In these style lights it is irrelevant... there is an even bigger lip on the lens below (see picture in article summary). Horizontal works better in that case, but regardless, there is still generally a small lip on the bottoms... it's kinda needed to hold the lenses in place during various adverse weather conditions - unless one designs a lens that fits over an opening and screws into the sides.... but then, that's a matter of cost.
Regardless, like on the pic in the summary, the type of snow that falls in various areas of the country still sticks on vertical surfaces. Then freezes, then builds up more...
Or have a snow-sensor and kick on a small heating device...
Sure, you are using more N-R-G by creating the heat to do it with so the technology is less green, but even this southern non-snow savvy guy realizes that using *some* N-R-G during a few months of the year to de-ice/melt/whatever is better than creating waste heat with inefficient lighting 24/7/365
Besides, what is the "green" cost of a car accident where oil, gas, battery acid, etc. may be spilled, as well as emergency vehicles cranking up and running to the scene, etc?
That's the best suggestion. And it's trivial, extremely cheap technology. Outdoor surveillance cameras have used it for years - some even with dehumidifier devices as well.
And the beauty is, even when the heater is on, it will still use less energy than the incandescent light, since it only needs to heat the lenses to a certain level over freezing temperature. So, I'd expect, even with the heaters on, there should be a decent savings in electric costs.
It sounds like you are on top of things, but I'd say you are understaffed. We have 10-15 Windows servers, and a few hundred XP/Vista machines, and one admin-type, plus two full-time equivalent techs, and are looking for at least one more.
The real question is are you always constantly working your ass off, fixing stupid problems - and therefore unable to do anything more productive? If so, then it seems you don't have enough people.
If you have a fully managed office, and you can remote in to all these desktops and fix everything really quickly - then you're probably OK.
Like most of IT, whatever works.
That last sentence hits the head right on the nail...
The numbers really are determined by a lot of factors... if your business revolves around programming and engineering, and thus your workers are from those fields (as opposed to tons of avg computer users in a non computer/technical field), you are less likely to have serious issues that IT needs to address, thus requiring a smaller IT staff. And of course, what money IT is allowed to spend on initial setup and/or maintenance also determines the staffing size for IT. One can design a system that remote boots from the NIC and reinstalls everything to a machine specific image - or kicks the boot to the HDD if there are no problems making serious non-hardware issues trivial - if the money was there during the initial setup or a big upgrade phase... or one can fix the stuff the old fashioned way and go hands on (which requires more of an IT staff). Hardware differences also can determine staffing size. One of our customers had a problem with certain AMD XP machines when SP3 came out - required lotsa "hands on" fixing... other of our clients did not have those machines and needed no one and no help. Also, are the machines needed 24/7? Is there mission critical data on them (or no mission critical data anywhere - or mission critical data is on the server)?
And so on... inotherwords, there are a ton of factors that determine staffing needs for IT. It could be one person per 10 or one person per 100, etc.
Thus, slimjim8094's statement really does sum it up nicely...
Wow... seems there are some idiots with Mod Points...
I'm thrilled if this gets things updated to be more secure... but this method can in the meantime create a LOT of damage. Perhaps I should have expounded on my original post.
Point was, yeah, I know others (the bad guys) will figure this out eventually - probably ones with more malicious intents...
BUT, (1) they are unlikely to publish the findings, (2) now, they (the bad guys) dont even have to do the work... they can jump in now and take advantage of the work that the above people did (meaning the network's security, in effect, has already been breached by the more malicious types thanks to them releasing this info), and (3) those of less technical inclination can now also jump right in with invasive stuff to utilize their research.
Simple math folks... before "the bad guys" were limited to however many or few figured this out on their own... now EVERY "bad guy" in this line of "bad-guyness" can just jump right in.
Inotherwords, (bad analogy time) to point out that there was a hole in the boat letting water in, they (a) made the hole a lot bigger so everyone's feet got wet, and (b) made holes in every other boat too (ie: people who would never have the skills to figure this out now dont need to worry about that - they too have access to this info and dont need to figure it out).
The bad guys no longer have to do it... it's been done for them, regardless of whether they have or can buy the skills to have done it on their own. Would you rather every crazed criminal out there having guns, or just the ones with the means to find em?
Best, Robert
-1 Troll is not an "I don't like what you wrote even though it's true" option.
