Does anyone browse the darknet library before buying an ebook?

[pwalker8]

I won't share the files, I will however point out that google does cache web pages and that if you happen to do a search on the name of the files and click on cache...

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by EricDP

Go to google, type in the name of the book or author, and include the word 'torrent' in your search. That's all it takes...

"Torrent" or "download" or "rapidshare". Or just head over to freshwap.net. And if some publishing house lawyer wants to hop a jet and to try to throw the DMCA at me all the way over here in Shanghai for revealing such deep, dark, evil things in a public forum, make sure he PMs me first so I can give him my address.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Nathanael

Nope. Only for Windows users. Computers don't get viruses. Windows does. I've run around naked on the Internet for years -- no antivirus protection, no malware or spyware detection, no firewall, and never a worry of infection. Because I don't do Windows.

Never knew the Ipad ran on windows:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/artic..._builds_botnet

or Symbian phones:

http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001912.html

Or linux:

http://www.spamlaws.com/first-linux-virus.html


I do agree that they like to target windows machines more, because it has a greater spread. But as other OS's become more and more popular, you really think those hackers and virus writers will ignore that?

[Pagali]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I won't share the files, I will however point out that google does cache web pages and that if you happen to do a search on the name of the files and click on cache...

Thanks for that reminder about cached files! Got the files, got them working. (Took some fiddling, but I did it. )

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Or linux:

http://www.spamlaws.com/first-linux-virus.html

(Ignoring the Apple references because I run Linux.)

The Staog virus was fourteen years ago and it was a proof-of-concept only (meaning it was never released into the wild; it was written simply to demonstrate the vulnerability). It only worked on Linux systems that had a particular combination of software, and the involved software was patched within hours of the discovery of Staog. There were no reports of any real-world Staog infections.

Or, as this article puts it:

The reason that we have not seen a real Linux virus epidemic in the wild is simply that none of the existing Linux viruses can thrive in the hostile environment that Linux provides. The Linux viruses that exist today are nothing more than technical curiosities; the reality is that there is no viable Linux virus.

But in the interest of full disclosure, Wikipedia has a list of all known Linux virii. But note that most of those were proof-of-concepts, the rest were obsoleted by software updates. None is known to exist in the wild.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I do agree that they like to target windows machines more, because it has a greater spread. But as other OS's become more and more popular, you really think those hackers and virus writers will ignore that?

Windows has a greater spread on the desktop only. Outside of the desktop, you can't turn around without bumping elbows with Linux. Tens of millions of cellphones run Linux (the Android OS, a Linux variant, was the US's fastest-selling cellphone OS in 2Q 2010). Your ebook reader almost certainly runs Linux. And by many accounts most web servers are running Linux (reliable webserver statistics are notoriously hard to come by, but estimates of Linux marketshare run as high as 75 to 85 percent. Even Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer puts Linux server penetration at 60 percent.) And Linux runs 17 of the 20 biggest websites on the planet (Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Youtube, Baidu, Wikipedia, Amazon, Blogger.com just for example).

Now that ought to be high profile enough for any hacker. And if the eternal immortality to be gained from defacing Youtube isn't temptation enough, there're the tens of millions of credit card numbers lurking around on Amazon's servers free for the taking -- if you can break Linux, that is.

Bottom line is if you think you're not a Linux user, guess again. Ever google? Linux served up your results. Turn on your ebook reader -- Linux is probably serving up your ebooks. If you only connect to MSN using Internet Explorer on Windows 7, you still had to pass through Linux-based routers to get there. Even if you're cellphone isn't running Linux, your voice and data traffic almost certainly passed through a Linux-based telecom server.

Do you twitter and tweet? Twitter runs Linux. Send an e-mail? Most e-mail servers run Sendmail on Linux. Stop to grab some cash at an ATM? Use that cash to buy a book? Guess what the ATM or the cash register was probably running. Watch the weather channel? Weather report courtesy of a supercomputer running Linux. Use a GPS to navigate to work? You were probably using Linux. Make an investment? The New York Stock Exchange runs on Linux (as does the London SE, which dumped Windows last year after a seven-hour shutdown).

Anyone who thinks Linux doesn't have market penetration just isn't looking in the right places.

[RoboRay]

<applause>

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nathanael

But in the interest of full disclosure, Wikipedia has a list of all known Linux virii. But note that most of those were proof-of-concepts, the rest were obsoleted by software updates. None is known to exist in the wild.

ARRRGGGGHHHH!

PLEASE tell me where you get the ghastly non-word "virii" as a plural of virus?

If it were a second declension Latin noun, it would have the plural "viri" - where does that second "i" come from?

However, the fact is that "virus" is NOT a second declension noun. It's an irregular noun (meaning "poison") and has no plural in Latin.

Stop to grab some cash at an ATM? Use that cash to buy a book? Guess what the ATM or the cash register was probably running.

