"They are not set up to handle small orders like that..."
That's what Newegg tries to do, small orders. One reason to charge high shipping is to discourage dealers from buying. Another reason is to make more profit.
I've talked with a Newegg representative about this. If you buy 2, you pay twice as much shipping, even though they arrive in the same box.
Another reason to charge high shipping is to hide the true cost from search engines such as Froogle.
Another Newegg problem:
They have very little technical expertise and often sell things that are not good quality. They take NO responsibility for selling things with problems, other than to take the item back. They are very clear about this. Often there is product confusion or the information is not correct.
A big problem with Newegg is that they advertise a good price for an item, and then force you to pay more than the real cost of shipping for many items.
When I find a company that makes a profit on shipping, I usually just close that tab on my browser.
However, there are good deals at Newegg when the shipping cost is low. And, Fry's and CompOOZA are usually even more adversarial.
That's why all the discussion. Firefox is GREAT! That's why we want the bugs fixed.
Memory use is not the big issue. It is the CPU hogging bug that goes with wild memory use that is the issue, because that makes you close all Firefox windows and tabs.
No Firefox developer has tried to duplicate the conditions that cause the bug, apparently. It is obvious from reading their replies that no Firefox developer has even read all the comments by people who have problems. They can't make viable theories if they don't know the facts.
Some bugs are just this tough. That's the reality of programming.
One of the problems in characterizing this bug is that people believe that memory usage is important. It isn't. I will happily buy more memory. The problem is not memory usage, but unreasonable memory usage. That's associated with the CPU hogging bug.
I definitely believe everyone who says they don't have problems. However, to make good theories we need more facts about when Firefox is buggy. We need to have more facts so that we can eliminate some possible theories.
Hasdi, I don't know whether what you said is the correct theory or not, but this is the first time in 3 years that someone has put forward a plausible theory. That's what we need.
Definitely that fits the facts as I know them. Something is trashing memory where a timer constant is stored, so a routine is being called too often.
I took a nap instead of closing my Firefox windows when it was at 41% CPU, and now it is 92% CPU. Still enough CPU power to type, however. But auto repeat is slow.
I'm posting this using Firefox. I just checked the CPU use: 41% with no activity, a clean profile, and no extensions, Windows XP SP2, all patches applied. Time to close all windows and tabs, and start over, the second time today.
A common argument about the Firefox bugs goes something like this, "I didn't read everything that was reported. I duplicated one or two of the conditions. I didn't see the bug. Therefore, I am guessing that I am a LOT SMARTER than those who are reporting the bug.
Little by little, Firefox development has become denial development.
A common argument about this bug is "It doesn't happen to me, so all those who report it must be wrong."
Those people stop thinking at exactly the moment we need people to start thinking. As I said, the bug is extremely difficult to characterize. If it weren't, it would have been fixed in the past 3 years.
It will take a very skilled logical thinker who knows debugging very well, I think, to find the bug. But, it's a huge one. After it is fixed, I'm guessing it will be easier to work on Firefox development.
The bug was tested extensively on Linux a considerable while ago, and it was the same, except that Linux recovers gracefully when a program goes crazy, and Windows usually needs to be re-started.
However, a Firefox developer marked the bug report "Invalid" because he said it was not helpful.
If you read the reports, it takes extensive use before the bug becomes really bad. Lots of windows and tabs, and a day's time. Most people don't have that usage pattern.
Opera has none of these problems. So, the quote from the Mozillazine blog
shown below, although it is typical, is not supported by the
facts.
Whatever causes the CPU hogging bug is definitely associated with extreme
memory use. No doubt there are leaks, but this is not a leak, since it is not
necessarily associated with greater use of Firefox.
Users often report that just leaving Firefox open overnight causes CPU
hogging and extreme memory use.
The problems are the same in Mozilla browser.
It's good to test Firefox with a laptop in a quiet environment. When you
hear the laptop fan begin to run while there is no activity, you know Firefox
has begun to suck CPU cycles.
Putting a computer into standby or hibernation often makes the CPU hogging
bug much worse. That's why Firefox users sometimes just leave their computers
on.
When a computer takes a long, long time to start from standby, you know Firefox
is taking CPU cycles. What about coming out of standby makes Firefox unstable? No
other program has that problem.
