When performance starts to matter, and my profiling tool indicates that the sorting algorithm is to blame, then I'll consider using an alternate algorithm.
Sure, that profiler might say that you are taking n% of your time in it, but how are you going to objectively know that that n% can be reduced significantly? Is your profiler an artificial inteligence?
That, my friend, is the problem with canned solutions. You never really know if the implementation is decent, and in some cases you don't even know what the algorithm used is. Still further, if you are a clueless canned solution leverager, you probably don't know the pitfalls associated with a given algorithm.
Do you know what triggers quicksorts worst case behavior?
Do you know why a boyer-moore string search performs fairly badly when either string is short?
Do you know the worst case behavior of that hash table implementation? Do you know what the alternatives are? What is its memory overhead?
Are any of the canned solutions you use cache oblivious?
Now lets get into something serious. Algorithmic performance deficiencies are often used in Denial of Service attacks, and any time you use a canned solution you are setting yourself up as an easy target. Your profiler will never tell you why your customer is experiencing major problems, because the attack isn't on your development machine(s.)
..and finally.. being ignorant is not something to be proud of. Seriously. Your answer to discovering that the canned solution isnt acceptable is to "buy more hardware." Developers don't get to make that decision. Customers do... and thats assuming the hardware exists. If I was your boss I would fire you immediately for being a willfully ignorant bad programmer.
The entire 'trades are (always) good' arguement falls apart when what you are discussing isnt Laissez-faire.
That most definately includes artificial monopolies on necessities. Some necessesities are happenstantial such as water, sewage, power, healthcare, shelter, food, telecom, and even transport. Other necessities are artificial such as automobile and homeowner insurance.
Not all trades are good for both parties. Most trades in America are that way, but definately not all.
I don't understand. Even if 64-bit Vista allowed unsigned drivers, I would still get a UAC elevation notice before it could install.
TFA of course is interesting, but has nothing to do with driver signing. Any code with the privileges to do what the article discusses, doesn't need to. Admin is enough to take over a vista box, and you gave the installer admin privs via UAC long before you were informed about an unecessary unsigned driver.
Yeah, admin can't install an unsigned driver.. umm.. so? The only reason to be in ring0 is to directly interface with hardware, or to enforce or circumvent DRM.
I don't think you understand what actualy needs ring0. It aint rootkits. It aint malware. It aint viruses.
Consider the following. I can sign my own driver using a local test certificate, boot up windows, and it will faithfully load said driver into ring0. But when I do so the windows Protected Media Path is disabled.
There is a penalty for not using a verisign signed driver, and its intentionally broken high def media. Atsiv avoided this penalty, and THAT is what it was all about. It had nothing to do with 'security.'
This has nothing to do with pure capitalism. These providers are granted monopolies by the government and that is the exact opposite of capitalism.
Yeah.. pure capitalism doesn't exactly work.. the arguement goes something like this:
Sometimes everyone benefits from Free Market.
Therefore, sometimes not everyone benefits from Free Market.
We should have a system in place to protect people when Free Market goes really sour. Lets call it Government Regulation.
But conversely a government regulated economy also doesnt exactly work.. it goes something like this:
Sometimes everyone benefits from Government Regulation.
Therefore, sometimes not everyone benefits from Government Regulation.
We should have a system in place to protect people when Government Regulation goes sour. Lets call it Free Market.
Currently, these providers are Government Regulated in a harmfull way. A 3rd party cannot come in and provide fair competition: They arent afforded immediate equal access, and are usualy even prevented from ever gaining equal access.
I appreciate your strong views against capitalism.. but do us all a favor and keep the bullshit ones to yourself.
Zip is definately good enough for common usages. The most Rar will ever save you is 50% and thats in highly contrived situations, where Rar will probably average 5% extra compression.
On top of this, Rar extractors are fairly shitty in the user interface department and there are very few free alternatives (trialware is NOT free.) Most operating systems natively understand Zip archives, and even treat them as directories, which essentialy means AWESOME INTERFACE.
Still further, Rar compression and extraction requires far more resources (a LOT more memory for its context models than Zip requires.)
..and you say you were running into Rar files when downloading multimedia? Mm3's and stuff? My GOD thats just stupid. Rar will compress an Mp3/Aac/whatever by just about 0%.. and is even likely to INCREASE the filesize (just like Zip will.)
