"The only truly secure computer is unplugged." Okay, fine. However, there are certain limits on what I consider acceptable vs. unacceptable security. For instance: I can accept that against a human attacker, my system is basically toast. I don't expect a desktop OS to stand up to a deliberate, calculated attack. And I can accept that my OS cannot protect me from myself. It's not my computer's job to keep me from doing something stupid. However, the idea that a dumb, automated program can reliably exploit a series of zero-day vulnerabilities to instantly root any system with any security setup whatsoever... And to have that happen twice in a row, as per Duqu and Stuxnet... To me, that is pushing the limits of what is acceptable, especially in a rather expensive product like Windows. So, yes... To me, an acceptable level of security constitutes a very, very low probability of being compromised without either a) direct malicious action on someone else's part or b) direct stupid action on my part. What are your limits?