The computers that we have come to rely so heavily on in our current day and age have come a long way from their ancestors. Back then, it was not out of the ordinary for one of the first computers to take up roughly half of the room they were in, if not more. Now, computers are small enough to fit in our laps and, in the case of our cellular phones, our hands. The phrase “bigger means better” can apply to a wide variety of objects and concepts, but computers are not on that list. If someone were to take a program or video game from today’s computer, run it on the aforementioned room-sized computer, and by some miracle the computer figured out how to run it, it is very likely that it would seize up like a pair of rusted gears. One may ask why that is, to which I respond with two words: processing power. Over the years, we have invented increasingly more efficient processors for our computers, which operate more quickly with each new variant while taking up less space. There was even an observation made, dubbed Moore’s Law, claiming that processing power would double every couple years. Predictably, this process ended up running into a problem: there is a physical limit to how many transistors we can fit onto a silicon chip.
ENIAC, the world's first computer.
The solution to this problem is actually rather easy: instead of trying to fit billions of microscopic transistors onto a lone chip in an effort to make it more powerful, we can instead string together several individual processors that will add up to an even higher amount of processing power (“Where will future computer”, 2004, Sep 29). A mental image would probably help clarify what I mean. Imagine a sack of flour with its contents slowly leaking out of a small hole in its burlap. The sack of flour as a whole is the computer, the flour spilling through the hole is the binary code that is being processed by the microprocessor, and the hole itself is the microprocessor. No matter how efficient the microprocessor becomes at processing binary code, it can only do it so quickly. If one creates more holes in the sack, or make use of multiple microprocessors, the task of spilling the flour, or interpreting the binary code, will speed up as the work load is spread out and ultimately shortened by the additional holes. Back in 2004, scientists doubted whether or not parallel processing would ever become a viable strategy (“Where will future computer”, 2004, Sep 29), but the existence of dual core processors today, including the Intel Core i5-5200U Processor in my laptop, proves that such a feat was possible.
Now:
Even with the addition of parallel processing to our arsenal of processing power, it still was not enough for us. What we needed was a more substantial boost to processing power that did not rely on parallel processing. While parallel processing works, it does have some drawbacks when used by itself: the act of splitting up the processing and inefficient usage of space. In the case of the former, dividing the processing load between several points could very well become complicated as the number of cores increases, though this is admittedly a minor drawback at most. For the latter, it would be much more simple and efficient to use a single processor than using several individual processors arranged side by side; with some of the computers we have today, every bit of space counts. It thankfully did not take too long for us to discover another breakthrough in processing power to replace parallel processing: stacking.
An example of how stacking works with through-silicon vias.
For the longest, we have stuck with using two-dimensional processors. Consisting of a silicon chip, long lengths of wiring running all along the chip’s surface, and countless transistors connected by said wiring (Savvas, 2007), they were missing out on the blessing of three-dimensional space. Think of a desk occupied by paper sheets organized in a haphazard pile. One could line the sheets of paper up side by side, eventually filling up the desk’s space with a single layer of paper, or one could just take the sheets of paper and arrange them into a neat stack. The latter method applies to processor chips; not only is space saved by layering the chips on top of one another, but information passing from one chip to the other has less distance to travel, ultimately speeding up the process. Of course, it is not as simple as building one chip on top of the other one, but this is where the main component of the breakthrough shines: through-silicon vias. These vias are minuscule holes etched through the silicon of the chips that are then filled with conductive metal. Information passes from chip to chip using the through-silicon vias, allowing for chips to be stacked on top of each other for massive benefits. Specifically, the numbers show that this technique cuts down on the travel distance of binary code by up to 1,000 times and makes it possible for up to 100 more pathways for data to travel along to be utilized all in comparison to the traditional two-dimensional processor chip. Some of the first applications of through-silicon via technology included power amplifiers for wireless services, high performance servers, and supercomputers (Savvas, 2007).
