impian hatiku

How Many blogs does world need!!

Posted on 7:39 PM No Comments

People had been predicting it for years, and in 2008, it finally happened. This was the first presidential election dominated by the Internet. Those ancient debates about whether the Internet lowers journalistic standards and drags the Mainstream Media into the slime have become irrelevant. For a large chunk of the electorate--the young chunk--the Internet has become the major source of information.

But while the chin pullers can hold their symposiums about the quality of that information, it's the quantity that's truly remarkable--and oppressive. Way back in 2004, when we last held an election, no one was complaining that there wasn't enough to see or read on the Internet. And that was before YouTube, Politico, Huffington Post, Twitter and Facebook became daily or hourly necessities for millions. In 2004 newspaper websites were still mostly "shovelware"--the paper edition reproduced. They weren't bloated with blogs and video and interviews with the reporters who wrote the story. But now everyone has a blog. The opportunity for us all to express an opinion is wonderful. Having to read all those opinions isn't. In 2004 there were probably still more people reading blogs than writing them. Not so now, or so it seems. And even if most blogs are skippable, there are one or two or maybe two dozen worth checking out a couple of times--or maybe three or four times--a day just to be sure you're not missing anything. (See the Top 25 blogs.)

Then there are the sites that are supposed to help you sort the wheat from the chaff on all the other sites. They filter out the stories you can ignore, and they aggregate the ones they think you should read. Some have computer algorithms to do their sorting, while others induce readers themselves to do the heavy lifting. Sixty-three percent of those who enjoyed a story about cannibalism in suburban Paris, it turns out, recommend another story about werewolves in Rio de Janeiro. Hey, better check it out.

Fine. But aggregation has become a hall of mirrors. "Did you see Romenesko this morning? Yeah, very interesting. He's got a link to a piece in LA Observed that links to a column on the London Times website where this guy says that a Russian blogger is saying that Obama will make Sarah Palin Secretary of State."

"Wow. Sounds true. Where did the Russian guy get it?"

"He says it was in Romenesko."

And if readers are suffering from information overload, imagine the new life of political writers. First, they have to be totally up to speed to make sure that some blogger or newspaper competitor hasn't already made the point or reported the factlet that they intend to write about. Second, they have to be fast, fast, fast to beat that other fellow to the punch. This has always been true in journalism and used to be considered part of the fun. But it's less fun when half the people in the world could now be that other fellow.

Third, while an article a day used to be a typical reporter's quota (or in the leisurely precincts of newsmagazines, an article a week), reporters are now expected to blog 24/7 as well. Not only that, they must perpetually update their stories, as in the old days of multiple newspaper editions. And they may well be handed a voice recorder and/or webcam and told to file audio and video too. Meanwhile, they are glancing over their shoulder and awaiting the Grim Reaper from HR with word of the latest round of layoffs.

How many blogs does the world need? There is already blog gridlock. When the Washington Post editorial page started a blog before this year's conventions, participants (I was one) were told: Don't forget that the Post political staff also has a complete set of blogs. It wasn't clear what we were supposed to do about this, but the implication was that there are only so many aperçus to go around, so don't be greedy.

The great thing about blogs, in my view, is that they share the voice of e-mail. It's a genuinely new literary form, which, at its best, combines the immediacy of talking with the reflectiveness of writing. But many readers may be reaching the point with blogs and websites that I reached long ago with the Sunday New York Times Magazine--actively hoping there isn't anything interesting in there because then I'll have to take the time to read it.

Discoverers of AIDS and Cancer Viruses Win Nobel

Posted on 10:15 PM No Comments

The $1.4 million award will be shared by, from left, Dr. Harald zur Hausen, 72, of Germany, and

French virologists Dr. Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, 61, and Dr. Luc Montagnier, 76

The Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded Monday to three European scientists who had discovered viruses behind two devastating illnesses, AIDS and cervical cancer.

Half of the award will be shared by two French virologists, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, 61, and Luc A. Montagnier, 76, for discovering H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. Conspicuously omitted was Dr. Robert C. Gallo, an American virologist who vied with the French team in a long, often acrimonious dispute over credit for the discovery of H.I.V.