Irrelevant - condemn them for their human rights abuses (and learn from it) and learn from their triumphs (such as this addition to their mass transit system).
Yes, true... but they (the "bad guys") tend not to publish the results so that every two bit wannabe hacker and script kiddie can benefit from the information.
Apparently, based on my mod on my original post, I shoulda expounded on my intent a bit.
Point was, yeah, I know others will figure this out - probably ones with more malicious intents...
BUT, (1) they are unlikely to publish the findings, (2) now, they dont even have to do the work... they can jump in now and take advantage of the work that the above people did (meaning the network's security, in effect, has already been breached by the more malicious types thanks to them releasing this info), and (3) those of less technical inclination can now also jump right in with invasive stuff to utilize their research.
Inotherwords, (bad analogy time) to point out that there was a hole in the boat letting water in, they (a) made the hole a lot bigger so everyone's feet got wet, and (b) made holes in every other boat too (ie: people who would never have the skills to figure this out now dont need to worry about that - they too have access to this info and dont need to figure it out).
The bad guys no longer have to do it... it's been done for them, regardless of whether they have or can buy the skills to have done it on their own. Would you rather every crazed criminal out there having guns, or just the ones with the means to find em?
Wow, what an interesting way to force innovation at such a "minor" expense to the people their efforts are supposed to help. Kinda ironic their efforts have done the exact opposite of their goals... and if the past is any indication, the harm they may have just caused will be around for a while.
Most of my calls are pretty boring, so I generally dont care. Some of my calls are regarding patient information entries in a database we maintain - in which case this becomes serious.
Exactly. The only way for the US to have won in Nam would have been to destroy everything (which was humanely and politically unpalatable). The only way to win in Iraq is to turn it into a glass parking lot (which would also be humanely and politically unpalatable).
But with spam... that may be a bit more palatable, if we can get people to accept responsibility for getting hosed.
Since such a solution in the computer world would NOT be unpalatable, then, this is the answer...
They were happy with the compromise that I stop looking directly at the Kindle while they landed. sigh.
Well, that's just simple science!! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it fall? If a Kindle is on in front of you, but no one is looking at it, is it really on?
There is still a valid purpose in watching for bombs, and has been for decades. The most courageous passengers will do no good if someone manages to set off a usable explosive and blow a hole in the side of the plane.
Guess that just depends on how big the hole is, and how big the largest passenger is....;-)
Well, I need a new wardrobe anyway... at least frequent flyer miles will now also earn people some extra threads... nowadays, they aren't worth much more. Nowadays, it seems you need two trillion frequent flyer points just to pay for the taxi'ing part of the flight.
Maybe they should have a rewards catalog, like they did for the cigarette promotions of yesteryear... win a free ashtray with 30,000 points... get a neat jacket for 100,000... fly from JFK to LaGuardia for 2,000,000... you know... something like that so that regular fliers can actually get something out of it.
Excellent post - but you forgot size and (installation) flexibility, which is a very large constraint for many applications of this technology. We'd go solar if we could fit enough panels on the roof... but with the added draw of our stand-alone office and it's 7' high stack of servers (and the AC needed to keep the office cool and other server related things), we'd only cover half our needs.
Fortunately, we dont heat the office in the winter... the servers do that quite nicely.;-) In the 20's outside right now, in the low 70's in here.
An interesting thing to do is to find any solar advancement promised, theorized or in testing from the last decade, and find what big oil company bought the company.
No, it's not conspiracy theories or speculation. It's just simple fact - with the added fact that such oil companies find it NOT in their best interest to further (or even release) such technology.
That's part of the reason why (at least according to them), British Petroleum is the largest manufacturer of (rather mundane, unimpressive) solar cells. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether BP Solar really wants to innovate in that area?
My gosh! It IS a word! Look it up on Merriam Webster.
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
The most I have seen lately (in any dictionary updated in the last few years) is that it is a non-standard word... which still makes it a word. As more time has past, more dictionaries are listing it as (a) a word, or (b) a non-standard word.
You got a +5 Insightful for being wrong... yep, I'm on slashdot!;-)
Good point, though literacy is not always the issue. Though my "quick, get a post out while at work, with little concern for grammatical or typographical errors" posting history does not show it, I am very literate, read at a rate of 80-120 pages an hour and am pretty well educated (and 99 percentile on the appropriate section of the SATs and top in my class in English).
