Whoops! (re: WH network monitoring plan response)
tme at multicasttech.com
Tue Dec 24 20:57:17 UTC 2002
This is obviously a "great truth" - a statement whose opposite is also
Regards and Best Wishes
On Tuesday, December 24, 2002, at 03:31 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu
> 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
>> night. :)
> A case could be made that you had it right the first time, in that a
> 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! ;)
More information about the NANOG