[80211]

You completely misunderstand my point. I'm a card-carrying NRA member, but I wince when I hear someone notice that a anti-2nd-amendment zealot mixes up terms like "magazine" and "cartridge" and thinks "Aha! I've won this argument because you don't know what these basic terms mean." It really doesn't help convince people on the other side to consider another point of view.

In fact, your zealous answer proves my point.

Now back to viruses and PUPs.

[SomeStupidPoint]

I think you misunderstood mine: it's unlike the case of "virus" in the sense that it acquired a general meaning and then was retrofitted with a technical one to co-opt feelings for political goals.

It would be like if people had used "virus" as a generic without it ever having a technical definition (by analogy to infections), then Congress proposed to ban encryption to stop "viruses", because hey, lots of viruses use encryption.

Pointing out that co-opting from the informal "infectious software" to "software that uses encryption" is a meaningful point.

I think you're correct that the usage of virus for unwanted software is fine; I think you're wrong about the evolution of language there matching what happened with "assault weapon". Specifically, one change is going from the technical to the generic, while the other is going from the generic to technical.