have a 3% market share of
> the OS world.
What color are the Black Helicopters hovering above your shack Slade?
Apple is always out to get you, they have created a special classified
folder just for you!
Now you know!
Tim Murray
Zara came to the rescue: S/he posted an article from MacWorld that some
phones in the office were bricked.
zara
"witfal" <nos...@all4.me> wrote in message
news:fdp11f$t42$1...@news.albasani.net...
> On 2007-09-30 12:42:16 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> stated in post
>>> RJSLi.1021$ih1...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com on 9/30/07 12:24 PM:
>>>
>>>> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced
>>>> with
>>>> a virus
>>>
>>> And you were wrong.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>> "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish
>>> thing."
>>> - Anatole France
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
>> disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT network.
>> Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will not work
>> because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite firmware.
>> The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone which Apple
>> refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in the garbage
>> can.
>
Bullshit!! If you pay for it - you own it.
David Fritzinger
"MuahMan" <mua...@aol.com> wrote:
Actually, moronman, it isn't a virus. It can't spread from phone to
phone (or from phone to anything else), so, by definition, it isn't a
virus.
Am I happy Apple did this? Not particularly (though it doesn't affect
me), but redefining the term computer virus isn't going to help.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
Snit
Sure: but Apple is under no obligation to support modified products. A
couple years ago I bought a small adjustable mirror to attach to my
rear-view mirror in my car so I could see the back seat better. It did not
work quite the way that I wanted so I modified it and it has worked well for
years - but now my modifications are beginning to fail. I am confident I
can fix it, but if I cannot it is not the fault of the manufacturer (though
the fact that it was sorta junky in the first place was... ).
Same idea here...
--
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Not Important
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced with
> a virus that would disable modified iPhones. Those suspicions have now
> become fact. Apple's newest firmware upgrade for the iPhone has that virus.
>
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070929/ap_on_hi_te/apple_iphone_12
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------
>
> Software update disables hacked iPhones
> Sat Sep 29, 6:17 AM ET
>
> Apple Inc. has issued a software update that creates problems for iPhones
> modified to work with a cellular carrier other than AT&T Inc. and disables
> at least some unofficial programs installed on other iPhone handsets.
>
> Apple warned earlier this week that the iPhone update - which adds access to
> the iTunes Wi-Fi Music Store and fixes some security flaws - could
> permanently disable phones running programs that untether phones from its
> exclusive partner's network.
>
> Several gadget enthusiast Web sites, including Gizmodo and Engadget, as well
> as online postings from hacker communities reported that, depending on which
> unlocking program was used, certain modified phones no longer worked after
> they installed Thursday's software update. In some cases, the phones worked,
> but only with the original SIM card that ties the phone to AT&T.
>
> Some sites also reported uncondoned third-party applications on the iPhones
> became disabled after the update.
>
> Some hackers had characterized Apple's warning as "a scare tactic." Despite
> Apple's history of playing cat-and-mouse games with hackers in the past,
> company officials insisted they were "not proactively" trying to make hacked
> iPhones useless.
>
> It was unclear how many iPhone owners had unlocked their phones, but the
> programs - including several that can be downloaded for free - appeared to
> be particularly popular with European consumers. Apple isn't selling the
> iPhone or initiating the service in Europe until November, so the unlocking
> software allowed Europeans who bought iPhones in the United States to use
> the $399 devices.
>
> Installing Apple's latest iPhone update is optional.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
>
> The people that run Apple are control freaks in the extreme. This is the
> second time they've put out a firmware virus that would disable one of their
> products if third party hardware was added. Apple is the "Big Brother" of
> the technology industry thank goodness they only have a 3% market share of
> the OS world.
>
>
>
> John
Shouldn't this really be "hacked iPhones disable firmware updates
leaading to bricking of the iPhone!"
John Slade
"Not Important" <NotImp...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:13g09gu...@corp.supernews.com...
No, because some or all don't disable firmware updates. Apple is stupid
in the first place to slave it's users of the iPhone to one carrier. Apple
will lose sales of the iPhone because of these paranoid actions.
John
Snit
>> Shouldn't this really be "hacked iPhones disable firmware updates
>> leaading to bricking of the iPhone!"
>
> No, because some or all don't disable firmware updates.
But some do... so maybe "Some hacked iPhones disable firmware updates".
> Apple is stupid in the first place to slave it's users of the iPhone to one
> carrier.
What other carriers were willing to change their system and share revenue
with Apple?
> Apple will lose sales of the iPhone because of these paranoid
> actions.
How is that paranoid?
--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1123221217782777472
Timberwoof
> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced with
> a virus that would disable modified iPhones. Those suspicions have now
> become fact. Apple's newest firmware upgrade for the iPhone has that virus.
"laced" with a "virus"? That's clever but deceitful wording.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." æ°—hris L.
Snit
timberwoof.spam-DA...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net on 9/30/07
7:54 PM:
> In article <RJSLi.1021$ih1...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced with
>> a virus that would disable modified iPhones. Those suspicions have now
>> become fact. Apple's newest firmware upgrade for the iPhone has that virus.
