OT: Realtime av

[null]

Realtime av scanning is like wearing a condum. It gets in the way and
takes much of the fun out of your activities. It's a PITA.

It's only needed if you stray from the straight and narrow path. If
you're drunk you probably won't get it on right and it won't work.
It's marginally effective in any event. It will likely break just when
you really need it.












Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[kurt wismer]

Realtime av scanning is like wearing a condum. It gets in the way and
takes much of the fun out of your activities. It's a PITA.

this can't be real... a champion of safe-hex poo-pooing on safe sex?

there are some words that come to mind, but i think i'll save them for
later... benefit of the doubt and all that...

 

[null]

this can't be real... a champion of safe-hex poo-pooing on safe sex?

Kurt, you should know that true safe hex eliminates the need for
realtime scanning for many of us home users.




Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on

this can't be real... a champion of safe-hex poo-pooing on safe sex?

there are some words that come to mind, but i think i'll save them for
later... benefit of the doubt and all that...

Go ahead, and see if any of those words will explain how on access is
necessary, when safe hex would eliminate the use of bloated, sluggish,
realtime scans.

 

[kurt wismer]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on
Sat, 02 Aug 2003 12:25:09 -0400, kurt wismer wrote:




Go ahead, and see if any of those words will explain how on access is
necessary, when safe hex would eliminate the use of bloated, sluggish,
realtime scans.

ok... promoting safe hex while debasing safe sex in the same breath is
irresponsible and hypocritical...

 

[null]

ok... promoting safe hex while debasing safe sex in the same breath is
irresponsible and hypocritical...

It's not hypocritical to take the stance of "Do as I do" at all.
What's hypocritical is to take the stance "Do as I say but not as I
do" which we do when we recomend the use of realtime scanners.

But of course I'll continue to be hypocritical and recommend realtime
scanning to the clueless since they're obviously better off with it
than not. The problem is calling that "safe hex" since it most
definitely is not.

Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on

ok... promoting safe hex while debasing safe sex in the same breath is
irresponsible and hypocritical...

Were that the case, likely so, but that's not what happened. Safe hex
obviates the need for all the resource hogging simon says, may I please,
every time you go to use an application on your system.

 

[kurt wismer]

It's not hypocritical to take the stance of "Do as I do" at all.
What's hypocritical is to take the stance "Do as I say but not as I
do" which we do when we recomend the use of realtime scanners.

But of course I'll continue to be hypocritical and recommend realtime
scanning to the clueless since they're obviously better off with it
than not. The problem is calling that "safe hex" since it most
definitely is not.

blah, blah, blah... you still make no effort to defend what you said
about safe *sex*...

while it maybe be true that on-access scanners are a cop-out for people
who can't/won't/don't understand safe hex, wearing a condom when engaged
in intercourse is a *good* thing more often than not (considering most
relationships are not long term)...

the implication was follow safe practices in one situation but not in
another (more serious) situation... there is the hypocrisy...

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on
Sun, 03 Aug 2003 02:00:59 -0400, kurt wismer wrote:


KW said: #1

KW said: #2
oh isn't it?... well, you were good enough to leave the original
statement in the quote, how do you interpret his comparison of on-access
scanning (a cop-out) to wearing a condom (a fundamental safe-sex
precaution)...
BB said: #2
KW said: #3
is it just me? am i the only one who saw that there were 2 things being
compared in his statement? is it a generation thing?

BB is saying: #3
The problem as I see it, is that I was responding to your statement in
KW#1 and you have interspersed a reply (KW#2) to imply that I was
responding to Art's statement, when in fact both my BB#1 & BB#2 are a
continuing reply to your comment KW#1
As to KW#3 it reflects the confusion that came about when you misread my
reply.

 

[FromTheRafters]

blah, blah, blah... you still make no effort to defend what you said
about safe *sex*...

while it maybe be true that on-access scanners are a cop-out for people
who can't/won't/don't understand safe hex, wearing a condom when engaged
in intercourse is a *good* thing more often than not (considering most
relationships are not long term)...

the implication was follow safe practices in one situation but not in
another (more serious) situation... there is the hypocrisy...

But he *did* say:

"It's only needed if you stray from the straight and narrow path."

...and I believe he has strictly confined definition of "straight
and narrow path". On demand *only* scanning is not for
everybody, and neither is unprotected sex. It comes down
to whether or not your own behavior can be trusted as safe.

Art seems to have a pretty good grasp on safe computing
practices (although I'm sure that once in a while he gets
new information that gives him pause, like a possibly not
too complete erradication of IE, or exploits found in what
was once thought a completely sane app).

To some, "straight and narrow" would mean abstinence,
though I doubt Art's definition is *that* confined. ;o)

 

[FromTheRafters]

is it just me? am i the only one who saw that there were 2 things being
compared in his statement? is it a generation thing?

It may very well be a generation thing...

Safe sex does *not* require a condom, it requires
only a single uninfected sex partner. Once you stray
from the "straight and narrow path", you require other
means of "protection".

Modern thinking wouldn't even consider abstinence
or monogamy an option it seems.

