[funsec] Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!
jmgraham at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 13:31:54 CST 2009
yea good luck with that distinction
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Gadi Evron <ge at 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
>> 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
More information about the funsec