On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 4:40 AM, Greg Stark<gsstark@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Scott Mead<scott.lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> As with many different types of security (i.e. the 3 foot high fence) this >> is really just a deterrent to most people who either aren't capable of >> reverse engineering or are just not interested in the first place. > > Someone I know used to work at a nuclear power and research facility > (No Dave, someone else) and told me an interesting story. Yet bizarrely it's almost identical in meaning to a story I did tell you not so long ago... (assuming you mean me of course!) :-) > The facility in question was often beset by protesters who invariably > managed to scale the perimeter fence. He asked one of the security > guards one day why they didn't build a better fence since the > run-of-the-mill fence was obviously not up to the task for such a > large perimeter against determined foes. > > The answer was that the fence was not there to keep people out at all. > It's purpose was in fact to ensure that when they prosecuted it would > be impossible for anyone to claim they hadn't realized they were > trespassing... > > > -- > greg > http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
