How about PAY for the $5 condom, put it on, AND put the FREE one over it? If the result is protection, what's the harm? Now, if you wish to move back to the "lack of feeling(freedom)" discussion, then I'm just gonna say Y(personal)MMV & JMHO! Trojan and Me be good friends! Best, Duncan
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:03 , Wayne Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: > >At 07:58 AM 12/28/2006, Thane Sherrington typed: >>Maybe one can't prove a "best" solution (too many variables) but one >>can prove which AV gives the highest level of protection in >>testing. The Avast for pay isn't as good as some of the other for >>pay AVs out there. We can extrapolate from that the the free >>version is at best no better and at worst, worse than the for pay >>version. My argument is that if there is a better level of >>protection, and it's cost is minimal, then there is no point in >>going with the free version. As an example: If I offer you two >>condoms - one is free, and it's 95% likely to protect protect you >>from VD. The other cost $5 and is 98% likely to protect you from >>VD. Which do you use if you know you are going into a brothel where >>VD in commonplace (I think the VD infested brother is analagous to >>the malware infested internet?) Clearly there is still a chance >>that you get infected, and clearly the best approach is common sense >>(don't have sex in the brothel) but if one is taking the chance, >>then why not spend the money? The downside clearly overcomes the cost. > >How about one not go to a brothel & wear the cheaper condom ? With >my luck even with the paid condom I'd get infected, that's if I could >stand the inflection. > > > ---------------+-------------- >I'm a geek that loves to tweak. > This email scanned for Viruses and Spam by ZCloud.net
