Good fucking Christ your, i.e., Timothy, standards are low if that passes for 'insightful'. Usually these sort of puffed-up rantings are confined to sociology or semiotics journals. Since the author seems to pride themselves on the analysis of signs and symbols, it bears pointing out that, in this case, red has precisely fuck all to do with conveying 'danger' as it's McAfee's goddamned branding color. There are about a zillion decent arguments on both sides of whether or not AV products are needed. This idiocy isn't even close.

You're not a climatologist, you're implying that public access will come to erroneous conclusions, and you're complaining about dogma?

"Wow! I could swear I was really playing virtual skeeball!"

That science requires proper evidence for something to be accepted?

Proper???

Please enlighten me as to what constitutes proper?

Frankly, it sounds like the same kind of tripe as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"; as if the standards of proof change for what some people consider "extraordinary".

The part that's most galling about this argument is that it usually comes from people who purport to be "scientific", when in fact subjectively shifting standars of proof are anything but.

Science is supposed to, nay, by definition is required to, reach a conclusion by what repeatable observations demonstrate. If said observations annoy people, don't jibe with current theory, or otherwise fail to conform to conventional understanding, it means precisely fuck-all.

Your entire post is a non-sequitur.

1) Tap into old school hacker community mentality.
2) Rely on good people to do your large organizations work for free.
3) Degrade your own service.
4) Profit!

Of course peolpe helping each other and a solid community are great, but in the context of this happening in lieu of large for-profit organizations providing quality service? I think not.

Seeing how they point out how this can save them millions of dollars leaves me nonplussed.

You listen to me! You bug...!!