Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the po'-white-folks-that-hack dept.
rcp writes "The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for those of you not from The Great White North) has an article on why the media use the term hacker versus cracker. " Well, at least it's an understanding of why they use the terms incorrectly.
I know all you guys think its really cool to call yourselvers "hackers" and pretend that you are some sort of antisocial wizards.
I know you are all wrapped up in the misunderstood genius syndrome.
I know you all think the world would be better off if it would just blindly accept your intellectual superiority and form a huge technocracy.
Unfortunately, the rest of the pathetic, stupid world still clings to the silly notion that there is more in life than overclocked Celerons and k-rad Perl scripts.
"Hacker" is what 90% of the world uses to refer to a someone who gains improper access to a computer. Let it go. Get on with your lives.
Seriously. Right now -- close your web browser, get up, go outside, and go for a walk. If you are in Minnesota, take an umbrella.
Words and meanings and the value of 'hacker.'
by
Lemmy+Caution
·
· Score: 5
Some notes:
First, there are no such things as "true meanings." Meaning in language is created when reference is secured. Even among us, saying that "a hacker is in the system" quite reliably constructs a consistent meaning. (Let's leave Quine, Ayers, and Putnam out of all this for now, you language philosphers. If I hear about twin earth, I'll plotz.)
The article has the issue square to rights by referring to canonical sources - established dictionaries. At this point, the geek community may as well say that the word "hacker" refers to white-tufted thrush, and that the appropriate term is "pendejo," for all the good it will do. The institutions that have the general authority to determine meaning in media, government, and education - the dictionary writers (who fill the void left by the absence of the sorts of language academies that France and Spain use) - have made their claim.
Language is created by usage. Very few attempts to engineer the use of language are successful, unless there is some real-world social or political tumult associated with it. If there is a civil-rights movement for hackers, perhaps the language about it will come under greater scrutiny. (Of course, that means, that if the public ended up meaning by 'hacker' what some folks here want them to mean by 'hacker,' the dictionary writers will eventually follow suit. I don't see any mechanism for that to happen - there isn't enough motivation on the part of the public.)
On another level, I think it is misguided to completely toss out the Hollywood hacker media fantasy. Of course there aren't teen-model wunderkind hackers rollerblading around the city. Of course [cr|h]acking doesn't involve 3d imagery and heart-stopping graphics. But the mediated image of the hacker does reveal a sort of public anxiety that so much of our infrastructure is now opaque to all but those with the technological expertise to decode it. It is a testimony to our (we being high-tech cognoscenti of different stripes) status, and the general public awe that it inspires. We should, if not embrace the glamorized image, at least be somewhat pleased that we can inspire it.
If you have to define it, you can do it right.
by
Frater+219
·
· Score: 5
Seeing as the journos seem to see the need to state a definition for "hacker" most every time they use it ("This Web-site vandalism is just another of the recent works of 'hackers', malicious users who break into Internet-connected computers"), it's clear that they believe that the word "hacker" is not yet clearly-enough defined in the common parlance to stand on its own.
One does not, after all, state a definition for common words like "golfer", "policeman", or "beer"; that one states a definition indicates that one believes the word to need defining. ("The driver had been drinking 'beer', an alcoholic beverage made from fermented barley spiced with hops.")
Therefore, to say that they rely on the common parlance for the meaning of "hacker" is disingenuous. They might as well say "This Web vandalism is just another of the recent works of so-called 'crackers', malicious users who break into Internet-connected computers." Doing this would serve the cause of education -- improving, rather than damaging, the common parlance -- and further would avoid pissing off hackers.
There's a difference in lingo and language. Language is defined by the mainstream. If a majority of the people use a word in a certain sense, then that's what the word means. If you don't use it the same way, you're either using the word wrong or you're speaking a specific lingo.
