The Jewish Malware Business

Ever heard names like Eugene Kaspersky or Shlomo Kramer? Or maybe you wonder why most of IT "security" companies have such distinctive founders or based directly in Israel, like Tel Aviv based Check Point Software?

So how Jewish virus writers make money on writing malware? Simple! Jews sell antivirus software, which protects user's computers from the viruses, these Jews write. The more malware Jews distribute, the more people will have to buy their antiviruses or pay in other way, being a bonnet nodes, losing a credit card numbers and having to pay ransom to unlock computer.

>>40
And have we forgot the Dark Ages, due to Jewish Christianity, when no scientific advances were made at all?
... I keep forgetting there are still faulty education systems that teach people to call that period of time the "Dark Ages," where "nothing of any significance happened."  It's a legitimate perspective, especially since it's followed by the Renaissance, considered the apex of cultural enlightenment in Europe, but it isn't like the world just stopped doing things or making any kind of progress because "it's the Middle Ages."  The Middle Ages is like "the next iPhone" or "the next iPad;" things improved, but not in an earth-shattering way.  Feudalism wasn't even a new thing back then, just a more established thing, but history lessons eschew more interesting, but more obscure, topics for that time period.

we still dont have a cure from cancer just because the Jews rise mediocrity among medical scientists
If it helps you sleep at night.

Jewish Christianity
The word is "Judeochristianity."  If you include Muslims, it's "Abrahamic religions."

>>41
It's a legitimate perspective, especially since it's followed by the Renaissance
It followed by Renaissance because:
1. Christianity was dead end - a cattle-pen.
2. Church influence weakened and the cattle ran away from its pen into all directions, including the ones popular before Christianity.

>>42
Actually, a lot of what would evolve into the philosophy of the Renaissance existed during the Medieval period.  The Roman/Grecian philosophers and great thinkers were already being referenced even before the end of the Western Roman Empire, and while not plentiful, many late Medieval thinkers led the way for the scientific and intellectual achievements of the later period.  The real problem was distribution of ideas; the lingering unrealized "ubiquity of romantic languages" did not allow good information distribution and no one actually performed formal writing work asides from scholars and monks.  Access to information was limited by physical supply and work required to access those sources in "safe" ways, "safe" meaning a way in which the information was not damaged.  It was time consuming to copy information.

That's why the Gutenberg printing press was so powerful; it succeeded the ageless scribe, who laboriously copied books by hand, and the oral traditionalist who was short of breath even long before then.  It was the first rung on a ladder of distributing information without monumental effort required.

>>43
Then one may ask, why printing press wasnt invented earlier (printing isnt a rocket science) and the Church in general was against literacy.

>>44
In that case, why didn't the Romans know how to use saltpeter? or the Egyptians not knowing about steam-powered elevators (I recall reading something about the Egyptians vaguely knowing how to use steam, but only for gimmicky pizzazz)? or why it took until them (the Ancent Egyptians, I forget which dynasty) to formalize the concept of an alphabet on that side of Europe (the Chinese, in the Far East)?

And, if they did have it, they obviously didn't know how to make good use of it and, like the Parthian Battery or the Antikythera mechanism, it was just a gimmicky one-off that was forgotten.

>>45
Excuse my improper location-indicating: that was supposed to be "Eurasia," not just "Europe."

>>45
Romans had a writing system, so a fast replication of texts was just a matter of creating a font then applying it to any media.

>>47
Egyptians came first.  Even so, neither they nor the Romans thought to do that; no one did until Gutenberg came along.  I don't even recall a hypothesis - "would it not be great if ..." - where someone, anyone, ever considered the possibility of a machine that could replicate textual information in that specific manner to increase public access.

There's also the possibility that the media available media didn't lend itself to this kind of treatment.  Papyrus and parchment were easy to be spoil by their environment, and the former was notoriously brittle.  The earliest product as useful and durable as our paper wasn't formally prolific in Europe until the 13th century, the product and process having migrated westward from China (who first created it) very slowly.

>>48
Egyptians had clay tablets and the clay can easily be mold by a form with a font.