El lun, 03-01-2005 a las 21:35 +1100, Russell Coker escribió: > On Monday 03 January 2005 09:22, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> wrote: > > Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> writes: > > > On Monday 03 January 2005 07:25, Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net> > wrote: > > > > This is true whether the bad things are false positives in email or > > > > the deaths of hundreds of people. Certainly deaths are worse, but I > > > > wasn't comparing false positives to deaths. > > > > > > > > I was explaining why your style of excuse is never acceptible. If > > > > false positives are bad (and they are), they do not become less bad > > > > because you cannot figure out how to avoid them and still achieve your > > > > goals. > > > > > > There is no comparison between killing people and bouncing email. > > > > I agree completely. It is for this reason I did not compare killing > > people and bouncing email. > > > > But there *is* a comparison between your excuse and Rumsfeld's excuse > > for inadequately equipping his soldiers. > > No there is no comparison. Yes, it is. > > Human lives are much more important than email. The discussion is over. Of course, but in each field, a bad equipped army is as bad as a bad equipped mail server. Thus, Rumsfeld's words are applicable here, as Thomas want to do. With your criteria that you cannot use phrases said by other people in a military context in a "civil" one, you will lost a lot of ways of speaking... I guess you won't be using DMZ, firewall or another concepts usually employed in military jargon (including black copters). If you consider the thread over, do it. But don't try to justify that in people using words others did. Cheers, -- Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo jsogo@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente