So not with their own money, but still the government pays for it.

Please define "simulation".

You can't test some rare situations in real life because they are so rare.

For example car accidents. We're glad that they have been greatly reduced in real life and aren't predictable enough so that cars can be deliberatly sent into real life accidents. That's why we're running simulated accidents, crash tests. Of course not a computer simulation, it's still a simulation that neglects human factors. (evasion maneuvers might lead to other impact angles and speeds, passengers tensing and bracing for impact are simulated by limp dummys)

These "actual physical" simulations also only test what the test designers have accounted for. (It's just that hurling a large mass at a concrete wall isn't a highly dynamic system so it can be safely assumed that all important parametrs have been accounted for)

(Wow, i guess that's the first correct car anaolgy...)

Well, I once thought that too.

But after receiving the same shitty customer "service" from a more expensive phone company, I decided that if I'm to get screwed over, I'm not going to pay extra for it.

Call the unexploded scotsman disposal squad?

No. "I fart in your general direction"

Sunshields would be a workaround and not a PREVENTION.

Prevention starts at the problem source, which is a curved, reflective surface. Making the curve non-parabolic or pointing the aperture north would have been prevention. But sunshades are rather acknowleding the problem and working around it. (Usually adding more complexity and points of failure, but that's another story)

Yes, sometimes you have to use workarounds, maybe the source of the problem might be the solution to an even bigger problem, or the new problem isn't big enough to warrant fundamental design changes, but still that's not prevention.

OK, you're right with that, but on the other hand it would be okay to measure the results of any therapy only compared to the number of patients who want it to be successful in the first place.

This is about teaching on HOW to say no despite peer pressure.

No. Exactly not. Windows and doors are like open ports. If you have them, you need to secure them. A firewall works fine in those cases.

Putting a firewall where no open ports are makes as much sense as locking non-existant doors. That makes only sense if you're expecting doors to magically appear in your house. Which for a typical windows installation, is less absurd then it may sound. But then those appearing doors are your main problem.

But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None. What your firewall is you protecting from is NOT bad stuff from the outside. It's protecting you from the inside danger that some service suddenly opens a port which is reachable from the outside. (Hate to dig out the old Win vs. *nix, but the usual suspects for this are usually Windows servers you need to lock down first, as they're usually asuming that they're in a friendly network. On *nix machines you usually need to manually add those services one by one, as you would open the ports on your firewall)

Bt when you encounter a lemma about a childrens book you don't know, you usually assume it's just a book you don't know! Which is usually not an error, unless you can claim to know all childrens books. (and the standard pronounciation is pretty far from the prank call like "I'm a liar" that's probably supposed to be)

Unrealistic expectations?

Not for the best of the Best of the BEST, SIR!

youporn, pornhub and redtube?

Real and respected brands in their field of business.

In related news: Who is surfing to such sites without AdBlocker and NoScript shields up?

thx

Adding a method to hide processes running on your system may be considered a security vulnerability. Such systems are usually used only by malware and legitimate software should NOT use any technology to counter the work of anti-virus software. Either your antivirus is weakend (which should be considered a security vulnerability) or "real" malware might also hide under the "invisibility cloak" set up by SecuROM to hide itself.

SecuROm may not be a security threat in itself, but it uses typical malware patterns and generally weakens your system security.

OK, I'm recounting a user report on forum from years ago from the back of my memory here, so take this paragraph with a grain of salt: (may have been a similar copy protection system, if not exactly SecuROM)

I remember a user reporting a broken DVD writer. He bought a new one and replaced the "malfunctioning" drive only to find out that the new drive was also "broken". Turned out it was a DRM system that blocked the DVD writer and that user threw away a perfectly functioning DVD writer. Actual monetary damage here.

If it is not uninstalled with the software, it permanently eats up ressources that can't be reclaimed by the legitimate owner by uninstalling, as it is hiding itself from the computers software/process management system. (see "rootKit" in #1) As it is hidden, there is no indication that any problem showing up years after the deinstallation of a computer game (#2) might still be connected to a residual software component (read: garbage) from a casual game from a few years ago.

No. ESPESCIALLY for free games. Why add copy protection to free stuff anyway? It's free to begin with! No one needs or wants to "pirate" it. Unless of course you need a "pirated" copy of the game to keep the negative SecuROM effects from your system.