non-safe manipulation 101

Thank you for the effort to supply that list. I was hoping it would be useful.

It does nothing to explain away a difference created in the minds of those who misunderstand the facts.

As soon as any patent is granted, I have access to that information. The patent can only protect the patent holder if others know exactly what the patent is protecting.

Apparently they don't, but that's second hand information, I don't use Microsoft Windows. I use a system with source code available for anyone to read at anytime. It's the only way to keep a system secure.

Hmmm, interesting that computer science would even have a perspective on security. Seems unrelated to me.

But I'd rather figure out why these two Master padlocks I bought both have pins that set false when I try to open them with a pick, or why cheapo locks are harder to pick than expensive ones... I'm guessing that it has something to do with the economics of their manufacture. Much closer to the topic of this thread than Computer Science is.

Ah, yes. That explains it. Thank you.

What a breath of fresh air ! Thank you.

And I have read the non sequitor posted by Mr. Mormon asking you to reveal personal information, as if it were germane to this discussion.

Another, more reasonable poster to this forum has suggested to me that I am confusing the issues of physical security with a different set of issues concerning computer security. I am in the process of composing a question to him, asking if perhaps his notion of a lock might benefit from from considering more than just mechanical implementations of a lock. When I started reading this Newsgroup, I was only interesting in learning how to pick what I think are called cylinder locks. The manipulation of combination locks seemed to me like something only seen on TV. My world is more interesting now, knowing that this too is possible.