 

[null]

To some, "straight and narrow" would mean abstinence,
though I doubt Art's definition is *that* confined. ;o)

I'm reminded of a remark Bob Green made recently. Something to the
effect that he religiously keeps his KAVDOS32 updated but he sometimes
wonders why he bothers. I've been in the same boat for quite some time
now. I keep F-Prot, McAfee and KAV DOS religiously updated and they
never find anything unless I decide to "go out" and scan a suspicious
usenet posted SCR file or something like that.

It's not that I lead a sheltered life. I like to download various
freeware utilities, etc. My three scanners have never alerted and none
have ever been infected. I often go to alleged "bad" web sites to
investigate them. I don't bother with chat groups simply because I
don't care for them anymore. And I have no interest in P2P.

What makes it even more boring is that I signed up for my ISP's combo
spam/virus filtering service. So I don't even get the chance very
often to delete obvious malware off my POP3 server.

In any event, I very carefully back up to my cloned h.d. quite often.
Peg has some precious data on there, so I have to be careful. I run
both Ad Aware and Spybot, and they rarely find anything of
significance either.

Anyway, the idea of someone like me cluttering up his PC with a
annoying realtime av is absurd. Period. End of subject. Kurt just
doesn't have a sense of humor I guess



Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[kurt wismer]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on
Sun, 03 Aug 2003 02:00:59 -0400, kurt wismer wrote:


KW said: #1

BB said: #1

KW said: #2


BB said: #2

KW said: #3



BB is saying: #3
The problem as I see it, is that I was responding to your statement in
KW#1 and you have interspersed a reply (KW#2) to imply that I was
responding to Art's statement, when in fact both my BB#1 & BB#2 are a
continuing reply to your comment KW#1
As to KW#3 it reflects the confusion that came about when you misread my
reply.

excuse me, lets try this again... in KW#1 i say something wrong
happened... in BB#1 you say it didn't, in KW#2 i say yes it did and i
illustrated it by drawing the key terms from the original post (which is
now missing from the quote)...

in BB#2 you seemed to have missed what i was really talking about, hence
KW#3... in fact, most people seem to have missed it... maybe i'm right,
maybe it is a generation thing... maybe growing up in a time when lack
of caution can kill has given me a different perspective than you older
folks...

 

[kurt wismer]

It may very well be a generation thing...

Safe sex does *not* require a condom, it requires
only a single uninfected sex partner. Once you stray
from the "straight and narrow path", you require other
means of "protection".

i'm sorry, but i don't think most people have the diagnostic equipment
to verify the non-infected status of their partner each time...

Modern thinking wouldn't even consider abstinence
or monogamy an option it seems.

they are personal options, but they aren't something you'd necessarily
want to risk your life on expecting from others... at least not in the
beginning...

 

[FromTheRafters]

i'm sorry, but i don't think most people have the diagnostic equipment
to verify the non-infected status of their partner each time...

In the case of STDs, this ideal would be a 'closed system'.
Abstinence until marriage, followed by the upmost level
of fidelity.

they are personal options, but they aren't something you'd necessarily
want to risk your life on expecting from others... at least not in the
beginning...

Pre-marital sex??? <GASP!> That's like using KaZaA man!
(but much more fun I think.....not being a KaZaA user myself)

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Sun, 3 Aug

Modern thinking wouldn't even consider abstinence
or monogamy an option it seems.

So much snatch, so little time <g>

 

[kurt wismer]

FromTheRafters wrote: [snip]

Safe sex does *not* require a condom, it requires
only a single uninfected sex partner. Once you stray
from the "straight and narrow path", you require other
means of "protection".

i'm sorry, but i don't think most people have the diagnostic equipment
to verify the non-infected status of their partner each time...

In the case of STDs, this ideal would be a 'closed system'.
Abstinence until marriage, followed by the upmost level
of fidelity.

i don't think i follow... i you can get perfect fidelity after some time
T, why does T have to be after marriage?

that seems more like a cultural constraint than a logical one...

 

[FromTheRafters]

FromTheRafters wrote: [snip]
Safe sex does *not* require a condom, it requires
only a single uninfected sex partner. Once you stray
from the "straight and narrow path", you require other
means of "protection".

i'm sorry, but i don't think most people have the diagnostic equipment
to verify the non-infected status of their partner each time...

In the case of STDs, this ideal would be a 'closed system'.
Abstinence until marriage, followed by the upmost level
of fidelity.

i don't think i follow... i you can get perfect fidelity after some time
T, why does T have to be after marriage?

that seems more like a cultural constraint than a logical one...

Yes, marriage seems illogical on the face of it, but marriage was
binding by a sort of social/moral/religious law which transcended
the lower law of whatever political power structure one resided in.
The taboo against pre-marital sex came from the same source I
think. Mankind has apparently come to the decision that it no
longer needs the guidance of these outdated moral laws.

....and the results are all around you.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a religious man. I have my beliefs and
firmly believe that I shouldn't even attempt to force them on others.
My main complaint about the religious power stuctures is about
their tendency to be expansionistic.

 

[Bart Bailey]

In Message-ID:<[email protected]> posted on Mon, 4 Aug

My main complaint about the religious power stuctures is about
their tendency to be expansionistic.

"Christian - One who believes the New Testament is a divinely
inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his
neighbor" - The Devil's Dictionary