The other half of the $1.4 million award will go to a German physician-scientist, Dr. Harald zur Hausen, 72, for his discovery of H.P.V., or the human papilloma virus. Dr. zur Hausen of the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg “went against current dogma” by postulating that the virus caused cervical cancer, said the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, which selects the medical winners of the prize, formally called the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. His discovery led to the development of two vaccines against cervical cancer, the second most common cancer among women. An estimated 250,000 women die of cervical cancer each year, mostly in poor countries.

This year’s Nobel Prize-winning research focused on two viruses that take many years to cause damage. Much of the research was carried out a quarter of a century or more ago.

Since its discovery in 1981, AIDS has rivaled the worst epidemics in history. An estimated 25 million people have died, and 33 million more are living with H.I.V.

In 1983, Dr. Montagnier and Dr. Barré-Sinoussi, a member of his lab at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, published their report of a newly identified virus. The Karolinska Institute said that discovery led to blood tests to detect the infection and to anti-retroviral drugs that can prolong the lives of patients. The tests are now used to screen blood donations, making the blood supply safer for transfusions and blood products.

The viral discovery has also led to an understanding of the natural history of H.I.V. infection in people, which ultimately leads to AIDS and death unless treated.

H.I.V. is a member of the lentivirus family of viruses. The French scientists were cited for identifying a virus they called L.A.V. (now known as H.I.V.) in lymph nodes from early and late stages of the infection.

“Never before has science and medicine been so quick to discover, identify the origin and provide treatment for a new disease entity,” the Karolinska Institute said. Reached by the Nobel committee in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, where he is attending an international AIDS conference, Dr. Montagnier said, “The fight is not finished” and he was now working on a way to eradicate H.I.V. in those already infected. Dr. Montagnier now works at the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention in Paris. For a brief time in the late 1990s, he worked at Queens College in New York City. Nobel Foundation rules limit the number of recipients of its medical prizes to a maximum of three each year, and omissions often create controversy. The dispute between Dr. Gallo and the French team spanned years and sprawled from the lab into the highest levels of government. Dr. Gallo, 71, now at the University of Maryland in Baltimore, worked for many years at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md. While in Bethesda in 1984, a year after the French team’s report, Dr. Gallo reported finding a virus that he called H.T.L.V.-3 and that was later shown to be nearly identical to the French L.A.V. After additional studies, Dr. Gallo said cultures in his laboratory had accidentally become contaminated with the French virus.

In 1986, Dr. Gallo and Dr. Montagnier shared a prestigious Lasker award, given in the United States; Dr. Montagnier was cited for discovering the virus and Dr. Gallo for determining that it caused AIDS.

In 1987, President Reagan and Prime Minister Jacques Chirac of France signed an agreement to share royalties and credit for the discovery.

But Maria Masucci, a member of the Nobel Assembly, told Reuters on Monday that “there was no doubt as to who made the fundamental discoveries.”

Dr. Gallo told The Associated Press on Monday that it was “a disappointment” not to have been honored with the French team. Later, Dr. Gallo issued a statement congratulating this year’s Nobel Prize winners and said he “was gratified to read Dr. Montagnier’s kind statement this morning expressing that I was equally deserving.”

Dr. John E. Niederhuber, the director of the National Cancer Institute, said Monday that Dr. Gallo “was instrumental in every major aspect of the discovery of the AIDS virus. Dr. Gallo discovered interleukein-2 (Il-2), an immune system signaling molecule, which was necessary for the discovery of the AIDS virus, serving as a co-culture factor that allowed the virus to grow. Numerous scientific journal articles, many co-authored by Dr. Gallo and Dr. Montagnier, cite the two scientists as co-discoverers of the AIDS virus.”

Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, a virologist and immunologist who directs the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview, “The committee has a long history of awarding the prize to the person or group that makes the first seminal observation or discovery, and they did that in this case.” He added, “Nobel Prizes are always associated with great joy and great sadness, depending on who wins and who you are.”

The link between human papilloma virus and cervical cancer took years to gain acceptance. When Dr. zur Hausen proposed the connection in the 1970s, infection with papilloma virus was thought to cause nothing more serious than common warts, and the prevailing scientific view was that herpes type 2 virus caused cervical cancer. But Dr. zur Hausen consistently failed to find herpes type 2 DNA in cervical cancer cells using the newer molecular biology laboratory techniques.

