Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 19 Nov 2006 10:31 "Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote in message news:phineaspuddleduck-6AD4A5.00433919112006(a)free.teranews.com... > In article <8f134$455fa861$4fe707c$14952(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> Offhand it looks like the USA does better than the UK for our >> minimum wage earners who are intent on advancing out of "poverty." >> It looks like if they move out of major metroploitan areas and >> apply their proverbial nose to the stone to get ahead, they have >> a good chance of achieving what has come to be called "The great >> American dream" easily enough. > > Ah you're one of those. "My country right or wrong" > > PLONK I wouldn't even credit it with that level of sense.
From: T Wake on 19 Nov 2006 10:37 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45601865.3D628730(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: >> >> > In article <acb5$455f9cf1$49ecf66$14693(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >> About the long waiting time for council housing in the >> UK these days was snipped >> >> >>That's nice. So people on the waiting list camp out in >> >>the park or something? LOL >> >> > No, normally either expected to stay with parents/friends or in hostels >> > paid for by the DSS. And your point is? >> >> The point under discussion is that they get to live in >> subsidized housing. So where's the incentive for people >> that poor to work hard, save money, and buy a house of >> their own? > > The 5 or more years they have to wait ? > > Certainly the cost of housing round here is so high it's priced out of the > reach > of most ppl on an average wage never mind minimum wage anyway. It may be the five year wait, or it may be the desire to have a "house of their own." Whatever it is, the incentive is certainly there - despite what unsettled may be trying to imply. Poor people do indeed work hard, save money and buy houses of their own. Amazing isn't it?
From: T Wake on 19 Nov 2006 10:42 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejpl9d$8qk_007(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <455F6387.EABCDB3B(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >> ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>> >> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>>> I don't want an internal modem. I want one with lights that >>> >> >>>> flash >>> >> >>>> for every I/O. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>They don't help that much you know. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> What? Lights? Yes they help a lot. >>> >> > >>> >> >You're fooling yourself. Viruses can still get through, >>> >> >>> >> I can see when one is coming in. >>> > >>> >No you can't. A virus infected file is indistinguishable from one that > isn't >>> >infected to a modem. It's just a file. >>> >>> But I don't download files, period. I hit the off switch whenver >>> there is unasked-for activity. >> >>Which you wouldn't even have to do if you used something up to date ! > > Exactly. Then I would vulnerable to any viral, worm or mess > attack that has a new quirk to it. > > Why should I open it wide just to get infected? You say "exactly" then show you really did not understand what was said to you.
From: T Wake on 19 Nov 2006 10:45 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejpq59$8qk_029(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <phineaspuddleduck-BD8418.14315919112006(a)free.teranews.com>, > Phineas T Puddleduck <phineaspuddleduck(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>In article <ejpou2$8qk_023(a)s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> Anti-viral is always in catch-up mode. It is impossible for >>> this code to protect from new kinds of attacks. The only >>> reliable way to protect from infection is never let it near >>> the gear. >> >>Which means never connecting your machine to another. The only true >>secure computer is one that has been disassembled, locked in a box and >>dumped in the Marianas Trench. > > Once upon a time, it was never running a wire outside the computer > room, and all doors were one-way (What went in never came out.). It must have been hell trying to get lunch. >> >>Security is a relative, not an absolute concept... > > We were experts at the time and learning fast. There was another > OS whose _primary_ goal was security. Ours wasn't. There are a couple of OS's which have security as the primary goal. However there is no 100% secure, useable, system in the world. As PTP said the only way to really secure your computer is to lock it up and bury it. Even then there is a risk someone can retrieve it. Everything is a compromise, people who understand this know who to make the compromises - others rely on voodoo and superstitions to assume their kit is safe.
From: Eeyore on 19 Nov 2006 11:51
T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > unsettled wrote: > >> Phineas T Puddleduck wrote: > >> > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> > >> About the long waiting time for council housing in the > >> UK these days was snipped > >> > >> >>That's nice. So people on the waiting list camp out in > >> >>the park or something? LOL > >> > >> > No, normally either expected to stay with parents/friends or in hostels > >> > paid for by the DSS. And your point is? > >> > >> The point under discussion is that they get to live in > >> subsidized housing. So where's the incentive for people > >> that poor to work hard, save money, and buy a house of > >> their own? > > > > The 5 or more years they have to wait ? > > > > Certainly the cost of housing round here is so high it's priced out of the > > reach of most ppl on an average wage never mind minimum wage anyway. > > It may be the five year wait, or it may be the desire to have a "house of > their own." Whatever it is, the incentive is certainly there - despite what > unsettled may be trying to imply. Poor people do indeed work hard, save > money and buy houses of their own. They cerainly benefit from Maggie's sell off of council housing. Shame that the houses sold didn't get replaced by new ones. > Amazing isn't it? I'm sometimes amazed I manged it myself and I'm not 'poor'. Incidentally, I got an email today from one of those outfits that keeps tabs on house prices. One just a few doors away from me was sold earlier this year for a mere ?50 under ?400,000 ! Graham |