"Smart" Meters made them sick

Page 9 of 13  


More corporate welfare or strategic investment in the future:
http://tinyurl.com/ayt7hah
All depends on your politics. Facts? Not even relevant.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message news:b6430877-997c-4f5c-bc83-

and

up

easily

obvious

some

Too bad your hero George W. Bush wasn't listening when he cut taxes and then embarked on two of the most expensive wars in human history. Where's the cost/benefit analysis that shows what a "great deal" it was to destroy the infrastructure of two Muslim countries and then rebuild?Seems somewhat comical when our own infrastructure is so obsolete and people like you are clamoring to stay in the Dark Ages.
There's an interesting article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/magazine/can-the-republicans-be-saved-from-obsolescence.html
that pretty much sums up why Trader's worldview isn't popular with young people:
When asked to describe what the word "Republican" meant to them:
<<the outburst was immediate and vehement: "Corporate greed.""Old." "Middle-aged white men." "Rich." "Religious." "Conservative." "Hypocritical." "Military retirees." "Narrow-minded." "Rigid." "Not progressive." "Polarizing." "Stuck in their ways." "Farmers.>>

Dan, you know that Trader wouldn't agree with anything that Obama suggests. The proof was that when he wanted to CUT payroll taxes, the Republicans were against it!

An interesting article. It's clear that there are serious benefits to going with a smart grid - as well as the risks inherent in any new technology:
<<Data shows* that power outages have been increasing in recent years, and the costs are substantial. Amin estimated that current power outages cost the economy between $80 billion and $188 billion annually. He projects that "a smarter, stronger grid" would reduce power outage costs by $49 billion and would increase system efficiency by enough to save another $20.4 billion. A smarter grid would also reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 12 to 18 percent, he said.>>
* http://evanmills.lbl.gov/presentations/Mills-Grid-Disruptions-NCDC-3May2012.pdf

Not to Trader, apparently. He's still trying to give Reagan credit for the entire personal computer revolution of the 1980's. That's some serious intractability. Even Reagan's main budget guru, David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, doesn't believe that fairytale
Just put it to the common sense test. What is more likely? That the entrepreneurs that brought us personal computers (what's been called the 2nd Industrial Revolution) created those jobs or that a Democrat turned Republican, union leader turned union buster, gun control advocate to gun rights advocate did with a single, magical tax cut?
We saw companies created from nothing - Microsoft, Borland, Dell, etc. These companies created fabulous wealth for their stockholders and their contributions are still creating more wealth. Amazon, Google and Apple *wouldn't exist* without the PC revolution. This happened because electronics had reached a point where such devices were finally affordable and there was a strong demand for cheaper computers than what was available.
Facebook won't be paying taxes this year
http://fox6now.com/2013/02/18/tax-watchdog-group-facebook-wont-pay-taxes-will-receive-refund/
so, again, ask yourself, how profoundly can tax cuts affect startups that might not pay taxes for years? Crediting Reagan's tax cuts for the PC revolution is actually pretty revolting <g> because it minimizes the efforts of the people that actually made it happen.
So, was all the prosperity and job creation the product of a B movie actor turned motivational speaker? Or did it come from a consortium of America's best and brightest risk takers and inventors? It sounds kind of silly when you put it to the common sense test, doesn't it?
The other part of the "common sense" test is that we've tried "tax cutting" our way to growth and all we did was run up the deficit to staggering proportions. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that two ten year wars have to be paid for somehow. The income tax *began* because of war debt. No modern miracle has changed that basic accounting. Fortunately people figured that out in 2012 and didn't buy into the "let's cut taxes even MORE!" rhetoric of Romney & Company.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/opinion/avlon-gop-family-feud/index.html
Things aren't looking very good for the Republican party. They are began to eat each other. Luddite attitudes like Trader's are clearly part of the reason. With his opposition to smart meters, solar power and almost anything green, he's completely negating the long history of R&D that propelled this country to world leadership. I remember the "big iron" mainframe jockies who were as contemptuous of PCs as Trader is of green technology. History has not been kind to them.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

