I've owned a lot of resistive touch devices. Zero of them were "very precise". Most of them had a lot of depth so you'd struggle to pick pixels even when they were big enough to easily count. Palm Pilots and Visors, Zoomer/GRiDPad 2390, an HTC phone, blah blah blah. Phones had plastic screens because gorilla glass hadn't been invented yet. Jobs was irritated by his scratched plastic screen at exactly the right time and yes, made the right call. Yes, a plastic stylus on a resistive screen is more precise than your finger, but it's also either irritatingly tiny or you are just having to carry around more shit.

In fact, the most precise non-wacom screen device I've ever used was the capacitive glass screen on the GRiDPad 1910... also a device where a well-sighted (or near-sighted) person can count pixels, but there you can also actually touch them. But then that's got a tethered pen. I have GEOS on mine, with Graffiti. That is precise... But still not as precise as my lady's Fujitsu tablet with Wacom. That's what you'd use now if you needed precision, a radio pen. There was a company which sold an IBM 486SLC-based portable called Dauphin which had one that ran on batteries, how tragic... but it was precise. Unfortunately it was also as thick as a pretty good-sized hardback book.

Can't have your security broken if there is no security. I like the cut of your jib.

Why don't you go read his response, Dildo Draggins?

Sure, after you set fire to my old device, you want me to buy another device you will originally set fire to. It's book burning by proxy.

...a lot of shit nobody takes seriously in general, even moreso since the Nazis took them over.

The problem in this case is that Microsoft has a long and extremely well documented history of both of these things.

This is how literally all major markets work.

"Security weenies claim security via obscurity doesn't work, but it absolutely does if you like to use data and respect what it tells you. Check the number of security CVEs for operating systems like OpenVMS, MPE/IX, and see how they compare with Linux or Windows. By volume, the most popular OSes get the most attacks and successful exploits."

That is not security by obscurity. It's security by unpopularity.

Oh look, coward does whataboutism.

Your best possible claim is that there are no good guys, which is accurate, but you're not even making it.

I doubt they used a single new technology or device to find this airman. There is satellite and AWACS coverage. Iran downed one but 2/3-3/4 of our AWACS are there.

Oh look, someone too cowardly not to post AC is too stupid to understand English. It's not even his first language and he's better at it than you are.

Uh, that's not even hard.

The way harder part is doing any meaningful sensing through the atmospheric disturbance at those speeds.

It's still too complicated for the average person.

That doesn't address how difficult it is to configure. Again, for a normal person who doesn't know what any of those settings mean. If you want normal people to be able to do this you're going to need to develop a config wizard for luci.

Then why did you say "The fact that these OSes allow even *root* to make changes to the OS, is insecure in itself" when root has access to rewrite the entire OS? Could it perhaps be because you don't know what you're talking about and you're casting around desperately to look like you do? Don't bother answering, it's obvious.

Oh nO NoT "CYBER" ImPLIcATIoNS

Get fucked, poser.