4 ms·

Is there a term for when you say something knowingly broad but ALSO understand there are specific cases where it doesn't apply? Like a simple term I can paste

Is there a term for when you say something knowingly broad but ALSO understand there are specific cases where it doesn't apply? Like a simple term I can paste onto the end of statements like (sic) or similar so that I can avoid the nitpickers? EDIT: honestly not being facetious just curious because this exact thing happens constantly.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
That's how models and rule work in general. There's a rule or pattern that mostly applies but always exceptions. In this case, the old systems were all torn apart by older hackers. There's young ones, just a few, hacking mainframes and stuff now. The ease of finding first flaws showed only reason they weren't found sooner is nobody cared enough to look. Or couldn't afford the relics to play with. So, believing one is safe just because computers are old is akin to Security via Senority. Now, there are older approaches like tagged HW or dedicated lines whose intrinsic properties reduce odds of attacks. Definitely apply any good techniques from past to present situation. Just that it's old... especially since it's older than INFOSEC itself... doesnt make it safer.
bglazer 10y ago
That's an interesting question. I can't think of one off the top of my head. You should try http://english.stackexchange.com/ http://english.stackexchange.com/ Questions like this are pretty common there. As an added bonus, Peter Shor (famous for Shor's algorithm) just might answer your question.
jccalhoun 10y ago
an exaggeration?
Snargorf 10y ago
"(generally)" ? But you're right, it's sad how many people insist on feeling smart by taking a general statement as a universal statement and nitpicking it. It's so tiring.
205guy 10y ago
The rebuttal was pertinent and polite, and (almost) provided a reference, so I really don't think it can be qualified as nitpicking. Your statement was a bit exaggerated for effect, so you can hardly criticize someone who responds to it, for effect. I suggest you avoid the knowingly broad and include nuance to your arguments. I like the suggestion of adding "generally".

nickpsecurity 10y ago

That's how models and rule work in general. There's a rule or pattern that mostly applies but always exceptions. In this case, the old systems were all torn apart by older hackers. There's young ones, just a few, hacking mainframes and stuff now. The ease of finding first flaws showed only reason they weren't found sooner is nobody cared enough to look. Or couldn't afford the relics to play with. So, believing one is safe just because computers are old is akin to Security via Senority. Now, there are older approaches like tagged HW or dedicated lines whose intrinsic properties reduce odds of attacks. Definitely apply any good techniques from past to present situation. Just that it's old... especially since it's older than INFOSEC itself... doesnt make it safer.

bglazer 10y ago

That's an interesting question. I can't think of one off the top of my head. You should try http://english.stackexchange.com/ http://english.stackexchange.com/ Questions like this are pretty common there. As an added bonus, Peter Shor (famous for Shor's algorithm) just might answer your question.

jccalhoun 10y ago

an exaggeration?

Snargorf 10y ago

"(generally)" ? But you're right, it's sad how many people insist on feeling smart by taking a general statement as a universal statement and nitpicking it. It's so tiring.

205guy 10y ago

The rebuttal was pertinent and polite, and (almost) provided a reference, so I really don't think it can be qualified as nitpicking. Your statement was a bit exaggerated for effect, so you can hardly criticize someone who responds to it, for effect. I suggest you avoid the knowingly broad and include nuance to your arguments. I like the suggestion of adding "generally".