Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
🐛🚘💎🚗🎁🥒👳🎽👽👹🥗📀🍇🎈📣
"A commercial, and in some respects a social, doubt has been started within the
last year or two, whether or not it is right to discuss so openly the security
or insecurity of locks. Many well-meaning persons suppose that the discus-
sion respecting the means for baffling the supposed safety of locks offers a
premium for dishonesty, by showing others how to be dishonest. This is a fal-
lacy. Rogues are very keen in their profession, and already know much more
than we can teach them respecting their several kinds of roguery. Rogues knew
a good deal about lockpicking long before locksmiths discussed it among them-
selves, as they
have lately done. If a lock -- let it have been made in what-
ever country, or by whatever maker -- is not so inviolable as it has hitherto
been deemed to be, surely it is in the interest of *honest* persons to
░█░█░█░█▀▀░█░▀▄░█▀▀█
░▀░░░▀░▀▀▀░▀▀▀▀░▀░░▀
░█░░█░█░▀▀█▀▀░█▀█ ░ █▀█
░█░░█░█░░░█░░░█▀▄ ░█▀▀█
░▀▀▀▀░▀▀▀░▀░░░▀░ ▀░▀░░▀
░█▀▀ ░█▀█ ░█ ░█▀▀
░█▀▀ ░█▀▀ ░█ ░█
░▀▀▀ ░▀ ░░░▀ ░▀▀▀