🚀 go-pugleaf

I agree completely. I'm just tired of corporate bashing.



"John Navas" <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
news:lpRl6.3966$S25.57007@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
> On the contrary -- just as I applaud and welcome safe tires, I would
> applaud and welcome safe computing.  Properly implemented, it would not
> be limiting -- that's a common misconception.
>
> In <RPDl6.2610$IV6.161273@news1.news.adelphia.net>, "Oberiss"
> <oberiss@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Yet if all computers were to be made specifically to protect a "typical
home
> >user" from a security breach, therefore limiting the users' ability to
> >customize and configure and do whatever they want to thier own pc, you
would
> >be the first to cry for your good ol' "defective design" computer back.
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter@navasgrp.dublin.ca.us> wrote in message
> >news:zgBl6.3896$S25.55135@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> >> With all due respect, this is a matter of defective design, not cockpit
> >> error.  When someone gets seriously injured because Firestone tires
> >> separated, you blame Firestone, not the hapless driver that was
> >> unfortunate enough to buy and use them.  The problem here is that
> >> computers being sold to average people are inherently and inexcusably
> >> insecure.  Average people shouldn't have to be security experts to use
> >> computers on the Internet any more than they should have to be
> >> automotive experts to drive a car on the road.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
>      CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>