nanog mailing list archives
Re: clarity
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 03:19:04 -0700
--On Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:39 +0000 bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:13:16AM -0700, Dragos Ruiu wrote:On April 26, 2005 11:36 pm, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 10:38:00PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I think it's absurd. I expect my water delivery company not to add > > polutants in transit. I expect my water production company to > > provide clean water. > > er.. bad analogy warning... please take a sample of tap water > to an independent lab for analysis... and find out just what > the water company is putting into your water. Actually that _is_ a bad analogy. According to my sister (who works in that area as a regional water expert), tap-water is held to higher standards than bottled water. In Canada at least... ymmv. cheers, --drperhaps you mis-read. water companies -always- add things to water, to kill off germs, balance mineral content, etc.. they do this to -meet- the "higher" standards. and by their tampering, they pollute the water... their pollution may make the water drinkable and safe. does n ot change the fact that the water was tampered with.
Bill, I was very specific about transit. Yes, most water transit companies are also the water supply company, but, in my analogy, and, in some areas, as a matter of fact, they are not the same. The chemical tampering of which you speak is done by the water supply company at the supply point before it is put in the pipes for transit to the end user. The water delivery company runs said pipes, and, my expectation from them is that they deliver what they got from the water supply company without any additional contaminants. Think of the web hoster as a water supply company. The household user is an end user. The ISP is merely a pipeline. Owen
--bill
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden, (continued)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jerry Pasker (Apr 26)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Suresh Ramasubramanian (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Stephen J. Wilcox (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 26)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Mark Newton (Apr 26)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Message not available
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Bill Stewart (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Mark Newton (Apr 26)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden bmanning (Apr 26)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Dragos Ruiu (Apr 27)
- clarity bmanning (Apr 27)
- Re: clarity Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: clarity william(at)elan.net (Apr 27)
- Re: clarity Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: clarity Steven Champeon (Apr 27)
- Re: clarity Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jerry Pasker (Apr 26)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden william(at)elan.net (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Elmar K. Bins (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Edward Lewis (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Owen DeLong (Apr 27)
- Re: Schneier: ISPs should bear security burden Jay R. Ashworth (Apr 29)