Should Microsoft Pay to Catch Authors of Viruses?

I have a very limited set of programming skills but think that it is easily understandable why a number of practised code writers opt to write viruses. More recently it is clear that a good number of virus writers are motivated by the need to take over PCs and use them to direct attacks by paralyzing systems or stealing valuable information. It is easy to see that as a large proportion of professional work is performed on computers, there will be greater value to be had by these attackers. The economic prize to be grabbed is just too great to be passed over given that the existing security features on the most widely utilized operating system are not very high. For the reasons above, Bruce Schneier has correctly asserted that the quest for increased security is an arms race with computer virus writers who will respond to every new patch by identifying an alternative weakness to exploit.

The abiding question is how to respond to this arms race by using available resources efficiently and minimizing the disruption and theft that follows from the writing of viruses and other attacks. According to this story by Charles Arthur in the Guardian, Microsoft Corporation has put a US $250,000 offer for information leading to the identification and arrest of the person(s) responsible for the "Conficker/Downadup" worm that has spread to large number of windows based machines.

Why I applaud the support from private businesses in ensuring law enforcement, I hold the view that this approach is not the most effective use for that money. tTo begin with, this approach is based on paying for catching an offender after the damage is caused and does not of itself yield a solution to the security gap that was exploited. Secondly, as the article states, the history of these offers suggests that they hardly yield much useful information.

To my mind, the substantial rewards that Microsoft is putting forth should be designed to inspire the early detection of the software flaws that would allow for the attacks. In this sense, Microsoft's money should be used for a preemptive incentive. This would then lead software writers to be concerned with identifying the problems that criminal programmers would exploit. It would then be incumbent onf Microsoft Corporation to assess the potential weaknesses and to begin to fix them. To continue to offer a prize based on identifying virus writers suggests that Microsoft is oblivious of the real implication of these attacks. Brains should be employed in solving the problems as opposed to waiting to identify who did it. Needless to state, it implies that the existing operating systems and network software is inherently weak and bears as many flaws as the design of the prize.

Mexico City's Wrong Stimulus

With all consciousness that one should not belabor the point, I am of the view that the economic stimulus that the administration of president Obama is intending may not be fully agreeable in detail, I am still of the view that public expenditure is the right response to the present recession. Whether the approved sum is sufficient or not is an altogether debatable point.

That aside, the mayor of Mexico City has in mind a different kind of stimulus as stated in this IHT piece. As the story suggests, the decision to support older men with free prescriptions of Viagra is a populist measure intended to gain support because of an election that is close by. On this count however, I must state that this is clear misdirection of public funds for the reason that the affliction that makes the use of Viagra necessary is not a matter of public affairs. Indeed, the benefit incidence suggests that it is a minority of men who are taking up this absurd offer. Secondly, the subsidy programme is not only lacking in taste but is very poorly designed. However, given the fact that it is sold as a programme for older citizens, However, it is extremely difficult to attack in public during a political contest

Is it Time to Buy Amazon's Kindle?

This blog is not established to promote any equipment but I guess that there are exceptions that are of consequence. One of those is that I have been prompted by this and this article to present my views on the Kindle in addition to my expectations of its market performance judging from my own reading.

First, I considered purchasing the Kindle during the last couple of months and found that it was out of stock at the Amazon web store. Having read some of the reviews on the site and on other technology discussion groups, I became convinced that it would not only do well, but that it clearly is the one to beat in spite of competition from similar and dissimilar devices from Sony's e-book reader to the iPhone. Having added seven times as much memory to the Kindle 2 implies that it can now hold more than the two hundred books that the first one could and that makes it capable of holding most people's libraries very easily.

Both stories state that the price has remained the same at US$ 359 but this is only in nominal terms as they have failed to account for inflation and the fact that the Kindle 2 has added features in addition to being lighter. Therefore, in spite of the serious financial situation, it is clear that the Kindle 2 is a real bargain, as compared to its predecessor.

I am also convinced that the Kindle will have significant share in the market for e-books from now onwards based on the added features and especially its suitability for the purpose of reading. While I think that Apple has a very well-developed gadget in the name of the iPhone, I have retained the view that smart phones remain particularly unsuited for reading books over a long time. To my mind, it is far easier to imagine reading a book on Kindle over a flight or other journey than to stay on a smart phone for that purpose and for an equivalent time period. To insist that smart phones will provide this is to fail to accept the fact that cell phones have limits imposed by their increased miniaturization. The mobile phone revolution has allowed people to play games, watch news and do some other tasks but it cannot do everything that one will require. Perhaps the way out is for Apple to design an e-book reader to compete with Amazon.

It is also unsurprising and even laudable that the Kindle's continuing success will disrupt the economics of the book publishing and distribution business. Among other things, the price for a digital book is now at US$ 9.99 per title and this will cut into the profitability of the publishers. As CE of a major publisher, Carolyn K. Reidy's argument that the prices for electronic titles should be the same as that of paper copies is a manifestation of this failure to see the facts as they are. There's no way that the processes and materials used in producing the paper version should be charged to a person merely seeking to read in digital format. That claim is clearly absurd and the market will prove it so when the Kindle and other gadgets roll off the plants because consumers will not take that.

How Useful is Open Source Investment Advise?

That most talking heads in the financials services industry have good reason to be humble today is not in doubt. Indeed, it is clear that most advise and products that they developed and earned huge bonuses from were poorly thought through and in some cases plainly silly. However, I am cautious about the Wikinvest, an investment site modeled upon Wikipedia.

I came across that in this NYT article by Claire Miller and are surely unsurprised that a group of people have seen it fit to perform a public service. In spite of their good intention and the related issue of their not being complete novices, I have deep reservations that this site should be the place for any novice to get investment advise.

To start with, just because people paid large sums for worthless advise does not mean that totally free advise will necessarily be better. Unlike some comments in the story, i am less concerned with the minute but real possibility of manipulation of stories to affects stock prices especially since this could happen with any advisory environment. However, I see that the design of the site will allow for a large pool of people to cross check any claims and to relegate persons whose advise is totally preposterous or repeatedly proven as false.

My real contention is that any advisory scheme that bases authority on popularity of advise is inherently subject to the error that comes from rejecting unpopular but truthful analysis. For instance, i am still at a loss why people believe that house prices are somehow immune from price shocks. To my mind, the rise and continued popularity of the site will reflect the difficulty in finding really good advise whether it is paid for or not. I do not think that this open source method is perfect either.

Recession Favors the Cobblers

A casual perusal of newspapers and magazines that cover business affairs will confirm that many industries have suffered from lower sales of goods and services. Apart from the US, many countries in Europe have also reported a reduction in sales volumes and value this year compared to the same period last year. Added to the fact that corporations are also laying off workers, it is interesting to find an industry or trade that is registering better sales at this time.

I would not have thought that cobblers and menders of shoes would benefit from the recession but having looked at the title of Sarah Needleman's article in the WSJ, it is clear why that is so. With unemployment figures on the rise, shrinking incomes and the real depth of the recession yet undetermined, consumers are realizing that it is far more useful to repair a usable pair of shoes than to go out to purchase a new one despite the discounts at the stores.

While I am unsure whether the recession will necessarily save the trade, it is clear that the cobblers will increase the volume of their work and increase revenues substantially. As it is they are acting as economic theory predicts by expanding their businesses by hiring more workers. Still, the drift of history and the rapid reduction in their numbers over time suggests that technological progress means that there will be fewer cobblers with better equipment once the recession is over. To my mind, a single recession, however severe, cannot by itself roll back the clock.