yea good luck with that distinction On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Gadi Evron <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
