mysterious folder appears can't delete

[BillW50]

I didn't make a claim, you did....that Unlocker was malware/maleware
ridden and it was always installed regardless of whether or not you tell
it to.

I did not say that Unlocker was malware ridden! I did say that I didn't
trust it anymore.

I stated my hypothesis on what really *did* happen, did an experiment,
reported my results here, and stated my conclusion based upon those
results.

It's called 'science'.

I worked with many top in their league scientists for many years. And I
don't call your method science. And I am sure they don't either.

You are a stranger. I do not trust you. You were wrong, according to the
test results I saw for myself.

So I was right not to trust this stranger.

I never said to trust stranger Bill. I just said don't trust anybody you
don't know very well. Including the author of Unlocker.

There is no way to know that of *any* s/w package, unless it's open source.

Sure you can. The 100% foolproof method that I know of is that you
monitor everything. We used to use a machine monitor to do this (they
probably still exists). And you don't need the source code or anything.
As you can record everything in pure machine language. Far at a much
lower level than anything you can ever get and most likely at a far
lower level than what the original program was written in.

I never said there weren't other alternatives. I've never used Unlocker
myself either.

You never used it? Geez, I have! And I trusted Unlocker all the way up
to 1.8.5. When 1.8.6 came out, I started to have doubts about the
trustworthiness of the author. As they sold out for one by adding eBay
shortcuts to the installer. And I am sure eBay pays them for this,
otherwise why do it? And we know there are other stuff that the author
added that has nothing to do with Unlocker itself.

 

[BillW50]

Sure you can. The 100% foolproof method that I know of is that you
monitor everything. We used to use a machine monitor to do this (they
probably still exists). And you don't need the source code or anything.
As you can record everything in pure machine language. Far at a much
lower level than anything you can ever get and most likely at a far
lower level than what the original program was written in.

You know I try to put myself in other people's place when I comment.
Which is really impossible for all cases. But I started to think about
playing devil's advocate about this whole open source stuff. And which
you can't hide anything with a machine monitor. Then I started thinking
how many people know about a machine monitor? And how many that do, can
understand the results? Well with billions of people on the planet, the
answer is very few.

So I started thinking if I was an evil guy (which I am not). What would
be one of the greatest con game of all? That would be to release
something that is open source for all to see. Sure that copy there is
nothing that anybody could complain about.

But the evil compiled version would be different. It wouldn't be the
source copy version, but the evil source code version would be something
that nobody ever saw. And who would know without reverse engineering it?
And like 99.9999% or better would run the already compiled version and
the evil guy could do anything they wanted with them. :-(

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Gene E. Bloch typed:

Wow you too? You both are far too trusting of strangers than I am.

You clipped the part where I said that I don't use downloaders and then
called me trusting of strangers for using downloaders...That's weird.

 

[BillW50]

You clipped the part where I said that I don't use downloaders and then
called me trusting of strangers for using downloaders...That's weird.

I wasn't even talking about downloaders Gene. I was just talking about
the authors compile code. Get real!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I wasn't even talking about downloaders Gene. I was just talking about
the authors compile code. Get real!

Well, in the post you replied to, I was. Get real!

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Well, in the post you replied to, I was. Get real!

Although you actually *didn't* clip what I said you did, so I need to
get real too

 

[BillW50]

Well, in the post you replied to, I was. Get real!

You don't read the rest of the post which you clipped out, did you?

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

You don't read the rest of the post which you clipped out, did you?

Do you find yourself confused by good posting practice?

In accordance with good posting practice, I clipped the part I wasn't
responding to and I responded to the part I left in. It is thus quite
irrelevant whether I read the part I clipped, although it happens that I
did read & understand it.

 

[BillW50]

Do you find yourself confused by good posting practice?

In accordance with good posting practice, I clipped the part I wasn't
responding to and I responded to the part I left in. It is thus quite
irrelevant whether I read the part I clipped, although it happens that I
did read& understand it.

I did the same and using a downloader was irrelevant.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Well, in the post you replied to, I was. Get real!

I _am_ real. I think.
(-:

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

I _am_ real. I think.
(-:

How about: "I am real, therefore I think".

Or "I think, therefore I am real".

I like it either way

My apologies both to Descartes and to any unfortunate netizens who
happen to have read this.