Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th May 2009 22:48 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption The past few years, it seemed as if virus writers had moved away from doing actual damage to systems to instead focus on stealth, so that infected machines can silently, and unknowingly, be used for all sorts of malicious practices. Sadly, there are still those crackers out there that prefer the old-fashioned approach to these matters. The result: 100000 ruined Windows machines.
Thread beginning with comment 362562
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Perversely
by Hypnos on Sat 9th May 2009 06:06 UTC in reply to "Perversely"
Member since:

Why ebola never turned into a plague -- burns itself out.

BTW, the plural of "virus" in English is "viruses;" in Latin, the plural is "viri."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Perversely
by weorthe on Sat 9th May 2009 07:12 in reply to "RE: Perversely"
weorthe Member since:

There is no plural for "virus" in classical Latin. In modern Latin, it would be "vira."

Edited 2009-05-09 07:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Perversely
by Hypnos on Sat 9th May 2009 07:56 in reply to "RE[2]: Perversely"
Hypnos Member since:

I stand corrected -- thanks!

I did look up the word in the Latin dictionary, and I declined it as a masculine noun. But as the Wiki page explains, that is not recommended because there are no recorded examples of pluralizing neuter nouns ending in "-us".

Edited 2009-05-09 07:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Perversely
by sbergman27 on Sat 9th May 2009 17:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Perversely"
sbergman27 Member since:

Personally, I think it would be much better for us to drop all the pedantic anal-retention regarding pluralization and other silliness, and standardize this stuff. It is the pedants who are responsible for much of the mess that the English language has become. Pluralization should involve adding an 's' (or 'es' if the word already ends in s). What's the point in maintaining all the cruft regarding where the word originally came from and how pluralization was done in that, possibly even dead, language? It makes no sense other than possibly to give certain people a smug sense of being educated because they say indices instead of indexes, or radii instead of radiuses. This is English, not Latin, or French, or German, or freaking Dutch. And in English these are now English words and should be pluralized in the way English normally handled pluralization. (And don't even get me started on "words" like 'boxen'!)

Of course, I'm also in favor of complete reform regarding our rampant irregular verb problem, and a proponent of phonetic spelling. I suspect that much of this will happen over time. As English has spread around the world, and is brought into heavier daily use by the popularity of the Internet, more users of English are naturally using the forms which seem most logical and sensible, eschewing the ridiculous old cruft that 'educated' people cling to. And the pedants are loosing some of their influence.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Perversely
by unclefester on Sun 10th May 2009 12:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Perversely"
unclefester Member since:

Virus is a actually a created 20th century English word with a Latin stem meaning alive. The original scientific term is filterable virus. The correct plural is viruses.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Perversely
by UglyKidBill on Sun 10th May 2009 00:05 in reply to "RE: Perversely"
UglyKidBill Member since:

errr... but virii is the proper plural in l33t, wasn´t it? ;-)

Reply Parent Score: 1