Yet, I choose to use irregardless, partially as a point that semantic arguments in a well and accurately understood conversation, really tend to annoy me, forcing me to use words like irregardless more frequently.
Humans are not logical - just as many words that they use (that are considered "standard") are not either.
Get over it. It wont change reality, no matter what you think. The word irregardless, no matter your opinion and thoughts on the matter, no matter how logical those thoughts may be, is considered a word.
Thus, irregardless of your opinion things will not change in that area.
On another note:
Anyone can make up any word, have it spread through a local or regional vernacular, then get it picked up by an entire dialectic group, but if it makes no logical sense it's still ridiculously stupid to use and shows that its user has a poor grasp of written and spoken language as communication.
Yes, anyone can make up a word... the entire English language was created by people making up words. Hate to break it to you, but that is exactly how languages are created. Whether the English word is "made up from scratch" or based off another language, it's a "made up" word and/or it's "origin word" is a "made up" word.
So, hopefully I have cleared up how words are actually "made" (up).
Sorry it irks you so. But various other dictionary writers seem to think it is now a word - even if a non-standard one.
And, it makes more sense than inflammable and irrespective, since it is thought to have started as a "combination" of irrespective and irregardless.
Merriam Webster has this to say on the matter:
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
At this rate, it seems it will be considered standard and accepted in "no time" (ie: in a few more years or so - which is no time in comparison to how long English has been spoken on this planet).
I always love how people get irked because language changes and they don't like it. It's one of the reasons I choose to use irregardless in speech as I am always baffled by those who would rather argue semantics instead of the actual conversational points at hand.
In addition, instead of violating someone else's patent (like the last two instances in under two weeks of violating someone's copyrights by stealing code), they could have just hmmm... this is a tough one....
OH! I remember... they could have just licensed the patent/code/whatever like numerous other companies do in similar situations. So, I dont feel bad about this happening to them. They've done the steal/"borrow" code and ideas thing numerous times in the past...
My only worry is that they get this overturned because of the "economic harm" or some other nonsense - or run this company out of business with the cost of appeals until a settlement is reached. It's high time they are found guilty of (and punished for) such crimes.
-
And of course, no "security" software is ever going to protect you from everything. No one wants pre-emptive protection because it hinders their experience.
True... I really like Spyware Terminator with ClamAV, but it creates more problems for my customers than it solves. They either:
(A) Disable it (usually because they keep forgetting to enable "Install Mode" when installing something)
(B) Disable the "Real Time Shield"
(C) Block everything - leading to numerous programs not working properly
(D) Allow everything - leading to a nicely infected machine and ST fighting the never ending battle of removing the infections
Ah well... no amount of attempted training seems to have solved that for us, so I no longer install it on any but my own single XP machine and the machines of only the most technologically savvy users.
It's more than just that. Super Anti Spyware needs to be set to scan all files (all files greater than it's predefined size, and all files of all types). MalwareBytes does not need a settings change.
Most other software either is not configurable (depending on version) or is configured to only scan "infectable" files.
My personal experience of late is that I have seen many "non-infectable" files infected such as images, text documents, "unknown" document types, and so on. When I install any AV or AS software, I always configure it by hand to scan absolutely everything and then explain why to the end user.
Thus, sadly, my experience shows that this statement, though the person's heart is in the right place, is not correct:
'Following the recommendations does not pose a significant threat as of now, but it has a very big potential of being one,' the company's researcher, David Sancho, writes on theTrend Micro blog.
Nowadays, I've found malware hiding in every file type causing it to re-infect a machine continuously once an anti-malware software has killed the running version. It becomes a constant battle between the malware and the AM tool unless the "scan absolutely everything" option is enabled. I've had way too many customers come in thinking they've had tens of thousands of infections because of that little loop created by not scanning everything ("Gee, it just removed another 20 today, and 20 more the day before!!!")
Slashdot Mirror
In these style lights it is irrelevant... there is an even bigger lip on the lens below (see picture in article summary). Horizontal works better in that case, but regardless, there is still generally a small lip on the bottoms... it's kinda needed to hold the lenses in place during various adverse weather conditions - unless one designs a lens that fits over an opening and screws into the sides.... but then, that's a matter of cost.
