That was an accident ...but i take your point. I don't believe that they are trying to say that the worry is dated, but rather that the inception of the major "virus protection" Companies have used users' ignorance and played upon said users' fears since the nineties and not during the 1990's exclusively. Having followed som of the links provided in the above mentioned definition, it seems as though they attribute this to the casual users' widespread adoption of the home computer, be it mac or pc in to daily life (whereas before this inclusion in to private owners' lives, the only contact one would have with a computer with an operating system that allowed programing via a HID would be with the help of an administrator of some sort or by early adopting enthusiests). The point being, with the advent of the non-administrated computer systems and their inclusion in to the lay users' control, along with the main reason for this adoption (the internet and afordable prices) allowed users to get themselves in to trouble by doing things that may seem logical (or not), and not understanding the consequences said actions or, more importantly, how to fix the problems these actions cause. Meanwhile the internet provided an avenue for the user to not blame themselves by blaming problems with their computer that they may, or may not have casued, on some dubious hacker creating a "virus" because this is easier to many people than blaming themselves or learning what may have caused the problem in the first place.
With all of the dictionary talk and gramatical errors and errata being said, a virus, in terms of computing, in incredibly dificult to describe to the lay user. The "anti-virus" companies know and play on this fact and others outlined previously to sell products. That is all and its fine with me that they take money from users who shouldn't want or need their product, and eventually the users would learn as much. The way that they have accentuated the fear of casual personal computer users is to propagate misinformation and simplification the whole picture of "anti-'whatever'" software and why it should be used as well as create the things that their software is supposed to protect against. This is what is objectionable to me for a variety of reasons and why I am posting here now. It is difficult to find imperical data that proves this fact as anyone who studies these things has "a horse in this race" so to speak. However, as I have mentioned above (and by doing so hoping someone with access to Nexus-Lexus [no not nexus-lexii] or one of the major universities' librarys' would quote the study that lays this fact out). It is relatively recent, (past 6 months to a year at the earliest) and is the first of its kind that I have seen or heard about in over a decade. I shall keep looking around for it and post back when and if I find it. I remember thinking as I read through it, "If the average person could understand this and make it through the entire publication, the major security software companies, as well as many of the "tech" consultancies would have to hire a whole bunch of lawyers because people would not stand for it.
