[Dailydave] Semi-anonymized moderation.

[Brian]

On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 09:39:17AM -0500, Someone other than Dave Aitel wrote:
> Every time I hear the argument that some level of security, even lame
> security, is better than NO security, I think about my Zappa
> paraphrasing. In my opinion, lame security is WORSE than no security,
> simply because most of the people involved (think CxO/pointy-haired boss
> types) live with a sense that they are being protected, when in fact
> they are not. The ones with no protection are not living a lie -- they
> are at least AWARE they really have no security.

Really?  I know this has been said before.  Horse, baseball bat, applying.

Your house still has doors with locks, yet your windows are still
trivial to break, bypassing the locks.  Go ahead, remove the locks on
the doors because obviously, you are better off without it.

Oh, no windows?  Got siding & drywall house, like most of America?
I can cut a new enterance in most houses in minutes, thanks to my
trusty sawzall.

I know, lets live in brick hosues and hire armed guards to not allow
enterance and exit of those that someone deams should not be allwowed
in or out.

Have fun living in a jail.

Me, I'll live with my minor increases in security, as I improve where
I can, what I can.

Brian