Regardless, like on the pic in the summary, the type of snow that falls in various areas of the country still sticks on vertical surfaces. Then freezes, then builds up more...
Or have a snow-sensor and kick on a small heating device...
Sure, you are using more N-R-G by creating the heat to do it with so the technology is less green, but even this southern non-snow savvy guy realizes that using *some* N-R-G during a few months of the year to de-ice/melt/whatever is better than creating waste heat with inefficient lighting 24/7/365
Besides, what is the "green" cost of a car accident where oil, gas, battery acid, etc. may be spilled, as well as emergency vehicles cranking up and running to the scene, etc?
That's the best suggestion. And it's trivial, extremely cheap technology. Outdoor surveillance cameras have used it for years - some even with dehumidifier devices as well.
And the beauty is, even when the heater is on, it will still use less energy than the incandescent light, since it only needs to heat the lenses to a certain level over freezing temperature. So, I'd expect, even with the heaters on, there should be a decent savings in electric costs.
It sounds like you are on top of things, but I'd say you are understaffed. We have 10-15 Windows servers, and a few hundred XP/Vista machines, and one admin-type, plus two full-time equivalent techs, and are looking for at least one more.
Where do I send my resume?
The real question is are you always constantly working your ass off, fixing stupid problems - and therefore unable to do anything more productive? If so, then it seems you don't have enough people.
If you have a fully managed office, and you can remote in to all these desktops and fix everything really quickly - then you're probably OK.
Like most of IT, whatever works.
That last sentence hits the head right on the nail...
The numbers really are determined by a lot of factors... if your business revolves around programming and engineering, and thus your workers are from those fields (as opposed to tons of avg computer users in a non computer/technical field), you are less likely to have serious issues that IT needs to address, thus requiring a smaller IT staff. And of course, what money IT is allowed to spend on initial setup and/or maintenance also determines the staffing size for IT. One can design a system that remote boots from the NIC and reinstalls everything to a machine specific image - or kicks the boot to the HDD if there are no problems making serious non-hardware issues trivial - if the money was there during the initial setup or a big upgrade phase... or one can fix the stuff the old fashioned way and go hands on (which requires more of an IT staff). Hardware differences also can determine staffing size. One of our customers had a problem with certain AMD XP machines when SP3 came out - required lotsa "hands on" fixing... other of our clients did not have those machines and needed no one and no help. Also, are the machines needed 24/7? Is there mission critical data on them (or no mission critical data anywhere - or mission critical data is on the server)?
And so on... inotherwords, there are a ton of factors that determine staffing needs for IT. It could be one person per 10 or one person per 100, etc.
Thus, slimjim8094's statement really does sum it up nicely...
Like most of IT, whatever works.
Wow... seems there are some idiots with Mod Points...
I'm thrilled if this gets things updated to be more secure... but this method can in the meantime create a LOT of damage. Perhaps I should have expounded on my original post.
Point was, yeah, I know others (the bad guys) will figure this out eventually - probably ones with more malicious intents...
BUT, (1) they are unlikely to publish the findings, (2) now, they (the bad guys) dont even have to do the work... they can jump in now and take advantage of the work that the above people did (meaning the network's security, in effect, has already been breached by the more malicious types thanks to them releasing this info), and (3) those of less technical inclination can now also jump right in with invasive stuff to utilize their research.
Simple math folks... before "the bad guys" were limited to however many or few figured this out on their own... now EVERY "bad guy" in this line of "bad-guyness" can just jump right in.
Inotherwords, (bad analogy time) to point out that there was a hole in the boat letting water in, they (a) made the hole a lot bigger so everyone's feet got wet, and (b) made holes in every other boat too (ie: people who would never have the skills to figure this out now dont need to worry about that - they too have access to this info and dont need to figure it out).
The bad guys no longer have to do it... it's been done for them, regardless of whether they have or can buy the skills to have done it on their own. Would you rather every crazed criminal out there having guns, or just the ones with the means to find em?
Best, Robert
-1 Troll is not an "I don't like what you wrote even though it's true" option.
China debuts human rights abuses
let's glorify them!
Irrelevant - condemn them for their human rights abuses (and learn from it) and learn from their triumphs (such as this addition to their mass transit system).
Yes, true... but they (the "bad guys") tend not to publish the results so that every two bit wannabe hacker and script kiddie can benefit from the information.
