Kayman wrote:

> On Wed, 21 May 2008 03:48:01 +0200, Sebastian G. wrote:
>
>> Kayman wrote:
>>
>>> isn't is accord with (his) scientific facts...
>> ^^^^^
>> Proof that you're an idiot.
>
> Ah, So typical and predictable. You must be running out of arguments.


Another proof that you're an idiot. You're claiming trivial scientific facts
as solely my facts, which is exactly your lack of arguments.


>> There is none. You cannot proof that you've cleaned the system just by the
>> absence of obvious signs.
>>
> Sure, yadda, yadda, yawn.


Yet another proof that you're lacking arguments.

>> Of course, since those fools don't understand the meaning of system
>> integrity.
>
> I only wish you'd meet some of them Outback "fools" face to face...


I do. And interestingly most of them know what they're doing wrong, and
typically beg for the consequences not happening.

>> It was helpful insofar that it seemed to cure the symptoms, but
>> it never restored the system to a well-defined state, leaving all future
>> work unreliable and potentially compromised.
>
> Now we know. To quote H.L.Mencken:"Puritanism: The haunting fear that
> someone, somewhere, may be happy."


If you would bother to understand what an universal trojan horse is (and
feel ashame that you ever dared operating a computer without the most basic
knowledge), then you might get a clue where to place reasonable assumptions.
A compromised system, by definition, remains compromised until it returns
into a well-defined state. Changing the state based on assumptions about the
current state can't achieve that. But well, that's just trivial math...