3-

e

w

d

lities,

 money we

ama green

it to

hen

he

e

e

s.

ere

going

d

at

to

the

's

2nd

e

le.

rts

r

ca's

when

g"

wars

t.

e

an to

Well they're not called conservatives for nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

3-

e

w

d

lities,

 money we

ama green

it to

hen

he

e

e

So, you'd do a cost/benefit analysis with going to war with Afghanistan after 911? Did the liberal hero FDR do that when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor? I guess the cake you libs would have sent Afghanistan would have been a lot cheaper, but not nearly as effective.....
As for Iraq, in hindsight, it wasn't a good idea. But then all the libs were all for it back then, until of course then turned against it. And if it had turned out that Iraq had WMDs and used them, then you libs would have been calling for the impeachment of Bush. Why everyone KNEW he had WMDs. My God! He had used them on his own people! He had used them against Iran! British intelligence knew he had them. Israeli intelligence too. Look at all the speeches all the libs like Hillary, Kerry, Bill Clinton, and all the rest made. Look at how Sadam was acting, refusing to cooperate with the UN weapons inspectors. My God, how dumb could Bush be?

Given how dumb people are, how ineffective the Reublicans are against the lying Obama Chicago machine, what do you expect? Given the same lies, I could convince enough people that water flows uphill too.
BTW, where is the similar poll for what folks think of the Democrats in Congress? Approval rating of what, 13%? And if Republicans are so universally scorned, why is it that they were just returned to a commanding control of the House? Why is it that they hold a majority of the state governorships and legislatures? Why is it that the states that are the most liberal are in the most trouble? Why is it that the Democrats were handed the ass whooping of the century in 2010?

s.

ere

Your source for that would be? The Republicans voted for it.

going

Then let the electric utilities make the invesment. It's THEIR business, not Obama's. Who knows more about what it takes to deliver power? Whether it will really save money. My utility or you libs? Where is there going to be less corruption and waste, ie all the Solyndras?

the

's

Yet another lie. I didn't give Reagn credit for the entire PC revolution. I just shot down YOUR silly lie that the whole economic boom set off by the Reagan policies was actually caused by the PC. We were creating 400,000 jobs a month in 1983/84. One month we hit 1.2 million. The first IBM PC was only introduced in 1981 and was a small factor in the overall booming economy. Folks for example were not building houses for PCs. How many jobs are we creating now, following the policies of Obama and you libs? Incredible. Blame Bush, blame the PC, blame anything and everything except accept the truth.
You have a president that is anti-business. He's screwed them with Obamacare. He's ranted and raved against insurance companies, against drug companies. He's blocked the Keystone pipeline. He halted all offshore oil drilling because of an accident at one. He allowed the NLRB to block Boeing from opening a new plant for the 787 in SC. He just raised taxes on those making $200K, hitting huge numbers of businesses. Then you libs sit back and say, gee, the reason business isn't booming is because of Bush? Because we need a new innovation, like the PC? Unbelievable.

2nd

Common sense says that PC shipments were a tiny part of that huge economic boom. All industries were booming. Jobs were being created, 400,000 to 1.2 milliion a month that had nothing to do with the PC. Boy, you clueless libs sure are desperate. Waaaah! The economy sucks! And it's not that we have an anti-business president, not that our 800bil stimulus didn't create jobs like we said it would. No, it's just our misfortune that something like the PC didn't happen the last 4 years. Any excuse...

e

le.
Uh huh. And of course the fact that people who started those business would have been taxed at 70% were taxed at only 28%, had no effect right? A person is just as likely to get up each morning and work hard, take risk, start a business, knowing that the govt is going to take 70 or 80% of it?

