Avast Doesn't Block XP Defender malware (ave.exe)
in [Spyware]
|
From: Beauregard T. Shagnasty on 8 Apr 2010 19:01 ~BD~ wrote: > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote: >> ~BD~ wrote: >>> Leythos wrote: >>>> Why not respect Usenet yourself? >>>> >>>> Usenet is not a chat group that you can ramble on about any given >>>> subject in any given group - the GROUP NAME DEFINES THE DISCUSSION >>>> TYPE AND CONTENT. >>>> >>>> If you want to "Talk" with people about non-Anti-Virus things, >>>> then you should respect Usenet and how it was intended to be used >>>> and take your discussion to email. >>>> >>>> It's simple to follow Usenet methods, if you care. >>> >>> Everyone has a different view! Here's an example: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>> There, SeaNymph said ........ >> >> "SeaNymph" is definitely not a person whose opinion should be used >> as a reference to describe how Usenet works. > > That's like throwing down a gauntlet! > Perhaps you should consider saying that to her face, BTS. > *Why* is her opinion unworthy? Tell me that. Why should I? You yourself just called her "acid." -- -bts -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
From: Leythos on 8 Apr 2010 20:04 In article <hplkoh$ip8$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... > Which rules? Are you talking about rules set in internet stone, or the ones > people actually practice by what they actually do? :-) As far as I can no > one considers any rules on ngs not subject to change on the fly. Have you > had a different experience? > You really are one of those people that believes you can do what you want as long as it pleases you. Did you know, while alt groups are sometimes free-for-all's, in a non- Alt group, there are charters that dictate the prescribed behavior, and that some ISP as well as Usenet providers will terminate your account for constantly violating the rules. In the early days a group started as an alt group and after months or years of being controlled by rules it could request to be moved out of the alt structure.... While you may believe that your desires actually mean something, acting against the rules show your contempt for the rest of us and the structure put in place, which seems to make you and BD a match. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on 8 Apr 2010 20:05 In article <hplkqv$j3m$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway says... > > "Leythos" <spam999free(a)rrohio.com> wrote in message > news:MPG.26281ffed92878dc98a2a0(a)us.news.astraweb.com... > > In article <GLydnWiPGZ4TySPWnZ2dnUVZ8mOdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, > > BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.ukk says... > >> *Why* is her opinion unworthy? Tell me that. > >> > > > > Chaos is not what the Structure and Ideal of Usenet is about, read it > > for yourself and then follow the posts to determine if "I'll do it my > > way because I want to do it my way, even if everyone says it's wrong" is > > valid or just arrogance. > > > > > Do you consider the natural ebb and flow of human conversation to be chaos? > (interesting thought) If it's not on topic in the group, then it's a form of chaos. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: Leythos on 8 Apr 2010 20:15 In article <FpKdnRTju6HRxCPWnZ2dnUVZ8n-dnZ2d(a)bt.com>, BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.ukk says... > > Leythos wrote: > > In article<GLydnWiPGZ4TySPWnZ2dnUVZ8mOdnZ2d(a)bt.com>, > > BoaterDave(a)hotmail.co.ukk says... > >> *Why* is her opinion unworthy? Tell me that. > >> > > > > Chaos is not what the Structure and Ideal of Usenet is about, read it > > for yourself and then follow the posts to determine if "I'll do it my > > way because I want to do it my way, even if everyone says it's wrong" is > > valid or just arrogance. > > > > This is one thread amongst billions of others in over 120,000 groups. > > No one is being inconvenienced in any way by the posts being made now. > > Usenet, as once was, is dying. Maybe if we actually *use* it, it will > survive, in part at least. Times change and you must learn to bend in > the wind of this change, Leythos. :) People have been saying that Usenet is dying for a decade, and it's not any closer to dying today. You keep making excuses for not following the rules that have stood for a long time - you show your contempt for Usenet and the structure. How can YOU feel that YOU are more important than something that was created and has worked well before you even learned it was here. Your belief that you have a right to change it tells a lot about you. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. spam999free(a)rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
From: FromTheRafters on 8 Apr 2010 20:24
"Jenn" <me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in message news:hplkqv$j3m$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Do you consider the natural ebb and flow of human conversation to be > chaos? (interesting thought) A resemblance of order arising from the emergent behavior of entities in chaos. If the entities weren't in chaos, they would be able to stay on topic - being constrained as it were. Entities with simple rules can display emergent behavior that appears complex, from the flocking of birds (boids) and schooling of fish, to butterfly migrations, to the lifecycles and behaviors of computer worms and viruses (which can carry spyware with them). This is probably why mathematical definitions of malware have taken a back seat to behavioral definitions. The fact that some AV or AM application doesn't see some malware shouldn't really surprise anyone. |