2003 called. They want their idea back.

I was actually commenting on the elitist tone of your post, not your security practices.

I take steps to avoid affection, too. These steps include practices such as yours. Prevention is the best defense, right? However, I'm not about to claim that any of the 3 OSes I run are completely impenetrable and invulnerable whether the system is Windows, OS X, or a flavor of Linux. To make such a claim would be arrogant, not sensible.

But, hey, we are talking about Mac users; arrogance is part of Apple's marketing strategy.

Safety and security is everyone's problem, not everyone else's.

I also think that slashdotters tend to forget that they are atypical computer users. You may have your comp locked down, but for every one of you there are 100 other people who wouldn't even have a clue what you're talking about, let alone "dump Windows" and fork out thousands of dollars for OS X. And for every one of you there are 100 people who are terrified of Linux.
Just because the typical user isn't as "geek" as you doesn't mean they're fools; it just means you're a geek. And I use the word in the nicest possible way. It's a compliment, actually.

Incidentally, I run AV on my Windows box (not Linux or OS X) because Windows is a target; I've never had an infection, yet I still run an AV program. Strange, huh?

My thoughts exactly. It should be up to everyone else to protect themselves so that I'm protected by virtue of their diligence.

I mean, I don't wear condoms because everyone else has been told to protect themselves with birth control and prophylactics. I have nothing to worry about, right?

Not to mention that such laws only effect law abiding citizens. The copper thieves don't care if they do not have invoices for all the copper in their possession... the plan is to not be in a position to have to show those invoices to someone in the first place.

No, laws like the one you mentioned only impede and effect those who wouldn't have broken the law in the first place. I'm sure I'll be modded flamebait or off-topic, but the situation is similar to draconian gun control laws.

I'm not sure about it being obvious. What they're talking about is a preliminary study upon which a loose hypothesis is based.

What people don't seem to be able to grasp is that "junk food" is called that because it's junk. Period. Candy really doesn't have any redeeming features, either. Common sense dictates that if you're eating candy and junk food in the levels that the mice were forced to ingest (much more than three meals every day, I'm sure) something adverse will eventually happen to your body.

Of course, they could've avoided spending money on this research if they'd all just listened to their mothers in the first place.

Please tell me what browser you're using which forces you to have sex with dirty, mysterious men. I'd really like to avoid that one.