Where do you think the money comes from to begin with? If you take 70%+ of people's money, they don't have the money to quit their job and start a business to begin with.
 >Crediting Reagan's tax cuts for the PC

rts

Strawman. I never said Reagan deserves all the credit, or even most of the credit. It was YOU, that tried and continues to try to claim that it was the PC that created the booming economy of the 1980s. I suppose it was also the PC that completely reversed the rest of the total disaster you libs left for Ragan. Double digit inflation, high unemployment, Tbonds at 18%, prime at 21%......
And you know what. From the day Reagan was elected, I never heard him blame Jimmy Carter for anything.

r

ca's

when

It sure does. Because you are far more likely to take risk when you only have to give 28% of it to the govt than when you have to give 70%+

g"

That's another lie. With the Reagan tax cuts, the deficit as a percent of GDP was about the same when he left as it was in 1980. That's because that booming economy brought in MORE tax money. With Bush's tax cuts, we were creating jobs and the deficit was steadily coming down. In 2007, it was down to just $161 billion dollars. And that was WITH the two wars.
Today, with 4+ years of Obama and the libs, it's at $1tril. And then they blame Bush?

They have been paid for all along. It's not like all of a sudden the bill for 2002 just showed up. And one of those wars has been over for 2 years, the other is winding down. You libs just lie, lie, lie.
 The income tax *began* because of war debt.

e

Funny how with those same Bush era tax rates we had a growing economy for 7 years, low unemployment, and a deficit down to just $160 bil.

an to

I'm not opposed to smart meters, solar power, and anything green. I'm opposed to you clueless libs sticking your wang into things where you are completely unqualified. THAT is what produced Solyndra and all the other total failures that cost us billions. In fact, aside from the fact that the govt doesn't understand technology, they structured those deals for failure from the beginnning. There as no upside for the taxpayers. If Solyndra had become the next Apple, what would the govt tax payers get? Nothing..... But if Solyndra failed, as it and so many others did, the taxpayers get stuck for $500mil. Not only is the govt ignorant about the technology, they don't even have any business or investment sense either.
If smart meters are a great idea, then the utilities will deploy them without Obama or you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 06:47:05 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Afghanistan did not attack the World trade towers. It was mostly Saudis.
In Bush's defense his first incursion was a small tactical force to try to get Bin Laden. When that failed, (because the Afghanis turned on us) and he was criticized for not having enough force that we invaded.
It only got worse from there
The major invasion of Afghanistan was Obama's. If he pulls out all the troops he promises to, he remaining force will be about what it was when Bush left office. Both were wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 21, 10:08 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Good grief. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda openly operated terrorist training camps in Afghanistan for a decade prior to 911 that 50,000 terrorists went through. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, being protected and given sancturary by the Taliban on 911 and in the weeks after. Bush gave them an ultimatum to hand him over or else..... So, it matters not a wit, the nationality of the actual attackers.
Saudi Arabia was not harboring Bin Laden. Saudi Arabia was not allowing Al-Qaeda to operate terrorist training camps there for a decade.

What? I'd like to see a reference for that claim. As I remember it, he gave the Taliban an ultimatum to hand over Bin Laden. They refused and were always against us from the start. The engagement with Afghanistan began with a massive air attack. It was only later, as part of the ground operations that they thought they knew where Bin Laden was, in Tora Bora, but by the time enough troops go there, he was already gone. If indeed he was even there to beging with.

If you're referring to the surge, that plan was conceived and started under Bush. Obama continued it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 07:27:50 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

The Saudis were financing the camps, which are very portable and can be anywhere that has an ineffective government. (Africa now)
The fact is most of the real planning was done in Europe, the people entered through Canada and the critical training was done in the US.
Bin Laden was a valid target but he was out if Afghanistan by the end of 2001. We had no real reason to be there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 21, 10:52 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Yeah, some Saudis may have provided funding that helped Al-Qaeda over the years. There is evidence that some of their charities, for example gave money that wound up in Al-Qaedas hands. But the Saudi govt exiled Bin Laden, so it sure doesn't look like the govt was his friend. That's why he was in Afghanistan, because the Taliban was his friend, was protecting him.
So, you'd have done what then? Bomb the Saudi govt? The Saudi charity? And give the barbaric Taliban a pass, where the physical training camps and Bin Laden were a pass?

