This antivirus fails my "stupid" test by managing match some of the least intuitive and least user-friendly software on the planet.
There are a few things wrong in this picture, we'll go down the list. I've highlighted part of it for emphasis.
- The Real-Time scanner did not stop scanning while the manual scan took place (see background of picture). This means that the real-time scanner found a few infected files independent of the manual scanner, and made things all kinds of confusing.
- The message the pops up alerts you about the virus infection on your machine. It's kind enough to let you know what was found, and what was done with each. As you can see in this window, however, it was put together as nothing more than an information box, and provides no intuitive functions to act upon the information. The biggest problem with this is the presense of an infected file that apparently had no action taken against it. The info link lets you know about the virus, but not the current infection, or why it wasn't removed. Typically this would be a great place for a "heal/delete" infection button. All that we see is a close button. As if no further action is required. How many people might assume no further action? Generally when only one option is availble, people don't read and click 'ok' or 'close,' and rightfully so- since no other options are present, what indicates that further action really is required? Nevermind the fact that an infection still exists.
- Antivirus software have never dealt with files that are in memory. If the virus is actually infecting the machine (not dormant), then it will be in memory. So basically, any viruses that can actually affect you are immuned to anti-virus software. Useless.
Not that it should only be said about this computer associates software- because we all know Norton and McAfee are guilty as well. Honestly speaking I use Opera and no antivirus what so ever, and I'm clean. It's all about browsing habits.
Posted on January 30th, 2008 | Comments 
Geek Squad Child Porn
No, this isn't what the title suggests (you prevs).
As some of you know, I work in the computer repair industry. An interesting article got dugg recently (I'll refer you to the digg article, cause the comments are way more interesting than the article).
Look! I managed to integrate both issues into one picture!!
Anyhow, apparently the Geek Squad found some child pornography on a customer's computer and turned it over to the police... resulting in this guy going to jail for a buncha years.
This of course brought a privacy issue to front. While everybody's happy that another
pedophile is off the streets... how safe is your data at Geek Squad?
As I don't work at Geek Squad, but instead a competitor, I'd love to blast Geek Squad here. But unfortunately, I feel I must let you all in on a secret. I don't look at my customer's data. It does sometimes smack me in the face though.
It's not uncommon for some interesting pictures to be on the background of the desktop, and often times in screen savers that inevitably come up during a virus scan. So hey, everybody, lay off the Geeks (this time). Sometimes this stuff just happens.
Anyway. This made me wonder a potentially sick question. What happens if a child is caught looking at child pornography? What would the law do here? Can you be a pedophile if you are child yourself?
And, yes, I called you a prev. Deal with it.
Posted on October 10th, 2007 | Comments 
Radiohead Sticks It to the Man
A pretty big move for such a big-league artist: Radiohead is releasing their next album "In Rainbows" without a record label. That's right. They're releasing it themselves!
On October 10th (that's tomorrow at the time of writing this), their album will be available for purchase as either a discbox, or as a download.
A huge occasion for the recording industry, as this experiment will hopefully prove once and for all that the big bad record labels may not actually still be necessary this day and age.
Even more important is the price, which users decide when they purchase the album. No joke, there's a blank box that lets you choose how much you'll be paying for the download (the discbox will have a set price). Another daring move that will hopefully make more of a point than bite them in the ass.
That point being: If I can pay just a little and know that 100% of the money goes to the artist, why would anybody want to pay $20 for a cd that doesn't give much more than a dollar to the artist?
...several record executives admitted that [...] they were stunned. "This feels like yet another death knell," emailed an A&R executive at a major European label. "If the best band in the world doesn't want a part of us, I'm not sure what's left for this business."
-Josh Tyrangiel - TIME
Posted on October 9th, 2007 | Comments