>
> "laced" with a "virus"? That's clever but deceitful wording.
So what about the iPhone scares or bothers the trolls to spread such buzz
words around? One says it is "laced with a virus", another says Apple was
"price gouging"... on and on. Why can't they just voice their concerns
without exaggeration or outright deceit?
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Nashton
> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced with
> a virus that would disable modified iPhones. Those suspicions have now
> become fact. Apple's newest firmware upgrade for the iPhone has that virus.
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
warranty.
OldSage
<ze...@jupiterisland.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Don't play the semantics' game, Snit. We all know that apple is the Scum
> >> of
> >> the earth.
> >>
> >>
> > But Steve said that was me! :)
>
> And you belive that to be true?
>
>
He believes it about as much as anyone believes your inane bullshit
about Apple.
I think Snit is a moron. Unfortunately for all concerned, you trump him
every time.
OldSage
<CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
--
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
> nothing. - Edmund Burke
Wrong! Good men can toil all they want, evil will still triumph.
Snit
011020071048443516%Old...@HisPeak.com on 9/30/07 11:48 PM:
>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
>> nothing. - Edmund Burke
>
> Wrong! Good men can toil all they want, evil will still triumph.
If good men "toil" then evil *might* triumph. If good men sit idle, evil
*will* triumph.
--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.
Snit
> I think Snit is a moron. Unfortunately for all concerned, you trump him
> every time.
Out of curiosity, what views of mine - or actions - leads you to hold that
view? The only "moronic" thing I can see that I do in CSMA is give some of
the trolls a *lot* more attention than anyone else... no doubt that bothers
a number of people.
--
Satan lives for my sins... now *that* is dedication!
Peter Hayes
Wrong - read any EULA sometime.
But I do agree that if what is being reported is fact and not wishful
thinking by the anti-Apple anti-iPhone brigade then Apple aren't doing
themselves any favours. There's a balance to be struck between guarding
their investment and bricking what is a very expensive device. Like
repairing bricked phones for half the price of a new one, perhaps?
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Wally
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
The only thing 'in the extreme' is the ridiculousness of your summation!
"control freaks" would not issue warnings in such a case!
"Apple warned earlier this week that the iPhone update........"
Apple are clearly offering a choice...continue using your hacked iPhone in
the condition that you have rendered it, or take a chance by applying the
update! Unmodified iPhones have no problems with the update!
And where is any evidence of "a scare tactic."?
Apple warned what the likely outcome would be if the update were applied to
modified iPhones, people went ahead and applied the update to modified
iPhones and what Apple warned might happen to them did happen!....DURRRR!
What part of the article (and I use the term loosely) concerning ....
"...for iPhones modified..."
"...at least some unofficial programs..."
"...programs that untether phones from its exclusive partner's network."
"depending on which unlocking program was used, certain modified phones..."
"...uncondoned third-party applications..."
"... hacked iPhones..."
...leaves you in any doubt that these effected iPhones were not being used
as the manufacturer intended thereby removing any responsibility by the
manufacturer to support said iPhones?
It is clearly the responsibility/duty of a manufacturer of a product to
protect the good name of that product after having deemed how it should be
used, it cannot do that if hacks and unofficial programs are allowed open
slather!
Personally I would never have a need for an iPhone that was tied in the way
that it is, if one were offered completely unencumbered then sure I would
possibly get one, but to buy an iPhone as is and to then complain when you
get bitten on the ass due to people trying to make it something that it is
not is not likely to raise much sympathy I feel!
My car has an engine that the manufacturer has stated specifically is not
LPG compliant, should I consider that simply a scare tactic on their behalf
and go ahead and fit LPG anyway?
And if I did and premature damage resulted...I could always complain to the
manufacturer right?......yer right!
zara
> On 2007-10-01 03:26:24 -0700, noti...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) said:
>
>> zara <ze...@jupiterisland.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "witfal" <nos...@all4.me> wrote in message
>>> news:fdp11f$t42$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>>> On 2007-09-30 12:42:16 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
>>>>> disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT
>>>>> network.
>>>>> Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will not work
>>>>> because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite
>>>>> firmware.
>>>>> The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone which
>>>>> Apple
>>>>> refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in the
>>>>> garbage
>>>>> can.
>>>>
>>>> Which is hardly a virus. Call it the protection of intellectual
>>>> property.
>>>
>>> Bullshit!! If you pay for it - you own it.
>>
>> Wrong - read any EULA sometime.
>
> piracy?
I think you're confused, or maybe just a liar. Care to show some proof?
One post will be sufficient.
zaras crystal ball says; That information, will never be forthcoming.
John Slade
"Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1i5axx4.pl48xybvwyaiN%noti...@btinternet.com...
I'm part of the anti-control-freak league. Apple is a company run by a
lot of control freaks, a few control freaks or one very powerful control
freak. Control freaks do things like that.