In the 1980s, an American researcher said that financing agencies in the United States had rejected as unpromising his grant proposals to study links between papilloma viruses and cancer. The National Institutes of Health did not reply on Monday to questions about such proposals. In 1983, Dr. zur Hausen discovered the first H.P.V., type 16, among biopsies of women who had cervical cancer. He went on to show that more than one H.P.V. type could lead to cervical cancer, in part by cloning H.P.V. 16 and another type, 18. Further research has shown that the two H.P.V. types are consistently found in about 70 percent of cervical cancer biopsies throughout the world, the institute said.

Of the more than 100 human papilloma viruses now known, about 40 infect the genital tract and 15 of them put women at high risk for cervical cancer. But in a vast majority of cases, the body’s immune system clears H.P.V. before the viruses cause harm. It is chronic infection that is dangerous.

H.P.V. viruses account for more than 5 percent of all cancers worldwide. Some types of H.P.V. are found in cancers of the vulva, penis, mouth and other areas. Other H.P.V. viruses cause warts on the foot and elsewhere.

Dr. zur Hausen’s research has led to development of vaccines that protect against strains of H.P.V. that cause most cases of cervical cancers. However, controversy has arisen over who should get the vaccines.

The United States Food and Drug Administration has approved one papilloma virus vaccine, Gardasil, for girls and women ages 9 to 26 and with advice that they get immunized before sexual activity begins. Because the vaccine was developed recently, doctors do not know for how long it will last.

The Nobel Prizes were created in the will of Alfred Nobel, the Swedish explosives inventor and manufacturer, who died in 1896. The first prizes were awarded in 1901.

