Guy Coslado (GC0111) wrote:
Excuse me, I'm not really fluent in english, so this sentence is not clear for me :
We aren't very impressed by people that expose the industry to danger.
It means they give a s**t for us, their customers.
Are you sarcastic, talking about the roots of the wonder ; people who write poor software ?
Or about thoughtless people acting like kids in a provocating manner launching a challenge to all the hackers tribes of the world ?
It is about money:
People who make it sports to find security holes and celebrate parties
in the streets if they find one, are bad. There is no money only noise.
Garbage to clean, ...
People who make profit, selling their bad knowledge secretly to people
making more profit, exploring those security wholes are favoured by
From here the case is not obvious. What's the matter ? To launch the internet paralisy contest or to offer to our students a historical case study of the worst crisis management strategy ?
Tabarnak! Your homepage says they must be camels because they just started
spitting. I dont know who annoyed them but I dont want to be their customer
when they start biting.
See also: Basic documentation and mainly the item 'Designated spokesperson' http://www3.niu.edu/newsplace/crisis.html
Having seen some interesting threads here - or is it threats? Sorry my english.
What is more dangerous, a soho router in the NIC or some of them big iron?
You know that soho router will come down when you really use it. You dont know
when that big iron will come done but you know for shure, when it comes done
it will bring a lot more damage.
About that spokesperson:
I feel quite comfortable in front of a tv set, as long as it it switched off.
I tv camera behaves somewhat like a tv set that is switched off. At least as
long as that monkey behind it keeps his mouth shut.
I am not afraid of a camera, should that desaster really strike. They will
not find a network to plug their laptop into
Peter and Karin Dambier