>
> --
>
> Immunity is better than innoculation.
Ok do you realize how stupid and dumb this statement is? Immunity can't
be better than inoculation gives one immunity. Inoculation is sometimes the
only way an immunity can be obtained. It's like saying cows are better than
milk.
John
Peter Hayes
> "Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1i5axx4.pl48xybvwyaiN%noti...@btinternet.com...
> >
> > Immunity is better than innoculation.
>
> Ok do you realize how stupid and dumb this statement is? Immunity can't
> be better than inoculation gives one immunity. Inoculation is sometimes the
> only way an immunity can be obtained.
It's true innoculation is sometimes the only way an immunity can be
obtained, BUT NOT ALWAYS.
If your system, biological or otherwise, isn't affected by what would
otherwise be a potential threat then surely Immunity is better than
innoculation?
> It's like saying cows are better than milk.
Cows can get bluetongue virus, humans can't. I'd rather be immune from
bluetongue virus than risk being given a jab against it, with all the
potential negative side effects that jab might bring.
I hope you can work out the equivalent computer scenario.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
John Slade
> John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>> news:1i5axx4.pl48xybvwyaiN%noti...@btinternet.com...
>> >
>> > Immunity is better than innoculation.
>>
>> Ok do you realize how stupid and dumb this statement is? Immunity
>> can't
>> be better than inoculation gives one immunity. Inoculation is sometimes
>> the
>> only way an immunity can be obtained.
>
> It's true innoculation is sometimes the only way an immunity can be
> obtained, BUT NOT ALWAYS.
>
> If your system, biological or otherwise, isn't affected by what would
> otherwise be a potential threat then surely Immunity is better than
> innoculation?
>
In most cases immunity is gotten through exposure to a virus at some
point. People who have immunities usually got them from genes or exposure.
In the case of genes the chances are the parent was exposed to the
virus(innoculated). In very rare cases, imunities are the result of random
mutations.
>> It's like saying cows are better than milk.
>
> Cows can get bluetongue virus, humans can't.
This is a bad argument. I'm talking about cause and effect not
spreading viruses to different species.
>I'd rather be immune from
> bluetongue virus than risk being given a jab against it, with all the
> potential negative side effects that jab might bring.
>
And you got that imunity through exposure at some point. So you were
innoculated or one of your ancestors was innoculated.
> I hope you can work out the equivalent computer scenario.
No, because you can't. There is no such thing as an operating system
that is imune to viruses, trojans or other malware. Windows, OS X and Linux
all have viruses in the wild. If you didn't know that then one day, a virus
will probably cause you to lose lots of data.
John
Snit
>>>> Immunity is better than innoculation.
>>>>
>>> Ok do you realize how stupid and dumb this statement is? Immunity can't be
>>> better than inoculation gives one immunity. Inoculation is sometimes the
>>> only way an immunity can be obtained.
>>>
>> It's true innoculation is sometimes the only way an immunity can be obtained,
>> BUT NOT ALWAYS.
>>
>> If your system, biological or otherwise, isn't affected by what would
>> otherwise be a potential threat then surely Immunity is better than
>> innoculation?
>
> In most cases immunity is gotten through exposure to a virus at some point.
Clearly *not* true, unless we limit the discussion to just viruses that
effect humans. The vast majority of viruses are non-pathogenic and even
those that are pathogens are not dangerous to humans.
> People who have immunities usually got them from genes or exposure.
Well, if you count having human genes as a form of immunity from, say, a
virus that only infects cows or pigs or potatoes... sure!
...
>> Cows can get bluetongue virus, humans can't.
>>
> This is a bad argument. I'm talking about cause and effect not spreading
> viruses to different species.
>
>> I'd rather be immune from bluetongue virus than risk being given a jab
>> against it, with all the potential negative side effects that jab might
>> bring.
>
> And you got that imunity through exposure at some point. So you were
> innoculated or one of your ancestors was innoculated.
How the heck do you know? Is there *any* evidence this particular virus
*ever* infected a single human?
>> I hope you can work out the equivalent computer scenario.
>
> No, because you can't. There is no such thing as an operating system that is
> imune to viruses
There is no OS, perhaps, that can be said to be completely secure from all
risk, but OS X is completely 100% *immune* from most viruses. No need to
inoculate - the virus just does not have what it takes to infect OS X.
> , trojans or other malware. Windows, OS X and Linux all have viruses in the
> wild.
Well, other that OS X and maybe Linux.
> If you didn't know that then one day, a virus will probably cause you to
> lose lots of data.
Darn unlikely.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Jim
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
It might be stupid, but it is within their right.
You go purchase an automobile and the MFR says it uses only GAS, but you
want E 85. You think the MFR is nuts.
--
Jim
Jim
wrote:
> On 2007-09-30 12:42:16 -0700, "John" <nos...@nospam.com> said:
>
> >
> > "Snit" <CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> > news:C32548AB.92F60%CS...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> "John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> stated in post
> >> RJSLi.1021$ih1...@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com on 9/30/07 12:24 PM:
> >>
> >>> I had a suspicion that Apple would issue a firmware upgrade laced
> >>> with
> >>> a virus
> >>
> >> And you were wrong.
