From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY, TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 107f24,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid107f24,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc1361a952ec75ca X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,582dff0b3f065a52 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-08-03 13:26:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!feed.textport.net!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.functional From: Ted Dennison References: <9kecu6$f8i@augusta.math.psu.edu> <9TBa7.16564$ar1.61061@www.newsranger.com> <9kestr$gm0@augusta.math.psu.edu> Subject: Re: How Ada could have prevented the Red Code distributed denial of service attack. Message-ID: X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 16:26:19 EDT Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 20:26:19 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11262 comp.lang.c:71996 comp.lang.c++:79803 comp.lang.functional:7278 Date: 2001-08-03T20:26:19+00:00 List-Id: In article <9kestr$gm0@augusta.math.psu.edu>, Dan Cross says... > >In article <9TBa7.16564$ar1.61061@www.newsranger.com>, >Ted Dennison wrote: >>Its a silly arguement anyway. If everyone started saying "frobozz" whenever >>they now say "bug", "frobozz" will just eventually come to mean the same >>thing. You can't run away from the meaning people give a concept by meerly >>changing the sounds you make with your mouth. > >Yes, but if you chose a word that has a pre-existing and more severe >meaning, you achieve the desired effect. The point isn't to create a >new term, it's to reuse an existing more appropriate term. No, it will just slowly take on the original meaning in that context, as people come to realise what it is you are talking about. How many times has the military changed their term for "Shell-Shocked"? Is it 3 or 4 now? The current trend seems to be to use the acronym "PTSD". I think each time they tried to combine milder and more inane words into the term, but in the end the meaning kept catching up with them. So they'd have to change again. They still haven't cottoned on to the fact that they are fighting a loosing battle with the human mind. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com