Quote from the blog linked in this Slashdot story About the Firefox
"memory leak": "A lot of people complain about the Firefox "memory
leak(s)". All versions of Firefox no doubt leak memory - it is a common
problem with software this complicated."
No other program in common use is so buggy. The problems in Firefox
are not "common".
Another quote from the linked Mozillazine blog: "What I think many
people are talking about however with Firefox 1.5 is not really a memory leak
at all. It is in fact a feature."
Mozilla developers have been denying that there is a serious problem
for more than 3 years. It seems that it would be less work to fix the problem
than to undertake a cottage industry of trying to convince people they aren't
having problems. Mozilla developers have been
impeding characterization by marking Bugzilla bug reports of these problems invalid.
However, it is clear that it would take a serious scientific
investigation; this is not an easy bug to characterize.
The Firefox CPU hogging bug makes a computer unusable until all
Firefox windows and tabs are closed. Basically, Firefox uses first maybe 10%,
then maybe 20% of the CPU, and, as Firefox windows and tabs are opened and
closed, continues taking more of the CPU time until Firefox is closed. This
CPU usage is with NO Firefox activity, or any activity of any program.
This bug is more than 3 years old. It is extremely difficult to
characterize; no one has succeeded yet. Here are some clues:
Somehow Thunderbird and Mozilla share this bug. Sometimes when Firefox
is taking say, 94% of the CPU, and Firefox is closed completely, Thunderbird
or Mozilla will begin using a lot of CPU time. Very weird, but it often
happens.
Firefox 1.5.0.1 is much worse than 1.5, which is worse than earlier
versions. This suggests that there is some resource in Firefox that is being
more overused as features are added.
The CPU hogging bug continues unchanged when Firefox 1.5.0.1 is
installed with a clean profile and no extensions.
Too many mouse clicks too closely spaced will often increase Firefox's
CPU usage, or sometimes cause it to crash.
-- Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis.
Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill
Iraqis. Improvement?
An Intel marketing person thought this was a good idea. He is one of those who knows nothing about technical things; he's just a marketing drone. What could he possibly do to advance the strength of his company? Nothing. So, to pretend that he was contributing he turned to evil. He made a deal that looks good to other know-nothings like himself, and is really, really offensive to the people who matter.
This is a violation of the anti-trust laws, I think.
New Intel mottos:
Intel: When you can't compete, be adversarial.
Intel: We're on the way down.
Intel: A technical company controlled by people with no technical knowledge.
Intel's present adversarial behavior is part of a gradual decay of the company that is more than 10 years old, in my experience. Perhaps 10 years ago, Intel arranged a pay cut for employees just before they began to do record business. During that time, Intel has done some really, really disgusting things, like trash their consumer products division by not paying enough attention to it.
"There are thousands of different applications out there, and Microsoft can't test all of them."
At one time, I understand, and possibly now, Microsoft owned perhaps 10% of Symantec, makers of Norton anti-virus. Microsoft executives own, or owned, more of Symantec stock.
There are fewer than 10 anti-virus applications in common use. Symantec has a huge history of making software that has bugs or causes some grief in other ways. Symantec software should definitely be tested with everything, because of its miserable history.
Symantec and Microsoft are very similar in that they both release sloppy software, in my opinion. Talking on the telephone with Symantec technical support in the past had the same abusive quality as talking with Microsoft technical support, suggesting to me that Symantec copied Microsoft's methods, and that Symantec was connected socially to Microsoft.
(Now, in my experience, Symantec is more abusive than Microsoft. Symantec employees seem to me to have a habit of reducing their workload by annoying customers, so that customers don't call again.)
The fact that Microsoft didn't check a definitions update with NAV is either an indication that someone is an amateur, or is an indication that Microsoft intends to kill Symantec's business. If the problem is deliberate, then I suppose that Microsoft and its executives have sold all their Symantec stock.
-- Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis.
Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill
Iraqis. Improvement?
It's certainly true that many comments on Slashdot stories are immature and
disrespectful and angry and illogical. Yours is one of the ones that is
disrespectful.
However, there are also many very knowledgeable people posting useful comments.
Whether Slashdot comments would be a useful evaluation system does not
depend on the quality of any Slashdot discussion, or on the moderation system.
