zlacker

[parent] [thread] 4 comments
1. wmil+(OP)[view] [source] 2015-10-27 15:31:50
You should write a paper explaining your views. And title it "'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful".
replies(1): >>pgeorg+a
2. pgeorg+a[view] [source] 2015-10-27 15:32:58
>>wmil+(OP)
> And title it "'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful".

http://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html

[edit: clarified context]

replies(1): >>tptace+i1
◧◩
3. tptace+i1[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-10-27 15:41:40
>>pgeorg+a
This isn't an "essay", nor is it "axe grinding". It's one of the best current available surveys on X86 platform security.

Go to SCHOLAR.GOOGLE.COM and search for "* considered harmful". Most of what Meyer has to say about "considered harmful essays" don't apply to these papers.

replies(2): >>pgeorg+w1 >>pbsd+9d
◧◩◪
4. pgeorg+w1[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-10-27 15:42:53
>>tptace+i1
I was merely referring to the 'And title it "'Considered Harmful' Considered Harmful".' part of the parent post.
◧◩◪
5. pbsd+9d[view] [source] [discussion] 2015-10-27 17:09:07
>>tptace+i1
As far as academic articles go, "* considered harmful" is probably as vague and bombastic (read: clickbaity) as a title gets (perhaps after 'Ron was wrong, Whit is right'). Personally I'd prefer a more descriptive title, like 'A survey of weaknesses and attacks on the x86 platform'. But then again, I'm a boring kind of person.
[go to top]