America BallOut Rejected

Posted on 6:47 AM No Comments

In a moment of historic import in the Capitol and on Wall Street, the House of Representatives voted on Monday to reject a $700 billion rescue of the financial industry. The vote came in stunning defiance of President Bush and Congressional leaders of both parties, who said the bailout was needed to prevent a widespread financial collapse. Skip to next paragraphThe vote against the measure was 228 to 205, with 133 Republicans turning against President Bush to join 95 Democrats in opposition. The bill was backed by 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans. Supporters vowed to try to bring the rescue package up again as soon as possible, perhaps late Wednesday or Thursday, but there were no definite plans to do so. A former Treasury Department official predicted that the administration would try to get another House vote before the end of the week, and with only “tiny tweaks” to the package, given the relative closeness of the vote. Stock markets plunged as it appeared that the measure would go down to defeat, and kept slumping into the afternoon when that appearance became a reality. By late afternoon the Dow industrials had fallen more than 5 percent, and other indexes even more sharply. Oil prices fell steeply on fears of a global recession; investors bid up prices of Treasury securities and gold in a flight to safety. The vote was a catastrophic political defeat for President Bush, who tried to muster national support for a recovery plan in a televised address last Wednesday, then lobbied wavering Republican legislators in intensely personal telephone calls on Monday morning. “We put forth a plan that was big because we got a big problem,” the president said afterward. “And we’ll be working with members of Congress, leaders of Congress on the way forward. Our strategy is to continue to address this economic situation head on.” The president was described as “very disappointed” by a spokesman, Tony Fratto. Mr. Bush’s disappointment may have been deepened by the fact that members of his own party voted against the package by more than 2 to 1. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., appearing at the White House late Monday afternoon, warned that the failure of the rescue plan could dry up credit for businesses big and small, making them unable to make payrolls or buy inventory. Vowing to continue working with Congress to revive the rescue plan, Mr. Paulson said it was “much too important to simply let fail.” Supporters of the bill had argued that it was necessary to avoid a collapse of the economic system, a calamity that would drag down not just Wall Street investment houses but possibly the savings and portfolios of millions of Americans. Moreover, supporters argued, a lingering crisis in America could choke off business and consumer loans to a degree that could prompt bank failures in Europe and slow down the global economy. Opponents said the bill was cobbled together in too much haste and might amount to throwing good money from taxpayers after bad investments from Wall Street gamblers. House leaders pushing for the package kept the voting period open for some 40 minutes past the allotted time at mid-day, trying to convert “no” votes by pointing to damage being done to the markets, but to no avail. The former Treasury Department official who predicted another House vote this week said that before there could be another vote, he would expect Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican minority leader, to approach members with seats in safe districts and tell them, in effect: “You’ve got to do this. The fate of the country hangs on your vote.” On the other hand, the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he was not sure what adjustments would satisfy the Republican lawmakers who voted against the package, given that the Republicans had already succeeded in tacking government insurance on to the bill, and that other items on their list of proposals, like a suspension of the capital gains tax, are non-starters. The United States Chamber of Commerce vowed to exert pressure, warning in a letter to members of Congress that it would keep track of who votes how. “Make no mistake,” the letter said. “When the aftermath of Congressional inaction becomes clear, Americans will not tolerate those who stood by and let the calamity happen.” Secretary Paulson, in promising to continue working with Congressional leaders to win passage of a rescue plan, alluded to remedial steps that the Treasury and Federal Reserve could take on their own, like lowering short-term interest rates. “Our tool kit is substantial,” he said, “but insufficient.” Immediately after the vote, many House members appeared stunned. Some Republicans blamed Ms. Pelosi for a speech before the vote that disdained President Bush’s economic policies, and did so, in the opinion of the speaker’s critics, in too partisan a way. Skip to next paragraph “Clearly, there was something lacking in the leadership here,” said Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia. Democrats, meanwhile, blamed the Republicans for not coming up with enough support for the measure on their side of the aisle. Members of both parties, doing a quick political post-mortem, said those who voted no had encountered too much hostility for the bill among their constituents, and were worried that a vote in favor would be political suicide. The Senate had been expected to vote later in the week if the bill had cleared the House on Monday. Senate vote-counters had predicted that there was enough support in the chamber for the measure to pass. But the stunning vote in the House, coupled with the Jewish holidays, made it difficult to predict when other votes might be held. Many House members who voted for the bill held their noses, figuratively speaking, as they did so. Mr. Boehner, the Republican minority leader, called the measure “a mud sandwich” at one point, but he said that there was too much at stake not to support it. He urged members to reflect on the damage that a defeat of the measure could mean “to your friends, your neighbors, your constituents” as they might watch their retirement savings “shrivel up to zero.” And Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who as Democratic majority leader often clashes with Mr. Boehner, said that on this “day of consequence for America” he and Mr. Boehner “speak with one voice” in pleading for passage. When it comes to America’s economy, Mr. Hoyer said, “none of us is an island.” The House vote came after a weekend of tense negotiations produced a rescue plan that Congressional leaders said was greatly strengthened by new taxpayer safeguards. “If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the economy,” said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the Financial Services Committee. Earlier Monday, President Bush urged Congress to act quickly. Calling the rescue bill “bold,” Mr. Bush praised lawmakers “from both sides of the aisle” for reaching agreement, and said it would “help keep the crisis in our financial system from spreading throughout our economy.” After long favoring a hands-off approach and deregulation of the financial industry, the Bush administration has found itself in recent weeks interceding repeatedly in the private market to try to avert one calamity after another. Even before the House vote, European and Asian stock markets declined sharply on Monday, especially in countries where major banks have had significant problems with mortgage investments, like Britain and Ireland. In the credit markets, investors once again bid up prices of Treasury securities and shunned more risky debt. Early in the House debate, Jeb Hensarling, Republican of Texas, said he intended to vote against the package, which he said would put the nation on “the slippery slope to socialism.” He said that he was afraid that it ultimately would not work, leaving the taxpayers responsible for “the mother of all debt.” Another Texas Republican, John Culberson, spoke scathingly about the unbridled power he said the bill would hand over to the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., whom he called “King Henry.” A third Texan, Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, said the negotiators had “never seriously considered any alternative” to the administration’s plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place. The administration accepted limits on executive pay and tougher oversight; Democrats sacrificed a push to allow bankruptcy judges to rewrite mortgages. But Republicans fell short in their effort to require that the federal government insure, rather than buy, the bad debt. The final version of the bill included a deal-sealing plan for eventually recouping losses; if the Treasury program to purchase and resell troubled mortgage-backed securities has lost money after five years, the president must submit a plan to Congress to recover those losses from the financial industry. Presumably that plan would involve new fees or taxes, perhaps on securities transactions. The deal would also restrict gold-plated farewells for executives of companies that sell devalued assets to the Treasury Department. But by mid-afternoon on Monday, no one could safely predict whether the provisions in the 110-page bill were strictly academic. “The legislation has failed,” Speaker Pelosi said at a news conference after the vote. “The crisis has not gone away. We must continue to work in a bipartisan manner.”