Later:
Several revolutionary advances have been made in the art of processing over the years; one of the first methods of boosting processing power, parallel processing, made use of multiple chips to divide tasks up into smaller chunks, and that method was later built upon with the use of through-silicon vias to provide data with both less distance and more paths through which to travel. Regardless, we still find ourselves craving for more and more speed. Banks in particular have shown themselves to be utterly insatiable in their demands for ever quicker processing. To give a rough idea of this hunger’s extent, Royal Bank of Scotland employee Barry Childe once increased the computing power of one of the bank’s systems by 40 times only to be asked by his boss, “Great, when can I get 400 times?” (Barnes, 2006). It has gotten to the point where wait times as minuscule as a single nanosecond, a span of time that is virtually impossible for a human being to detect, could potentially cost a bank a deal (Barnes, 2006). How exactly are we supposed to make processors that can interpret vast amounts of data in under the smallest fraction of a second?
Another electronic-photonic processor chip, this time from University of Colorado.
It may sound crazy, but scientists have been theorizing that we need to forgo wiring almost entirely in favor of light. Using bursts of light costs negligible energy, produces almost no heat, and has the potential of becoming blindingly fast in comparison to navigating electric currents through solid metal wires. These bursts are planned to be emitted with the use of “photonic crystals,” which in simpler terms could be compared to sending someone a message in Morse code using a flashlight. The article also gave a handy comparison to go along with the flashlight example: with how superior the speed of light processing is expected to be, our current method of processing with wires will be like manually writing out and sending a letter. Will we ever see the usage of light processing in our lifetime? At the time of this article’s publication, this technology was in the laboratory stage of development and was getting substantial results. For example, University of Texas’s electrical engineering professor, Ray Chen, managed to successfully build a processor chip that made use of the aforementioned photonic crystals and pulses of light (Barnes, 2006). While it was not elaborated upon how quick or accurate the chip was, I can personally see it coming to fruition eventually, though I worry that the technology might stay anchored in industrial use instead of ever being exposed to the consumer. Home Next ->
Has there ever been a time where it was very difficult to abandon an interesting article or an amusing video in favor of a more important task? This may sound a tad bit silly, but there is actually a disorder that focuses on this feeling: Internet Addiction. One may roll their eyes and mockingly say that they have television addiction or radio addiction, yet there are some serious consequences to it that I will touch on later. I will not deny that the disorder was not taken seriously back when it was first discovered, though. It all started in 1995 when psychiatrist Ivan Goldberg created a parody of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, or DSM-IV, that consisted of a website that attributed the dimensions and cardinal features of pathological gambling for an imaginary disorder called “Internet Addiction Disorder.” The joke here was that spending ample time on online sources was not considered to be particularly abnormal or harmful at the time. Almost immediately, Goldberg started to receive hundreds of requests for appointments, and it started to dawn on him just how serious the problem actually was (Pacheco & Fisher, 2009).
While DSM-IV lacked an entry for Internet Addiction, it was prominent enough to be considered for DSM-V.
Even if Goldberg was still hesitant to refer to it as an actual disorder, instead claiming that it was merely a symptom of other disorders, while others called it a “fad illness,” Internet Addiction was found to have some rather concerning risks associated with it. First off, let me start with the mixed news: Internet Addiction was considered an impulse control disorder instead of an “impure” addiction like the use of intoxicating drugs. While this means that the afflicted individual was not in any immediate danger of harming themselves, it also means that they would not be able to just drop the behavior without moderate to extreme difficulty. One of the biggest problems with Internet Addiction was that it serves as a sort of “gateway” to other, more destructive obsessions. For example, someone who became addicted to the Internet could find themselves straying away from browsing forums and lists of online games to browsing pornography websites. An alternate habit that could be formed was online gambling, but it was not guaranteed that one would develop either of these habits or any others; however, one should have remained cautious as the risk was present. Another problem with Internet Addiction was the speed at which it could set in: what could have begun as innocent usage of the World Wide Web for school or work purposes could quickly spiral into an activity capable of majorly disrupting one’s life (Pacheco & Fisher, 2009). This was surely no laughing matter, especially considering technology’s steady advance in quality.
Now:
Unsurprisingly, the concern surrounding “Internet Addiction” has persisted to this day. Some experts on addiction disorders are still hesitant to refer to this phenomenon as a true addiction, and that point of view is not necessarily all that questionable. The World Wide Web has become intricately woven into our lives, allowing us to have fun, work efficiently, and talk to others with ease. Despite having been around for well over a decade, the Internet is also still a relatively new technological innovation and has yet to reach a plateau in its development. The problem with this historical recency is that there have been few official experiments or studies conducted to determine whether or not the Internet truly impacts our behavior in a negative way. Even so, Internet Addiction behaves enough like a true addiction that it should not be dismissed quite yet (Miller, 2014).
