Michael Graham wrote:
> Here's the thing. Debate on the specifics is only useful when it
> involves only qualified parties and perhaps outsiders who can relate
> the events to those unqualified to form their own opinions on the
> subject. I don't invite the interns working on the SAN to debate the
> finer points of a detailed risk analysis. They don't have the context
> to understand the terminology and while they probably think they're
> plenty smart to be involved, they're wrong. So are you.
>
> One of the great lies of the internet is that we're all geniuses who
> can be involved with any subject through enough research on google.
> Well we're not and the inability to know when you're not qualified to
> form your own opinion on something is probably the best indicator that
> you should be ignored on anything and everything outside your core
> experience.
>
> Even if you are smart enough, even if you are willing to spend
> LITERALLY WEEKS researching the subject, in this subject you are
> functionally retarded when compared to people who have spent 20+ years
> doing hard data research on the subject.
>
I agree, which is why we don't debate climate change, but the hacker's
actions.
Gadi.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
