From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OujyD-00085t-Bp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:39:38 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DB4AE088A; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dcnode-01.unlimitedmail.net (smtp.unlimitedmail.net [94.127.184.242]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4AB6E088A for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:39:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from scooter.muppet.show (hex.aaisp.net.uk [90.155.53.9] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by dcnode-01.unlimitedmail.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o8CAd5go019382 for ; Sun, 12 Sep 2010 12:39:05 +0200 Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 11:24:49 +0100 From: Etaoin Shrdlu To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] sudo in kernel config ? Message-ID: <20100912112449.4b0112ef@scooter.muppet.show> In-Reply-To: <201009121016.31820.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> References: <201009111024.31634.stephane@22decembre.eu> <201009120006.04377.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> <20100912001534.1aa08a3f@scooter.muppet.show> <201009121016.31820.peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.6 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SOLTECSIS-MailScanner-ID: o8CAd5go019382 X-SOLTECSIS-MailScanner-From: shrdlu@unlimitedmail.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: d4121c3b-9127-405e-a383-76e08349d084 X-Archives-Hash: 2d5d324f0a3a100596cf5f08ecad1e89 On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 10:16:31 +0100 Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Sunday 12 September 2010 00:15:34 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: > > > But since you're not convinced, now it would be nice, for my own > > education, and perhaps someone else's, that you elaborated a bit > > more. What exactly do you find non convincing in that usage of the > > adjective? How would you express the concept better? > > I did say I wasn't getting at you in particular, but what I dislike is > being bombarded by the broadcast media with "potential this" and > "possible that", when only a few years ago no-one would have dreamed of > putting the extra word in. We even heard of someone being charged with > an alleged crime recently, which is plain nonsense. I see. I haven't had a TV set for about 12 years now, so I'm probably somewhat less exposed to that, although I think I see where you're coming from. > A risk is a risk, no matter how indirect it starts out. Of course, but it may affect different people to different degrees, or may not even affect some of them. That's what I meant. A rose is a rose is a rose, but it can be pink, red, white...it still remains a rose. But sometimes the attribute can make a difference.