Who knew?

Google

Web Adequacy.org

This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.

Poll

Votes: 5

Who knew?

Author:

Topic:

Posted:

Mar 22, 2002

Comments:

"Hacking" associated with illegal activity? Say it isn't so!

More diaries by elenchos

	So shaken as we are, so wan with care,
	Oh! I'm in such inner conflict and turmoil! Oh!
	Stories I'd like to see:
	To the management:
	K5 and Adequacy at War: the escalation continues.
	I don't know enough history to write it, but...
	Is this a troll?
	Has anyone heard of a book called...
	Draft for a WTC joke.
	I feel terrible.
	You know...
	One of my nutty English papers.
	Terrorist or freshman?
	Why I write nothing but non-fiction.
	'My dog barks..'
	As I'm sure you can imagine...
	Giftmas break calendar.
	Wow.
	Win fabulous /. Moderator Points in this exciting contest!
	You know...
	Meta crap...
	The Artist...
	Robert Frost: a damn geek.
	Shocking.
	Don't waste your time reading this.
	Paging Dr. Science, paging Dr. Science...
	Damn them.

It's funny because when one of the larger soft ware companies, such as Dell or it's rival Micro-Soft, wants to "redefine" something, such as the C++ language or some HTML protocol, the Open Source fanatics howl and whine, accusing them of anti-social, self-serving tactics. They are supposed to go along with standards, to the benefit of the entire community.

But then this vocal minority comes along and tries to redefine ordinary, common words that everybody knows the meaning of, like "hacker" for instance, just to bolster their abysmal public image. Whose fault is it that your image is so poor anyway?

Could it possibly be YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT?

	Few notes (none / 0) (#1)
	by The Mad Scientist on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 07:54:01 PM PST

	It's funny because when one of the larger soft ware companies, such as Dell Dell? Software? I had to overlook something, I thought their flagship products are physical machines. or it's rival Micro-Soft, wants to "redefine" something, such as the C++ language or some HTML protocol, the Open Source fanatics howl and whine, accusing them of anti-social, self-serving tactics. Which it in most cases is. HTML isn't as bad as the protocol ignores the unknown, so the result is often still usable even if the layout is broken. In the worst case, a peek into the page's source code usually reveals the desired information. They are supposed to go along with standards, to the benefit of the entire community. They have to. But then this vocal minority comes along and tries to redefine ordinary, common words that everybody knows the meaning of, like "hacker" for instance, just to bolster their abysmal public image. The words, when introduced as standard, had their original meaning that still applies. That the clueless majority seized the words and twisted their apparent meaning doesn't change their original, standardized meaning. There is maybe a de-facto pseudo-standard, but the de-jure standard stays what it was 30 years ago. Whose fault is it that your image is so poor anyway? The Clueless Journalists? Their level of incompetence in technical matters is staggering. As an example, for countless times I had to read reports from "Silicone Valley" (translation of a mistranslation). Not that that place wouldn't exist - but it is somehow southern from the originally intended place and is rather known by the name Hollywood. Then the Clueless Plebs reads their daily print of USA Today, and pick up the faulty meanings as the true ones "because it was in the newspapers so it has to be true". Bah. Could it possibly be YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT? Hardly.

	Re: Few Notes (none / 0) (#3)
	by Slubberdegullion on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 08:15:02 PM PST

	You seem to be incredibly elitist("the Clueless Plebs", "the clueless majority", use of latin phrases like de facto and de jure) for someone with so little knowledge or understanding of the issues. Which it in most cases is. HTML isn't as bad as the protocol ignores the unknown, so the result is often still usable even if the layout is broken. In the worst case, a peek into the page's source code usually reveals the desired information. this is exactly the kind of response elenchos was talking about. The words, when introduced as standard, had their original meaning that still applies. That the clueless majority seized the words and twisted their apparent meaning doesn't change their original, standardized meaning. There is maybe a de-facto pseudo-standard, but the de-jure standard stays what it was 30 years ago. It is very easy for anyone but an extremely computer oriented person to confuse a 'hacker' with a 'cracker'. Both do essentially the same thing, except that hackers do not intend to cause the harm their hacking brings. You probably couldn't tell the difference between Adventists and Pentecostals, although that is a less fine distinction. The Clueless Journalists? Their level of incompetence in technical matters is staggering. As an example, for countless times I had to read reports from "Silicone Valley" (translation of a mistranslation). Not that that place wouldn't exist - but it is somehow southern from the originally intended place and is rather known by the name Hollywood. Then the Clueless Plebs reads their daily print of USA Today, and pick up the faulty meanings as the true ones "because it was in the newspapers so it has to be true". Bah. And yet scientists are never misrepresented by the press. In fact, the press is entirely fair in its treatment of almost every group but hackers.

	It's the media and the viewers (none / 0) (#4)
	by William Sargis on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 11:27:53 PM PST

	Unfortunately it's difficult to explain the difference between a hacker and a cracker and goofball skriptkiddies. When you try to explain to them that crackers are hackers who use their skills and knowledge of computer to do bad things it usually doesn't click. However, if you pick up a lot of certification prep text you'll find that they point out the difference between the two. These are texts from primarily CompTIA and are endorsed by organizations such as Cisco, Microsoft, Intel, AMD, and many more. The misuse of the word hacker has come to the point that PR goons use the term as well so that the viewers, listeners, or readers can understand what they are talking about. Hacker was a term coined by many repected innovators back in the sixties. These included professionals working for the government and corporations along with hobbyists. I blame movies myself. Has anyone else sat through that piece of shit Max Knight: Ultra Spy? Dear God who wrote that garbage? One of the worst lines from the film: Set in the distant future with mind controlled computers and holographic memory systems, Max Knight gets smacked in the head with a laptop and asks "is that the new Pentium3?" I'm sorry but there has been a decent computer movie since War Games. Hell even "The Computer Who Wore Tennis Shoes" was better than the crap that's come out in the last 2 decades. I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

