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]

Message-ID: <1374684607.3356.132.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:50:07 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
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 Wed, 2013-07-24 at 09:23 -0700, James Bottomley wrote:
> 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.

Exactly, which is why I used that as an example. And also, just to kick
the hornet's nest.

-- Steve


--
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/