On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 07:05:44PM -0400, Linux Rocks! wrote: > : *ahem* If you run Windows on an _ATM_ and someone infects it with a worm > : or somehow convinces the ATM to start spewing twenties, I am firmly of the > : belief that someone should be held criminally responsible. The idiot who > : decided that Windows was a good ATM operating system. I almost have a > : hard time holding any attackers responsible for this kind of thing. That > : would be like painting your IP address and root passwd on a billboard > : along I-5. > > Im sorry Joeseph, I would have to disagree that criminals arent responsible > for thier behaviour because others build crappy locks. Is the door to your > home the least easily pickable? You probably didnt purchase or install that > lock so how could you even know, yet surely you accept that its a perfectly > accpetable lock dont you? but maybe its the easiest lock to pick/circumvent? > What would you deserve?
The word "solely" should have been in the above message somewhere, FWIW. The difference here is that they DID pick the lock. And it was broken once, in a horrible and expensive way in a way that was obviously the fault of the lock. They didn't change the lock. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
