Sounds like a pretty screwed up system. What are you going to do about it?

I'm confused. Doesn't your country operate democratically? If three-quarters believe something, shouldn't you all be forced to believe it? Mustn't it be taught as fact if that many believe it?

I don't understand your methods.

Southern California is not my country. My country's got no such problems. And seeing as how I live in a city with streets like front, lakeshore, and quay, it's basically hundreds of square kilometres of land that wasn't there.

Different country, different attributes. We've got water everywhere here. Water follows humans -- here. Not California. Here. It's a totally different climate. That's the point. If it warms up just a little bit, the soil comes for free.

I don't think you read that correctly.

no time to read all of your likely-shitty reply indicating that you don't know how to read. I'm sure you're commenting on the nth argument instead of on the original subject. you're anonymous, so I'm skipping you. If you don't value your opinions enough to name them, then I don't value them enough to read them.ttfn.

Exactly. But with armed guards turning the police away, they'll never get to your door. You need to read the entire sentence dude. Each word adds meaning.

The only problem there is that you are eating frozen pizza. Please don't do that.

Throwing a rock through a window requires zero skill, zero training, and any attacker can do it. The non-barred window doesn't resist breaking. For those homes, the purpose of the lock isn't to make the house secure. It doesn't -- there's a window right next to the locked door.

But it's easy to say that breaking a window is intentional trespassing, and hence a criminal offense easily prosecuted. But you can't say that opening an unlocked door and venturing inside is intentional trespassing -- it can be accidental, it can be helpful, it can be authorized. In the former, you need to prove that the person broke the window. In the latter, you need to prove that they weren't at the wrong house -- which is much more difficult, because you need to prove malicious intent.

Most security in this world is about prosecution. Like the video cameras around you house don't stop anyone from breaking in, nor do they help catch the masked thieves -- masks also require zero skill and zero training and anyone can wear one. The cameras prove to your insurance company that the thieves do indeed exist, and wear different shoes than you do. That's about it.

It's "illegal" and "criminal" to break into someone's house by picking the lock or breaking the window. It's neither "illegal" nor "criminal" to open an unlocked door.

Wow, you are far behind. Security is from secure. Safety is from safe. Secure refers to restricting access -- like a lock. Safe refers to not mitigating harm -- like a helmet.

But if you, for one second, believe that "online" isn't a part of the "real world", then you ought to remain anonymously cowardice, because you're an idiot. If I couldn't be harmed via my twitter account, then I wouldn't care about securing it. I secure my twitter account in order to ensure my safety. For you: I secure my online twitter account with online security in order to safeguard my real-world lifestyle.

My whole point, if you had learned how to read points like that, is that this poster (and the article mentioned) discusses increasing security beyond reasonable benefit. The improvement being made doesn't increase safety, it only increases security. Whenever increasing security doesn't increase safety, then it's a waste of time, money, and energy. It just makes money for the person selling it to you.

In your example, and it's a stellar one for me, the desert eagle lets you feel safe. For as long as you have that desert eagle by your bed, why would you need to improve your security by locking your bedroom door?

true.

cached, in-memory for the day?

No. No I didn't.

Did you lock your car?

Think harder boy. I believe in removing links, having fewer links to strengthen. It's called reducing the surface area of attack -- at least it was in the 80's, when I did start my own successful company.

You may be forgetting, if you've ever actually known, that chains are used because they are inexpensive to produce. They aren't better than cables, and they aren't better than lines, and they aren't better than rope -- when better equals stronger. But they are more flexible than cable, way faster to produce than rope, and far easier to produce than lines. Useful for many things, but not when strength is the primary requirement. That's why the rock climbing harness is rope, and the hang-glider harness is a canvas strap, and the tower guy-lines are, well, cables.

So why would you want a chain-system for security? Seems dumb. You should want parallel components, not serial ones. Otherwise, you're trying to be more secure by lengthening your rope. That's just foolish. You want a second rope, not a longer rope.

I have no need to post anything. Why would I choose to help you with my ideas? You can develop your own ideas; not that there's any evidence of that here.

Try learning to think differently than the situation-at-hand. That's called creativity.

No, secure the access, not the information. Encryption is relevant in a scenario where the data needs to be there, and be inaccessible. It doesn't work when the data needs to be accessible at all times. If the data is completely inaccessible, it need never be secured.

So, in this case, since all of the fancy encryption being discussed is entirely absent once the data is in memory, and since that's reported as being acceptable, then we can just put it all there, be the very same acceptable, and then we don't need any of the fancy encryption to begin with.

Look at it this way. Why would you bother locking the front door of your house if you've got three armed security guards and six attack dogs guarding your home?

A physical disconnect is easy to set up. It's at reboot. It's actually a physical-but-momentary connect. That's not high-robotics.

But even a soft disconnect, even something as simple as a dismount. Or a wireless momentary connection. How many hackers are going to have access to mount/connect an invisible disk?

Or, if you like, just overheat the drive after a few minutes of use, and it'll dismount all by itself.

Oh, I very much am not.