6 Food Mistakes Parents Make

Posted on 10:47 PM orang yang membebel (2)

By TARA PARKER-POPE HARRIET WOROBEY, a childhood nutrition instructor, knows firsthand that children can be picky eaters, but even she was surprised by a preschooler last year who ate a mostly chocolate diet. “Chocolate milk, chocolate chip muffins, chocolate chip pancakes — it was unbelievable,” said Ms. Worobey, director of the Rutgers University Nutritional Sciences Preschool in New Brunswick, N.J. “His mother just thought, ‘That’s what he wants, so that’s what I’m going to do.’ ” While most parents haven’t resorted to the chocolate diet, they can relate to the daily challenge of finding foods that children will eat. Although obesity dominates the national discussion on childhood health, many parents are also worried that their child’s preferred diet of nuggets and noodles could lead to a nutritional deficit. Fussiness about food is a normal part of a child’s development. Young children are naturally neophobic — they have a distrust of the new. Even the most determined parents can be cowed by a child’s resolve to eat nothing rather than try something new. As a result, parents often give in, deciding that a bowl of Cocoa Puffs or a Pop-Tart, while not ideal, must be better than no food at all. “I think parents feel like it’s their job to just make their children eat something,” Ms. Worobey said. “But it’s really their job to serve a variety of healthy foods and get their children exposed to foods.” A series of simple meal-time strategies can help even the pickiest eater learn to like a more varied diet. Here’s a look at six common mistakes parents make when feeding their children. Sending children out of the kitchen With hot stoves, boiling water and sharp knives at hand, it is understandable that parents don’t want children in the kitchen when they’re making dinner. But studies suggest that involving children in meal preparation is an important first step in getting them to try new foods. Researchers at Teachers College at Columbia University studied how cooking with a child affects the child’s eating habits. In one study, nearly 600 children from kindergarten to sixth grade took part in a nutrition curriculum intended to get them to eat more vegetables and whole grains. Some children, in addition to having lessons about healthful eating, took part in cooking workshops. The researchers found that children who had cooked their own foods were more likely to eat those foods in the cafeteria, and even ask for seconds, than children who had not had the cooking class. When children are involved in meal preparation, “they come to at least try the food,” said Isobel Contento, professor of nutrition education at Teachers College and a co-author of the study. “Kids don’t usually like radishes, but we found that if kids cut up radishes and put them in the salad, they love the radishes.” Pressuring them to take a bite Demanding that a child eat at least one bite of everything seems reasonable, but it’s likely to backfire. Studies show that children react negatively when parents pressure them to eat foods, even if the pressure offers a reward. In one study at Pennsylvania State University, researchers asked children to eat vegetables and drink milk, offering them stickers and television time if they did. Later in the study, the children expressed dislike for the foods they had been rewarded for eating. “Parents say things like ‘eat your vegetables and you can watch TV,’ but we know that kind of thing doesn’t work either,” said Leann L. Birch, director of Penn State’s childhood obesity research center and a co-author of the study. “In the short run, you might be able to coerce a child to eat, but in the long run, they will be less likely to eat those foods.” The better approach is to put the food on the table and encourage a child to try it. But don’t complain if she refuses, and don’t offer praise if she tastes it. Just ask her if she wants some more or take seconds yourself, but try to stay neutral. Keeping ‘good stuff’ out of reach Parents worry that children will binge on treats, so they often put them out of sight or on a high shelf. But a large body of research shows that if a parent restricts a food, children just want it more. In another Penn State study, researchers experimented to determine whether forbidden foods were more desirable. Children were seated at tables and given unlimited access to plates of apple or peach cookie