It depends only on the maturity and ability to communicate of the person who
posts the comments. Each person has 100% control over that.
If a recruiter looks at your Slashdot comments, what will he
see? He will see a comment that begins "You're stupid"
and gets worse after that. He will see other amazingly angry
comments, too.
In fact, in your case, your Slashdot ID is proving to be very
valuable. Someone who habitually uses a forum for public discussion to act out
anger should be eliminated from consideration for hiring.
Be honest. If you aren't, it will show in everything you say and
and you will get applications from dishonest people, who will make your life
miserable.
Be trustworthy. If you say or imply you will do something, do
it. People who are analytical enough to do well in a technically demanding job
are analytical enough to be aware if you are mentioning one thing but doing
another.
Of course, being trustworthy is one aspect of being honest. However,
so many companies have difficulty with creating trust that it deserves to be
mentioned separately.
Look for people who communicate well. Every job requires
interaction with other people. If you find someone who isn't good at
communicating, you have found someone who fundamentally doesn't like working
with other people. Such a person drives up costs in ways that are difficult to
measure.
Advertise on Slashdot. Many very smart people read Slashdot.
When someone replies to your ad, ask for their Slashdot ID. That and a
Slashdot subscription will give you access to all their comments. A good way
to judge the maturity of a candidate is to see how he or she communicates in
casual circumstances like a Slashdot discussion.
Seek a reputation for being warm and friendly, and deserve it.
If you have a good reputation, eventually your ad budget can be cut to
one-tenth of what it was when you were beginning, because people will hear
about you from friends.
Be charitable. Try to give every applicant something valuable
in return for applying. Useful feedback is a excellent gift. Even a
well-written discussion of the job market on your web site is a gift.
Remember, many of the candidates who didn't quite have what you needed
this year will have had growthful experiences and will be excellent candidates
in future years.
Don't waste anyone's time. Make sure your business processes
are efficient.
There was a discussion on Slashdot about this, and someone mentioned that the OpenBSD team audits both the OS and the applications delivered with the OS. So, OpenBSD is equally complicated. I'm not able to find the information about this on the OpenBSD web site at present.
Google for unlocking software. There are companies that unlock phones for $15, too.
T-Mobile unlocks phones for you without charge after 3 months of using their pay-as-you-go service.
-- Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis.
Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. taxpayers pay to kill
Iraqis. Improvement?
Certainly any Symantec product is a pox on CPU cycles and stability, in my
opinion. But that is not the most important issue.
This was NOT a failure of the Microsoft anti-spyware software,
which is working fine in this case. This is a failure to provide a definition
file that works correctly.
However, is that an incredibly sloppy failure, or deliberate destruction
of a competitor's business?
Microsoft seems to be starting a protection racket that seems to work
like this:
Microsoft releases sloppy software, as usual, with an amazing number of
extremely severe vulnerabilities.
(Compare Microsoft Windows XP with OpenBSD, which is equally complicated.
Quote from OpenBSD: "Code often gets audited multiple times, and by
multiple people with different auditing skills." The OpenBSD team is number one because
they want to be.)
Accidentally, or not, Microsoft protection software sometimes disables the
software of other companies, demonstrating that customers cannot depend on
other companies for protection. So, everyone must buy their protection from
Microsoft.
Profit Before: Microsoft now sells a new copy of its operating system software to
everyone who buys a new computer, even if the customer stopped using the old computer and bought a new one because the old one
was too infected, and thus already owns a license.
Profit Now: A protection racket would be even more profitable.
Microsoft would collect money every year for a subscription to its protection
updates.
-- Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis.
Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. taxpayers pay to kill
Iraqis. Improvement?
From the parent comment: "This isn't really a beta issue..."
I agree completely, and for a different reason, also. Microsoft bought their anti-spyware software because it was successful commercial software. There was a lot of publicity that ignored the "beta" designation, including articles in the mainstream media.
This is a case of Microsoft having it both ways: Getting credit for clearing spyware, and avoiding responsibility.
Anyhow, as the parent poster said, this is NOT a failure in the anti-spyware software. It is a failure in the definitions that Microsoft provided. It's amazing to me, but Microsoft didn't test the definitions on a computer with Norton Anti-virus! Microsoft is amazingly sloppy, but this carries Microsoft's habitual sloppiness to a new level.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you imagine this headline: "Government Wants a Backdoor Into Linux"
There would be world-wide laughter, and Linux would continue as before.
