From: Anonymous on 2 Nov 2009 11:17
In article <p21ue51924tc4vt3i8hcs3cvlh7o069ihn(a)4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Nov 2009 14:02:26 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote:
>>>As with the guy who told his psychiatrist that he was a Wigwam and a
>>He wore a Native American dwelling on his toupee to keep kis wig warm?
>>Perhaps I missed a Holiday somewhere.
>He was just two tents.
I thought they were passed tents and living in the present.
From: Alistair on 3 Nov 2009 11:14
On Oct 31, 12:27 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
> docdw...(a)panix.com wrote:
> > In article <7kvt4jF39amb...(a)mid.individual.net>,
> Source code is no more a measure of security and integrity than frogs are a
> measure of snakes in a pond.
As many species of snake are scoffers of amphibians, the absence of
frogs in a pond may be a symptom of one too many snakes in said watery
From: Pete Dashwood on 3 Nov 2009 17:44
> On Oct 31, 12:27 pm, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> docdw...(a)panix.com wrote:
>>> In article <7kvt4jF39amb...(a)mid.individual.net>,
>> Source code is no more a measure of security and integrity than
>> frogs are a measure of snakes in a pond.
> As many species of snake are scoffers of amphibians, the absence of
> frogs in a pond may be a symptom of one too many snakes in said watery
Precisely. But it is an imprecise measurement and you are right to use
"MAY" in the above. (That was the point). The fact that there are frogs in a
pond does not mean there are no snakes. (the snake(s) may be newly arrived),
and the fact that there are no frogs does not mean there are
snakes...(having cleaned up the frog population the snake(s) depart in
search of more food...)
I picked this up while staying on a friend's rural retreat in the Australian
bush. Like many properties in the area, he had a dam for water storage when
the creek dried up. (This is not drinking water; that is captured separately
in tanks designed for the pupose). This dam was popular with kangaroos and
various fauna, including frogs. At night it was normal to hear the frogs but
on one visit there was an eerie silence. My friend explained that he had
seen a large snake in the area and this had probably eaten the frog
population over a few days. The next morning, I was very excited to see if I
could get a look at the snake (they are a novelty for me as we don't have
them in New Zealand). My friend thought I was crazy (Australians generally
avoid snakes and don't normally go looking for them) but he described where
he had seen it and told me to tread fairly heavily so it would be warned of
my coming and would move away.
I didn't want to see it disappearing so I crept up to where it was reported.
By now the sun was up and it was likely to be sunning itself in the area.
Despite an extensive search I never saw a sign of it. My friend used a small
bulldozer to destroy its lair (which was empty) and discourage it from
coming back but he was pretty certain it had left the area.
The thought crossed my mind that just because there were no frogs one could
not conclude there were snakes, and vice versa.
The idea of drawing wrong conclusions from certain indicators seemed
appropriate to my argument with Doc about source code, so I used it.
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."