Haha here is a paper called "All About the Benjamins" but I don't know if the names on it are people who know anything at all about tech, or this thread.
Or maybe they think they know the human mind? If so: The prognosis is not good.
Well here is their summary:
http://threatpost.com/research-project-pays-people-to-download-run-executables/106773[...]
To explain why rational individuals who are concerned about security and who undertake
precautions (i.e., install patches and anti-virus software) nevertheless fail to act
securely, we can draw from the safety regulation literature. Most prominently, Peltzman
outlined in his theory of risk compensation that individuals evaluate the combined demand
for safety and usage intensity (e.g., faster driving on a highway) [25]. In the online
security context this means that users with more security-ready systemsirrespective
of whether they safeguard themselves or administrators act for themare comparatively
more likely to engage in risky behaviors. For example, they may be more likely
to seek free adult content or download undocumented code/media that increases their
perceived utility from experience. While this process may be driven by selfish and rational
considerations for at least some users, it always increases the risk of collateral
damage due to negative externalities.
[...]
I am going to say this: There is so much wrong about the conclusions of this paper, that I am ashamed as is Benjamin Franklin, of those who wrote it, because they display the scent of science, but with complete lack of understanding.
"Patches" are what they associate with "precaution" they say you patch, as a pre-caution --BUT, shouldn't it be not pre-caution but CAUTION, if you are constantly getting crapware from your brand names, and reuqiring 10000 patches?
ANSWER: YES
Brands that release buggy crapware at retail prices and patch in the field, have ruined IT pretty much.
So these scientists kinda obliquely suggest a sublime point that maybe Benjamin the coder is lying to us and there is some secret bug in the Ben code. Haha, but no, we know that's not true, just defects that can only be exploited in all Bitcoin-child-blockchains who get captured by evil hearts and minds.
But perhaps bitcoin is not captured? In any case, Benjamins is well transparent, and freely examinable, so, instead of running an executable for a nickle (as in the paper), why not stick to open code and true value?
Anyway I thought the title of this paper and the tack of my course in this thread, made this PDF a good inclusion to this thread about money and tech and security.
Oh but PDFs are totally crap and opened up a huge hole for the Aurora hacks, so, be very careful with this piece of crap notion called PDF documents. I stick with notepad typically.