Only proprietary software is weak to government control.
Is only one copy of Gecko loaded, even though you are running Thunderbird Mail, Mozilla Mail, and Firefox browser?
"They are not set up to handle small orders like that..."
That's what Newegg tries to do, small orders. One reason to charge high shipping is to discourage dealers from buying. Another reason is to make more profit.
I've talked with a Newegg representative about this. If you buy 2, you pay twice as much shipping, even though they arrive in the same box.
Another reason to charge high shipping is to hide the true cost from search engines such as Froogle.
Another Newegg problem:
They have very little technical expertise and often sell things that are not good quality. They take NO responsibility for selling things with problems, other than to take the item back. They are very clear about this. Often there is product confusion or the information is not correct.
I found that, too. I've disabled all plugins, but the CPU hogging bug is still worse than before.
A big problem with Newegg is that they advertise a good price for an item, and then force you to pay more than the real cost of shipping for many items.
When I find a company that makes a profit on shipping, I usually just close that tab on my browser.
However, there are good deals at Newegg when the shipping cost is low. And, Fry's and CompOOZA are usually even more adversarial.
You are missing the point. We love Firefox, and we want to improve it.
That's why all the discussion. Firefox is GREAT! That's why we want the bugs fixed.
Memory use is not the big issue. It is the CPU hogging bug that goes with wild memory use that is the issue, because that makes you close all Firefox windows and tabs.
That's the kind of clues we need if we are to develop theories.
No Firefox developer has tried to duplicate the conditions that cause the bug, apparently. It is obvious from reading their replies that no Firefox developer has even read all the comments by people who have problems. They can't make viable theories if they don't know the facts.
Some bugs are just this tough. That's the reality of programming.
One of the problems in characterizing this bug is that people believe that memory usage is important. It isn't. I will happily buy more memory. The problem is not memory usage, but unreasonable memory usage. That's associated with the CPU hogging bug.
I definitely believe everyone who says they don't have problems. However, to make good theories we need more facts about when Firefox is buggy. We need to have more facts so that we can eliminate some possible theories.
Hasdi, I don't know whether what you said is the correct theory or not, but this is the first time in 3 years that someone has put forward a plausible theory. That's what we need.
Definitely that fits the facts as I know them. Something is trashing memory where a timer constant is stored, so a routine is being called too often.
I took a nap instead of closing my Firefox windows when it was at 41% CPU, and now it is 92% CPU. Still enough CPU power to type, however. But auto repeat is slow.
I'm posting this using Firefox. I just checked the CPU use: 41% with no activity, a clean profile, and no extensions, Windows XP SP2, all patches applied. Time to close all windows and tabs, and start over, the second time today.
A common argument about the Firefox bugs goes something like this, "I didn't read everything that was reported. I duplicated one or two of the conditions. I didn't see the bug. Therefore, I am guessing that I am a LOT SMARTER than those who are reporting the bug.
Little by little, Firefox development has become denial development.
A common argument about this bug is "It doesn't happen to me, so all those who report it must be wrong."
Those people stop thinking at exactly the moment we need people to start thinking. As I said, the bug is extremely difficult to characterize. If it weren't, it would have been fixed in the past 3 years.
It will take a very skilled logical thinker who knows debugging very well, I think, to find the bug. But, it's a huge one. After it is fixed, I'm guessing it will be easier to work on Firefox development.
The bug was tested extensively on Linux a considerable while ago, and it was the same, except that Linux recovers gracefully when a program goes crazy, and Windows usually needs to be re-started.
However, a Firefox developer marked the bug report "Invalid" because he said it was not helpful.
If you read the reports, it takes extensive use before the bug becomes really bad. Lots of windows and tabs, and a day's time. Most people don't have that usage pattern.
- Opera has none of these problems. So, the quote from the Mozillazine blog
shown below, although it is typical, is not supported by the
facts.
- Whatever causes the CPU hogging bug is definitely associated with extreme
memory use. No doubt there are leaks, but this is not a leak, since it is not
necessarily associated with greater use of Firefox.
