The NRA was not originally a lobbyist group: they were a civil activity group, similar to the Boy Scouts, but for general societal participation and familiarization with rifles (in particular). The training and certification of firearm instructors is still their primary focus.
However, their lobbying is, actually, largely in the role of supporting/protecting "sporting" rifles - not the other arms protected by the Constitution. That inconsistency is almost as bothersome as the ACLU supporting anything but the 1st Amendment, or the other Amendments when it involves minorities and/or undermining national safety.
They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.
Actually, no, you're wrong. They don't bother with the 2nd Amendment because their official policy is actually contrary to what Constitutional scholars have said for the past 200 years what the 2nd Amendment means. The ACLU interprets the Constitution as they see fit: the 1st Amendment is, to them, an inalienable right as set in stone as Mt. Rushmore. To them, the 2nd Amendment is part of a "living document" meaning they interpret the original document's clear definition is contrary to how we should do things today. Further, the whole "separation of Church and State" thing? They consider that one phrase written by Thomas Jefferson to supersede the law, and to mean the contrary as it was originally intended - ie, to prevent any Christianity or Christian beliefs to be manifest in law, vs. the intention of prohibiting the state from meddling with religions.
Why in the hell should they waste limited resources on something which is already well defended??
Because it's not, civilly? The biggest protection the 2nd Amendment has left are the arms (and the people who own them) themselves. (The NRA has been limp-wristed for almost 20 years now and has only been pushing to protect arms for "sporting use" as a matter of policy.) And maybe because they call themselves the ACLU?
the Feds tend to view building a guidance system as going beyond model rocketry to building a guided a missile, which they frown on
That would be consistent with the rest of the BATFE's regulations, as they view even trivial changes to be highly illegal and worthy of a lengthy time in jail.
Take, for instance, Curio and Relic firearms. Let's say you buy a $200 Yugoslavian SKS - a Korea and Vietnam era Soviet carbine. It's got a 1lb 'grenade launcher' attachement on the end of the barrel (which is essentially nonfunctional as its impossible to get the grenades for them), and a bunch of other things which make the firearm impractical for casual use (hunting, shooting, etc.). However, modify it slightly - cut the launcher off, permanently, or install a less crude trigger - and you've just violated the law.
At any rate, it won't stop the ATF from making shit up. If they want to take someone down on federal crimes, they will as they have in the past - with manufactured and planted evidence, and whatever other dastardly things they're keen on doing.
The regulations on the ATF books will remain, and they will continue to use them - if past behavior is any sort of indication. They'll get a slap on the wrist, at best, if they get caught.
We really need to get rid of the BATFE. They're modus operandi is to overstep their bounds and push for more power and restriction in all sectors. They've got no business as a part of our government.
The ATF/BATFE came into existence as a way to shore up Prohibition era anti-alcohol agents. Instead of fire them, they created a new regulatory agency for them to work within. It's been nothing short of a disaster: a quick look can see that they're made mistake after mistake, and tend to operate carelessly and with little regard for the laws themselves. Instead, they rely on internal ATF regulations.
This rogue agency has burnt to death over 80 men, women and children at Waco, executed a woman and her baby at Ruby Ridge, MT, and have killed unarmed home owners at a multitude of illegal raids nationwide. They destroy honest gun dealers by illegally confiscating millions of dollars of inventory, and even lying under oath in court. The regulations they subject people to are vague, contradictory, and onerous. They constantly try to destroy the status quo of firearm ownership - and the standing of the 2nd Amendment - through regulation, outside the context of the 2nd Amendment (ignoring it outright).
This organization really needs to go. It's like having the RIAA as a legit part of the government with its own enforcement squads, which if obviously completely unacceptable.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that all of those little applications actually solved problems for the business?
Precisely. This falls nicely into the "small, independent organizations/companies/individuals can and will be productive on their own, if they're just allowed to work, damn it" world view. That's where advancement comes from. When was the last time you heard of a large company creating anything truly innovative or different?
One: fire him. Two: put him on a 'team' of one, in charge of his own work and projects alone. Three: put him in charge of his projects alone, and allow him to -request- specific things from other projects (ie Photoshop logos and what not).
I'd say #2 would likely be the most profitable for the company in the long run.
I don't know who this Josh is; but he's a caricature of the Coder BOFH variant. Personally, I've never met anyone like him.
