
Microsoft issues its biggest-ever security fix - chanux
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1220677620101012
======
Groxx
> _Microsoft addresses record 49 flaws in its software_

The number _matters_? Read the changelogs for some software; you can see
_hundreds_ of "flaws" fixed between some minor revisions.

How does one measure "flaws" anyway? Buggy LOC (in the millions)? Things which
can be fixed atomically, without interacting with each other? Files which have
binary patches applied? Binary patch chunks? The number is worthless! If
anything higher numbers are _worse_ , because it means they likely sat on some
while others were being worked on.

------
code_duck
I'm still not sure how to feel about usage of the word geek in the mainstream
press, such as 'The geeks who report such vulnerabilities to software makers
are known as "white hat" hackers.'

~~~
sliverstorm
What on earth is wrong with it? It's minimally perjorative, relatively
accurate, and covers a wide swath of people. Better than any other term
they've used that I've seen.

Think of the ichthyologists. I'm sure they like it when people call them
ichthyologists, but most of the world has no idea what exactly that is and how
it's different, so in the news we just call them scientists or biologists.

~~~
shin_lao
You could also say "persons" or "people".

~~~
Groxx
I lean towards "humans". And I nominate "humen" to be the plural form, as
"humans" sounds weird.

~~~
omnigoat
But then you'd have some of the population calling themselves a collection of
humyn.

Back on topic: I still find both 'nerd' and 'geek' to be offensive. Although I
don't find "geek chic" to be offensive... probably because it has never been
associated negatively - it has always been a label for a particular style,
which in itself carries no meaning.

~~~
Groxx
Hah! Good point, hadn't thought of that one. Was trying to come up with some
way the genderists could be offended.

I think the guideline might be based on that "geek" has historically been a
negative label, except where applied internally (as many negative labels do).
So when paired with a non-existent or neutral phrase, it takes negative
connotations, while when paired with a positive phrase it becomes a new
"thing", and no longer holds the negative slant.