- Users often report that just leaving Firefox open overnight causes CPU
hogging and extreme memory use.
- The problems are the same in Mozilla browser.
- It's good to test Firefox with a laptop in a quiet environment. When you
hear the laptop fan begin to run while there is no activity, you know Firefox
has begun to suck CPU cycles.
- Putting a computer into standby or hibernation often makes the CPU hogging
bug much worse. That's why Firefox users sometimes just leave their computers
on.
- When a computer takes a long, long time to start from standby, you know Firefox
is taking CPU cycles. What about coming out of standby makes Firefox unstable? No
other program has that problem.
Quote from the blog linked in this Slashdot story About the Firefox "memory leak": "A lot of people complain about the Firefox "memory leak(s)". All versions of Firefox no doubt leak memory - it is a common problem with software this complicated."No other program in common use is so buggy. The problems in Firefox are not "common".
Another quote from the linked Mozillazine blog: "What I think many people are talking about however with Firefox 1.5 is not really a memory leak at all. It is in fact a feature."
That's not what the technical magazines, newsletters, web sites entirely devoted to Firefox problems, and even the mainstream media say. They say it is a serious problem.
Mozilla developers have been denying that there is a serious problem for more than 3 years. It seems that it would be less work to fix the problem than to undertake a cottage industry of trying to convince people they aren't having problems. Mozilla developers have been impeding characterization by marking Bugzilla bug reports of these problems invalid.
However, it is clear that it would take a serious scientific investigation; this is not an easy bug to characterize.
See Firefox is the most unstable program in common use.
The Firefox CPU hogging bug makes a computer unusable until all Firefox windows and tabs are closed. Basically, Firefox uses first maybe 10%, then maybe 20% of the CPU, and, as Firefox windows and tabs are opened and closed, continues taking more of the CPU time until Firefox is closed. This CPU usage is with NO Firefox activity, or any activity of any program.
This bug is more than 3 years old. It is extremely difficult to characterize; no one has succeeded yet. Here are some clues:
Somehow Thunderbird and Mozilla share this bug. Sometimes when Firefox is taking say, 94% of the CPU, and Firefox is closed completely, Thunderbird or Mozilla will begin using a lot of CPU time. Very weird, but it often happens.
Firefox 1.5.0.1 is much worse than 1.5, which is worse than earlier versions. This suggests that there is some resource in Firefox that is being more overused as features are added.
The CPU hogging bug continues unchanged when Firefox 1.5.0.1 is installed with a clean profile and no extensions.
Too many mouse clicks too closely spaced will often increase Firefox's CPU usage, or sometimes cause it to crash.
--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
If he had only understood that he was supposed to do nothing... He could have had an extended paid vacation. "Just don't do any of that Linux stuff."
Consider how this may have happened:
An Intel marketing person thought this was a good idea. He is one of those who knows nothing about technical things; he's just a marketing drone. What could he possibly do to advance the strength of his company? Nothing. So, to pretend that he was contributing he turned to evil. He made a deal that looks good to other know-nothings like himself, and is really, really offensive to the people who matter.
This is a violation of the anti-trust laws, I think.
New Intel mottos:
Intel: When you can't compete, be adversarial.
Intel: We're on the way down.
Intel: A technical company controlled by people with no technical knowledge.
Intel's present adversarial behavior is part of a gradual decay of the company that is more than 10 years old, in my experience. Perhaps 10 years ago, Intel arranged a pay cut for employees just before they began to do record business. During that time, Intel has done some really, really disgusting things, like trash their consumer products division by not paying enough attention to it.
"There are thousands of different applications out there, and Microsoft can't test all of them."
At one time, I understand, and possibly now, Microsoft owned perhaps 10% of Symantec, makers of Norton anti-virus. Microsoft executives own, or owned, more of Symantec stock.
There are fewer than 10 anti-virus applications in common use. Symantec has a huge history of making software that has bugs or causes some grief in other ways. Symantec software should definitely be tested with everything, because of its miserable history.
Symantec and Microsoft are very similar in that they both release sloppy software, in my opinion. Talking on the telephone with Symantec technical support in the past had the same abusive quality as talking with Microsoft technical support, suggesting to me that Symantec copied Microsoft's methods, and that Symantec was connected socially to Microsoft.