> >>
> >> OK.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish
> >> thing."
> >> - Anatole France
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > Actually he is right. The latest 1.1.1 fimware release PERMANENTLY
> > disables iPhones that were modded to work on other than the ATT
> > network. Even if the software is restored to an earlier the phone will
> > not work because Apple has permanently disabled the ability to rewrite
> > firmware. The only fix is to replace actual compnents within the phone
> > which Apple refuses to do. Therefore the phone can only be thrown in
> > the garbage can.
>
> Which is hardly a virus. Call it the protection of intellectual property.
>
> Imagine Microsloth allowing someone to hack the Zune, then try to claim
> their firmware update is a virus.
>
> Saying so would be ridiculous and stupid.
Apple has always been about the "user experience" just like they make
there stores.
Apple wants to guarantee as much as possible how the iPhone will work
and they can do that with ONE carrier which is AT&T.
If they allow any tom, dick or harry to mod a phone and put it on
another carrier, then they have no control over the *Experience* and
thus the workings of the iPhone.
This is sorta complex for you slade, but do try.
--
Jim
Jim
"zara" <ze...@jupiterisland.com> wrote:
I'll bet you'd say that to the portrait photographer who took your photo.
Not to mention the photog who took the photos for your ZERO brochure.
--
Jim
Jim
"John Slade" <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
We knew you were extremely anal retentive and now you admit it.
--
Jim
OldSage
<CS...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "OldSage" <Old...@HisPeak.com> stated in post
> 011020071048453574%Old...@HisPeak.com on 9/30/07 11:48 PM:
>
> > I think Snit is a moron. Unfortunately for all concerned, you trump him
> > every time.
>
> Out of curiosity, what views of mine - or actions - leads you to hold that
> view? The only "moronic" thing I can see that I do in CSMA is give some of
> the trolls a *lot* more attention than anyone else... no doubt that bothers
> a number of people.
It's not so much your views, though I have certainly seen some odd
ones, details of which now escape me.
What drives me nuts is your unrelenting ability and desire to argue on
the head of a pin about the most trivial of things.
OldSage
<j...@NOwwa.net> wrote:
> >
> > Bullshit!! If you pay for it - you own it.
>
> I'll bet you'd say that to the portrait photographer who took your photo.
>
> Not to mention the photog who took the photos for your ZERO brochure.
Careful ‹ while you are right and he wrong about who generally owns
intellectual property in the example quoted, you just took a step
outside the comfort zone.
If you hire a portrait photographer to take your portrait and he does
so, copyright in the result is owned by you.
OldSage
<j...@NOwwa.net> wrote:
>
> Apple wants to guarantee as much as possible how the iPhone will work
> and they can do that with ONE carrier which is AT&T.
Jim,. while this is true, it does not mean Apple could not have
controlled the functionality of an iPhone while still letting it be
used with alternativer carriers.
We outside the US laugh or scratch our heads a little at how America
seems to have do badly mismanaged mobile phone use in general. To us, a
phone and a SIM card are two different commoddities. I can go into a
store and buy a phone. The manufacture could not care less which
carrier I choose to use, his phone will still work as intended.
I, on the other hand, must be a tad careful as to which carrier I
choose because the coverage of some might be spotty in the location
where I live.
Having chosen a carrier, I buy a SIM card, insert it in the phone and
everyone is happy.
>
> If they allow any tom, dick or harry to mod a phone and put it on
> another carrier, then they have no control over the *Experience* and
> thus the workings of the iPhone.
But if they would only let an owner choose his carrier, there is no
need for any mods at all.
Jim
OldSage <Old...@HisPeak.com> wrote:
> In article <jim-EB8051.2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Jim
> <j...@NOwwa.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > Apple wants to guarantee as much as possible how the iPhone will work
> > and they can do that with ONE carrier which is AT&T.
>
> Jim,. while this is true, it does not mean Apple could not have
> controlled the functionality of an iPhone while still letting it be
> used with alternativer carriers.
The reason for NOT doing this is out there, the Windows PC. It is just
that generic, malliable device which numerous mom-pop OEM's along with
the the branded OEM's sell and we see all the problems the past has
shown with incompatibilities, driver searches to get things working and
so on.
That's a bullet Apple would certainly dodge and an extension of making
the whole widget.
>
> We outside the US laugh or scratch our heads a little at how America
> seems to have do badly mismanaged mobile phone use in general. To us, a
> phone and a SIM card are two different commoddities. I can go into a
> store and buy a phone. The manufacture could not care less which
> carrier I choose to use, his phone will still work as intended.
IT would be nice were it so here, I HATE the sprint phone I have. When I
find a good one, the old one is going to splatter against a brick wall
on YOU TUBE.
>
> I, on the other hand, must be a tad careful as to which carrier I
> choose because the coverage of some might be spotty in the location
> where I live.
