| 1 |
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:06:04 +0100 Peter Humphrey |
| 2 |
<peter@××××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Saturday 11 September 2010 23:03:14 Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > Makes sense? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Not convinced. Sorry. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
The Merriam-Webster gives this definition of "potential": |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality" |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
which is exactly what I meant in my original post. I linked a document (if |
| 15 |
you read that), and the exploit described there could happen only if one |
| 16 |
installed the kernel sources downloaded from kernel.org. Hence the |
| 17 |
"potential" in the above meaning: if one did not use those sources, |
| 18 |
there was no risk for that specific exploit. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
But since you're not convinced, now it would be nice, for my own education, |
| 21 |
and perhaps someone else's, that you elaborated a bit more. What exactly do |
| 22 |
you find non convincing in that usage of the adjective? How would you |
| 23 |
express the concept better? |
Archives