An Rar file used for public distribution is a sure sign of a douche-bag.
The Vista/Win7 security model prevents flawless backward compatability with applications which take for granted the lax XP model.
A partial solution is to partialy virtualize, which is currently what Vista does. Both disk and registry accesses can get virtualized if Vista detects compatability problems. This isnt a perfect solution.
A more complete solution is to fully virtualize, which is what this is all about. This itself will not be problem free, either. But between the two the hope is apparently that enough bases are covered that only truely obscure situations prevent upgrading to Win7.
It's not a security feature in that sense that it can't be worked around. A criminal can get his code signed or find some other workaround, but it is an additional hassle for them to handle. In a defense in depth strategy a security feature does not have to be foolproof, understand?
No, I don't understand. The idea that security features don't need to be foolproof is just noise to me (noise in the context of my query, even though it is true), since it has not been shown that this signing requirement is a security feature.
Can you just describe how it is a security feature, without jumping to another topic?
Of course, but if they are found to do anything illegal they can be held accountable
Whats this about illegal things? I thought this was supposed to be a security feature, not an illegal software tracking feature. Are you suggesting that by "security" they mean "national security" or something? I don't get it.
Don't worry.. on previous occasions where I pointed out to someone that the requirement of digital signing wasnt a security feature, they also tried to move the goal post in bizarre hard to understand ways.
I realize that you see things differently.
If you would be so kind as to explain, in plain english, how the signing requirement is a security feature.. I am all ears.
(if you cannot explain it clearly, then that tells me something)
The entire idea of requiring code signing as a security measure is horseshit. Signing is supposed to be a method which allows the user to determine if what he has is the real thing. He downloaded or otherwise obtained program A, and wants to know if it actualy came from program source B (because he trusts B.)
If he doesnt trust B, then the fact that A is signed is not material to "security." On the other hand, If he trusts B who has handed him A, then the fact that A is not signed is also not material to "security."
The windows x64 requirement of code signing isn't about trust at all, since it automatically trusts all signed drivers and automatically (and unavoidably) distrusts all unsigned drivers. There are plenty of trustworthy unsigned x64 drivers (developed for XP/64), and you sure as hell can't trust all signed ones (ex: your favorite intrusive copy protection rootkit such as TAGES or SecuROM will be signed)
Nothing about this says "security."
This screams "control" as well as propping up a few specific players in the emerging industry of "signing."
Climate Change does not actualy imply a problem. What it implies is change.
Your leap to "problem" status is based on the unsubstantiated notion that the overall climate, pre-industrialization, could not be improved upon.
One of the IPCC's purviews is to report on the ramifications (predicted) of climate change. Not all of their predictions are considered bad, for instance increased rainfall in arid regions is considered good by those who live in those arid regions.
Just as it is not for the IPCC to decide that "change" constitutes a "problem", it is also not up to them to implement "solutions."
It is up to them to report on the science behind the methods of controlling climate change, which they have neglected to do. Instead of doing that, their focus has been only on reverting CO2 levels.
It is not supposed to be the International Panel On Carbon Dioxide Levels (IPCDL), but that is what the IPCC has become, and I continue to charge that they have become that out of pety-self-interest.
I keep hearing people explain (or at least hinting at) that signing is some sort of system security measure.
What are you going to do? Spend a lot of money tracking down some guy in Nigeria because some malware is signed by a Nigerian Prince? Of course not!
What signing does allow is for an easy-to-trigger "OFF Switch" from Redmond through its monthly updates.
Signing is about control. This control might be used in a way that seems to bolster security, for example if a program is signed by MalWareInc then Redmond might decide to block MalWareInc signatures. On the other hand, they can also decide to block AvoidDrmInc signatures, or SpoofWindowsGenuineAdvantage signatures.
I did not assert that they refuse to save the environment. Strawman much?
It is not the IPCC's charter to "save the environment"
Their charter is to inform policy-makers of the facts of and potential solutions to climate change.
The fact that they do not (at all) report on THE most effective method of controlling global temperatures, and that that method coincedentally would cost less than the IPCC's current yearly budget, is the most obvious thing imaginable.
I do charge that the IPCC is not living up to their charter on purpose, and that the only rational motive for them not to do so is their own self-interest.
The bias is not inherent in humanity. The bias is manufactured in the same way that biases for economic systems are manufactured.
