Re: virus: Re: engagements
Ken Kittlitz (ken@audesi.com)
Fri, 17 Apr 1998 12:20:54 -0600
At 12:53 PM 4/17/98 -0400, you wrote:
>And Ken wrote,
>
>>"A exploits B" means
>that A takes advantage of B without doing anything for B in return. The
>"mutual" qualifier mitigates this
>
>and a question even arises as to if or not, according to this definition,
>there can logically be 'mutual exploitation': If A gets something from B
>(by exploiting B), and B gets something from A (by exploiting A), then,
>necessarily, A _did_ do something for B in return and vice-versa.
>
>If they do for each other, why call it 'exploitation' / 'parasitism'
>instead of 'mutualism'?
Sorry, I should have pointed out that I don't think "exploit" is
necessarily a bad word, just that it has such bad connotations that people
might not parse the "mutual" part of David's definition.
Is "mutualism" really a word? If so, what does it mean?
------
Ken Kittlitz ken@audesi.com
AudeSi Technologies Inc. http://www.lucifer.com/~ken
http://www.audesi.com