Meritt James wrote: > > THAT is an informative statement! If a bit of consideration for the law > was made, there would be many fewer vulnerabilities in the first place. How would consideration for the law reduce _vulnerabilities_? I have to agree with Michael Rudel. When we're discussing the ethics/morals of something current laws are irrelevant. Laws are deduced from the outcome of such discussions (or that's the way I think it should be). regards, Markus Kern > > But thanks for the job security! > > "Michael R. Rudel" wrote: > > [snip] > > > It is illegal under current law, but > > that doesn't mean jack to me. > > [snip]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 07 2001 - 10:38:20 PDT