J.A. Terranson wrote: > SANS is a for profit corp., > and was run as such even when > they were playing possum as a > non-profit. > They are *not* a "disinterested > third party" any more than the > anti-virus firms are - and not > many people would use *them* > as an authoritative reference
To drive this point home, Newton's Telecom 'Dictionary' has some amazingly bad 'definitions' -- for example, the definition of 'multimedia' includes data that is transmitted or viewed by way of a fax machine. http://www.harrynewton.com/ Newton's 'definition' of 'Internet' starts out with a first-person narrative on how difficult it is to define the Internet. Pure crap. Anyone who puts effort into writing a book should be encouraged to publish it, but publishers (and readers) should care a little about commercial misuse of labels like 'dictionary' when the definitions have only a single biased author. There are some very impressive collaborative, community-developed computer dictionaries and encyclopedias. They do a nice job most of the time, because they are constantly peer-reviewed and corrected. Anyone presumptuous enough to arbitrarily define technical terms without considerable careful thought and then publish the arbitrary text and call it a 'dictionary' should be shot. Regards, Jason Coombs [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