Oh, I've met IT people with poor BO. I've been accused (falsely, because it was a convenient stereotype) of it myself. I've met people who are socially inept and say inappropriate things. But, by and large, these people are also the best at what they do. Sure, they're cocky.
What it is, is a pecking order game. They think they're the best. In my experience, it's not so much a matter of being respected for being the best, or left alone, or any of that. They just want to do their thing, yes - and a little healthy competition (real or perceived) for the "alpha geek" role can help this out tremendously.
I've been accused of having borderline Asperger's before, though I would argue that I've got a great deal more social graces than most who have the 'geek disease'. For the most part, I'm able to go between the haves, and the have nots. What I have found is that the best way to relate to them is the way they relate to others - as much as possible. If they try to intellectually domineer people, show them, or pretend, that you're tops. No, you don't have to lie to them. But that posturing/soliloquy stuff they do to bolster their self confidence and show you they're intellectually/whatever on top? They (we) tend to respect that, if as nothing other than healthy competition and "one of our own". Kid gloves (where you treat them like a child, or generally treat them 'sensitively' like you would a normal employee) doesn't work.
Again, this "Josh" is a cruel caricature. Nobody is like that: attitudes like that don't make it past interviews.
I disagree with you on the argument over whether there's a higher concentration of brilliant assholes in IT. I think there most certainly are.
IT, and other technical, fast-moving fields, tends to invite those who excel over their peers intellectually. This intellectual superiority, coupled with spite bred into them through years of condescending schooling and tedious tasks, leads to a general feeling of superiority and pretentious behavior. It takes a strong will to fight it.
However, IT is certainly not the only field with people like this. Medicine and finance are full of assholes like this: they're drawn to the field because the field has the prestige they feel they are finally deserved, and due to their intellect and ability, they are able to earn it.
The assholes in most other fields, while often smart and capable, don't compete on an even intellectual footing with the 'elite' fields. If they did, they'd make more.
I'd also argue that the more socially dysfunctional 'intellectual elite' jackasses end up in IT. They're paid less than lawyers, doctors, etc. and are at the lower end of things, socially. From my experiences, they're probably more likely to have aspergers or something similar, and therefore be more mathematically/myopically inclined - arguably a positive trait for someone who has to micro-focus on mathematical tasks.
You don't really need all that much tannerite to make a pretty big, devastating bang. I suspect about 18oz of the stuff would be enough to blow a computer to shrapnel (or at least a more-round shape), if it were placed in the case and all the expansion card/PSU openings in the rear were shut. Problem would be hitting it from a distance with said weapon (for safety) and still having it be effective.
Personally I wouldn't want to be within 50 yards of such a target, which rules out all but.45 cal/.357 carbines and sabot shotgun rounds or larger/faster, from what you mention. From my experience, intermediate (and smaller) rifle cartridges and pistol rounds don't impart enough energy to compress the tannerite enough to make the "boom".:)
And? How does that make her any different than previous Speakers, or for that matter, #4 in line?
This plan was put in place by Bush and Rove post 9/11. They decided that the Speaker of the House was important enough to have fly in his/her own plane in case of another coordinated attack.
You're right on this; my attempt was to try to emphasize how "above and beyond" Pelosi has gone. There's record of her making a big stink about the refueling stop(s), and wanting her plane to be nicely accommodated. I can understand that as well, to a certain degree. But using the plane for press junkets back home every weekend is INSANE, and a clear abuse of privilege. (Whatever happened to civil service?)
Most Congressmen participate in the excess, yes; I can't entirely blame them, having had the misfortune to visit DC in the past. But Pelosi personifies this abuse, and embarassingly so, as she's the House Speaker.
(On the other hand, if they stuck around DC, maybe the place would be forced to clean up!)
Realistically, any plane provided for her should be limited to official purposes of the office. Her use of the plane for personal politicking and junkets has resulted in her having a much more broadly dispersed public image, in essence giving her more power than she had previously. That isn't right.
I think those are different than the ones being talked about in this article. Those licenses, if they were ever sold, are "you said you wouldn't sue us for using Linux" licenses.
The licenses/sales the article is talking about are licenses to actually use Novell products - which are two different things. The "don't sue" licenses are subsidiary and included with the Novell SLES license (which also includes the rights to use Novell's eDirectory, etc.).
I might be wrong; I've been known to not pay close enough attention.:)
What happens when the machine and the user are in different domains? What happens if domain controllers move? Why doesn't it automatically locate the nearest servers using Sites & Services?