Apparently, based on my mod on my original post, I shoulda expounded on my intent a bit.
Point was, yeah, I know others will figure this out - probably ones with more malicious intents...
BUT, (1) they are unlikely to publish the findings, (2) now, they dont even have to do the work... they can jump in now and take advantage of the work that the above people did (meaning the network's security, in effect, has already been breached by the more malicious types thanks to them releasing this info), and (3) those of less technical inclination can now also jump right in with invasive stuff to utilize their research.
Inotherwords, (bad analogy time) to point out that there was a hole in the boat letting water in, they (a) made the hole a lot bigger so everyone's feet got wet, and (b) made holes in every other boat too (ie: people who would never have the skills to figure this out now dont need to worry about that - they too have access to this info and dont need to figure it out).
The bad guys no longer have to do it... it's been done for them, regardless of whether they have or can buy the skills to have done it on their own. Would you rather every crazed criminal out there having guns, or just the ones with the means to find em?
Best, Robert
Wow, what an interesting way to force innovation at such a "minor" expense to the people their efforts are supposed to help. Kinda ironic their efforts have done the exact opposite of their goals... and if the past is any indication, the harm they may have just caused will be around for a while.
Most of my calls are pretty boring, so I generally dont care. Some of my calls are regarding patient information entries in a database we maintain - in which case this becomes serious.
Exactly. The only way for the US to have won in Nam would have been to destroy everything (which was humanely and politically unpalatable). The only way to win in Iraq is to turn it into a glass parking lot (which would also be humanely and politically unpalatable).
But with spam... that may be a bit more palatable, if we can get people to accept responsibility for getting hosed.
Since such a solution in the computer world would NOT be unpalatable, then, this is the answer...
"Zero-Zero-Zero Destruct Zero"
Have you ever thought it's just simply mislabeled and you hadn't picked up on that fact yet - or you misunderstood the color coding?
Maybe the white area is where they have coverage and the other area is where they do not?
...where the majority of domestic websites require Internet Explorer 6 (yes, 6) to function correctly?
Well, that seemed to be the case in the US until just recently too... ;-)
They were happy with the compromise that I stop looking directly at the Kindle while they landed. sigh.
Well, that's just simple science!! If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, did it fall? If a Kindle is on in front of you, but no one is looking at it, is it really on?
There is still a valid purpose in watching for bombs, and has been for decades. The most courageous passengers will do no good if someone manages to set off a usable explosive and blow a hole in the side of the plane.
Guess that just depends on how big the hole is, and how big the largest passenger is.... ;-)
Well, I need a new wardrobe anyway... at least frequent flyer miles will now also earn people some extra threads... nowadays, they aren't worth much more. Nowadays, it seems you need two trillion frequent flyer points just to pay for the taxi'ing part of the flight.
Maybe they should have a rewards catalog, like they did for the cigarette promotions of yesteryear... win a free ashtray with 30,000 points... get a neat jacket for 100,000... fly from JFK to LaGuardia for 2,000,000... you know... something like that so that regular fliers can actually get something out of it.
Excellent post - but you forgot size and (installation) flexibility, which is a very large constraint for many applications of this technology. We'd go solar if we could fit enough panels on the roof... but with the added draw of our stand-alone office and it's 7' high stack of servers (and the AC needed to keep the office cool and other server related things), we'd only cover half our needs.
Fortunately, we dont heat the office in the winter... the servers do that quite nicely. ;-) In the 20's outside right now, in the low 70's in here.
An interesting thing to do is to find any solar advancement promised, theorized or in testing from the last decade, and find what big oil company bought the company.
No, it's not conspiracy theories or speculation. It's just simple fact - with the added fact that such oil companies find it NOT in their best interest to further (or even release) such technology.
That's part of the reason why (at least according to them), British Petroleum is the largest manufacturer of (rather mundane, unimpressive) solar cells. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to whether BP Solar really wants to innovate in that area?
I, for one, welcome our new aquatic overlords.
Wow, it looks like this meme has finally outlived it's humorousness. Being modded as redundant on a first post!
I need to start making a list of which memes are still considered funny here so I dont screw up my karma... ;-)
My gosh! It IS a word! Look it up on Merriam Webster.
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
The most I have seen lately (in any dictionary updated in the last few years) is that it is a non-standard word... which still makes it a word. As more time has past, more dictionaries are listing it as (a) a word, or (b) a non-standard word.
