I am clueless about how my system really operates. If I could just turn my computer on and use it without any "protections" I would do it if I could just reload everything I needed the next time I boot the system up. Why does it have to be so difficult for imbeciles like me who just want to use a computer to look stuff up on, pay a few bills with, visit a few porn sites and have email access? Is this too much to ask for?
Why can't a system be configured to be bulletproof? Hardened such that only outgoing requests for information are allowed. No incoming changes are allowed unless specifically authorized by me? How is it that changes can be allowed by computer system when these changes have hidden codes that change the system away from its stable configuration? Why does this cat and mouse game ever take place in the first place? If a change is detected in what was working before, any change whatsoever, why can't these unauthorized changes be "filtered out" as extraneous "bits" of non-conforming "software"? It's like having a pattern recognition buffer in place between my system and the rest of the WWW. Anything that comes into my computer that would alter the existing pattern stored for my OS, would be skimmed off, only allowing the original pattern to be recognized as operable software. No iffs ands or butts. My access to the internet would become completely "passive" in that no outside changes could ever take place, changes originating from outside of, and potentially altering my systems OS, without first attempting to alter my systems distinctive, one of a kind, self-test pattern recognition information software. This would be a "real-time" screening process, where all incoming data is pre-filtered through the lens of "does this incoming data alter or change the "fit" or the pattern "layout" for the systems current OS configuration? If yes, then in real time, before any such change is allowed to cross the pre-screen boundary, a red flag is thrown into the User Interface requesting permission to alter the previous software configuration, away from its former stable configuration, into an unknown state of configuration. Yes? or NO?. Yes is Ok, make these requested configurations possible. Whereas No, means No. No alteration of previous stable configuration is authorized by the user. These requested changes to the systems OS are screened out as "foreign antibodies" clinging onto either what is now a 100% fit to the pattern recognition software, or if the foreign antibodies presence cannot be liberated from the newly proposed changes to system software, then the entire infiltration of spuriously contaminated software changes is rejected in its entirety, completely and unequivocally spit back out of the system as rejected information, with appropriate warnings of "bad tasting software alterations encountered", and simultaneously redirecting and removing the system from any further contact with the source of such "tainted" intrusions.
This is the kind of "intelligent" and "smart" antivirus and anti-social software recognition program I want to have installed on my computer. Why cant this be done? I don't have the brains to do it myself, I can barely count backwards from 100 in groups of three's, and in groups of sevens, forget it, anything past 93 and I'm through.
Why can't a system be configured to be bulletproof? Hardened such that only outgoing requests for information are allowed. No incoming changes are allowed unless specifically authorized by me? How is it that changes can be allowed by computer system when these changes have hidden codes that change the system away from its stable configuration? Why does this cat and mouse game ever take place in the first place? If a change is detected in what was working before, any change whatsoever, why can't these unauthorized changes be "filtered out" as extraneous "bits" of non-conforming "software"? It's like having a pattern recognition buffer in place between my system and the rest of the WWW. Anything that comes into my computer that would alter the existing pattern stored for my OS, would be skimmed off, only allowing the original pattern to be recognized as operable software. No iffs ands or butts. My access to the internet would become completely "passive" in that no outside changes could ever take place, changes originating from outside of, and potentially altering my systems OS, without first attempting to alter my systems distinctive, one of a kind, self-test pattern recognition information software. This would be a "real-time" screening process, where all incoming data is pre-filtered through the lens of "does this incoming data alter or change the "fit" or the pattern "layout" for the systems current OS configuration? If yes, then in real time, before any such change is allowed to cross the pre-screen boundary, a red flag is thrown into the User Interface requesting permission to alter the previous software configuration, away from its former stable configuration, into an unknown state of configuration. Yes? or NO?. Yes is Ok, make these requested configurations possible. Whereas No, means No. No alteration of previous stable configuration is authorized by the user. These requested changes to the systems OS are screened out as "foreign antibodies" clinging onto either what is now a 100% fit to the pattern recognition software, or if the foreign antibodies presence cannot be liberated from the newly proposed changes to system software, then the entire infiltration of spuriously contaminated software changes is rejected in its entirety, completely and unequivocally spit back out of the system as rejected information, with appropriate warnings of "bad tasting software alterations encountered", and simultaneously redirecting and removing the system from any further contact with the source of such "tainted" intrusions.
This is the kind of "intelligent" and "smart" antivirus and anti-social software recognition program I want to have installed on my computer. Why cant this be done? I don't have the brains to do it myself, I can barely count backwards from 100 in groups of three's, and in groups of sevens, forget it, anything past 93 and I'm through.
