On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 04:27:45 -0400 (EDT), Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Sam,
> Viruses are designed to be sneaky, so the user who spreads them unwittingly may
> truly believe he/she never sent a virus-infested message. If guns were designed
> to fire at unexpected times, the manufacturer would face ruinous lawsuit plus
> criminal penalties.
Most lawsuits against gun manufacturers are based on frivolous
allegations that the manufacturer is somehow to blame for the fact that
their guns are often found in the possession of criminals. In almost
all cases such as these the manufacturer will win because the
manufacturer can prove that he ships his products only to federally
licensed dealers, all of whom have passed a criminal background check
as a requirement for obtaining their licenses. Gun manufacturers know
that they are certain to lose a case based on proof that a product of
their making is so defective that it can fire at unexpected times.
Nowadays gun manufacturers are designing into their products many
additional and superfluous safety features in an attempt to make their
guns virtually "idiot proof". Some guns are even equipped with
built-in keylocks so as to make them "child proof". The outdated
designs provided sufficient safety features to satisfy a user who is
experienced and well trained and understands what he is doing. Any gun
may be stored under lock and key. Unlike gun manufacturers and
automobile manufacturers, the software developers, especially those
at MicroSoft, don't seem to care about product safety. I would just
love to see a lawsuit brought against a software company based on proof
that the product is demonstrably unsafe.
> MS should share the blame for designing email and news
> clients with house-of-cards security, where the default behavior is to
> automatically execute executable attachments, no doubt an irresistable
> temptation for virus writers and script kiddies. MS should share the blame for
> their monopolistic dealings that make it difficult to buy a PC without Windows
> and the virus-friendly email/news setup. Windows GUI pulls the wool over the
> user's eyes so he/she doesn't really know what's happening, what the file being
> sent really looks like, so part of the blame belongs with the design of such an
> OS.
I agree. Sue the bastards.
> One computer instructor told me, back in the days of Windows 3.0, that Windows
> is for somebody who doesn't know how to use a computer.
> Apparently that still
> holds true today. I've met Windows users who didn't know their modem speed or
> hard drive size, and didn't even know an internal modem from an external modem.
I installed Arachne and Nettamer on the computer at my ex-wife's home. I
did this because I didn't want her to get any email viruses. Of course
this was a legitimate concern of mine because my son uses the same machine.
When my ex-wife complained to a computer instructor about what I had done
the instructor told her that Windows is for dummies who don't know how
to use a computer. He also told her that if she were smart she would
learn how to use DOS, especially when she can get free instructions and
technical support from her ex-husband.
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
