On: Flame is Lame

[ticks]

I'm probably alone on this, but 'lame' is such a lazy word to use. Saying it repeatedly just made me stop reading.

[adewinter → ticks]

FWIW (I didn't realize this either until the end), the article is actually pointing out that flame isn't lame for one very specific reason: the cutting edge cryptography research that went into it.

[gjm11 → adewinter]

No. The article is pointing out that Flame isn't lame in lots of different ways, and saying that the naysayers kept calling it lame until one single spectacular bit of non-lameness came to light. It's suggesting that they should have cottoned on sooner. At least, that's my reading of it.

[Tenhundfeld → ticks]

It's using lame as a response to this article: http://xato.net/malware/flame-is-kind-of-lame/

[kyebosh → ticks]

Apparently "gay" & "retarded" are horribly offensive & insensitive descriptors, but "lame" is ok. Who knew?

[MiguelHudnandez → kyebosh]

I suggest it's because it's not commonly used today for its actual definition.

People don't normally refer to themselves or people they love as "lame." Not so for "gay" or "retarded."

A modern equivalent of "lame" might be "handicapped," even though it is not as specific.