I'm around Chicago and for as large as this place is, there are dead
spots. Sprint seems to work everywhere which is why I have it and put up
with the crappy phone.
>
> Having chosen a carrier, I buy a SIM card, insert it in the phone and
> everyone is happy.
>
> >
> > If they allow any tom, dick or harry to mod a phone and put it on
> > another carrier, then they have no control over the *Experience* and
> > thus the workings of the iPhone.
>
> But if they would only let an owner choose his carrier, there is no
> need for any mods at all.
I guess they just don't want to go that way, eh? Good or bad, it is
their right to do so and the marketplace would theoretically reward them.
--
Jim
Peter Hayes
> "Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:1i5blz6.8vhhn6h6zr9pN%noti...@btinternet.com...
> > John Slade <hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Peter Hayes" <noti...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1i5axx4.pl48xybvwyaiN%noti...@btinternet.com...
> >> >
> >> > Immunity is better than innoculation.
> >>
> >> Ok do you realize how stupid and dumb this statement is? Immunity
> >> can't be better than inoculation gives one immunity. Inoculation is
> >> sometimes the only way an immunity can be obtained.
> >
> > It's true innoculation is sometimes the only way an immunity can be
> > obtained, BUT NOT ALWAYS.
> >
> > If your system, biological or otherwise, isn't affected by what would
> > otherwise be a potential threat then surely Immunity is better than
> > innoculation?
> >
>
> In most cases immunity is gotten through exposure to a virus at some
> point. People who have immunities usually got them from genes or exposure.
> In the case of genes the chances are the parent was exposed to the
> virus(innoculated). In very rare cases, imunities are the result of random
> mutations.
Windows viruses aren't the result of random chance and it isn't random
chance that has kept Linux and OS X essentially virus free, it's
security designed in from the start, rather than being tagged on
afterwards.
> >> It's like saying cows are better than milk.
> >
> > Cows can get bluetongue virus, humans can't.
>
> This is a bad argument. I'm talking about cause and effect not
> spreading viruses to different species.
Ask someone to create an OS from the ground up and it's millions to one
against them creating an OS susceptible to Windows viruses. Their OS is
immune. The nearest to "innoculation" is a course in OS security so they
avoid buffer overruns and the like.
> > I'd rather be immune from
> > bluetongue virus than risk being given a jab against it, with all the
> > potential negative side effects that jab might bring.
> >
>
> And you got that imunity through exposure at some point. So you were
> innoculated or one of your ancestors was innoculated.
All analogies break down sometime. Biological viruses evolve as a result
of random chance, computer viruses are designed. So far the designers
haven't succeeded in infecting OS X to any extent.
> > I hope you can work out the equivalent computer scenario.
>
> No, because you can't. There is no such thing as an operating system
> that is imune to viruses, trojans or other malware. Windows, OS X and Linux
> all have viruses in the wild. If you didn't know that then one day, a virus
> will probably cause you to lose lots of data.
Maybe, but you know perfectly well my tag line relates to the continuing
epidemic of Windows viruses.
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
Jim
OldSage <Old...@HisPeak.com> wrote:
You have no idea of how well I understand the Copyright laws.
--
Jim
Snit
Well, to be fair I merely respond to those who have such a desire. But,
yes, I can see where that would drive someone nuts. :)
--
OldSage
<j...@NOwwa.net> wrote:
Huh? Then why the mis-step?
Jim
OldSage <Old...@HisPeak.com> wrote:
> In article <jim-F5FA0B.1...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Jim
> <j...@NOwwa.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <021020071431301926%Old...@HisPeak.com>,
> > OldSage <Old...@HisPeak.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <jim-F09991.2...@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, Jim
> > > <j...@NOwwa.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullshit!! If you pay for it - you own it.
> > > >
> > > > I'll bet you'd say that to the portrait photographer who took your
> > > > photo.
> > > >
> > > > Not to mention the photog who took the photos for your ZERO brochure.
> > >
> > > Careful ‹ while you are right and he wrong about who generally owns
> > > intellectual property in the example quoted, you just took a step
> > > outside the comfort zone.
> > >
> > > If you hire a portrait photographer to take your portrait and he does
> > > so, copyright in the result is owned by you.
> >
> >
> > You have no idea of how well I understand the Copyright laws.
>
> Huh? Then why the mis-step?
It wasn't.
In either case the buyer does not OWN the photos they are contracting
for both the portrait or brochure. Unless that is one sign's a "work
made for hire" in advance of the creation and thus purchases the
ownership and copyright of said photos.
In some states, photographs are considered personal property and taxed
as such if you sell all rights. Thus you get involved with the tax man.
License them and there is no problem since you still retain ownership.
--
Jim
John Slade
Linux and OS X are not virus free. What keeps them virus free is there
scarceness on the internet. Windows viruses can be the result of random
chance if the user who has one sent to them choses to infect themselves. You
obviously don't know how trojans and other malware are spread.
