On 7/11/07, Jacob Yocom-Piatt <jy-p <at> fixedpointgroup.com> wrote:
> Artur Grabowski wrote:
> > The TLB issues are just one small part of what Theo was talking about,
> > not even the most important one.
> >
> > Count the number of bugs in the errata. Only a very few of them deal with
> > the TLB and most of those are easy to deal with and we've already had
>
> classic computer geek argument technique: when someone presents a
> long-winded, obviously carefully thought-out argument you attack only
> the minor points that you can pick apart and ignore the relevance of the
> rest of the message.

I'm not sure what you mean.  I read that interview.  They're only
concentrating on one item, TLB.  That's all they talked about.  IIRC,
Theo never said TLB "will assuredly" be exploitable, he said some of
the bugs will be.

So, everyone picks up on the one thing that Linus fixed a while back,
the TLB stuff.  What about the rest of the bugs?  The non-TLB crap?
How is Art ignoring the relevance of the rest of the message?  He just
said, the TLB is just a minor issue, that the *OTHER* guys are
ignoring the major stuff.

> the term "rathered" comes to mind.

I would go for "confused" and "not get the point".  Probably throw in
"didn't read the original article properly, and didn't visit the
referenced links" as well.

-- 
"This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity."
-- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation.