re: Virus writing and why MS is heavily targeted
I find myself agreeing with The Specialist...
It boils down to simple efficacy and actually a bit of evolution as well. One cannot help but draw parallels to biology when talking about virii/worms, so here goes...
1. efficacy. if object (virus or worm, doesn't matter) A can infect x hosts yet object B can infect y hosts, and y > x, which do you think is going to be the most effective? We have to confine our definition of effective to the context of the 'object's' survival and replication.
2. evolution. this is really where biology comes into play imho. What we're actually examining here is a parasite-host relationship, which in terms of evolution can be loosely analogized to a predator-prey relationship. Meaning, as the host changes the parasite evolves in order to remain in the niche it has dug out for itself.
So, you're likely saying "but <0, digital virii/worms aren't biological organisms you dolt!"...
I'd proffer for discussion this repsonse: are you positive?
Let me explain...
effecacy and evolution come into play b/c although the instrument isn't carbon-based, the instrument maker is...i.e., the virus-worm creator. Being a higher-functioning organism, we have a great propensity to personify the non-biological objects around us. We want our virii to be successful, to be effective in terms of their survival and replication. We want our virii to be immortal, so we evolve/change/manipulate them to ensure that as their intended hosts change our creations will still enjoy high rates of effecacy.
In conclusion, i say if it quacks, if it waddles, if it s@#ts all over the place, well then it is a duck, no? And i look upon the slew of modern virii/worms and i see efficacy. I see evolution. Therefore, I see digital life....
Cheers,
<0
*edited for sp correction