(Now, in my experience, Symantec is more abusive than Microsoft. Symantec employees seem to me to have a habit of reducing their workload by annoying customers, so that customers don't call again.)
The fact that Microsoft didn't check a definitions update with NAV is either an indication that someone is an amateur, or is an indication that Microsoft intends to kill Symantec's business. If the problem is deliberate, then I suppose that Microsoft and its executives have sold all their Symantec stock.
--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
It's certainly true that many comments on Slashdot stories are immature and disrespectful and angry and illogical. Yours is one of the ones that is disrespectful.
However, there are also many very knowledgeable people posting useful comments.
Whether Slashdot comments would be a useful evaluation system does not depend on the quality of any Slashdot discussion, or on the moderation system. It depends only on the maturity and ability to communicate of the person who posts the comments. Each person has 100% control over that.
If a recruiter looks at your Slashdot comments, what will he see? He will see a comment that begins "You're stupid" and gets worse after that. He will see other amazingly angry comments, too.
In fact, in your case, your Slashdot ID is proving to be very valuable. Someone who habitually uses a forum for public discussion to act out anger should be eliminated from consideration for hiring.
Here are my recommendations:
Be honest. If you aren't, it will show in everything you say and and you will get applications from dishonest people, who will make your life miserable.
Be trustworthy. If you say or imply you will do something, do it. People who are analytical enough to do well in a technically demanding job are analytical enough to be aware if you are mentioning one thing but doing another.
Of course, being trustworthy is one aspect of being honest. However, so many companies have difficulty with creating trust that it deserves to be mentioned separately.
Look for people who communicate well. Every job requires interaction with other people. If you find someone who isn't good at communicating, you have found someone who fundamentally doesn't like working with other people. Such a person drives up costs in ways that are difficult to measure.
Advertise on Slashdot. Many very smart people read Slashdot. When someone replies to your ad, ask for their Slashdot ID. That and a Slashdot subscription will give you access to all their comments. A good way to judge the maturity of a candidate is to see how he or she communicates in casual circumstances like a Slashdot discussion.
Seek a reputation for being warm and friendly, and deserve it. If you have a good reputation, eventually your ad budget can be cut to one-tenth of what it was when you were beginning, because people will hear about you from friends.
Be charitable. Try to give every applicant something valuable in return for applying. Useful feedback is a excellent gift. Even a well-written discussion of the job market on your web site is a gift.
Remember, many of the candidates who didn't quite have what you needed this year will have had growthful experiences and will be excellent candidates in future years.
Don't waste anyone's time. Make sure your business processes are efficient.
There was a discussion on Slashdot about this, and someone mentioned that the OpenBSD team audits both the OS and the applications delivered with the OS. So, OpenBSD is equally complicated. I'm not able to find the information about this on the OpenBSD web site at present.
Google for unlocking software. There are companies that unlock phones for $15, too.
T-Mobile unlocks phones for you without charge after 3 months of using their pay-as-you-go service.
--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. taxpayers pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
This was NOT a failure of the Microsoft anti-spyware software, which is working fine in this case. This is a failure to provide a definition file that works correctly.
However, is that an incredibly sloppy failure, or deliberate destruction of a competitor's business?
Microsoft seems to be starting a protection racket that seems to work like this:
(Compare Microsoft Windows XP with OpenBSD, which is equally complicated. Quote from OpenBSD: "Code often gets audited multiple times, and by multiple people with different auditing skills." The OpenBSD team is number one because they want to be.)
Profit Now: A protection racket would be even more profitable. Microsoft would collect money every year for a subscription to its protection updates.
--
Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. taxpayers pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?
From the parent comment: "This isn't really a beta issue..."
I agree completely, and for a different reason, also. Microsoft bought their anti-spyware software because it was successful commercial software. There was a lot of publicity that ignored the "beta" designation, including articles in the mainstream media.
This is a case of Microsoft having it both ways: Getting credit for clearing spyware, and avoiding responsibility.
Anyhow, as the parent poster said, this is NOT a failure in the anti-spyware software. It is a failure in the definitions that Microsoft provided. It's amazing to me, but Microsoft didn't test the definitions on a computer with Norton Anti-virus! Microsoft is amazingly sloppy, but this carries Microsoft's habitual sloppiness to a new level.