linux-kernel - Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:23:17 -0700
From:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
To:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:	"ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org" 
	<ksummit-2013-discuss@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
	Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Chris Ball <cjb@...top.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Willy Tarreau <w@....eu>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML

On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 21:38 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-07-23 at 18:26 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> 
> > I think it's not in the original fallacies because they come from Greek
> > rhetoric and the Greeks believed dialectic: the taking opposite
> > positions and arguing them thoroughly.  It's only with the advent of
> > Western European political systems that we're conditioned to seek
> > compromise without rigorous examination.  This actually makes argument
> > to moderation one of the most effective rhetorical tools in use today
> > for discrediting an opponent's argument without actually addressing it.
> 
> What? Really? You mean the truth doesn't lie in the middle between
> evolution and creationism?

Well, you jest, but actually Intelligent Design is usually presented as
a false compromise between the "extremes" of evolution and creationism.
If you listen to it's proponents, the rhetorical device they use to
argue for legitimacy is precisely an argument to moderation.

James


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/