[54348] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Tue Dec 24 15:57:53 2002
Date: Tue, 24 Dec 2002 15:57:17 -0500
Cc: Richard Forno <rforno@infowarrior.org>, batz <batsy@vapour.net>,
Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
In-Reply-To: <200212242032.gBOKW12F003908@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
This is obviously a "great truth" - a statement whose opposite is also
true.
Regards and Best Wishes
Marshall Eubanks
On Tuesday, December 24, 2002, at 03:31 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Dec 2002 10:26:09 EST, Richard Forno said:
>> In my last post when I said this:
>>> If something's deemed 'critical' to a large segment of the
>>> population, then
>>> security must NEVER outweigh conveinience. Period. Non-negotiable.
>> I meant to say that security must ALWAYS outweigh convienience.
>>
>> My goof....guess I had too much NOG and not enough NAN at the party
>> last
>> night. :)
>
> A case could be made that you had it right the first time, in that a
> "large
> segment" of the population cares less about security than they do
> about dancing
> hamsters, and that they'd designate the latter as "critical". Thus
> the sorry
> state of certain end-user software on 90% of the desktops.
>
> Happy Holidays! ;)
> <mime-attachment>