bars — two foods the youngsters had rated as “just O.K.” in earlier taste tests. With another group, some bars were served on plates, while some were placed in a clear cookie jar in the middle of the table. The children were told that after 10 minutes, they could snack on cookies from the jar. The researchers found that restricting the cookies had a profound effect: consumption more than tripled compared with when the cookies were served on plates. Other studies show that children whose food is highly restricted at home are far more likely to binge when they have access to forbidden foods. The lesson for parents? Don’t bring foods that you feel the need to restrict into the house. Instead, buy healthful snacks and give children free access to the food cabinets. Dieting in front of your children Kids are tuned into their parents’ eating preferences and are far more likely to try foods if they see their mother or father eating them. A Rutgers study of parent and child food preferences found that preschoolers tended to like or reject the same fruits and vegetables their parents liked or didn’t like. And other research has shown girls are more likely to be picky eaters if their mothers don’t like vegetables. Skip to next paragraphGiven this powerful effect, parents who are trying to lose weight should be aware of how their dieting habits can influence a child’s perceptions about food and healthful eating. In one study of 5-year-old girls, one child noted that dieting involved drinking chocolate milkshakes — her mother was using Slim-Fast drinks. Another child said dieting meant “you fix food but you don’t eat it.” A 2005 report in the journal Health Psychology found that mothers who were preoccupied with their weight and eating were more likely to restrict foods for their daughters or encourage them to lose weight. Daughters of dieters were also more likely to try diets as well. The problem is, restrictive diets don’t work for most people and often lead to binge eating and weight gain. By exposing young children to erratic dieting habits, parents may be putting them at risk for eating disorders or a lifetime of chronic dieting. “Most mothers don’t think their kids are soaking up this information, but they are,” Dr. Birch said. “They’re teaching it to their daughters even though it doesn’t work for them.” Serving boring vegetables Calorie-counting parents often serve plain steamed vegetables, so it’s no wonder children are reluctant to eat them. Nutritionists say parents shouldn’t be afraid to dress up the vegetables. Adding a little butter, ranch dressing, cheese sauce or brown sugar to a vegetable dish can significantly improve its kid appeal. And adding a little fat to vegetables helps unlock their fat-soluble nutrients. The few extra calories you’re adding are a worthwhile tradeoff for the nutritional boost and the chance to introduce a child to a vegetable. Giving up too soon Ms. Worobey said she has often heard parents say, “My kid would never eat that.” While it may be true right now, she noted that eating preferences often change. So parents should keep preparing a variety of healthful foods and putting them on the table, even if a child refuses to take a bite. In young children, it may take 10 or more attempts over several months to introduce a food. Sibling dynamics and friendships can also change a child’s eating habits. Dr. Birch of Penn State noted that her first child was always willing to try new foods, but that her second child was not. “ "Part of it was just him defining his place in the family,” she said. By the age of 10 or 11, he didn’t want to be outdone by his sister and was far more willing to try new foods. Susan B. Roberts, a Tufts University nutritionist and co-author of the book “Feeding Your Child for Lifelong Health,” suggested a “rule of 15” — putting a food on the table at least 15 times to see if a child will accept it. Once a food is accepted, parents should use “food bridges,” finding similarly colored or flavored foods to expand the variety of foods a child will eat. If a child likes pumpkin pie, for instance, try mashed sweet potatoes and then mashed carrots. If a child loves corn, try mixing in a few peas or carrots. Even if a child picks them out, the exposure to the new food is what counts. “As parents, you’re going to make decisions as to what you want to serve,” Ms. Worobey said. “But then you just have to relax and realize children are different from day to day.”

