From owner-freebsd-chat Sat Jan 20 19: 7:40 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from morpheus.skynet.be (morpheus.skynet.be [195.238.2.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8865737B402; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:07:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (dialup1750.brussels.skynet.be [194.78.234.214]) by morpheus.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10735F5DF; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:07:21 +0100 (MET) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: bs663385@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101191752.KAA10973@usr08.primenet.com> References: <200101191752.KAA10973@usr08.primenet.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:49:55 +0100 To: Terry Lambert , rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in (Rahul Siddharthan) From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Why did NetBSD and FreeBSD diverge? Cc: reg@FreeBSD.ORG (Jeremy Lea), kris@catonic.net (Kris Kirby), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 5:52 PM +0000 2001/1/19, Terry Lambert wrote: > ...In other words, there's really no way to "ban" someone > who is really determined, and willing to out-spend you, > unless you are willing to cut your own throat. The Internet > has no "prison" equivalent. Even in the real world, a sufficiently determined person can wind up performing most any crime they like. Locking them up is not enough -- the only way to permanently stop them is to end their life. In this respect, the 'net really isn't any different, although it does probably make it easier to succeed in by-passing the control mechanisms. -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message