A one-panel comic parodying Internet Addiction.
First off, Internet Addiction shares the three basic elements that are present in any other kind of addiction: loss of control, craving, and painful consequences (Miller, 2014). I myself know these symptoms firsthand; after spending so much time online doing anything from watching videos to talking with friends around the globe, being separated from it for any substantial amount of time is unbearable. In some cases, I have been forced to go without the Internet and even access to a computer for extended periods of time, and during these periods I would start to feel melancholic and restless. I also have to admit that being on the computer for so long has had its drawbacks, some of which include weak social life on campus and missed opportunities in all shapes and sizes. Something that should be clarified now, though, is that Internet Addiction is not being addicted to the Internet itself, but rather its contents. It would help to think of it as the relationship between narcotic addicts and heroin. The addicts are usually not addicted to the needles they use, but rather the drugs inside those needles. The same analogy applies to Internet Addiction, but with a vast network instead of a needle and funny cat videos instead of drugs. Sadly, one of the only ways to truly tell if Internet Addiction has set in is to be on the lookout for how it negatively influences one’s life; otherwise, it is extremely difficult to say whether or not the time being spent on the Internet is “too much.” It is best to ask oneself questions like “Is my sense of time distorted?” or “Do I feel productively engaged while using the Internet or do I feel anxious or guilty?” to help find out (Miller, 2014).
Later:
Will Internet Addiction ever be put to rest, or will it continue plaguing us well into the future? Honestly, I am going to have to side with the former. The World Wide Web has already become so important to almost everything we do, so, unless we undergo an anti-Internet Addiction program like Korea is, it is only going to get worse as time goes on. Korea has had a massive Internet Addiction problem in the past, wherein people of all ages, but especially young adults, would spend countless hours in cafes made specifically for Wi-Fi usage playing video games and surfing the web. In an attempt to take care of it, individuals “diagnosed” with Internet Addiction by loved ones would be brought to camps where they would learn how to play and socialize with other addicts without the use of a computer (Griffiths et. all, 2016). Think of it like a rehabilitation program for drug addicts, but with the Internet instead of drugs. Despite this program having some amount of success in Korea, I do not think that it will be nearly as successful on a world-wide scale. I am not saying that it will be a total failure, but advances in the entertainment and social aspects of the Internet, along with others, will make it more difficult to weaken that bond once it forms.
A branch of Internet Addiction that has expanded as of late encompasses social media and social networking websites. People suffering from Internet Addiction may end up latching onto these programs and websites to help fill the void that a lack of regular social interaction has left within them (Griffiths et. all, 2016). This type of Internet Addiction may be more reasonable to treat now, but later on it may be much more difficult as social networking websites and programs become more advanced. Some companies are even starting to intentionally incorporate this behavior into their daily routines! Instead of scheduling normal meetings in the real world, they make use of programs like Second Life to meet up with other employees in the virtual world using their custom-designed avatars. Now imagine this becoming as popular, widespread, and easy-to-use as websites like Facebook and Twitter or programs like Skype and Discord. With a means of communication that so closely imitates the real deal, people would be hard-pressed to go out of their way to arrange meetups in the real world. This is all only taking into account one specific service the Internet provides: socialization. With the inevitable improvements in other services, ranging from video games to digital art to online television, the world could very well end up like Korea. The deciding factor on whether or not this will be a good thing, however, is the strength of our self-control. If we can collectively realize and keep in mind that too much of a good thing is harmful, then we will be fine. If we end up letting this fact slip? Well, we will have to wait and see. Home <- Previous | Next ->
If someone was to be asked to list off a series of controversies surrounding video games, one of the first ones to show up would probably have something to do with children. Back in the day, video games started out with little to none of the negative light that they may have now, but that changed as more violent and “harmful” video games started to come out. Heck, games as innocent and simple as Pac-Man were labeled as violent (Vessey & Lee, 2000)! People have a tendency to focus on the negative, and there was no shortage of that in video games. One of the most infamous drawbacks of video games is the formation and development of aggressive behavior. Specifically, violent video games were proven to cause around five changes in children. On the biological side, children playing violent video games experienced short periods of arousal, wherein their heart rate, blood pressure, and other factors rose. In terms of cognition, there were both temporary and long-term increases in aggressive thinking, such as thinking hostile thoughts when provoked and completing word fragments with aggressive words. Emotionally, the players of violent video games were shown to experience anger more often than those who did not. Behaviorally, children exposed to violent video games displayed acts of aggression more often, such as starting fights or yelling at opponents while playing a game. In general, these children also displayed below average amounts of prosocial behavior, such as making friends or being helpful to others (Gentile & Anderson, 2006).
