[cap-talk] Capabilities and Freedom vs. Safety

[James A. Donald]

David Hopwood wrote:
> James A. Donald wrote:
>> James A. Donald:
>>  > > > > Security must be based on real attacks and real
>>  > > > > threats, not on "proofs" of security which have
>>  > > > > little contact with reality external to that
>>  > > > > proof.
>>
>> David Hopwood wrote:
>>  > > > The attitude expressed here seems to me to be
>>  > > > quite misplaced. Certainly models must as
>>  > > > realistic as needed for the conclusions derived
>>  > > > from them to be valid. But if you want to argue
>>  > > > that a particular model is not sufficiently
>>  > > > realistic, argue the specifics
>>
>> James A. Donald:
>>  >> I have argued the specifics at considerable length.
>>
>> David Hopwood wrote:
>>  > No, you haven't given any specific argument about why
>>  > a particular model on which proofs have been based is
>>  > unrealistic.
>>
>> I have given such arguments, repeatedly and at excessive
>> length, in for example in messages
>> <46A7CE3F.2040807 at echeque.com> and
>> <46A81597.9010109 at echeque.com>
> 
> I have not received any messages with those Message-IDs.
> The cap-talk archives strip headers. What were the Date
> fields for these messages?

Re: [cap-talk] Selling capabilities programming Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 
08:27:11 +1000

Re: [cap-talk] Capabilities and Freedom vs. SafetyDate: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 
13:31:35 +1000