	Re: Re: Few Notes (none / 0) (#6)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 08:36:23 AM PST

	You seem to be incredibly elitist ("the Clueless Plebs", "the clueless majority", use of latin phrases like de facto and de jure) for someone with so little knowledge or understanding of the issues. Isn't the Plebs - the majority - clueless as a brick? As a 4-years old child I had a toy. A box with shaped holes, and shaped things that matched the holes. I seen many users that are unable to plug a connector into a box where there is only one connector with matching shape. Many users have operational intelligence lower than 4-years old children. And don't I have the bloody right to be elitist? I got to where I am now by solely my own effort. I had nobody to pay for my studies, nobody to lead me through lectures. The results are what matters. this is exactly the kind of response elenchos was talking about. Reverse engineering rules. If something doesn't behave as expected, look inside - as a member of the Illuminati you have the right to do so. It is very easy for anyone but an extremely computer oriented person to confuse a 'hacker' with a 'cracker'. Apparently we differ in what we understand as "extreme". Both do essentially the same thing, except that hackers do not intend to cause the harm their hacking brings. You probably couldn't tell the difference between Adventists and Pentecostals, although that is a less fine distinction. Ones wait for the Second Coming, the other ones speak in tongues. Couple more finer distinctions. Both believe to have an invisible friend. And yet scientists are never misrepresented by the press. Don't let me start on this. Just yesterday I seen a good example in the newspapers, some slightly crooked physicist (infamous between his colleagues) believing he disproved theory of relativity, and the newsmen swallowed it. In fact, the press is entirely fair in its treatment of almost every group but hackers. Heh! I complain about the press being unfair to hackers because it influences me. I let complaining about the other branches to their respective members.

	Fine. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
	by hauntedattics on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 09:30:10 AM PST

	Yes, fine, whatever, you're a bloody genius who deserves to look down from Olympus at the lumpenproletariat. Just don't start running red lights, OK?

	Heh (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by jsm on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 10:38:53 AM PST

	I'll just point out in this context that our friend here managed to misuse the words and phrases "plebs", "de facto" and "de jure", none of which mean what he thinks they mean. jsm PS: Also note that the reference to the Illuminati is fucked up too. ... the worst tempered and least consistent of the adequacy.org editors ... now also Legal department and general counsel, adequacy.org

	Well... (none / 0) (#10)
	by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 11:42:55 AM PST

	To prevent further confusion, I will offer links to my very very alpha, very very unfinished reference system. It is by far not ready for going public yet, so please ignore problems - I am aware of them and will address them when I will feel about to do so. PLEBS DE FACTO DE JURE ILLUMINATI Again, the system is my personal one. You are guests.

	I seen you make mistake talking right (none / 0) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:55:27 PM PST

	As a 4-years old child I had a toy Just yesterday I seen a good example in the newspapers Now that you are 5 years old you should buy a new toy...it's called 'Speak and Spell'. Simple rule of thumb: Step One, learn language Step Two, argue it's usage

	That's quite a beam in your eye (5.00 / 2) (#12)
	by jvance on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 06:53:06 PM PST

	Step One, learn language Language in general, or a particular language? Step Two, argue it's* usage* Fucktard. -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Ahhh language (none / 0) (#13)
	by Shinkansen on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 08:18:04 PM PST

	And even if someone learns language, either in general of a particular one, so what? Just because the writer can't spell, it doesn't mean he or she doesn't know what they are talking about. (Although, it helps...) Secondly: Once you "know" a language, sitting around and "arguing it's usage" don't get you nones-where neither . The use of language as a tool to relay information is generally what people do. If you sit around on your ass talking about gerrunds and where a colon goes you are wasting time. Seeing that you suggested we "argue it's usage" why don't do it first and then tell us how. Shinkansen!! Because 30,000 burning nuns can't be wrong...

	The knacker just called (5.00 / 2) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Mar 22nd, 2002 at 08:10:11 PM PST

	They want their dead horse back.

	Dyslexic or simpleminded? (none / 0) (#5)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 03:17:46 AM PST

	I'm taking up a collection to buy el nachos a dictionary. One of those with lots of pictures. May I expect some help here?

	Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by elnachos on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 01:07:46 PM PST

	Why do you wish to purchase me a dictionary? Have I ever said anything to offend you? Perhaps you are thinking of someone else. Yours, El Nachos

	Buttons! (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 10:22:03 PM PST

	Caramba, Los Nachos! Jew are berry toachy, no? Lighten op, amigo! Life ees tu chort tu go araun weet jor kneekers ol tweested.

	Surreal (none / 0) (#15)
	by elnachos on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 10:59:04 PM PST

	Spanish words and English slang wrapped in a faux Slovakian accent. What are these buttons you speak of?

	Guat?! (1.25 / 4) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 05:55:57 AM PST

	*Boatons? Guat boatons, cabrón?* Gwee don' need no steenkeen boatons khir! Gwai don' jew buy jewsef a deek-chonery? Or jew con juice de espell-echek, no? Guat a eschupid jew are, eh?

	A pendejo is you (none / 0) (#17)
	by jvance on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 09:29:30 AM PST

	I assume you intend to address me, and that you are to simply stupid to post to a thread. Why do you continue to use this broken Eastern European accent? I don't get it. Yours, El Nachos -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	Damn (none / 0) (#18)
	by jvance on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 09:34:23 AM PST

	Well, I'm off to shoot myself now. I'll probably miss. Wish me luck! -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.