A simple illustration of a few other benefits to playing video games.
That list of negative effects caused by violent video games may look a little overwhelming, but that is just focusing solely on the negative part of a single “genre” of video games. In reality, these usually apply to video games that without a doubt deserve the label of “violent”, such as Grand Theft Auto, whereas it is unlikely that a child will start more fights at school just because Pinky cut them off for the third time in Pac-Man. As for the positive effects, quite a few were discovered in the past. In the case of educational games, they do a very good job of passing on their information to developing children. Surprisingly, an experiment on college students proved that playing a golf video game can improve one’s control over the strength put into the club’s swing despite not receiving any such feedback from the game itself! It was also argued by some scientists that video games served as the metaphorical training wheels of becoming computer literate (Gentile & Anderson, 2006). This I can attest to myself; I have learned much about computers on my own after spending so much time playing computer games since I was a child.
Now:
Of the ways to prevent video games from harming our children, one of the most effective so far has been to just keep them from getting their hands on them until they become mature enough for their contents. We realized that this was necessary as video games continued to evolve throughout the years through which they displayed more and more realistic graphics and effects. One of the most active groups in pushing for regulation were concerned parents wanting to ensure that their children were not to be corrupted by sexually explicit or violent games. Their voices were eventually heard, and an example of the resulting change would be a law Michigan’s legislature created in 2005. This law made it so anyone who willingly sells a minor a video game that is either sexually explicit or excessively violent has to pay a sizable fine. Specifically, “excessively violent” means that the game contains either realistic or simulated instances of cruelty, torture, maiming, disfigurement, dismemberment, death, or any mixture of these and more. “Sexually explicit” should be self-explanatory. The law also said that a game would fall into fine territory if it was: offensive to the local standards for what is suitable for minors, overly appealing to morbid, aggressive behavior, and considered lacking in any type of intellectual information (“Regulating video games”, 2013).
The video game industry's way of saying: "You really should not play this if you are not old enough to meet the rating, but we also really cannot stop you if you do play this."
Unfortunately for the vocal groups, the video game industry fought back against these kinds of laws, and in the first couple court cases they were met with victory. Claiming that laws like Michigan’s infringed upon their protection under the First Amendment, they convinced courts to enjoin, or strongly recommend the cease of, not only Michigan’s regulation law but a similar law passed by Illinois’s legislature. The rulings of both cases more or less said that even if it was scientifically proven that violent video games have ill effects on children, it was not in the state’s power to strictly regulate the matter. California attempted to pass its own regulation law, this time requiring that labels be put on the problem video games along with the fine for breaking the law, but was met with a similar result as Michigan and Illinois. This time, though, some progress was made: Congress passed a bill in 2012 that required that alongside the ratings supplied by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, a label warning about the dangers of violent video games must be given to any E-rated game, or game that was rated for all ages. However, the label did not catch on as quickly as the ESRB’s ratings, which only gave recommended age ranges for their games along with what content gave them the rating, and was criticized by many in the video game industry. The lesson that can be learned from all this is that while the government can try to protect children from harm caused by video games, it is not within their authority to completely seal children off from the ideas in those video games (“Regulating video games”, 2013). This was hopefully a valuable lesson for the aforementioned parents, too; since they could not rely on the government to protect their children for them, they had to buck up and do it themselves.
Later:
The regulation of video games has seen mixed results in the past and present. The general consensus is that the only people who have any power to deny others access to video games are either their close ones or themselves. In other words, it cannot be officially done as of yet. It is possible that this will have to change further down the line, however, due to recent and upcoming breakthroughs in video game technology. Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality in particular are developing genres that could pose a problem. In both cases, the device running the video game tries its best to place the player into the game world with a headset fitted with either the usual opaque video screen in the case of Virtual Reality, an example that uses it being the Oculus Rift, or a clear screen that superimposes an image on the user’s view of the real world in the case of Augmented Reality, an example that uses it being the Microsoft HoloLens. Why these styles in particular? Well, their main focus is on immersion in whatever game or program one is using, so image what would happen if realistic first-person shooters were developed specifically for this technology. Simulations run by the military to train their troops are not too different from the first-person shooters that we have now (Jenkins, 2016), so bumping the realism factor up a notch would blur the line between the two even further. One key strategy parents have to make use of when their children play games with questionable content is to stress that they are separate from the real world (Vessey & Lee, 2000), but telling them that when an enemy is blowing a hole through their bedroom wall will most likely have not as much effect.