> it's
> security designed in from the start, rather than being tagged on
> afterwards.
It must be a very poor design because there are gaping holes that Apple
patches often. Many of the holes can allow a remote users to have control
over OS X and cause damage. The fact that it doesn't happen much is not
relevant. For example, no foreign nation has invaded the USA with an army,
but that does not stop the US from protecting it's shores with boats and
aircraft.
>
>> >> It's like saying cows are better than milk.
>> >
>> > Cows can get bluetongue virus, humans can't.
>>
>> This is a bad argument. I'm talking about cause and effect not
>> spreading viruses to different species.
>
> Ask someone to create an OS from the ground up and it's millions to one
> against them creating an OS susceptible to Windows viruses. Their OS is
> immune.
There is no such thing as an OS that is imune to viruses. I know you
aren't making the argument that because OS X can't get Windows viruses then
that makes it imune to all viruses. There are several OS X viruses and the
reason there are so few is because on the Internet, it's very hard to find a
Mac. Many of the virus spreaders want to use computers they infect so why go
after something hardly anyone uses?
> The nearest to "innoculation" is a course in OS security so they
> avoid buffer overruns and the like.
There are viruses for OS X and Linux.
>
>> > I'd rather be immune from
>> > bluetongue virus than risk being given a jab against it, with all the
>> > potential negative side effects that jab might bring.
>> >
>>
>> And you got that imunity through exposure at some point. So you
>> were
>> innoculated or one of your ancestors was innoculated.
>
> All analogies break down sometime. Biological viruses evolve as a result
> of random chance, computer viruses are designed.
Then why do you compare computer viruses to biological viruses. You are
now arguing against your own comparisson so I guess you got the point I was
making when I said it was stupid.
> So far the designers
> haven't succeeded in infecting OS X to any extent.
>
Then you are clueless. The biggest form of malware are cookies. Mac
users are just as vulnerable to them as Windows or Linux users. Don't fall
back on the lame argument that OS X comes with cookies disabled because
Windows does too. Most people, including Mac users will have cookies turned
on because of the convenience.
>> > I hope you can work out the equivalent computer scenario.
>>
>> No, because you can't. There is no such thing as an operating
>> system
>> that is imune to viruses, trojans or other malware. Windows, OS X and
>> Linux
>> all have viruses in the wild. If you didn't know that then one day, a
>> virus
>> will probably cause you to lose lots of data.
>
> Maybe, but you know perfectly well my tag line relates to the continuing
> epidemic of Windows viruses.
I also know good and well that you argued against using that as an
analogy. So it's incorrect when it comes to computers.
John
Wally
mkRNi.31229$eY.2...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net, "John Slade"
<hhit...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<Snip>
> Linux and OS X are not virus free. What keeps them virus free.....
John must you really argue with yourself in public like that?....it's
embarrassing to watch!
<snip>
Peter Hayes
Where did I say they were "virus free"? I said they were *essentially*
virus free, which is true. In practice there are no OS X viruses and
only a handful of Linux viruses in the wild. That's what "essentially"
means.
> What keeps them virus free is there scarceness on the internet.
Now you're saying they *are* virus free... Please take a consistent
position.
> Windows viruses can be the result of random chance if the user who has one
> sent to them choses to infect themselves.
All the user has done is infect themself. The user has done nothing to
create the virus, so has played no part in any "random chance" creation.
Even self modifying code isn't random chance since the algorithm has
been designed into the virus.
I suppose a one-in-a-billion-billion crash in some app could generate a
virus by pure chance. The same random chance as monkeys writing
Shakespeare. Or the successful mutation of a biological virus.
> You obviously don't know how trojans and other malware are spread.
Otherwise, the only thing you're demonstrating is no understanding of
the topic.
> > it's security designed in from the start, rather than being tagged on
> > afterwards.
>
> It must be a very poor design because there are gaping holes that Apple
> patches often. Many of the holes can allow a remote users to have control
> over OS X and cause damage. The fact that it doesn't happen much is not
> relevant. For example, no foreign nation has invaded the USA with an army,
> but that does not stop the US from protecting it's shores with boats and
> aircraft.
And the Windows equivalent would be equipping the US military with
peashooters.
> >> >> It's like saying cows are better than milk.
> >> >
> >> > Cows can get bluetongue virus, humans can't.
> >>
> >> This is a bad argument. I'm talking about cause and effect not
> >> spreading viruses to different species.
> >
> > Ask someone to create an OS from the ground up and it's millions to one
> > against them creating an OS susceptible to Windows viruses. Their OS is
> > immune.
>
> There is no such thing as an OS that is imune to viruses. I know you
> aren't making the argument that because OS X can't get Windows viruses then
> that makes it imune to all viruses.
Where have I denied that as an argument?
> There are several OS X viruses and the reason there are so few is because
> on the Internet, it's very hard to find a Mac.
And even when they do it's nearly impossible to persuade the machine to
propogate them.
> Many of the virus spreaders want to use computers they infect so why go
> after something hardly anyone uses?