Not to excuse the incompatibility, but... a user on a non-domain system shouldn't be allowed to access a domain system: it's a security problem. And the other things can be configured, just as they can in a Windows environment (except with the keyboard, instead of the mouse).
Correct behavior isn't even one of those Microsoft secret proprietary things. The API for dynamically obtaining configuration data for a desktop's AD connection is well documented:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and this isn't an attempt to excuse any shortcomings) but isn't most of the AD stuff protected from re-implementation through software patents? I know that the Samba devs are (largely) doing a blind-reimplementation as best they can, so I don't know if they can even look at these documents.
Now, note, I'm not saying Samba/AD integration in Linux is perfect. But it's not bad, and the core functionality of the software is superior: faster, more stable, and less prone to "WTF just happened?" type errors.
The only reason we're finding out about the corruption in Obama's administration right now (and I'd personally not call it 'corruption' so much as "a complete lack of sound judgment, character assessment or common sense") is because the they've been so damn incompetent in keeping it hidden, not because it's less corrupt.
Pelosi travels on an Air Force jet for security reasons: she is second in the line of succession for the Presidency.
And? How does that make her any different than previous Speakers, or for that matter, #4 in line?
Or how about #15 in line (if there were such a thing)? Air Force transit for the President and Vice President is justified because they (the President, really) is the leader of our armed forces. The House Speaker is not, and is simply the most senior member of the House (as decided by a House election). The position itself (with its 1947 succession priviledge elevation) stinks of the kind of bureaucracy and monarchy that is so repugnant to Americans.
(Moving further in, there's no actual constitutional basis for succession beyond the VP, removing further grounds for the prestige she has.)
The choice of plane (a 757) seems excessive, but it's reportedly the only one readily available that can fly non-stop from DC to her home in California.
And she has to make this commute daily? Weekly? Monthly? How often? Certainly not often enough that justifying a half-hour stop over somewhere to refuel can't be justified.
And it's not just "an Air Force 757" she's flying in, either - it's a plush executive plane. It's the height of excess and largely a symbol of power. The cost to the American people, especially in these times of government excess and tightening belts at home, is excessive, and can not be justified with any of your arguments.
I say, if she wants a big Air Force plane, stick her in steerage on a cargo plane.
Yes, the corruption Kundra was potentially involved in was when he worked for DC.
But how else can you describe what's going on with all of Obama's political nominees, and the games he's been playing with special interest groups and organizations, other than "corruption"? Cronyism? That's corruption too, buddy - the only reason it doesn't necessarily apply is because Obama wasn't buddy-buddy with these people before the election. It's partisan demagoguery.
This is the "Change" phase of the Obama Presidency. Expect it to last until things can't get any worse.
The "Hope" stage comes in about 3 years when primary candidates for the next election start to show their heads, or when things get so bad that hope is all we'll have left - whichever comes first.
Compare that to building the thing yourself, with the exact same components: probably under 1/3rd the cost.
At that price, he could almost justify a Mac Pro! (But seriously: a similar Mac Pro could likely be configured for less!)
Oh, and seriously: at $16k, I'd expect the system to be small, fanless, and near-hermetic. And, I'd like to see how "quiet" that system is in 12 months once the fans start to take a little wear.
A while back a vendor - I think it was CDW? - was selling what were, basically, crap USB thumbdrives: I think they were 32Mb, for like $1 each. Something like that. I was very tempted to pick up a whole pile of them for uses such as this.
Fill it with Tannerite? Good god, man! That's expensive!
Also, that much tannerite would NOT be something I'd want to shoot with "another firearm". A pistol would be ineffective, and a shotgun would require me to be too close for comfort.
Scanning twice a month, once a week, or even every day wouldn't be so bad, if Symantec and McAfee actually did anything other than look like they're doing something. It's completely within the realm of expected to run a current version scanner/definitions of Symantec, and then come through with a free tool or two and find dozens, if not hundreds, of instances of malware.
And I've personally found that it's more likely for Symantec to be damaged by malware, breaking the whole system in the process, than to have it actually stop a damaging root kit.
Slashdot Mirror
The NRA was not originally a lobbyist group: they were a civil activity group, similar to the Boy Scouts, but for general societal participation and familiarization with rifles (in particular). The training and certification of firearm instructors is still their primary focus.