And Bin Laden, Al- Zawahiri, and other top Al-Qaeda leadership who were directly involved in 911 were not only in Afghanistan, they were there with the support and shelter of the Taliban.

Yeah, right. We should just have let the Taliban thumb it's nose at the USA, by refusing to hand over Bin Laden and protecting him. We should have let those terrorist bases in Afghanistan that trained 50,000 train another 50,000. The action against Afghanistan was fully justified. And that is supported by the fact that not only the USA but 18 other countries sent forces to Afghanistan under UN agreement.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A seriously overlooked fact. In addition, the attack on Pearl was by a credible *national* threat. The Japanese war machine was thoroughly capable of defeating the US in 1941. Al Qaeda *never* was. They had to use our technology against us as a weapon because they had nothing in their arsenal that could do the job. Al Qaeda's potential to inflict any sort of *lasting* damage on us just doesn't exist. They are criminal terrorists, not national actors. Confusing the seriousness of the threat that a nation like 1941 Japan, was with the threat from Islamic terrorist plane hijackers was a serious error. Japan at that time had world-class armies and navies that did the US serious damage well beyond Pearl Harbor. Many people still conflate the two threats as if they were remotely similar.

When have they NOT turned on us? Yet we never learn.

Bush really had no choice. Revenge fever was upon the US as a nation. There was clearly a very vigorous effort to protect the Saudis since the US is so closely bound to them for a number of reasons. The Iraqis AND the Afghanistanis ended up paying the price for America's desire to protect our allies and still punish *someone* for 9/11. "Denying terrorists a place to train" was a stupid and impossible goal. For one thing, we would have to burn all our flight schools. That's where the Saudis who brought down the WTC towers trained to fly jets.

Colin Powell said, prophetically, "You break it, you own it." Whatever alleged economic interest we were trying to protect has come at a very steep price. Think of how many solar cells (and oil independence) one to four trillion dollars would have bought.

He learned very little from the Sovs and Bush's failure to "pacify" Afghanistan. We still, as a nation, don't understand how civilized behavior has to evolve from the ground up, it can't be forced on a population of mostly goat herders living a tribal life in remote villages by external means.

Pulls out? We're going to get THROWN out by the very people we shed blood and treasure to protect. If that doesn't prove it was a foolish endeavor, I don't know what would convince the die-hards the Afghan war was a senseless debacle that achieved very little and cost very dearly.

Agreed. We almost always get sucked in by mission creep. Look at the Israelis. In and out, with the mission *really* accomplished in days or hours, not months or years. It does NOT enhance our reputation as a powerful military force to have to withdraw from two fronts after 10 years of stalemate under both Republican and Democratic leaders. Obama had the problem of dealing with the war that Bush had started and wasn't the first president to face such issues. Pull out and you're pilloried. Surge and you're seen as a war-monger and escalator.
To Obama's credit, he has resisted repeated and shrill calls to get into some of the many simmering conflicts spread around the world. I suspect that's mostly because polls show that Americans are getting pretty tired of being the world's premier and *unpaid* police force. We can only speculate what might have happened if 9/11 occurred under his watch. I doubt he would have done what Bush did.
Best choice? Stay out of conflicts and when you can't, get in and out as FAST as you can. The US has the world's fastest and most powerful "quick reaction" forces yet we invariably get involved in overlong local slugfests that are not winnable. People now realize wars cost real money, and real money is scarce. What scares me is that Americans may be so tired of war and what it cost us that we will be reluctant to get involved in any situation that might lead to an extended conflict, even if it's essential to national security. AFAIK there are at least a dozen trouble spots in the world that qualify.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

