Re: Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!

[Michael Graham <jmgraham () gmail com>]

yea good luck with that distinction

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org> 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.