However, their lobbying is, actually, largely in the role of supporting/protecting "sporting" rifles - not the other arms protected by the Constitution. That inconsistency is almost as bothersome as the ACLU supporting anything but the 1st Amendment, or the other Amendments when it involves minorities and/or undermining national safety.
They don't bother with the second amendment because there's another group NRA dedicated to that amendment alone.
Actually, no, you're wrong. They don't bother with the 2nd Amendment because their official policy is actually contrary to what Constitutional scholars have said for the past 200 years what the 2nd Amendment means. The ACLU interprets the Constitution as they see fit: the 1st Amendment is, to them, an inalienable right as set in stone as Mt. Rushmore. To them, the 2nd Amendment is part of a "living document" meaning they interpret the original document's clear definition is contrary to how we should do things today. Further, the whole "separation of Church and State" thing? They consider that one phrase written by Thomas Jefferson to supersede the law, and to mean the contrary as it was originally intended - ie, to prevent any Christianity or Christian beliefs to be manifest in law, vs. the intention of prohibiting the state from meddling with religions.
Why in the hell should they waste limited resources on something which is already well defended??
Because it's not, civilly? The biggest protection the 2nd Amendment has left are the arms (and the people who own them) themselves. (The NRA has been limp-wristed for almost 20 years now and has only been pushing to protect arms for "sporting use" as a matter of policy.) And maybe because they call themselves the ACLU?
the Feds tend to view building a guidance system as going beyond model rocketry to building a guided a missile, which they frown on
That would be consistent with the rest of the BATFE's regulations, as they view even trivial changes to be highly illegal and worthy of a lengthy time in jail.
Take, for instance, Curio and Relic firearms. Let's say you buy a $200 Yugoslavian SKS - a Korea and Vietnam era Soviet carbine. It's got a 1lb 'grenade launcher' attachement on the end of the barrel (which is essentially nonfunctional as its impossible to get the grenades for them), and a bunch of other things which make the firearm impractical for casual use (hunting, shooting, etc.). However, modify it slightly - cut the launcher off, permanently, or install a less crude trigger - and you've just violated the law.
I believe the regulation is something like 922r.
Technically, firearm ammunition doesn't explode, either. But they regulate that.
At any rate, it won't stop the ATF from making shit up. If they want to take someone down on federal crimes, they will as they have in the past - with manufactured and planted evidence, and whatever other dastardly things they're keen on doing.
The regulations on the ATF books will remain, and they will continue to use them - if past behavior is any sort of indication. They'll get a slap on the wrist, at best, if they get caught.
We really need to get rid of the BATFE. They're modus operandi is to overstep their bounds and push for more power and restriction in all sectors. They've got no business as a part of our government.
The ATF/BATFE came into existence as a way to shore up Prohibition era anti-alcohol agents. Instead of fire them, they created a new regulatory agency for them to work within. It's been nothing short of a disaster: a quick look can see that they're made mistake after mistake, and tend to operate carelessly and with little regard for the laws themselves. Instead, they rely on internal ATF regulations.
This rogue agency has burnt to death over 80 men, women and children at Waco, executed a woman and her baby at Ruby Ridge, MT, and have killed unarmed home owners at a multitude of illegal raids nationwide. They destroy honest gun dealers by illegally confiscating millions of dollars of inventory, and even lying under oath in court. The regulations they subject people to are vague, contradictory, and onerous. They constantly try to destroy the status quo of firearm ownership - and the standing of the 2nd Amendment - through regulation, outside the context of the 2nd Amendment (ignoring it outright).
This organization really needs to go. It's like having the RIAA as a legit part of the government with its own enforcement squads, which if obviously completely unacceptable.
Has the thought ever occurred to you that all of those little applications actually solved problems for the business?
Precisely. This falls nicely into the "small, independent organizations/companies/individuals can and will be productive on their own, if they're just allowed to work, damn it" world view. That's where advancement comes from. When was the last time you heard of a large company creating anything truly innovative or different?
There's more than one way to cut this loaf.
One: fire him.
Two: put him on a 'team' of one, in charge of his own work and projects alone.
Three: put him in charge of his projects alone, and allow him to -request- specific things from other projects (ie Photoshop logos and what not).
I'd say #2 would likely be the most profitable for the company in the long run.
I don't know who this Josh is; but he's a caricature of the Coder BOFH variant. Personally, I've never met anyone like him.
Oh, I've met IT people with poor BO. I've been accused (falsely, because it was a convenient stereotype) of it myself. I've met people who are socially inept and say inappropriate things. But, by and large, these people are also the best at what they do. Sure, they're cocky.
