All anyone needs to drive a car are the keys. Sure to drive legally I need a
license but there isn't anything stopping the 14 year old kid (or the 41
year lod man with no license) down the street from stealing my keys/car and
driving/crashing.
And since people had so many issues with my last analogy here's another one.
How many people wore seat belt's before it was mandated by law. 10-20% max!
Yet everyone knew that seat belts saved lives (the ultimate security risk).
Was it GM/Ford/... fault? Sure the Mfg's included them in the cars (just
like M$ turn's off macro's by default or at least they warn you before
opening the doc) but if the people ignore them then it's their own fault.
My point here is that people (ie computer users) need to take responsibility
for their actions and stop blaming others. Just like I, a licensed driver
(and reasonably knowledgable computer user) know the risks of driving in an
unsafe manner. Anyone using a computer needs some minimum "knowledge" to
operate it in a safe manner.
If companies would just get it that ALL of their PC users need training and
rules to follow (like never turn off macro protection or you get canned)
then all of us who have to support these under educated users would have
much more time for Quake and such.
> My car is "user-friendly" and easy to use, so are you saying that if
> I go out and drive at 100mph and crash that it's Ford's fault for
> not limiting the maximum speed of my car?
>Dismissed - invalid analogy. You need a licence to drive a car. You
>probably did some tests to prove you know what you're doing. If there
>were no licence for driving a car, Ford would make a car that would
>limit your maximum speed.
>Next!
Cheers
--Dave