Since nearly half the servers on the net are Linux/Apache and
Linux/Apache exploits are virtually non-existent your argument collapses
at the first hurdle.
> > The nearest to "innoculation" is a course in OS security so they
> > avoid buffer overruns and the like.
>
> There are viruses for OS X and Linux.
There's far fewer mainly because they're far more difficult to
implement.
> >> > I'd rather be immune from
> >> > bluetongue virus than risk being given a jab against it, with all the
> >> > potential negative side effects that jab might bring.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And you got that imunity through exposure at some point. So you
> >> were innoculated or one of your ancestors was innoculated.
> >
> > All analogies break down sometime. Biological viruses evolve as a result
> > of random chance, computer viruses are designed.
>
> Then why do you compare computer viruses to biological viruses.
You started the biological virus topic, see at the top of this post,
reproduced below for your convenience,
"Ok do you realize how stupid and dumb this statement is? Immunity
can't be better than inoculation gives one immunity. Inoculation is
sometimes the only way an immunity can be obtained."
And you were happy to continue the biological analogy.
> You are now arguing against your own comparisson so I guess you got the
> point I was making when I said it was stupid.
The biological analogy works very well but will break down at some
point. My tag line works well within the constraints of the analogy.
> > So far the designers haven't succeeded in infecting OS X to any extent.
>
> Then you are clueless. The biggest form of malware are cookies. Mac
> users are just as vulnerable to them as Windows or Linux users. Don't fall
> back on the lame argument that OS X comes with cookies disabled because
> Windows does too. Most people, including Mac users will have cookies turned
> on because of the convenience.
The biggest form of malware is the phishing attack, in which the
computer plays no part, other than being the channel of communication.
> >> > I hope you can work out the equivalent computer scenario.
> >>
> >> No, because you can't. There is no such thing as an operating
> >> system that is imune to viruses, trojans or other malware. Windows, OS
> >> X and Linux all have viruses in the wild. If you didn't know that then
> >> one day, a virus will probably cause you to lose lots of data.
> >
> > Maybe, but you know perfectly well my tag line relates to the continuing
> > epidemic of Windows viruses.
>
> I also know good and well that you argued against using that as an
> analogy. So it's incorrect when it comes to computers.
Where did I argue against it?
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
John Slade
We were talking about your line that OS X was immune and it is not.
>
>> What keeps them virus free is there scarceness on the internet.
>
> Now you're saying they *are* virus free... Please take a consistent
> position.
What I mean was that what keeps most people who use those OSes virus
free is that nobody hardly uses them.
>
>> Windows viruses can be the result of random chance if the user who has
>> one
>> sent to them choses to infect themselves.
>
> All the user has done is infect themself. The user has done nothing to
> create the virus, so has played no part in any "random chance" creation.
I meant to say "can't" instead of can.
>
>> You obviously don't know how trojans and other malware are spread.
>
> Otherwise, the only thing you're demonstrating is no understanding of
> the topic.
>
I understand that there are web sites that will put a virus on a system
and all the user has to do is visit. That's random. Also many spammers put
out infected e-mails to random users. The e-mail adresses are created
randomly.
>> > it's security designed in from the start, rather than being tagged on
>> > afterwards.
>>
>> It must be a very poor design because there are gaping holes that
>> Apple
>> patches often. Many of the holes can allow a remote users to have control
>> over OS X and cause damage. The fact that it doesn't happen much is not
>> relevant. For example, no foreign nation has invaded the USA with an
>> army,
>> but that does not stop the US from protecting it's shores with boats and
>> aircraft.
>
> And the Windows equivalent would be equipping the US military with
> peashooters.
Why do you pick these bad analogies? In fact Vista has had less
security issues than OS X.
The Windows equivelant is for Microsoft to patch the gaping holes in
Windows like Apple does. Apple does not patch every hole with each patch, if
they did, they would have issued one patch and that would be it. You seem to
think I'm arguing that Windows security or Microsofts approach is better
than Apple's. I'm not, I'm saying they are the same. The ONLY difference is
the number of peices of malware and lucky for OS X users they are scarce on
the Internet and in the world. It's called "security by obscurity". That is
a brilliant plan, if you want an OS to be secure, make sure only a few
people can use it. I have an Amiga and I can't remember the last time there
was a new Amiga virus out there.
>
>> >> >> It's like saying cows are better than milk.
>> >> >
>> >> > Cows can get bluetongue virus, humans can't.
>> >>
>> >> This is a bad argument. I'm talking about cause and effect not
>> >> spreading viruses to different species.
>> >
>> > Ask someone to create an OS from the ground up and it's millions to one
>> > against them creating an OS susceptible to Windows viruses. Their OS is
>> > immune.
>>
>> There is no such thing as an OS that is imune to viruses. I know you
>> aren't making the argument that because OS X can't get Windows viruses
>> then
>> that makes it imune to all viruses.
>
> Where have I denied that as an argument?