Who Writes Malicious Programs and Why?

Posted on 9:05 PM No Comments

Virus writers: four general types Virus writers belong to one of four broad groups: cyber-vandals, who can be divided into two categories, and more serious programmers, who can again be split into two groups. Cyber vandalism - stage 1 In the past, most malware was written by young programmers: kids who just had learned to program who wanted to test their skills. Fortunately most of these programs did not spread widely - the majority of such malware died when disks were reformatted or upgraded. Viruses like these were not written with a concrete aim or a definite target, but simply for the writers to assert themselves. Cyber vandalism - stage 2 The second largest group of contributors to malware coding were young people, usually students. They were still learning programming, but had already made a conscious decision to devote their skills to virus writing. These were people who had chosen to disrupt the computing community by committing acts of cyber hooliganism and cyber vandalism. Viruses authored by members of this group were usually extremely primitive and the code contained a large number of errors. However, the development of the Internet provided space and new opportunities for these would-be virus writers.Numerous sites, chat rooms and other resources sprang up where anyone could learn about virus writing: by talking to experienced authors and downloading everything from tools for constructing and concealing malware to malicious program source code. Professional virus writers And then these 'script kiddies' grew up. Unfortunately, some of them did not grow out of virus writing. Instead, they looked for commercial applications for their dubious talents. This group remains the most secretive and dangerous section of the computer underground: they have created a network of professional and talented programmers who are very serious about writing and spreading viruses. Professional virus writers often write innovative code designed to penetrate computers and networks; they research software and hardware vulnerabilities and use social engineering in original ways to ensure that their malicious creations will not only survive, but also spread widely. Virus researchers: the 'proof-of-concept' malware authors The fourth and smallest group of virus writers is rather unusual. These virus writers call themselves researchers, and they are often talented programmers who devote their skills to developing new methods for penetrating and infecting systems, fooling antivirus programs and so forth. They are usually among the first to penetrate new operating systems and hardware. Nevertheless, these virus writers are not writing viruses for money, but for research purposes. They usually do not spread the source code of their 'proof of concept viruses', but do actively discuss their innovations on Internet resources devoted to virus writing. All of this may sound innocent or even beneficial. However, a virus remains a virus and research into new threats should be conducted by people devoted to curing the disease, not by amateurs who take no responsibility for the results of their research. Many proof of concept viruses can turn into serious threats once the professional virus writers gain access to them, since virus writing is a source of income for this group. Why write viruses? Fraud The computer underground has realised that paid for Internet services, such as Internet access, email and web hosting, provides new opportunities for illegal activity with the additional satisfaction of getting something for nothing. Virus writers have authored a range of Trojans which steal login information and passwords to gain free access to other users' Internet resources. The first password stealing Trojans appeared in 1997: the aim was to gain access to AOL. By 1998 similar Trojans appeared for all other major Internet service providers. Trojans stealing log in data for dial-up ISPs, AOL and other Internet services are usually written by people with limited means to support their Internet habit, or by people who do not accept that Internet resources are a commercial service just like any other, and must therefore be paid for. For a long time, this group of Trojans constituted a significant portion of the daily 'catch' for antivirus companies worldwide. Today, the numbers are decreasing in proportion to the decreasing cost of Internet access. Computer games and software license keys are another target for cyber fraud. Once again, Trojans providing free access to these resources are written by and for people with limited financial resources. Some hacking and cracking utilities are also written by so-called 'freedom fighters', who proclaim that all infomration should be shared freely throughout the computing community. However, fraud remains a crime, no matter how noble the aim is made out to be. Organised cyber crime The most dangerous virus writers are individuals and groups who have turned professional. These people either extract money directly from end users (either by theft or by fraud) or use zombie machines to earn money in other ways, such as creating and selling a spamming platform, or organizing DoS attacks, with the aim here being blackmail. Most of today's serious outbreaks are caused by professional virus writers who organize the blanket installations of Trojans to victim machines. This may be done by using worms, links to infected sites or other Trojans. Bot networks Currently, virus writers either work for particular spammers or sell their wares to the highest bidder. Today, one standard procedure is for virus writers to create bot networks, i.e. networks of zombie computer infected with identical malicious code. In the case of networks used as spamming platforms, a Trojan proxy server will penetrate the victim machines. These networks number from a thousand to tens of thousands of infected machines. The virus writers then sell these networks to the highest bidder in the computer underground. Such networks are generally used as spamming platforms. Hacker utilities can be used to ensure that these networks run efficiently; malicious software is installed without the knowledge or consent of the user, adware programs can be camoflaged to prevent detection and deletion, and antivirus software may be attacked. Financial gain Apart from servicing spam and adware, professional virus writers also create Tojan spies which they use to steal money from e-wallets, Pay Pal accounts and/or directly from Internet bank accounts. These Trojans harvest banking and payment information from local machines or even corporate servers and then forward it to the master. Cyber extortion The third major form of contemporary cyber crime is extortion or Internet rackets. Usually, virus writers create a network of zombie machines capable of conducting an organized DoS attack. Then they blackmail companies by threatening to conduct a DoS attack against the corporate website. Popular targets include estores, banking and gambling sites, i.e. companies whose revenues are generated directly by their on-line presence. Other malware Virus writers and hackers also ensure that adware, dialers, utilities that redirect browsers to pay-to-view sites and other types of unwanted software function efficiently. Such programs can generate profits for the computer underground, so it's in the interests of virus writers and hackers to make sure that these programs are not detected and are regularly updated. In spite of the media attention given to young virus writers who manage to cause a global epidemic, approximately 90% of malicious code is written by the professionals. Although all of four groups of virus writers challenge computer security, the group which poses a serious, and growing threat is the community of professional virus writers who sell their services.