pable

our

al

ng*

ional

at

US

e

ur

e to

to

the

eep

r

avior

ood

or, I

ss

e

r

ful

t

and

t

of

late

would

as

ck

ts

al

ar

to

he

The solution is a satellite with a particle beam weapon. Surglically vaporize all of assads hiding places.
ENERGY INDENPENDENCE would solve much of this. stop sending a billion dollars a day to people who hate us, and if we didnt need their oil we wouldnt be mucking around in their business.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
news:cb5bd4d1-2b4d-4cd4-98b3-
<stuff snipped>
<<The solution is a satellite with a particle beam weapon. Surglically vaporize all of assads hiding places.>>
He's so scared of drone attacks I doubt he's going to spend much time in the open. Saddam spent most of his time in bunkers and that was before a drone could nail him as easily as they can today. If anybody needs a good particle beaming, it's N.Korea's new little tin god. Look what happened to Saddam, and he didn't even *have* any nukes. This guy's threatening a pre-emptive nuke strike on the US.
<<ENERGY INDENPENDENCE would solve much of this. stop sending a billion dollars a day to people who hate us, and if we didnt need their oil we wouldnt be mucking around in their business.....>>
Seems like a no brainer - stop sending money to people who hate us. Out of all the things I *don't* want my taxes to pay for, building Muslim "democracies" is one of them. There's no guarantee that they won't vote for somebody worse down the line. Once upon a time Iran and the Shah were our best friends forever. So was Saddam when the Iranians turned on us.
The Palestinians got "democracy" and elected Hamas. In Iraq we'll see the the Muslim Brotherhood or worse in power after we leave. Shia and Sunni will be at each other's throats, as Allah intended and like the Iraq/Iran war did, they'll kill each other in numbers that would make us look like pikers.
Yep, one to four trillion dollars could have bought a *lot* of solar cells. What most anti-solarists don't seem to realize is that every time their neighbor installs solar, they are helping to keep the price of other fuels and pollution down for everyone.
My new smart meter doesn't have a little rotating dial (like the old mechanical one) and as far as I can tell, there's no provision for getting an "instantaneous" reading from the new meter. At least with the old mechanical ones, you could see the dial whizzing around during heavy loads a nd know that you were really consuming kilowatts at a blistering pace.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

the

rone

d to

f

e for

our

the

We have already left.

Wow, if a conservative ever said that, it would be an example of bigotry.

s.

s

Which is a lie. Everytime one of those panels is installed, it's wrapped with dollar bills that come from the pockets of not only the taxpayers but all the customers of the utilities. We've subsidized the solar array producers (Soyndra), the solar farm operators, and the panels that are being put up on homes. Without the subsidies, no one buy a rich hippie would install them. And instead of a utility buying electricity from the producer that has it at the lowest price, the utilities are mandated to buy an increasing percentage from renewable sources, the cost be damned. That takes money right out of poor peoples pockets. How can you be so heartless?

g

s a

That's odd. I thought one of the big benefits was they were supposed to enably you to see how much you were using at any given moment, to try to get you to conserve.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/13/2013 11:03 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Here we're trying to upgrade our energy infrastructure - which is a vital issue in terms of national defense, by the way - and you're bitching about spending a few billion to help make it happen? Energy demand is forecast to outpace supply, we have a seriously aging infrastructure, the gov't deemed it important for the country to take action to add more production, replace aging lines and facilities, and create a smart-grid, meaning it can react in near-real time to fluctuations in demand. Smart meters are part of that plan.
If *you* want to live in a third-world nation, move to one, instead of endlessly advocating to drag the USA down to that level.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, I'm bitching because replacing meters that are working with smart ones has nothing to do with national defense. If anything, it does the opposite. An Iranian hacker can't screw with my conventional meter. With a smart meter, that window is now open.
Energy

Yawn.... So was Solyndra and all the many other green companies where Obama and you libs told us you knew what works, what doesn't. How did that turn out?

