[38549] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: And then there were two
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Eric Gauthier)
Wed Jun 6 23:13:05 2001
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 23:13:19 -0400
From: Eric Gauthier <eric@roxanne.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010606231318.P27744@roxanne.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200106061610.LAA23187@bluejay.creighton.edu>; from lsheldon@creighton.edu on Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:10:47AM -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 11:10:47AM -0500, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> I am not a quantum physist (among many things I am not) but it would seem
> that two is too many--the likelyhood that they would always be exactly equal
> is vanishingly small (Heisingberg might insist it is impossible in principle)
> and as soon as the become unequal one (both?) disappear.
Ok, can someone tell me if I've fully understood this thread on peering agreements?
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL
BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
Um, I mean ... s/ANIMALS/PROVIDERS
Eric :)