I don't have to guess; I can see the Windows logo on my bank's ATMs as they boot. (They run Windows server 2003, as a matter of interest.).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by greenapple

Since we can't browse at ebook stores, does anyone use the darknet 'library' for browsing before actually buying the ebooks?

No. If I want to browse a book I'll use the sample pages. The darknet is just too much hassle.

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by HarryT

ARRRGGGGHHHH!

PLEASE tell me where you get the ghastly non-word "virii" as a plural of virus?

Depends on what you mean by "non-word". A "word" is simply a linguistic utterance with a mutually accepted definition. Since "virii" is commonly used in the hacker community as a plural of "virus", therefore it qualifies as a linguistic utterance with a mutually accepted definition. It is therefore, just as much a "word" as, say, "yeouch!" or "bling-bling".

Certainly "virii" is incorrect, Latinly speaking (I have three years of college Latin under my belt so, surprisingly, I know whereof you speak). But for that matter, since as you pointed out the Latin "virus" has no plural, you should also object to "viruses". On the other hand, if you're OK with English pluralizing Latin mass nouns, what matters whether it's done via -es or a pseudo-Latin -ii?

Do you object to "alumns"; "operas" (Latin plural: "operae"); "irises" (Latin plural: "irides"); "rhinoceri" instead of "rhinocerotes"; "antennas", "podiums" or "pelvises" rather than the correct "antennae", "podia" or "pelves"; "diplomas" or "traumas" in lieu of the more proper "diplomata" or "traumata"; "focuses" rather than "foci"; using Latin plurals such as "agenda", "stamina" or "insignia" as singular in English?

Why restrict ourselves to Latin? "Spaghetti", "broccoli" and "zucchini" are in fact Italian plural forms: "I bought a zucchini" is really trashy Italian.

[HarryT]

People are welcome to form a fake Latin plural of "virus" if they wish - I just wondered where that extra "i" came from.

"Opera" is itself a plural - it's the plural of "opus" ("work", in the sense of an artistic work)

I don't object in the slightest to English plurals. Once a word is used in English, it is an English word, and can legitimately be given an English plural. Thus, "viruses", "focuses", "appendixes", and so on, are all absolutely fine.

What I think is a little bit silly is to "make" up Latin plurals - and even worse, to get them wrong .

I had a rant about Italian plurals in another thread recently. "Paninis" is one that's often seen - people genuinely don't seem to be aware that "panini" is a plural.

[Ben Thornton]

I must say that virii looked odd to me. A quick google says 215,000 hits for virii, but 23.5 million hits for viruses - so I'd go with the latter as the accepted plural as far as usage is concerned.

So there's a nice knock-down argument for you!

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I must say that virii looked odd to me. A quick google says 215,000 hits for virii, but 23.5 million hits for viruses - so I'd go with the latter as the accepted plural as far as usage is concerned.

So there's a nice knock-down argument for you!

by quoting a result from a google search .... mmmm

[Ben Thornton]

Google is a perfectly good source for what's in common usage. If you prefer an argument from authority, perhaps this. Note that I don't prefer such an argument - I accept the point that meaning comes from usage not authority. And the nice knock-down argument is from Alice - I was agreeing that it was a question of who was to be master.

[Fbone]

It would have to be virius for it to be virii similar to radius. And I believe viri means "men" in Latin although soft "i" sound.

If I remember correctly, ancient Romans considered virus (poison) to be innumerable and had no plural or possibly there was a plural form (rarely used) but is lost in antiquity.

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by HarryT

People are welcome to form a fake Latin plural of "virus" if they wish - I just wondered where that extra "i" came from.... What I think is a little bit silly is to "make" up Latin plurals - and even worse, to get them wrong .

I understand. And as I said, having a pretty decent amount of Latin study under my belt, I'm also aware that the word is "non-standard" Latin. I'm also a linguist by training (MA, 1985), so I tend to lean pretty heavily toward descriptivism -- that is, what is "right" grammatically is whatever is in common use within a particular community. I don't sweat stuff like "none are", "referencing", split infinitives or sentence-ending prepositions. And I've been known to say "ain't". Occasionally.

This pretty succinctly sums up our little discussion; Wikipedia also tosses its two cents in. There's even an entire Internet domain devoted to this bit of hack Latin -- www.virii.net.

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Opera" is itself a plural - it's the plural of "opus" ("work", in the sense of an artistic work)

Now here's an interesting example. While opera is plural in classical Latin, that it was treated as singular in many varieties of vulgar Latin is also well attested -- a fact which undoubtedly bent the noses of many sixth and seventh century Latin grammarians. And this is, of course, how the singular opera passed into Italian and from thence into English.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Once a word is used in English, it ... can legitimately be given an English plural.... I had a rant about Italian plurals in another thread recently. "Paninis" is one that's often seen - people genuinely don't seem to be aware that "panini" is a plural.

So where does one draw the line? If once a word has passed into English it's become fair game for English plural affixes, then why object to "paninis" but not "agendas"?