When you go your whole life being told about the evils of communism, socialism, or capitalism (which ones you recieve depends on your location) then the bias is manufactured by those telling you of those evils. An entire generation of americans and europeans have been told their whole lives about the evils of Co2.. its the same thing.
This is not an inherent bias, tho it is inherited.
If you want to be involved in a "solution" to climate change, then geoengineering is currently the most important/effective one on the table. It is very telling that the biggest organization, the IPCC, whose purpose is supposedly to inform politicians of the facts and solutions to climate change, ignore it completely. Their Assessment Reports are not consistent with their charter.
If you hate Co2, think its a plutant, and want to reduce emissions for that reason.. thats great.. thats consistent. Thats not, however, the IPCC's charter.
"Their arguement is similar to one presented by religious people, so they must be religious too!"
Attacking the messenger? Try attacking the message. Why doesnt the IPCC consider geoengineering to be a viable solution, other than because its fucking cheap, effective, and already in practice as a side-effect of other activities such as air traffic?
You obviously dont care about the warming "problem," and jump instead on the carbon dioxide "problem."
The IPCC's supposed purpose is to address Climate Change, right? Yet reducing carbon dioxide emmisions is the only "solution" they consider in their Assessment Reports, and it is additonally the only solution you also bothered to consider, which I have determined based on your diatribe about the costs of reducing carbon dioxide.
Even when replying to a post specifically about alternatives to reducing carbon dioxide, you ignore those alternatives as if they do not exist. Did you even read what I posted or were you in 'echo the party line' mode? Do you know what geoengineering is about?
Thats why the IPCC never ever ever lends any consideration to geoengineering when they produce their Assessment Reports.
Think of all the funding they would lose when it turns out that it will only cost a million or so dollars a year for the right to pick a global mean temperature anc achieve it. Not to mention the fact that we would likely pick one that is higher than it is today...
The AGW camp is predicting that things will be unpredictable...
..in spite of the fact that no methodology has ever shown skill at predicting the climate before.
Here is what I have observed:
A few years ago hurricanes were all the AGW rage. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy" arguement), but when that failed to happen they then predicted fewer and weaker hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy produces windsheer" arguement.)
Then, they predicted increased melting of the polar ice due to global warming (the "warmer atmosphere" arguement), but now we find out that when that didnt happen that they now predict a decrease in melting of the polar ice (the "warmer atmosphere causes greater circulation" arguement.)
Here is the way I see it:
Whatever data comes in, there is a pro-AGW arguement waiting to support it, and that tells me quite clearly that nobody has a god damn clue what the fuck is going on, but that AGW = DOLLARS FOR CLIMATOLOGISTS.
Now, given that, which is more derserving of punishment?
Perhaps it would be best if torrent trackers moved to opt-out, and used google as a back-end? Christ I think i'm going to create a stand-alone client right now.. should take about 10 minutes with the.NET framework.
Now, here is the deal.. Almost all windows virii are email attachment bombs, also known as stupid people bombs.. "execute my attachment, please!".. this works in any operating system, but not necessarily any email client.
Mac's arent safe. Linux boxes arent safe.
Further, most of the things mislabeled as virii are actualy worms.
Mac's have those too. Bluetooth-based worms, as well as firewire-based worms. In fact, firewire has virus and worm written all over it, since the firewire port can read and write to arbitrary memory without the OS ever knowing it happened. Thanks for popularizing the most horrible standard ever, Apple.
You have drank the koolaid. You have echoed the standard-line misinformation internationally. Will you own up to your mistake, or will you live in denial? Reply with your answer.
Slashdot Mirror
When performance starts to matter, and my profiling tool indicates that the sorting algorithm is to blame, then I'll consider using an alternate algorithm.
Sure, that profiler might say that you are taking n% of your time in it, but how are you going to objectively know that that n% can be reduced significantly? Is your profiler an artificial inteligence?
..and finally.. being ignorant is not something to be proud of. Seriously. Your answer to discovering that the canned solution isnt acceptable is to "buy more hardware." Developers don't get to make that decision. Customers do... and thats assuming the hardware exists. If I was your boss I would fire you immediately for being a willfully ignorant bad programmer.
That, my friend, is the problem with canned solutions. You never really know if the implementation is decent, and in some cases you don't even know what the algorithm used is. Still further, if you are a clueless canned solution leverager, you probably don't know the pitfalls associated with a given algorithm.