You got a +5 Insightful for being wrong... yep, I'm on slashdot! ;-)
You've got my vote, irregardless of what anyone else says!
Good point, though literacy is not always the issue. Though my "quick, get a post out while at work, with little concern for grammatical or typographical errors" posting history does not show it, I am very literate, read at a rate of 80-120 pages an hour and am pretty well educated (and 99 percentile on the appropriate section of the SATs and top in my class in English).
Yet, I choose to use irregardless, partially as a point that semantic arguments in a well and accurately understood conversation, really tend to annoy me, forcing me to use words like irregardless more frequently.
Humans are not logical - just as many words that they use (that are considered "standard") are not either.
Get over it. It wont change reality, no matter what you think. The word irregardless, no matter your opinion and thoughts on the matter, no matter how logical those thoughts may be, is considered a word.
Thus, irregardless of your opinion things will not change in that area.
On another note:
Anyone can make up any word, have it spread through a local or regional vernacular, then get it picked up by an entire dialectic group, but if it makes no logical sense it's still ridiculously stupid to use and shows that its user has a poor grasp of written and spoken language as communication.
Yes, anyone can make up a word... the entire English language was created by people making up words. Hate to break it to you, but that is exactly how languages are created. Whether the English word is "made up from scratch" or based off another language, it's a "made up" word and/or it's "origin word" is a "made up" word.
So, hopefully I have cleared up how words are actually "made" (up).
Sorry it irks you so. But various other dictionary writers seem to think it is now a word - even if a non-standard one.
And, it makes more sense than inflammable and irrespective, since it is thought to have started as a "combination" of irrespective and irregardless.
Merriam Webster has this to say on the matter:
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
At this rate, it seems it will be considered standard and accepted in "no time" (ie: in a few more years or so - which is no time in comparison to how long English has been spoken on this planet).
I always love how people get irked because language changes and they don't like it. It's one of the reasons I choose to use irregardless in speech as I am always baffled by those who would rather argue semantics instead of the actual conversational points at hand.
In addition, instead of violating someone else's patent (like the last two instances in under two weeks of violating someone's copyrights by stealing code), they could have just hmmm... this is a tough one....
OH! I remember... they could have just licensed the patent/code/whatever like numerous other companies do in similar situations. So, I dont feel bad about this happening to them. They've done the steal/"borrow" code and ideas thing numerous times in the past...
My only worry is that they get this overturned because of the "economic harm" or some other nonsense - or run this company out of business with the cost of appeals until a settlement is reached. It's high time they are found guilty of (and punished for) such crimes.
- And of course, no "security" software is ever going to protect you from everything. No one wants pre-emptive protection because it hinders their experience.
True... I really like Spyware Terminator with ClamAV, but it creates more problems for my customers than it solves. They either:
(A) Disable it (usually because they keep forgetting to enable "Install Mode" when installing something)
(B) Disable the "Real Time Shield"
(C) Block everything - leading to numerous programs not working properly
(D) Allow everything - leading to a nicely infected machine and ST fighting the never ending battle of removing the infections
Ah well... no amount of attempted training seems to have solved that for us, so I no longer install it on any but my own single XP machine and the machines of only the most technologically savvy users.
It's more than just that. Super Anti Spyware needs to be set to scan all files (all files greater than it's predefined size, and all files of all types). MalwareBytes does not need a settings change.
Most other software either is not configurable (depending on version) or is configured to only scan "infectable" files.
My personal experience of late is that I have seen many "non-infectable" files infected such as images, text documents, "unknown" document types, and so on. When I install any AV or AS software, I always configure it by hand to scan absolutely everything and then explain why to the end user.
Thus, sadly, my experience shows that this statement, though the person's heart is in the right place, is not correct:
'Following the recommendations does not pose a significant threat as of now, but it has a very big potential of being one,' the company's researcher, David Sancho, writes on theTrend Micro blog.
Nowadays, I've found malware hiding in every file type causing it to re-infect a machine continuously once an anti-malware software has killed the running version. It becomes a constant battle between the malware and the AM tool unless the "scan absolutely everything" option is enabled. I've had way too many customers come in thinking they've had tens of thousands of infections because of that little loop created by not scanning everything ("Gee, it just removed another 20 today, and 20 more the day before!!!")