At Mon, 5 Jun 2006 13:41:30 -0600,
"Christopher Nelson" <paradox@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Two observations: It's totally ubiquitous, all over the
> > place, somebody who does not trust anybody at all would be
> > pathologic and has no chance to survive in a society with
> > other human beings.
> This is a generalization that becomes ridiculous when applied to
> computers. On a social basis you trust only that a person won't hurt
> you in a any way that causes more damage to THEM than THEY consider
> worth what they may get back from hurting you.
I didn't generalize. I said that if someone never trusts anybody at
all, they have no chance to survive in this world. Did you maybe
misparse this as "everybody always trusts everybody else"? If
somebody ever trusts somebody, even if "only" for a certain amount, my
second statement becomes true. Moreover, I think it is quite obvious
that my first statement is true as well, if you start to think about
the places where you put trust into other people. (For example: Do
you eat food prepared by other people? Is it poisoned? How do you
> For example, it is becoming fairly common for two individuals to
> conspire to cause an auto accident with a 3rd, innocent party.
"Fairly common" with regard to what measure? If you reserve "fairly
common" to these type of frauds, what adjectives do you use to
describe the number of people who do not participate in such frauds?
> The two
> individuals split the earnings from the insurance claim. Another
> example, if you are a very wealthy individual, other individuals have
> more interest in damaging you, either via threats or theft, because the
> potential returns for them are higher.
> The lock on my front door only keeps out honest people, not a determined
There are many areas in the world where people (even comparatively
wealthy people) do not lock their doors.
I do not understand the nature of your disagreement.
L4-hurd mailing list