Do you know what triggers quicksorts worst case behavior?
Do you know why a boyer-moore string search performs fairly badly when either string is short?
Do you know the worst case behavior of that hash table implementation? Do you know what the alternatives are? What is its memory overhead?
Are any of the canned solutions you use cache oblivious?
Now lets get into something serious. Algorithmic performance deficiencies are often used in Denial of Service attacks, and any time you use a canned solution you are setting yourself up as an easy target. Your profiler will never tell you why your customer is experiencing major problems, because the attack isn't on your development machine(s.)
You are mistaken. Some trades are bad trades.
The entire 'trades are (always) good' arguement falls apart when what you are discussing isnt Laissez-faire.
That most definately includes artificial monopolies on necessities. Some necessesities are happenstantial such as water, sewage, power, healthcare, shelter, food, telecom, and even transport. Other necessities are artificial such as automobile and homeowner insurance.
Not all trades are good for both parties. Most trades in America are that way, but definately not all.
So you can make a $50 coaster when Nero fails to burn the disc properly!
I don't understand. Even if 64-bit Vista allowed unsigned drivers, I would still get a UAC elevation notice before it could install.
TFA of course is interesting, but has nothing to do with driver signing. Any code with the privileges to do what the article discusses, doesn't need to. Admin is enough to take over a vista box, and you gave the installer admin privs via UAC long before you were informed about an unecessary unsigned driver.
Yeah, admin can't install an unsigned driver.. umm.. so? The only reason to be in ring0 is to directly interface with hardware, or to enforce or circumvent DRM.
I don't think you understand what actualy needs ring0. It aint rootkits. It aint malware. It aint viruses.
Consider the following. I can sign my own driver using a local test certificate, boot up windows, and it will faithfully load said driver into ring0. But when I do so the windows Protected Media Path is disabled.
There is a penalty for not using a verisign signed driver, and its intentionally broken high def media. Atsiv avoided this penalty, and THAT is what it was all about. It had nothing to do with 'security.'
This has nothing to do with pure capitalism. These providers are granted monopolies by the government and that is the exact opposite of capitalism.
Yeah.. pure capitalism doesn't exactly work.. the arguement goes something like this:
Sometimes everyone benefits from Free Market.
Therefore, sometimes not everyone benefits from Free Market.
We should have a system in place to protect people when Free Market goes really sour. Lets call it Government Regulation.
But conversely a government regulated economy also doesnt exactly work.. it goes something like this:
Sometimes everyone benefits from Government Regulation.
Therefore, sometimes not everyone benefits from Government Regulation.
We should have a system in place to protect people when Government Regulation goes sour. Lets call it Free Market.
Currently, these providers are Government Regulated in a harmfull way. A 3rd party cannot come in and provide fair competition: They arent afforded immediate equal access, and are usualy even prevented from ever gaining equal access.
I appreciate your strong views against capitalism.. but do us all a favor and keep the bullshit ones to yourself.
Trojans do not require ring0. Viruses do not require ring0. Both of these things simply require elevated privleges.. and get them via UAC prompt.
Please invoke only something that requires ring0 in your arguement that required signing for ring0 is a security feature.
Maybe somewhere within the Google search for 'x64 Required Signing Proven Effective'
surely there is a SINGLE example.. right?
Man I totally agree about RAR files.
..and you say you were running into Rar files when downloading multimedia? Mm3's and stuff? My GOD thats just stupid. Rar will compress an Mp3/Aac/whatever by just about 0%.. and is even likely to INCREASE the filesize (just like Zip will.)
Zip is definately good enough for common usages. The most Rar will ever save you is 50% and thats in highly contrived situations, where Rar will probably average 5% extra compression.
On top of this, Rar extractors are fairly shitty in the user interface department and there are very few free alternatives (trialware is NOT free.) Most operating systems natively understand Zip archives, and even treat them as directories, which essentialy means AWESOME INTERFACE.
Still further, Rar compression and extraction requires far more resources (a LOT more memory for its context models than Zip requires.)
An Rar file used for public distribution is a sure sign of a douche-bag.
Yep.. its just not 'exactly' XP compatible..
The Vista/Win7 security model prevents flawless backward compatability with applications which take for granted the lax XP model.