I've been in the Navy for 15 years. If I ask another sailor the location of the nearest head, he'll direct me to the restroom without any problem. If I ask a waiter in a restaurant where the head is, I'll likely get some really strange looks. It isn't the waiters fault, however, it's mine.Head does not mean restroom in the English language, only in naval lingo.
In geek-speak, hacker means one thing. To the rest of the world, it means something else. If you use geek-speak to a non-geek and are misunderstood, the fault is yours, not theirs.
--
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Slashdot Mirror
I know all you guys think its really cool to call yourselvers "hackers" and pretend that you are some sort of antisocial wizards.
I know you are all wrapped up in the misunderstood genius syndrome.
I know you all think the world would be better off if it would just blindly accept your intellectual superiority and form a huge technocracy.
Unfortunately, the rest of the pathetic, stupid world still clings to the silly notion that there is more in life than overclocked Celerons and k-rad Perl scripts.
"Hacker" is what 90% of the world uses to refer to a someone who gains improper access to a computer. Let it go. Get on with your lives.
Seriously. Right now -- close your web browser, get up, go outside, and go for a walk. If you are in Minnesota, take an umbrella.
First, there are no such things as "true meanings." Meaning in language is created when reference is secured. Even among us, saying that "a hacker is in the system" quite reliably constructs a consistent meaning. (Let's leave Quine, Ayers, and Putnam out of all this for now, you language philosphers. If I hear about twin earth, I'll plotz.)
The article has the issue square to rights by referring to canonical sources - established dictionaries. At this point, the geek community may as well say that the word "hacker" refers to white-tufted thrush, and that the appropriate term is "pendejo," for all the good it will do. The institutions that have the general authority to determine meaning in media, government, and education - the dictionary writers (who fill the void left by the absence of the sorts of language academies that France and Spain use) - have made their claim.
Language is created by usage. Very few attempts to engineer the use of language are successful, unless there is some real-world social or political tumult associated with it. If there is a civil-rights movement for hackers, perhaps the language about it will come under greater scrutiny. (Of course, that means, that if the public ended up meaning by 'hacker' what some folks here want them to mean by 'hacker,' the dictionary writers will eventually follow suit. I don't see any mechanism for that to happen - there isn't enough motivation on the part of the public.)
On another level, I think it is misguided to completely toss out the Hollywood hacker media fantasy. Of course there aren't teen-model wunderkind hackers rollerblading around the city. Of course [cr|h]acking doesn't involve 3d imagery and heart-stopping graphics. But the mediated image of the hacker does reveal a sort of public anxiety that so much of our infrastructure is now opaque to all but those with the technological expertise to decode it. It is a testimony to our (we being high-tech cognoscenti of different stripes) status, and the general public awe that it inspires. We should, if not embrace the glamorized image, at least be somewhat pleased that we can inspire it.
One does not, after all, state a definition for common words like "golfer", "policeman", or "beer"; that one states a definition indicates that one believes the word to need defining. ("The driver had been drinking 'beer', an alcoholic beverage made from fermented barley spiced with hops.")
Therefore, to say that they rely on the common parlance for the meaning of "hacker" is disingenuous. They might as well say "This Web vandalism is just another of the recent works of so-called 'crackers', malicious users who break into Internet-connected computers." Doing this would serve the cause of education -- improving, rather than damaging, the common parlance -- and further would avoid pissing off hackers.
There's a difference in lingo and language. Language is defined by the mainstream. If a majority of the people use a word in a certain sense, then that's what the word means. If you don't use it the same way, you're either using the word wrong or you're speaking a specific lingo.
I've been in the Navy for 15 years. If I ask another sailor the location of the nearest head, he'll direct me to the restroom without any problem. If I ask a waiter in a restaurant where the head is, I'll likely get some really strange looks. It isn't the waiters fault, however, it's mine.Head does not mean restroom in the English language, only in naval lingo.
In geek-speak, hacker means one thing. To the rest of the world, it means something else. If you use geek-speak to a non-geek and are misunderstood, the fault is yours, not theirs.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.