The game of "tag" spans from 5:25 to 6:55. Imagine something like this being designed for the future iterations of Virtual Reality.
Another factor to consider is the consequences of genres like horror games becoming more fleshed out in these consoles. I speak from experience that the more immersed into a horror game you become, the more terrifying it becomes. A pixelated horror game, IMSCARED, featured sound effects as simplistic as its graphics, yet it made those sounds appear to come from specific directions and locations around oneself if one wore headphones. This turned a simple game of “tag” with the game’s main antagonist from a mildly spooky chase scene to a genuinely scary experience. I shudder at the thought of IMSCARED being remade for the Oculus Rift or HoloLens with proper graphics. I have also seen grown men play horror games with the Oculus Rift before, and while the atmosphere and some of the scares may have given someone a cold sweat if they were played on the PC, these people genuinely broke down and were forced to take breaks due to how real it was to them. On a PC, you have the safety blanket of being able to turn away from the screen, but with Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality you have no such net to fall back on. All of this is important to the topic at hand because these horrific experiences may become too real for some players. People with weak hearts who ignore any warnings given by the game developers could suffer from heart attacks, and rebellious children could end up walking away from the game with more than just a short-term scare. These problems could be avoided if people heed the ratings from the ESRB and messages from the creators, but that is a problem we are still struggling with. Home <- Previous | Next ->
We have all experienced the same situation at least once
in our time spent on the Internet: one may be downloading a shareware game or
browsing a wiki when suddenly a window “pops up”, usually taking up most of the
screen in the process, and advertises some random product, miracle cure, or
update to one’s currently installed software. The hapless Internet browser in
this instance, be it myself or someone else, just encountered a pop-up advertisement.
Originally created back in the late 1990’s by coder Ethan Zuckerman as a
response to complaints of banner ads being run on pages containing
inappropriate content, this alternative to banners quickly evolved into
something that Zuckerman went out of his way to apologize for a little over a
decade later (O’Toole, 2014). Specifically, pop-up ads are designed so they do
not go away until the Internet browser manually closes the window or a built-in
timer winds down to a specific length before automatically closing (Sharma et.
al, 2011). There is another, more malicious and potentially harmful branch of
pop-up advertisements that do not rely entirely on websites, but those will be
touched upon later.
While most pop-ups are generally not this meta, they are nigh guaranteed to look like this after the sixth or so pop-up.
Even
though pop-ups have become the bane of many an Internet browser’s existence,
they do provide some benefits for both the businesses that make use of them
along with the consumers that are subjected to them. An obvious pro for online
businesses in using the advertisements is that they are very effective in
making the consumer focus on the message or product of the advertisement.
Instead of just existing in the background like banners do, they jump out and
demand that the consumer looks at the window if only to close it. Consumers
also benefit from ads of good intent by providing information to the ad owner’s
consumer base, and in doing so the ad owner can make decisions that more
accurately please the consumer. In a more indirect manner, browsers benefit
from the ads’ mere presence due to them helping fund the operation and
maintenance of the website they are browsing. Of course, there are valid
reasons for the bad reputation behind pop-up ads. To put it bluntly, they are
viewed almost universally as irritating. In a study conducted by researchers
Thorson and Rogers, the reasoning behind this is that they disrupt the
so-called “flow of work” wherein people aiming to complete a goal will see them
as nothing but obstacles standing in the way to that goal (Sharma et. al, 2011).
