[Posted only on LKML, this has become humour.] On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 09:03:00PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 04:21:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Jakob Oestergaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > PaX cannot be a 'little bit pregnant'. (you might argue that exec-shield > > > > is in the 6th month, but that does not change the fundamental > > > > end-result: a child will be born ;-) > > > > > > Yes and no. I would think that the chances of a child being born are > > > greater if the pregnancy has lasted successfully up until the 6th month, > > > compared to a first week pregnancy. > > > > > > I assume you get my point :) > > > > the important point is: neither PaX nor exec-shield can claim _for sure_ > > that no child will be born, and neither can claim virginity ;-) > > > > [ but i guess there's a point where a bad analogy must stop ;) ] > > Yeah, sex is *usually* a much more pleasant experience than having your > machine broken into, even if it results in a pregnancy. =)
I'll bite, before anyone else says it... It can not be a mere coincidence that the most rigorous security audits include penetration testing. -- Mika Boström +358-40-525-7347 \-/ "World peace will be achieved [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.iki.fi/bostik X when the last man has killed Security freak, and proud of it. /-\ the second-to-last." -anon?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