What it is, is a pecking order game. They think they're the best. In my experience, it's not so much a matter of being respected for being the best, or left alone, or any of that. They just want to do their thing, yes - and a little healthy competition (real or perceived) for the "alpha geek" role can help this out tremendously.
I've been accused of having borderline Asperger's before, though I would argue that I've got a great deal more social graces than most who have the 'geek disease'. For the most part, I'm able to go between the haves, and the have nots. What I have found is that the best way to relate to them is the way they relate to others - as much as possible. If they try to intellectually domineer people, show them, or pretend, that you're tops. No, you don't have to lie to them. But that posturing/soliloquy stuff they do to bolster their self confidence and show you they're intellectually/whatever on top? They (we) tend to respect that, if as nothing other than healthy competition and "one of our own". Kid gloves (where you treat them like a child, or generally treat them 'sensitively' like you would a normal employee) doesn't work.
Again, this "Josh" is a cruel caricature. Nobody is like that: attitudes like that don't make it past interviews.
I disagree with you on the argument over whether there's a higher concentration of brilliant assholes in IT. I think there most certainly are.
IT, and other technical, fast-moving fields, tends to invite those who excel over their peers intellectually. This intellectual superiority, coupled with spite bred into them through years of condescending schooling and tedious tasks, leads to a general feeling of superiority and pretentious behavior. It takes a strong will to fight it.
However, IT is certainly not the only field with people like this. Medicine and finance are full of assholes like this: they're drawn to the field because the field has the prestige they feel they are finally deserved, and due to their intellect and ability, they are able to earn it.
The assholes in most other fields, while often smart and capable, don't compete on an even intellectual footing with the 'elite' fields. If they did, they'd make more.
I'd also argue that the more socially dysfunctional 'intellectual elite' jackasses end up in IT. They're paid less than lawyers, doctors, etc. and are at the lower end of things, socially. From my experiences, they're probably more likely to have aspergers or something similar, and therefore be more mathematically/myopically inclined - arguably a positive trait for someone who has to micro-focus on mathematical tasks.
You don't really need all that much tannerite to make a pretty big, devastating bang. I suspect about 18oz of the stuff would be enough to blow a computer to shrapnel (or at least a more-round shape), if it were placed in the case and all the expansion card/PSU openings in the rear were shut. Problem would be hitting it from a distance with said weapon (for safety) and still having it be effective.
Personally I wouldn't want to be within 50 yards of such a target, which rules out all but .45 cal/.357 carbines and sabot shotgun rounds or larger/faster, from what you mention. From my experience, intermediate (and smaller) rifle cartridges and pistol rounds don't impart enough energy to compress the tannerite enough to make the "boom". :)
And? How does that make her any different than previous Speakers, or for that matter, #4 in line?
This plan was put in place by Bush and Rove post 9/11. They decided that the Speaker of the House was important enough to have fly in his/her own plane in case of another coordinated attack.
You're right on this; my attempt was to try to emphasize how "above and beyond" Pelosi has gone. There's record of her making a big stink about the refueling stop(s), and wanting her plane to be nicely accommodated. I can understand that as well, to a certain degree. But using the plane for press junkets back home every weekend is INSANE, and a clear abuse of privilege. (Whatever happened to civil service?)
Most Congressmen participate in the excess, yes; I can't entirely blame them, having had the misfortune to visit DC in the past. But Pelosi personifies this abuse, and embarassingly so, as she's the House Speaker.
(On the other hand, if they stuck around DC, maybe the place would be forced to clean up!)
Realistically, any plane provided for her should be limited to official purposes of the office. Her use of the plane for personal politicking and junkets has resulted in her having a much more broadly dispersed public image, in essence giving her more power than she had previously. That isn't right.
Or from Microsoft? I seem to recall that was kind of the pivotal point, here...
I think those are different than the ones being talked about in this article. Those licenses, if they were ever sold, are "you said you wouldn't sue us for using Linux" licenses.
The licenses/sales the article is talking about are licenses to actually use Novell products - which are two different things. The "don't sue" licenses are subsidiary and included with the Novell SLES license (which also includes the rights to use Novell's eDirectory, etc.).
I might be wrong; I've been known to not pay close enough attention. :)
What happens when the machine and the user are in different domains? What happens if domain controllers move? Why doesn't it automatically locate the nearest servers using Sites & Services?