Now:
In the past, I would have to search for a majority of the
videos that I wanted to watch on YouTube manually. Today is another story,
however. Even though I have not subscribed to a single YouTuber as of now, I
regularly get videos recommended to me that are topically similar to what I
usually watch, such as chiptune music videos or tool-assisted speedruns of both
old and new games. One may be wondering how this works. The answer is rather
simple: information gathering. Even if I haven’t clicked on any advertisements
supplied by YouTube, the company pays close attention to what videos I watch on
my account and even the cookies stored in the web browser if an account isn’t
being used to provide video recommendations accordingly. The same concept
applies to general online advertising; when an Internet browser clicks on an
online advertisement and supplies them with a seemingly innocuous fact about
themselves, such as what products they prefer or one of their favorite hobbies,
they bestow upon the ad’s owner information they can use to tailor future
advertisements to their tastes. This information gathering can be beneficial to
both parties, but all too often the websites and their advertisements can
collect information on their viewers more intrusively and actively than they
would prefer (Advertising 2013).
This is not the kind of spam I am talking about. At least this spam is technically usable.
By
revealing some of one’s information to these companies, they open the door not
only for different selections of advertisements and custom-tailored search
results, but also a wide range of unsavory advertising practices. All it takes
is purchasing an item from them with a credit card or by sharing your contact
information; once that exchange takes place, one can quickly find themselves a
target of junk mail, junk faxes, and junk phone calls, all of which only serve
to advertise their product and potentially syphon more funds away from you.
Simply asking the senders to stop is not likely going to work, but thankfully
there are organizations like the Direct Marketing Association that exist to help
people escape from these telephone and mailing lists. These practices have only
gotten more intrusive with time. The “cookies” I mentioned earlier can make
Internet browsing easier by remembering your passwords and search preferences,
yet they can also keep track of information like purchases, what elements of
the website are clicked on, and how long one spends on a webpage. Something
that is a little more concerning is how you do not need to do anything aside
from exist to be put onto these lists; a company only needs to purchase a list
of e-mails and start dumping spam, or unsolicited electronic advertising, into
them (Advertising 2013). I thankfully have not suffered from too many problems
with spam during my time spent on the Internet, and I can thank my avoidance of
advertisements and clickbait for that.
Later:
Pop-up advertisements are irritating. Spam and junk
messages received due to the willing or unwilling relinquishment of information
can be just as irritating, if not more so. There is one final practice of
advertising and gaining money through online sources that is even more
unethical than the other two methods combined, however: adware and other
malicious software. As the name implies, adware is software that is installed
onto the victim’s computer, often without telling them, that then tries to make
it easier to advertise to the victim. This can range from flooding the screen
with pop-up advertisements that can ultimately slow the system down to
gathering much more information than the average Internet browser would be
comfortable with giving away, both of which having it mastermind the operations
from the background. Adware is most commonly found bundled
with freeware, or software that one can download for no cost (Subrahmanyam et.
al, 2007). These freeware bundles
will sometimes ask the player if they want to install the adware along with the
software, but it is more likely for the installer to not ask for consent. Young
computer users are particularly susceptible of falling prey to these programs
due to factors like ignorance and naivety (Subrahmanyam et. al,
2007).
Better hope that you have the funds needed to "save" your files, or else you can kiss them goodbye!
The real reason why I brought this up is the variety of
programs that are even worse than adware. When compared with malicious
software, or malware, adware looks like an annoying puppy barking for
attention. Malware exists to do many things, such as extort money from its
victims or compromise the safety of their online accounts. I have more
experience than I care to have with the former. Back before I owned a computer
of my own, I had to share the family computer with my father. One day, an aptly
named ransomware virus called CryptoWall managed to infect our system through a
seemingly innocent work-related PDF. While we were still unaware of its
presence, it quickly worked to encrypt single file on the computer. Once the
task was finished, the computer crashed and rebooted to our desktop. Aside from
its usual contents, there was a new program that told us that every last file
on our computer was encrypted and could only be salvaged if we forwarded a
rather sizable sum of money to the culprits behind the attack. My father tried
to fix it on his own, but it quickly became clear that it was a lost cause. We
managed to wipe the computer clean, but in the process literally every last file,
image, and program we had was gone. There were a few important facts to glean
from this, the first of which being that this was intended for my father’s
workplace and if it succeeded they would have been forced to shell out the
ransom in order to resume operation. The second is that the viciousness of
malware is only worsening with time. CryptoWall was released in 2014 and has
been updated at least three times since then; in other words, something this
potentially devastating was released a scant 3 years ago (Abrams, 2014). Who
knows what hackers will be capable of in the future? At the very least, I can
see them taking it a step further and flat out destroying a computer system
from the inside if the ransom is not paid.
