Based on your reasoning, you never should have come to use the word pandering in this manner.
The origins of pandering:
The plot function of Pandarus in Chaucer's and especially Shakespeare's famous works has given rise to the English words to pander, meaning to further other people's illicit amours, and a pander (in later usage a panderer), a person who does this. The strong pejorative connotations of pander apparently come less from Chaucer's well-meaning young Pandarus than from Shakespeare's cynical uncle figure who concludes the play's epilogue by wishing upon the audience all his many diseases. A panderer is, specifically, a bawd -- a male who arranges access to female sexual favors, the manager of prostitutes. Thus, in law, the charge of pandering is an accusation that an individual has sold the sexual services of another.
Your argument is that simply because his use of the phrase does not conform to it's traditional use it is not valid. My response to you is that if linguistic constructions were never allowed to take on new meaning, you would never have thought to use pandering as it traditionally denoted something other than 'to appeal to'.
IMO, this is not the way to go about using language. Truthfully, if one intended to denote circular reasoning there are much more obvious ways to do this. Actually saying 'circular reasoning' would for example be more concise.
...I wouldn't see anybody committing for 5 years to any software...
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. I'd wager that most databases that store anything good are 5+ years old. It seems to me that after 5 years a company would start thinking about expansion of their DB, or at least migration to upgraded hardware. I can certainly see 'lifetime' support being useful in this context.
...that can potently be snooped/jammed/interfered with...
Most cable providers implement BPI+.
From the BPI+ spec:
Baseline Privacy Plus (BPI+) provides cable modem users with data privacy across the cable network.
It does this by encrypting traffic flows between CM and CMTS.
So an HFC network with BPI+ implemented affords more security than a POTS/DSL line since it is encrypted from end to end.
You've obviously never had static/poor call quality on your POTS line. You are lucky.
I personally work for a cable company and can confirm that some in the call center are misinformed about products we provide. I would not put this in the 'malicious lie' category by any stretch. Do you honestly think large telco and cable companies only hire CSRs with degrees in electrical engineering and computer science? Of course some will get it wrong.
This is FUD and I call shenanigans on his wife. I'd bet money the CSR said something about the phone not working when the CPE(customer premise equipment) is not powered. That would be true. That's why cable companies provide batteries for their eMTAs(phone adapters) for when the power goes out as well as UPSs for the CMTSs upstream.
I think these folks are headedd in the right direction when it comes to destroying botnets.
From their page:
Kathy Wang ToorCon 2005
So, what's a honeyclient?
Honeyclients provide the capability to
proactively detect client-side exploits
Drives client application to connect to servers
Any changes made to honeyclient system are
unauthorized - no false positives!
We can detect exploits without prior signatures
What can honeyclients do for you?
Allows proactive monitoring of malicious
servers
Allows discovery of client 0-day
This can be extended beyond just HTTP
clients
Any other client-server based protocol will work
I have 8M/768k sevice with Comcast and have had Vonage service for about a year.
Works fine, always has.
I have a unique setup though. I opted to setup one of linksys PAP2 units behind my router (a freebsd box). I also have the freebsd box using QOS so I can be downloading 3-4 torrents without getting any echo or anything. These accusations smell of anti-Comcast marketing FUD.
I've always had all the bandwidth I've been allotted. I'm actually getting comcast's phone service as soon as it's available in my area so I can take some rules out of my firewall and expect that it'll perform better then the Vonage.
In addition, it seems that Vonage shouldn't be using any more than one sixth of the 384k upload that folks get with the basic comcast service, maybe that's just me though. Why would 384k be insufficient for Vonage when the phone comanies have been squeaking QUALITY voice through significantly less for years.
I'd like to know exactly what's wrong with:
Calling the library, asking the librarian who just happens to have a photographic memory of all books in the library what books had a particular quote, and then having the librarian recite all or any portion of the list that contain it.
Isn't this the same thing?
Isn't the guild's issue (same as the riaa's) that the content is so much more readily available?
I would think that this is all completely legal and google and the authors/publishers will both make an asston of money off of it. Think of books on amazon.
Teh planzor:
1.Index books.
2.Draw eyeballs to reproductions of said books.
3.???
4.Profit!!!
--
If I had a sig you'd be finished reading it by now...
Indeed, in terms of hapless users opening executable attachments however, I defer to http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/ed itorials/dumb/ #5 and my hope that in the future, users will have to actually jump through some hoops before allowing themselves to be pwnd.
With so many choices, there will never be Windoze type problems on free software. This is just wrong...
The exploits will not carry into more than 10% of the install base at a time. This is much more likely however.
The idea that security through obscurity only leads to a monoculture of what was once obscure. Good coding practices and quality software design with open auditing of the code however do afford a much better chance of dodging known as well as unknown remote attacks, regardless of what portion of hardware out there runs said code. This is most certainly not something Windows has going for it.
'Unless of course your position is that something like that is impossible to happen. Impossible. Because operating systems other than 'Windoze' have the ability to dispell away user stupidity. Surely... you don't think so, do you?'
