Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  1whoknows, 4 Nov 2005 @ 4:06pm

  
  

  get it right

  the dude worked for iss, not cisco, and iss fired him.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    RBasil, 4 Nov 2005 @ 4:08pm

    
    

    Re: get it right

    www.techdirt.com "Where they get half the story correct on a good day."

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    harish, 4 Nov 2005 @ 4:45pm

    
    

    Re: get it right

    first of all who mentioned that he was working for cisco?, get yout typeface right.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 4 Nov 2005 @ 4:49pm

    
    

    Re: get it right

    I never said he worked for Cisco... but he did lose his job (with ISS) over the flap, and it was his fame that helped him get another job.
    
    Where did I say he worked for Cisco?

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      The Captian, 4 Nov 2005 @ 4:59pm

      
      

      Re: get it right

      technically you didnt, but also technically you used really crappy diction. It looks like you inferred he worked for Cisco. Have someone proof read before you post.

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Mike (profile), 4 Nov 2005 @ 5:04pm

        
        

        Re: get it right

        Hmm. Okay. I've updated the post to reflect that, but I still think it was pretty clear from the beginning. We never said he worked at Cisco. We've written about his story enough that we clearly knew he didn't work at Cisco. So, still not sure why people are accusing us of saying he did work there.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          Dan, 4 Nov 2005 @ 5:46pm

          
          

          Re: get it right

          So somebody skimmed the article, misinterpreted it and in their haste to post first and feel smart didn't check the facts. Sure the first line could have been a bit clearer (I had to reread it myself) but now any good commentary about the article relating to the fact that Cisco should be red-faced about now is drowned out by something trivial (I have now added myself to that list of detractors).
          Kudos to Mike for trying to appease the 'masses' without backing down or being an ass about it.
          

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2005 @ 5:45pm

        
        

        Re: get it right

        "Have someone proof read before you post," says "The Captian".
        
        God bless the Internet.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Trismegistus, 4 Nov 2005 @ 9:28pm

        
        

        Re: get it right

        You are accusing a person of "crappy diction", and you misuse the word "inferred". Well I guess that constitutes "crappy" grammar" Look the work up in a dictionary, and try the word "implied" next time. Nothing worse than correcting someone, and coming off as a buffoon.

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          OldMessage, 4 Nov 2005 @ 10:14pm

          
          

          Re: get it right

          Hehehehe, sorry guys but you are out of your fucking mind. Instead of saying something like "Cool information", you are hageling on wording if or if not the sentences could lead to an impression that the guy was working for CISCO. Who give's a flying pigs fart about it. He is not working for them (his old company, smile) anymore and if CISCO missed out on the opportunity to hire him, bad for them, but they will survice.
          Joe in Germany.

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • 

        Huh?, 5 Nov 2005 @ 10:48am

        
        

        Re: get it right

        Uhm, It's spelled Captain... You should have someone proof your work, idiot...

        [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • 

          Wade, 5 Nov 2005 @ 2:40pm

          
          

          Re: get it right

          You guys bicker a lot...

          [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    drew, 4 Nov 2005 @ 6:59pm

    
    

    Re: get it right

    you alone are responsible for your assumptions...

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  arcfixer, 4 Nov 2005 @ 6:01pm

  
  

  GETTING IT RIGHT

  Read the article. It says Cisco was upset with a security researcher, and goes on to say the researcher lost his job at a security firm.
  .
  The Captian (did you mean Captain?)-While you may have erroneously inferred the researcher worked for Cisco, Mike never implied same.-Have your proofreader explain the proper usage of infer and imply.;)

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Mike (profile), 4 Nov 2005 @ 6:31pm

    
    

    Re: GETTING IT RIGHT

    Before anyone beats up too much on The Captian... I added the part about the "security firm" after the complaints in the comments. But the rest of the post is identical.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2005 @ 6:51pm

      
      

      Re: GETTING IT RIGHT

      go fuck urself, all of u. techdirt wishes it was slashdot, but wishing it doesnt make it so...

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous, 4 Nov 2005 @ 7:06pm

    
    

    Re: GETTING IT RIGHT

    "Read the article. It says Cisco was upset with a security researcher, and goes on to say the researcher lost his job at a security firm."
    Actually, they say a securty researcher.. not necessarily their security researcher. Maybe you all should take a minute or two to comprehend the article, and get your facts straight.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Anonymous Coward, 4 Nov 2005 @ 7:24pm

      
      

      Re: GETTING IT RIGHT

      I love the internet. One of the only places where someone could mis-read something, then say that it was crappy diction (clearly isn't), or that it was inferred (clearly wasn't). You misread, get over it. Your pride and head can probably stand to be deflated somewhat. Get over it ;)

      [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  fs, 5 Nov 2005 @ 12:25am

  
  

  Fired?

  The rumor mill had it that Mike Lynn quit ISS before giving the presentation at Black Hat, not that he was fired.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Eliot Phillips, 5 Nov 2005 @ 11:55pm

  
  

  Cnet reads Slashdot

  I guess you just have to make a phone call to confirm an AC and you've got a story. See this comment

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Critic, 6 Nov 2005 @ 1:41pm

    
    

    Re: Cnet reads Slashdot

    You guys are all geeky idiots!

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Mitchell Earl, 6 Nov 2005 @ 4:00pm

  
  

  Story accuracy

  I don't know what all the complaints are about. The article did NOT "infer" that he worked for CISCO and was easy to understand the way it was worded.
  
  I think some computer geeks need to brush up on their Reading and Comprehension.

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Anonymous Coward, 6 Nov 2005 @ 9:19pm

    
    

    Classic

    One of the best threads I've seen on techdirt in a long time. Good laugh guys.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment