Google abandons Windows
in [UK Mac]
|
From: J. J. Lodder on 2 Jun 2010 06:13 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: > > > > > Pd wrote: > > > > R<me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html > > > >> The end is nigh-ish :-) > > > > > > > > I wonder if that will hasten the arrival of Mac exploits being used in > > > > the wild. > > > > > > > I wonder if it will hasten the script kiddies trying to unleash more Mac > > > Virii... > > > > Whadayamean, 'more', > > In this context, `a larger quantity' seems the most likely definition of > the word `more' intended by the original author. > > Given that the number of MacOS X viruses (note use of the correct > English plural form) in the wild is zero, then `unleash more Mac > viruses' means `unleash any number of Mac viruses which can be expressed > in counting numbers'[1], on account of the fact that reality doesn't > permit the existence of a fractional virus. Disagree. In my opionio the use of 'more' here implies he existence of at least one virii [sic] in the wild. The 'more' should have been omitted. > This is the same situation as would be the case if there were a positive > integer number of Mac OS X viruses in the wild. > > If the number of Mac viruses in the wild could be expressed as a complex > number with non-zero imaginary component, you might want to think about > the magnitude of the resulting vector as the quantity to be assessed to > see if you've got `more', but I'm not sure how one might unleash an > imaginary virus for real. All Mac viruses are purely imaginary. > I hope this lesson in the use of the English language for piggin' > awkward bloody Dutch wossnames proves helpful. Not that the miserable > sod needed it. > > Rowland. > > [1] Defined as the set of non-zero positive integers. > > N.B: There is plenty of MacOS X malware out there in the wild; it's just > that none of the malware counts as a virus. There are also lots of pre > MacOS X viruses out there, but you're unlikely to get infected with one > by accident. I never met one running loose in several years of pre > MacOS X 'net access. There were, transmitted by floppy. (seen a ping pong virus) There even was a Belgian joke about it at the time. Q: How does a Belgian prevent his Mac from getting infected? A: Ur nyjnlf vafregf gur sybccl jvgu gur cebgrpgvir fyrrir ba! Jan
From: John Hill on 2 Jun 2010 12:03 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > There were, transmitted by floppy. (seen a ping pong virus) > There even was a Belgian joke about it at the time. > Q: How does a Belgian prevent his Mac from getting infected? > A: Ur nyjnlf vafregf gur sybccl jvgu gur cebgrpgvir fyrrir ba! So That's how he does it! There was even a CD sent out as a cover disk by Mac User (or was it Mac World?) that had a virus on it! Red faces.... -- Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.
From: Peter Ceresole on 2 Jun 2010 12:56 John Hill <nemo(a)erewhon.invalid> wrote: > > There were, transmitted by floppy. > There was even a CD sent out as a cover disk by Mac User (or was it Mac > World?) that had a virus on it! Red faces.... When I worked there, Tomorrow's World had its own network running on (if I remember right) a Mac 2. Worked well, but some idiot bunged an infected floppy in there and we were LANless for a couple of days. Our sysadmin was Jack Weber, who was also a producer on the programme. His face wasn't red, except for the rage... -- Peter
From: Rowland McDonnell on 2 Jun 2010 21:03 J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > J. J. Lodder <nospam(a)de-ster.demon.nl> wrote: > > > > > David Kennedy <davidkennedy(a)nospamherethankyou.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > > Pd wrote: > > > > > R<me32(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d2f3f04e-6ccf-11df-91c8-00144feab49a.html > > > > >> The end is nigh-ish :-) > > > > > > > > > > I wonder if that will hasten the arrival of Mac exploits being used in > > > > > the wild. > > > > > > > > > I wonder if it will hasten the script kiddies trying to unleash more Mac > > > > Virii... > > > > > > Whadayamean, 'more', > > > > In this context, `a larger quantity' seems the most likely definition of > > the word `more' intended by the original author. > > > > Given that the number of MacOS X viruses (note use of the correct > > English plural form) in the wild is zero, then `unleash more Mac > > viruses' means `unleash any number of Mac viruses which can be expressed > > in counting numbers'[1], on account of the fact that reality doesn't > > permit the existence of a fractional virus. > > Disagree. In my opionio the use of 'more' here implies he existence > of at least one virii [sic] in the wild. <shrug> `More than zero' is certainly a correct way to express a valid concept in English. So in my opinion, your opinion is in error. [And if you're going to go around using an abominable snowgoose like `virii' as if it were a word in the singular (ARGH! THE PAIN!), I'll open fire as soon as you're in range. I'm the militant wing of the English Language Defence League and I'm working on a long-range gun that'll lob a shell over the North Sea. Hah - I'll put you in range even if you don't move. And then where will you hide?] > The 'more' should have been omitted. I disagree with your opinion - I can see no basis for it at all. Zero is a quantity more than which might be found in reality. That's all there is to it. > > This is the same situation as would be the case if there were a positive > > integer number of Mac OS X viruses in the wild. > > > > If the number of Mac viruses in the wild could be expressed as a complex > > number with non-zero imaginary component, you might want to think about > > the magnitude of the resulting vector as the quantity to be assessed to > > see if you've got `more', but I'm not sure how one might unleash an > > imaginary virus for real. > > All Mac viruses are purely imaginary. Aside from the ones that are not, of course - and there are many such. [snip] > > N.B: There is plenty of MacOS X malware out there in the wild; it's just > > that none of the malware counts as a virus. There are also lots of pre > > MacOS X viruses out there, but you're unlikely to get infected with one > > by accident. I never met one running loose in several years of pre > > MacOS X 'net access. > > There were, transmitted by floppy. (seen a ping pong virus) Not all were transmitted only that way. > There even was a Belgian joke about it at the time. > Q: How does a Belgian prevent his Mac from getting infected? > A: He always inserts the floppy with the protective sleeve on! Belgians are a joke in themselves, along with everything else about the Low Countries. ;-) Rowland. (who learns more every day: <http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Frisian>) -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: jim on 3 Jun 2010 02:03
Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >> >> All Mac viruses are purely imaginary. > > Aside from the ones that are not, of course - and there are many such. There are certainly a few -Trojans- around, but I'm not aware of any viruses. Could you give an example of a piece of OS X malware that's capable of self-replication and media/network transmission? (although the latter would technically be a worm, not a virus) Jim -- Sent from my iPad |