Obviously this is not what he was saying.
The idea is that with intelligent defaults an OS can significantly mitigate user ineptitude. The impact of bugs such as the recent Cisco security flaw [if it would have been more readily exploitable] are also further lessened by having not just a single OS so readily attackable, but by having many varying OSs with less than predictable composition.
Slashdot Mirror
The origins of pandering: Your argument is that simply because his use of the phrase does not conform to it's traditional use it is not valid. My response to you is that if linguistic constructions were never allowed to take on new meaning, you would never have thought to use pandering as it traditionally denoted something other than 'to appeal to'.
IMO, this is not the way to go about using language. Truthfully, if one intended to denote circular reasoning there are much more obvious ways to do this. Actually saying 'circular reasoning' would for example be more concise.
...I wouldn't see anybody committing for 5 years to any software...
I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree. I'd wager that most databases that store anything good are 5+ years old. It seems to me that after 5 years a company would start thinking about expansion of their DB, or at least migration to upgraded hardware. I can certainly see 'lifetime' support being useful in this context.
From the BPI+ spec: So an HFC network with BPI+ implemented affords more security than a POTS/DSL line since it is encrypted from end to end.
You've obviously never had static/poor call quality on your POTS line. You are lucky.
Also, PacketCable can provide clearer calls.
I personally work for a cable company and can confirm that some in the call center are misinformed about products we provide. I would not put this in the 'malicious lie' category by any stretch. Do you honestly think large telco and cable companies only hire CSRs with degrees in electrical engineering and computer science? Of course some will get it wrong.
This is FUD and I call shenanigans on his wife. I'd bet money the CSR said something about the phone not working when the CPE(customer premise equipment) is not powered. That would be true. That's why cable companies provide batteries for their eMTAs(phone adapters) for when the power goes out as well as UPSs for the CMTSs upstream.
I think these folks are headedd in the right direction when it comes to destroying botnets.
From their page:
Kathy Wang ToorCon 2005
So, what's a honeyclient?
Honeyclients provide the capability to
proactively detect client-side exploits Drives client application to connect to servers
Any changes made to honeyclient system are unauthorized - no false positives!
We can detect exploits without prior signatures
What can honeyclients do for you?
Allows proactive monitoring of malicious servers
Allows discovery of client 0-day
This can be extended beyond just HTTP clients
Any other client-server based protocol will work
I have 8M/768k sevice with Comcast and have had Vonage service for about a year. Works fine, always has. I have a unique setup though. I opted to setup one of linksys PAP2 units behind my router (a freebsd box). I also have the freebsd box using QOS so I can be downloading 3-4 torrents without getting any echo or anything. These accusations smell of anti-Comcast marketing FUD. I've always had all the bandwidth I've been allotted. I'm actually getting comcast's phone service as soon as it's available in my area so I can take some rules out of my firewall and expect that it'll perform better then the Vonage. In addition, it seems that Vonage shouldn't be using any more than one sixth of the 384k upload that folks get with the basic comcast service, maybe that's just me though. Why would 384k be insufficient for Vonage when the phone comanies have been squeaking QUALITY voice through significantly less for years.
I'd like to know exactly what's wrong with:
Calling the library, asking the librarian who just happens to have a photographic memory of all books in the library what books had a particular quote, and then having the librarian recite all or any portion of the list that contain it.
Isn't this the same thing?
Isn't the guild's issue (same as the riaa's) that the content is so much more readily available?
I would think that this is all completely legal and google and the authors/publishers will both make an asston of money off of it.
Think of books on amazon.
Teh planzor:
1.Index books.
2.Draw eyeballs to reproductions of said books.
3.???
4.Profit!!!
--
If I had a sig you'd be finished reading it by now...
I don't know how many Americans actually agree that GW should have the right to do this...
and then blindly run it...
d itorials/dumb/ #5 and my hope that in the future, users will have to actually jump through some hoops before allowing themselves to be pwnd.
Indeed, in terms of hapless users opening executable attachments however, I defer to http://www.ranum.com/security/computer_security/e
With so many choices, there will never be Windoze type problems on free software.
This is just wrong...
The exploits will not carry into more than 10% of the install base at a time.
This is much more likely however.
The idea that security through obscurity only leads to a monoculture of what was once obscure. Good coding practices and quality software design with open auditing of the code however do afford a much better chance of dodging known as well as unknown remote attacks, regardless of what portion of hardware out there runs said code. This is most certainly not something Windows has going for it.
'Unless of course your position is that something like that is impossible to happen. Impossible. Because operating systems other than 'Windoze' have the ability to dispell away user stupidity. Surely... you don't think so, do you?'
Obviously this is not what he was saying.
The idea is that with intelligent defaults an OS can significantly mitigate user ineptitude.
The impact of bugs such as the recent Cisco security flaw [if it would have been more readily exploitable] are also further lessened by having not just a single OS so readily attackable, but by having many varying OSs with less than predictable composition.