> but it's silly to hold that against the comment that didn't impress you. I don't see why. I am still convinced there are security issues. The comment under d

> but it's silly to hold that against the comment that didn't impress you. I don't see why. I am still convinced there are security issues. The comment under discussion made all sorts of grandiose yet completely unsupported claims. If the paper he linked had backed up his assertions, I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't. Therefore I don't believe him.