Not to excuse the incompatibility, but... a user on a non-domain system shouldn't be allowed to access a domain system: it's a security problem. And the other things can be configured, just as they can in a Windows environment (except with the keyboard, instead of the mouse).
Correct behavior isn't even one of those Microsoft secret proprietary things. The API for dynamically obtaining configuration data for a desktop's AD connection is well documented:
Correct me if I'm wrong (and this isn't an attempt to excuse any shortcomings) but isn't most of the AD stuff protected from re-implementation through software patents? I know that the Samba devs are (largely) doing a blind-reimplementation as best they can, so I don't know if they can even look at these documents.
Now, note, I'm not saying Samba/AD integration in Linux is perfect. But it's not bad, and the core functionality of the software is superior: faster, more stable, and less prone to "WTF just happened?" type errors.
The only reason we're finding out about the corruption in Obama's administration right now (and I'd personally not call it 'corruption' so much as "a complete lack of sound judgment, character assessment or common sense") is because the they've been so damn incompetent in keeping it hidden, not because it's less corrupt.
Oh, bother.
Pelosi travels on an Air Force jet for security reasons: she is second in the line of succession for the Presidency.
And? How does that make her any different than previous Speakers, or for that matter, #4 in line?
Or how about #15 in line (if there were such a thing)? Air Force transit for the President and Vice President is justified because they (the President, really) is the leader of our armed forces. The House Speaker is not, and is simply the most senior member of the House (as decided by a House election). The position itself (with its 1947 succession priviledge elevation) stinks of the kind of bureaucracy and monarchy that is so repugnant to Americans.
(Moving further in, there's no actual constitutional basis for succession beyond the VP, removing further grounds for the prestige she has.)
The choice of plane (a 757) seems excessive, but it's reportedly the only one readily available that can fly non-stop from DC to her home in California.
And she has to make this commute daily? Weekly? Monthly? How often? Certainly not often enough that justifying a half-hour stop over somewhere to refuel can't be justified.
And it's not just "an Air Force 757" she's flying in, either - it's a plush executive plane. It's the height of excess and largely a symbol of power. The cost to the American people, especially in these times of government excess and tightening belts at home, is excessive, and can not be justified with any of your arguments.
I say, if she wants a big Air Force plane, stick her in steerage on a cargo plane.
Oh really?
Yes, the corruption Kundra was potentially involved in was when he worked for DC.
But how else can you describe what's going on with all of Obama's political nominees, and the games he's been playing with special interest groups and organizations, other than "corruption"? Cronyism? That's corruption too, buddy - the only reason it doesn't necessarily apply is because Obama wasn't buddy-buddy with these people before the election. It's partisan demagoguery.
This is the "Change" phase of the Obama Presidency. Expect it to last until things can't get any worse.
The "Hope" stage comes in about 3 years when primary candidates for the next election start to show their heads, or when things get so bad that hope is all we'll have left - whichever comes first.
My guess? Slashvertisement.
Compare that to building the thing yourself, with the exact same components: probably under 1/3rd the cost.
At that price, he could almost justify a Mac Pro! (But seriously: a similar Mac Pro could likely be configured for less!)
Oh, and seriously: at $16k, I'd expect the system to be small, fanless, and near-hermetic. And, I'd like to see how "quiet" that system is in 12 months once the fans start to take a little wear.
A while back a vendor - I think it was CDW? - was selling what were, basically, crap USB thumbdrives: I think they were 32Mb, for like $1 each. Something like that. I was very tempted to pick up a whole pile of them for uses such as this.
Fill it with Tannerite? Good god, man! That's expensive!
Also, that much tannerite would NOT be something I'd want to shoot with "another firearm". A pistol would be ineffective, and a shotgun would require me to be too close for comfort.
Or did you just make that whole thing up?
Are you kidding me? Which part of the disk do you use? I don't remember the platter being all that hard to serve as a decent tool...
Scanning twice a month, once a week, or even every day wouldn't be so bad, if Symantec and McAfee actually did anything other than look like they're doing something. It's completely within the realm of expected to run a current version scanner/definitions of Symantec, and then come through with a free tool or two and find dozens, if not hundreds, of instances of malware.
And I've personally found that it's more likely for Symantec to be damaged by malware, breaking the whole system in the process, than to have it actually stop a damaging root kit.
Worse than worthless, it's for-pay malware.