On Mon, 09 Sep 2013 19:06:53 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 9/8/2013 11:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Sigh.. You do realize that when they came up with this absurd solution
>>> it was back with like 98/XP, where half the security they added since
>>> didn't exist at all? So, sorry, but its not nonsensical to suggest
>>> adding things that don't bloody exist *at all* in the OS in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> Explain how saying "security" is a *specific* solution, Patrick. 
>> Provide some details as to what you mean - what would you
>> /specifically/ add to provide "security"?
>>
> Explain how "add a lock" to a door that doesn't have one is a "specific
> solution". I mean, your not specifying what sort of lock, right? Sigh...
> Enough.

You're not talking about something as simple as a door lock.  You're 
talking about computer security, so you have to be specific.

You want a lock that can distinguish between two identical keys, one used 
for "legitimate" uses, and one that isn't.

That sort of lock doesn't exist.

Jim

Post a reply to this message