Any lawyer worth a Harvard education would bring up MAC spoofing.
Unprotected Windows is never safe to use on the internet. At the very least it is sensible to be behind NAT. But to address your point specifically, is Windows XP less secure on the internet than Windows 7?
That's a good point - all of our systems currently ship with XP embedded.
OK, but until XP is EOL, you can save your money. Upgrading now would be like tossing out your perfectly good brake pads, just because they only have a couple hundred more miles on them.
By that logic, no OS is perfectly good. Fair enough, but not really related to the point I was trying to make. If XP works and the computer works for the task at hand, why upgrade?
I would never toss a car that still worked. I get rid of cars when they are no longer economical to repair, and then I let the leasers subsidize the purchase of my next used car. The lone exception might be that we trade in one of our current cars for one with all-wheel-drive.
They don't seem so bad when the first 10 iterations take a few ms.
Yeah, let's throw away that perfectly good piece of kit because you don't like it.
And on the other side you have public employees unions, so we end up with a bunch of liability that doesn't even show up on the government's version of a balance sheet. I personally feel that both should be banned from lobbying, but the Supreme Court recently disagreed.
Yeah, I don't care so much about the restrictions on account access - like you, we have a list of passwords that we both use and when necessary (e.g. student loans) we make sure we get the authorizations sent in.
My problem is with the double standard. Add stuff? Sure! Wait, remove stuff??? No, no! We have POLICIES!
Almost... you drive a Bentley, but get driven in a Rolls. Otherwise, mere prols such as myself wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
They still have to taxi, takeoff, and land.
Oh, man, like brown noise. I hope this thing makes dogs shit all over everything.
Wait a minute, you read my comment and thought that I was claiming that the cost for a family to watching every game on TV was in the same ballpark as the same family attending every game in person?
Well, that was not my intention. I was simply reinforcing just how much money $1200 is. Family of 4. Ask each one if they would like $400 cash or cable for the year, and I suspect you'll get some takers for the cash. In my case, I'd rather attend $400 worth of live games and catch what I can on OTA.