>
Dumbass. You keep putting "immunity is better than inoculation" in your
tagline in reference to OS X and Windows. Now we know you don't mean Windows
is immune to viruses.
>> There are several OS X viruses and the reason there are so few is because
>> on the Internet, it's very hard to find a Mac.
>
> And even when they do it's nearly impossible to persuade the machine to
> propogate them.
Haven't you been listening? Who are you going to propogate the virus
to when you have only a 4% or less chance of finding an OS X system and a
user willing to install it? It's called security by obscurity.
>
>> Many of the virus spreaders want to use computers they infect so why go
>> after something hardly anyone uses?
>
> Since nearly half the servers on the net are Linux/Apache and
> Linux/Apache exploits are virtually non-existent your argument collapses
> at the first hurdle.
No it isn't because that number of servers is really low. However
they are attacked on a regular basis with DDos attacs and other exploits.
They have to weather cracking attempts too. Also most severs don't have a
lot of priate software installed on them and only preform simple tasks. Also
the people who run servers usually know this and protect the system so you
have very few infections. Now can you tell me the rate of Windows server
infection as compared to infection on home computers?
Now because servers are few in number compared to non-sever computers,
they just won't attract as many attacks as non-servers.
>
>> > The nearest to "innoculation" is a course in OS security so they
>> > avoid buffer overruns and the like.
>>
>> There are viruses for OS X and Linux.
>
> There's far fewer mainly because they're far more difficult to
> implement.
No they're far fewer is because there are so few users. If OS X and
Linux were as popular, they would have every kind of user. Those users would
download tons of pirate stuff and other programs that would infect their
systems. In fact I like to call this scenario the UFP scenario. UFP stands
for "Unlimited Free Porn". You get a teenage boy in a room with a computer
and an infected program promising them UFP, they will get infected. That's
just the way it works. They will give that program permissions in OS X and
Linux.
But dont' get me wrong, there are viurses and trojans that don't need
permissions for OS X and Linux.
>
>> >> > I'd rather be immune from
>> >> > bluetongue virus than risk being given a jab against it, with all
>> >> > the
>> >> > potential negative side effects that jab might bring.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> And you got that imunity through exposure at some point. So
>> >> you
>> >> were innoculated or one of your ancestors was innoculated.
>> >
>> > All analogies break down sometime. Biological viruses evolve as a
>> > result
>> > of random chance, computer viruses are designed.
>>
>> Then why do you compare computer viruses to biological viruses.
>
> You started the biological virus topic, see at the top of this post,
> reproduced below for your convenience,
>
No you did. Once again, you are the first one to say in every post,
"immunity is better than inoculation". So don't blame me for pointing out
the stupid statement you made.
> "Ok do you realize how stupid and dumb this statement is? Immunity
> can't be better than inoculation gives one immunity. Inoculation is
> sometimes the only way an immunity can be obtained."
Yea I said that right after you said, "immunity is better than
innoculation".
>
> And you were happy to continue the biological analogy.
I was pointing out how incorrect it is because no OS is immune to
malware.
>
>> You are now arguing against your own comparisson so I guess you got the
>> point I was making when I said it was stupid.
>
> The biological analogy works very well but will break down at some
> point. My tag line works well within the constraints of the analogy.
No your argument was broke before you made it. You know why...
>
>> > So far the designers haven't succeeded in infecting OS X to any extent.
>>
>> Then you are clueless. The biggest form of malware are cookies. Mac
>> users are just as vulnerable to them as Windows or Linux users. Don't
>> fall
>> back on the lame argument that OS X comes with cookies disabled because
>> Windows does too. Most people, including Mac users will have cookies
>> turned
>> on because of the convenience.
>
> The biggest form of malware is the phishing attack,
No it's not. It's tracking cookies. You obviously don't know shit.
> in which the
> computer plays no part, other than being the channel of communication.
Then why are you bringing it up? Oh I know you're trying to change the
subject because I shot your arguiment and your analogy to bits. Phishing is
not OS specific it's not software it's social engeneering and not relevant
to this conversation. It's not malware. So now I know how clueless you are
and I'm also realizing you're the guy who wants to keep arguments going for
atteintion.
>
>> >> > I hope you can work out the equivalent computer scenario.
>> >>
>> >> No, because you can't. There is no such thing as an operating
>> >> system that is imune to viruses, trojans or other malware. Windows, OS
>> >> X and Linux all have viruses in the wild. If you didn't know that then
>> >> one day, a virus will probably cause you to lose lots of data.
>> >
>> > Maybe, but you know perfectly well my tag line relates to the
>> > continuing
>> > epidemic of Windows viruses.
>>
>> I also know good and well that you argued against using that as an
>> analogy. So it's incorrect when it comes to computers.
>
> Where did I argue against it?
>
I think you know that. I figured you out, you're just saying this
stuff to get attention. Your arguments were shot down, you changed the
subject. You were proved wrong and I won't waste any more time arguing with
your stupid ass. If you are too stupid to admit you were wrong then I won't
waste any more time on you. PLONK!
John