A partial solution is to partialy virtualize, which is currently what Vista does. Both disk and registry accesses can get virtualized if Vista detects compatability problems. This isnt a perfect solution.
A more complete solution is to fully virtualize, which is what this is all about. This itself will not be problem free, either. But between the two the hope is apparently that enough bases are covered that only truely obscure situations prevent upgrading to Win7.
It's not a security feature in that sense that it can't be worked around. A criminal can get his code signed or find some other workaround, but it is an additional hassle for them to handle. In a defense in depth strategy a security feature does not have to be foolproof, understand?
No, I don't understand. The idea that security features don't need to be foolproof is just noise to me (noise in the context of my query, even though it is true), since it has not been shown that this signing requirement is a security feature.
Can you just describe how it is a security feature, without jumping to another topic?
Of course, but if they are found to do anything illegal they can be held accountable
Whats this about illegal things? I thought this was supposed to be a security feature, not an illegal software tracking feature. Are you suggesting that by "security" they mean "national security" or something? I don't get it.
Don't worry.. on previous occasions where I pointed out to someone that the requirement of digital signing wasnt a security feature, they also tried to move the goal post in bizarre hard to understand ways.
I realize that you see things differently.
If you would be so kind as to explain, in plain english, how the signing requirement is a security feature.. I am all ears.
(if you cannot explain it clearly, then that tells me something)
They could decide to do it by other means, but...
...they certainly didn't in the case of Atsiv
The entire idea of requiring code signing as a security measure is horseshit. Signing is supposed to be a method which allows the user to determine if what he has is the real thing. He downloaded or otherwise obtained program A, and wants to know if it actualy came from program source B (because he trusts B.)
If he doesnt trust B, then the fact that A is signed is not material to "security." On the other hand, If he trusts B who has handed him A, then the fact that A is not signed is also not material to "security."
The windows x64 requirement of code signing isn't about trust at all, since it automatically trusts all signed drivers and automatically (and unavoidably) distrusts all unsigned drivers. There are plenty of trustworthy unsigned x64 drivers (developed for XP/64), and you sure as hell can't trust all signed ones (ex: your favorite intrusive copy protection rootkit such as TAGES or SecuROM will be signed)
Nothing about this says "security."
This screams "control" as well as propping up a few specific players in the emerging industry of "signing."
You are leaping to conclusions.
Climate Change does not actualy imply a problem. What it implies is change.
Your leap to "problem" status is based on the unsubstantiated notion that the overall climate, pre-industrialization, could not be improved upon.
One of the IPCC's purviews is to report on the ramifications (predicted) of climate change. Not all of their predictions are considered bad, for instance increased rainfall in arid regions is considered good by those who live in those arid regions.
Just as it is not for the IPCC to decide that "change" constitutes a "problem", it is also not up to them to implement "solutions."
It is up to them to report on the science behind the methods of controlling climate change, which they have neglected to do. Instead of doing that, their focus has been only on reverting CO2 levels.
It is not supposed to be the International Panel On Carbon Dioxide Levels (IPCDL), but that is what the IPCC has become, and I continue to charge that they have become that out of pety-self-interest.
I keep hearing people explain (or at least hinting at) that signing is some sort of system security measure.
What are you going to do? Spend a lot of money tracking down some guy in Nigeria because some malware is signed by a Nigerian Prince? Of course not!
What signing does allow is for an easy-to-trigger "OFF Switch" from Redmond through its monthly updates.
Signing is about control. This control might be used in a way that seems to bolster security, for example if a program is signed by MalWareInc then Redmond might decide to block MalWareInc signatures. On the other hand, they can also decide to block AvoidDrmInc signatures, or SpoofWindowsGenuineAdvantage signatures.
Thats control, not security.
I did not assert that they refuse to save the environment. Strawman much?
It is not the IPCC's charter to "save the environment"
Their charter is to inform policy-makers of the facts of and potential solutions to climate change.
The fact that they do not (at all) report on THE most effective method of controlling global temperatures, and that that method coincedentally would cost less than the IPCC's current yearly budget, is the most obvious thing imaginable.
I do charge that the IPCC is not living up to their charter on purpose, and that the only rational motive for them not to do so is their own self-interest.
She does likes the shot on her back.
...because there isn't any way to give open source spyware to the average computer user, right?
The bias is not inherent in humanity. The bias is manufactured in the same way that biases for economic systems are manufactured.
