I doubt that user named after a fictional character indicates anything, it's just too common. OTOH "SU Chatbot" is boring... does anyone here remember Short Circuit's Number 5? What about C3PO? OTOH those could again just be regular user names… Also, I'm not sure there's a problem to be solved. Maybe keep the current greeting(s) and only if someone replies (@JohnCavil; or 'john' shortly after you send the greeting to that person), then tell them "I'm just a bot"?

@slhck Was it ever enabled?

A) ics refers to the iCalendar file format supported by MS Outlook, Lotus Notes, Novell GroupWise, Lightning for Thunderbird, and Apple Mail, not a $2 app by some random developer. Read the tag description and/or Wikipedia. Nice straw man argument there. B) Almost all other file name extension tags (pdf, rar, zip, doc, docx, xls, xlsx, swf, exe, mkv, mp4, mp3, 3gp, vob, m4a, msi, wmv, wma) have tags without a leading dot, making your "make it a real extention with the dot" suggestion completely baseless.

FWIW there's connection-sharing, but it's not exactly popular. Note that I'm not against your request, so far, I'm undecided.

The important file formats should have their own tags. ics is important through pretty widespread support. And while the file format name apparently is iCalendar, we don't use the common file name extension for many other formats as well, so it's consistent. And regarding the ambiguity, feel free to support my feature request for solving tag ambiguity on MSO: "You entered ics, did you mean icalendar-file or internet-connection-sharing?"

Note that these questions are (likely) not about the software iCal (now: Calendar.app) specifically, but about the files and their support in (quoting Wikipedia) Google Calendar, Apple Calendar, GoDaddy Online Group Calendar, IBM Lotus Notes, Yahoo! Calendar, Evolution, eM Client, Lightning extension for Mozilla Thunderbird and SeaMonkey, and Microsoft Outlook and Novell GroupWise.

You suggested a local process requiring multiple browser instances on a specific machine in only the broadest strokes. If krowe was even aware of your comment, then the answer significantly improved upon your suggestion (at least in terms of user-friendliness). While I don't doubt that you could answer the question, you didn't (yet — I'd consider your approach to be significantly different from krowe's as to not think it's a duplicate).

I don't really see how the answer just copies your comment. Yes, both mention use of multiple profiles, but that's where the similarities end. In fact, I'm not sure krowe even saw your comment, given he mentions "the bookmarks won't be synced across profiles", instead suggesting use of a service like Xmarks (which seems to be quite different from what you suggest).

@Fischer You can easily find this out yourself as well: Move your mouse pointer over the text asked 2 hours ago (or whatever similar text is shown when you view it) on the question page, and you'll see exactly when it was posted in the tooltip. Then go here in your user profile, expand the events list for Is this an error or a malware? and repeat the above for the oldest (last) entry.

Of course, all of this isn't relevant to this meta question. But it seems to be based on the assumption that your question doesn't ask for opinion, while in fact, it does. See the first part of my first comment.

Today's AVs are a combination of signature (malware known to vendor) and heuristic (program does X, X has little legitimate use, so probably malware) approaches. As it's impossible to determine for an arbitrary program how it'll behave (basically Halting problem), there can be no 100% protection against malware (unless you consider the 'prohibit everything' approach valid). Your experience matches this. Now you need to decide whether that's good enough for you, or what you're willing to miss out on (e.g. networking) to be safe. Now it's all opinion.

Also, you seem to draw the wrong conclusions. If one AV doesn't catch 'em all, it doesn't mean two of them will. AV also uses techniques that look suspiciously like malware to be able to do their job (which also requires a certain level of trust in running any AV at all), so multiple independent AV's consider each other malware and it's going to be a mess.

Between the question title and "How far should one go to secure his PC? Where is the line between security and being paranoid?" it's reasonable to consider your question primarily opinion-based. You want to be safe? Disconnect all network interfaces, no exceptions, ever. Put the computer into a guarded vault. This is how e.g. certificate authorities do it with their root certs (search for "key ceremony"). If your data needs to be 100% safe from modification, deletion, and distribution, there are no alternatives.

You could just use the new questions list to find new questions to answer. Alternatively, the unanswered tab, or hot questions tab might work as well.

I strongly oppose this request, given the (textual) crap we regularly see from unregistered 1-rep users (a stellar example from earlier today for 10k+ rep users able to view deleted posts is here). Not interested in having SU become a shock site because idiot students are bored in class.

Just mentally offset the loss of 2 reputation on a seven weeks old post with the gain of 20 on an eight months old post on Sep 5th. You come out way ahead. Everyone does.