You know what's dragging us down? It's not conventional electric meters. It's borrowing money we don't have, for spending on things that are not critical and creating ever bigger govt that is sapping the economy. Why the hell does it take Obama and you libs to decide if it makes sense to go to a smart meter? The proponents here are citing the cost savings, etc to the utilities. If it makes sense, let them do it, when and if they feel like it. Not as some half-assed plan to create jobs, stimulate the economy. Four plus years of that plan and where are we? Economic growth in the second half was just 1.5%. In the fourth quarter, it was -.1%. Four plus years of OBama and the libs and we're not even creating enough jobs to keep up with the growth in the population. Compare that to the Reagan recovery where we were creating 400,000 jobs a month and GDP was growing 5%. And you clueless libs don't even understand why and want even more of the same. THAT is what is threatening the country, not electric meters.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Energy is the driving force behind all our economies. Nothing is more important.
If you think some Iranian is trying to hack into your electric meter, you really are paranoid.
On the other hand he could crash an aircraft into a conventional power station. He might find it harder to take out half a million solar panels.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

gs

d

f

It's not hacking into one electric meter imbecile. It's bringing down a major portion of the grid for sabotage purposes. If you can hack into one smart meter, you could hack into all the similar ones. And if you screw them so they no longer work and have to be replaced, you have in fact the capability for causing a calamity. And it's not far fetched. PCs have been hacked on a large scale in some sophisticated attacks in a way that damaged them so that they had to be replaced.
It's obvious you don't pay attention to the news. What happened to Iran's computers controlling their centrifuges? And if it can happen to them, why not to smart meters?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 05:37:38 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

Huh?
Maybe the software had to be reloaded but the hardware was not damaged. I understand that for a lot of idiots getting a virus (or simply a bunch of bloatware) on the machine causes them to just buy a new one, preloaded but if they had their head a quarter inch out of their ass they would format and reload the one they have.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A couple weeks ago, I got some trojan from Hell. It wiped out my hard drive. I didn't know what was happening, and had an external drive plugged in. That stopped working, so I tried my other external drive.
I took the three drives to a friend (graduate of a computer college), who could not recover anything. Mailed the drives to another friend who found all three to be dead. Friend two even used the forensic programs that the cops use.
Something got me. And, it did some kind of damage that two techies could not recover.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
wrote: > PCs have been hacked on a

Huh?
Maybe the software had to be reloaded but the hardware was not damaged. I understand that for a lot of idiots getting a virus (or simply a bunch of bloatware) on the machine causes them to just buy a new one, preloaded but if they had their head a quarter inch out of their ass they would format and reload the one they have.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:53:18 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

Usually these things just blow up the partition table. That makes the drive pretty much unusable until you restore it. To actually wipe the data will take some time, up to hours depending on the size.
I am not sure what you mean by "forensic programs that the cops use" but if these are real cops they actually look at the data blocks and they will be there unless they got overwritten (that "hours" thing I was talking about)
For all practical purposes wiping out the partition table and the indexes will make a drive toast and that happens pretty fast. You can see the raw data but it won't be that usable if it can't be put in context.
Usually you can inspect a drive on an expendable machine.
If you really want to look at a drive you think is that infected, use a bootable CD tool. Then it can't spread. Back in the FAT days, Norton would usually fix most of these problems without losing the data. I am not sure what works on NTFS drives.
These days I just depend on good backups and I don't hesitate to wipe the infected drive and starting over when someone brings me a "virus" machine. Start with a "write all 1s" program (AKA low level format, even if not true) Then partition it and format it. .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I'm thinking that "smart" malware would update the drive firmware rendering it inoperable until that firmware was replaced. Depending on how the drive is built, reloading the firmware may be no easy task.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.