Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response)

Tue Dec 24 20:57:17 UTC 2002

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 at 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>