When you go your whole life being told about the evils of communism, socialism, or capitalism (which ones you recieve depends on your location) then the bias is manufactured by those telling you of those evils. An entire generation of americans and europeans have been told their whole lives about the evils of Co2.. its the same thing.
This is not an inherent bias, tho it is inherited.
If you want to be involved in a "solution" to climate change, then geoengineering is currently the most important/effective one on the table. It is very telling that the biggest organization, the IPCC, whose purpose is supposedly to inform politicians of the facts and solutions to climate change, ignore it completely. Their Assessment Reports are not consistent with their charter.
If you hate Co2, think its a plutant, and want to reduce emissions for that reason.. thats great.. thats consistent. Thats not, however, the IPCC's charter.
Yawn.
"Their arguement is similar to one presented by religious people, so they must be religious too!"
Attacking the messenger? Try attacking the message. Why doesnt the IPCC consider geoengineering to be a viable solution, other than because its fucking cheap, effective, and already in practice as a side-effect of other activities such as air traffic?
Go on.. i'm waiting.
You are proving the point.
You obviously dont care about the warming "problem," and jump instead on the carbon dioxide "problem."
The IPCC's supposed purpose is to address Climate Change, right? Yet reducing carbon dioxide emmisions is the only "solution" they consider in their Assessment Reports, and it is additonally the only solution you also bothered to consider, which I have determined based on your diatribe about the costs of reducing carbon dioxide.
Even when replying to a post specifically about alternatives to reducing carbon dioxide, you ignore those alternatives as if they do not exist. Did you even read what I posted or were you in 'echo the party line' mode? Do you know what geoengineering is about?
Google search for Geoengineering Climate Change
Thats why the IPCC never ever ever lends any consideration to geoengineering when they produce their Assessment Reports.
Think of all the funding they would lose when it turns out that it will only cost a million or so dollars a year for the right to pick a global mean temperature anc achieve it. Not to mention the fact that we would likely pick one that is higher than it is today...
You realize that if N is prime then its prime factors consist of a list of one number, N, right?
Let me get this straight...
..in spite of the fact that no methodology has ever shown skill at predicting the climate before.
The AGW camp is predicting that things will be unpredictable...
Here is what I have observed:
A few years ago hurricanes were all the AGW rage. They predicted more and stronger hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy" arguement), but when that failed to happen they then predicted fewer and weaker hurricanes as a result of AGW (the "more energy produces windsheer" arguement.)
Then, they predicted increased melting of the polar ice due to global warming (the "warmer atmosphere" arguement), but now we find out that when that didnt happen that they now predict a decrease in melting of the polar ice (the "warmer atmosphere causes greater circulation" arguement.)
Here is the way I see it:
Whatever data comes in, there is a pro-AGW arguement waiting to support it, and that tells me quite clearly that nobody has a god damn clue what the fuck is going on, but that AGW = DOLLARS FOR CLIMATOLOGISTS.
Google was obviously set up with copyright infringment in mind. Did you think that a complete cache of my work was 'fair use'?
.NET framework.
At least with The Pirate Bay, someone had to conciously add media to their index (even if they do not have the right to.)
Google does it automatically, without permission, millions of times per day.
Googles policy: opt-out
Pirate Bays policy: opt-in
Now, given that, which is more derserving of punishment?
Perhaps it would be best if torrent trackers moved to opt-out, and used google as a back-end? Christ I think i'm going to create a stand-alone client right now.. should take about 10 minutes with the
Not Kosher!.
(can't believe I'm the first to say it)
No Mac virii?
...to name a few.
.. "execute my attachment, please!" .. this works in any operating system, but not necessarily any email client.
Inqtana.A
Leap.A
Mac.Simpson
Melissa.W
Now, here is the deal.. Almost all windows virii are email attachment bombs, also known as stupid people bombs
Mac's arent safe. Linux boxes arent safe.
Further, most of the things mislabeled as virii are actualy worms.
Mac's have those too. Bluetooth-based worms, as well as firewire-based worms. In fact, firewire has virus and worm written all over it, since the firewire port can read and write to arbitrary memory without the OS ever knowing it happened. Thanks for popularizing the most horrible standard ever, Apple.
You have drank the koolaid. You have echoed the standard-line misinformation internationally. Will you own up to your mistake, or will you live in denial? Reply with your answer.