there would be no need to make it stronger to combat viruses. we have immune systems because pathogens exist. if there were no pathogens, we would not need immune systems to become stronger.

so sorry. i can't buy into this line of reasoning. nietzche said "that which does not kill us makes us stronger," but that doesn't necessarily imply that increases in strength are always beneficial. sometimes they serve no other purpose than as a way of resisting the thing that does not kill us.

it's like saying that crime, also a blight on society, is a good thing because it makes us stronger. and if you cut off your right arm, the result is that your left arm would become stronger. but i can't see how that's a good thing either.

There is a problem with this thinking. Even if humans weren't around to do us the favor of creating viruses, as the networks grew ever-more-complex, there would grow an increasingly likely possibility that a virus would be inadvertently created by a malfunction, erroneous program, or simple mutation caused by any number of electrical or magnetic factors.

Show me something online, in a book, or in a journal by Samuel D. Forrester. Show me how to find more about Konigsberg University.

Some Nobel laureate. :)

Once again, Slashdot is as reliable a source of news as a group of twelve-year-olds playing "Telephone." I think it's time for Kairosnews to stop mirroring Slashdot.

cbd.

hmmm....so all of these malicious viruses are necessary in case we happen to have a virus on the network occur by accident? i think it would be more effective just to deal with the accidental viruses.

you see, there's an opportunity cost for all the money and time spent on viruses, resources that could be spent on other things that could improve the net and/or our quality of life.

Note "Forrester"'s definition of immunology:

Immunology is the study of the complex and sophisticated immune system. The immune system is a network of cells and organs that work together to defend the body against attacks by "foreign" invaders or germs. The body provides an excellent environment for germs. When they do break into a system, it is the immune system's job to keep them out or to seek and destroy them.

Now, see this definition, from the amazingly acronym'd AAAAI, where the I stands for "immunology":

Immunology is the study of the complex and sophisticated immune system. The immune system is a network of cells and organs that work together to defend the body against attacks by "foreign" invaders or germs. Our body is susceptible to invasion from germs. When the germs do break into the body, it is the immune system's job to keep them out or to seek and destroy them.

And Dilger, according to the interview, Forrester is only "on the run this year to get the Nobel Prize".

Dennis G. Jerz

Jerz's Literacy Weblog

hey, i like slashdot :)

but seriously, slashdot is like any other blog. it's necessary to evaluate the primary source.

meanwhile, still waiting for those regular dilger blogs ;)

Ah, yes, but judging from the coffers of Microsoft, there is already quite an overabundance of money that is NOT going to improve the net or quality of life of anyone save Bill Gates!

That's something. Are you suggesting the guy is fake?

During a live teleconference, the world's most famous immunologist probably wouldn't quote verbatim from boilerplate text that appears several times on the AAAAI website, and which includes the rather silly "When the germs do break into the body, it is the immune system's job to keep them out..." (It's rather silly to introduce "keep them out" after a dependent clause that introduces the germs into the body in the first place.) This looks like a cut & paste job. The Slashdotters have already picked apart much of the argument -- I was just doing forensic textual analysis.

Dennis G. Jerz

Jerz's Literacy Weblog

Yes, I was looking at their rebuttals. Actually, some of them made better arguments than the original article. I especially liked, 'Viruses do serve one important purpose--they remind me that I shouldn't be using Windows!'

Actually, I had plenty of viruses on my Amiga computer, and I don't doubt that some C-64 viruses are out there.

I like Slashdot too. I read Slashdot. But I reserve the right to complain about it, or days when KN is a Slashdot mirror.

And you can't just evaluate the primary source on Slashdot -- you have to consider the editors too, since they screw up so often.

meanwhile, still waiting for those regular dilger blogs

Oh, it's right here.

cbd.

funny, though. because i quite often see the "news" that slashdot references which ends up getting posted here on other weblogs in my news aggregator.

maybe you should start a "no more slashdot mirroring" campaign (lol)

We mirror Slashdot because it's news for nerds! These are the issues we find most provoking and desirious of commentary..

realize what you are implying here. *i* like to think of myself as a geek, not a nerd :)

I think it's useful to have a localized discussion on a topic suggested by Slashdot. It's rare to have much activity in a Slashdot thread once the horde of geeks has moved on to the next topic.

Dennis G. Jerz

Jerz's Literacy Weblog

Charlie: Can you tell me what the difference is between a geek a nerd? You seem to be the expert! :-P

Jumping in here... check out the Jargon Lexicon

">http://jargon.watson-net.com/jargon.asp?w=geek

">http://jargon.watson-net.com/jargon.asp?w=nerd

The Jargon Lexicon notes that the word "nerd" probably derives from the Dr. Seuss book "If I Ran the Circus," but as I recall reading that book to my son (it was one of a dozen or so Seuss books we regularly checked out of the library) I'm fairly sure it was spelled "nurd".

Dennis G. Jerz

Jerz's Literacy Weblog

Sure. How about by example. I'm a geek. You are a nerd. (lol)

Thanks, Dennis. What a great way to start the day! Now I know the etymology of the two words hurled at me most often.

I wonder if kids are stilling calling geeks/nerds "fags." I got called this thousands of times back in high school.