OK, obviously, people are selling their notes. But who here would do that? I have often found that "geeks" are often very big on "earning" knowledge. I can't imagine many of us here, after busting our cans and taking good notes would then hand those over to someone else so they could leech off of our efforts.
I'm speaking from experience here. In High School, I was one of the top computer science students in our program. My teacher used the same basic materials from year to year. She would change the tests, but the basic questions remained the same--almost exactly the same. Enter my brother, one year behind me. He asks to look at my class notes and finds a treasure trove--I had every class, every quiz, every program, every test. I loved this stuff, so my notes where very thorough. Suddenly, my brother started getting 100's on his pascal tests. He had the tests before he went in; it was no contest.
And no learning was taking place. I'm sure he would say he was learning, but I knew he wasn't. Plus it pissed me off that all my hardwork was subsidizing his grades. I'm sure many of you would identify. I'm all for helping others; I tutor many people. But I'm against people taking shortcuts and trying to circumvent the learning process.
Some of you would argue that my brother learned by looking at my tests and notes. That would be wrong. Call me a jerk, but I went to my comp sci teacher and matter-of-factly told her about what my brother was doing. She wasn't mad at my brother; more mad at herself. So she took the next test and worded the True/False questions almost identically to the original tests--except they were opposite. My brother bombed the next test.
He was pissed with me, but I told him he would have to do the work himself. He did so so, for a while, all the while pissed at me for spoiling his perfect plan. He went on to do very well after a few more weeks. But he worked a lot harder for it than he had before.
People should do their own work. Everyone has a right to do what they want with their notes (I think the college's are wrong here). But it bothers me that anyone would choose to sell their notes so that someone else could basically cheat their way through a class.
Hey slashdot editors! I know you are busy, and maybe that's why you thought interviewing JP would be a great idea. I've already posted a comment on why I think this is a very bad idea. So I thought I would try and be productive. Here is a list of people who are of the right caliber to merit an interview (that is to say, try interviewing great folk like this FIRST before wasting your time and ours on JP):
Granted, some of these have been covered already, but maybe a handful at the most. I must confess to maybe knowing who 10% of these people are. I would sure like to know something about the rest of them. Just imagine all the cool stuff each of these people has to offer--why in the world are we looking to interview inflamatory, damaging people like JP?
Just trying to help:-) I figure 80 some odd suggestions should keep you busy for a while.
I have to agree. I stumbled accorss JP's site by accident, without knowing his history and reputation. But after a couple of weeks of reading his news stories and the Mailbag responses he would post, I came to realize this guy had nothing to offer me. He seemed combatant and inflamatory, posting "straw men" and just ripping them apart. Granted, you are entitled to do what you want with your hate mail, but if you have ever read the mailbag, you know what I mean.
Again, this was all without any prior knowledge of his history and his reputation. You could call it objective (whatever that means). My "objective" opinion of him after a few weeks of reading--NOT WORTH READING.
So, it is with GREAT disappointment that I see this article post. Why would we EVER care what he has to say? What are we going to do? Interview Jess Berst and ask him how he can be so clueless yet have a job as a tech-beat writer? I mean, come on! There are dozens and dozens of great and talented people I would rather hear from than people of JP's infamy.
id has set the pace for years now, with revolutionary games like Wolfenstein-3D, Doom, Quake. As you continue work on Quake 3, I'm wondering where you see your efforts heading next? What will be the "holy grails" that the next id game will attain?
On a similar note, what non-id games have you been impressed with? Are there any games that you saw and thought, "Now that's an original/cool game!"
Really. That's probably the solution you are looking for. There is a specific abstraction pattern that could easily do what you are talking about--they actually use X toolkits as an example.:-)
Of course, that's assuming you use C++. You could do it in C, but I wouldn't recommend it. Trying to apply the Design Patterns to a non-object oriented language (no flames, please) is difficult unless you really know both OOP and C. But if you are writing for Qt, you are probably using C++ anyways.
I can't remember the DP name: I thought it was an Abstract Factory or a Prototype.
Well, it's a shame that it has happened, but it was unfortunately inevitable. I used to use OS/2, but gave up after Merlin--such a new OS with so little hardware support. But I always missed the PM. And I would love a chance at implementing it.
SOM is basically CORBA. If you know CORBA, then you know quite a bit already about the paradigm of SOMObjects and the PM. I know that GNOME uses an ORB (although a limited one). Perhaps some of us old OS/2ers could start putting our efforts into something like GNOME or something new entirely?
Again, it is just a crying shame to have watched OS/2 die such a slow death over the past four years. It's almost a relief; now we can get on with our lives. Instead of hoping against all hope that IBM might see the light, we can get down to the business of simply doing it better.
I've used both FreeBSD and Linux, and I ran into an unfortunate reality. If you want to use common everyday hardware and still get the newest feature sets, short of using Windows 98, Linux is really your only choice.
Prior to my Linux days and prior to my FreeBSD days, I used OS/2. I was constantly driven nuts by the fact that OS/2 didn't support most of my hardware. If you have used OS/2 in the past, you know what I'm talking about. You buy a computer you can afford that is chock full 'o cheap hardware that OS/2 can't even guess at. When I gave up the ghost on OS/2, I tried FreeBSD, only to run into the same problem. Meanwhile, my buddy keeps trying to help me out... "What do you mean that card isn't supported. I know Linux supports it..."
Now I want to tip my hat to the FreeBSD folks. It is a GREAT operating system. Really, it is. No amount of FUD or stupidity on either side can change that. I'm sure they have even fixed some of the hardware support issues I initially had. But here is the cold, hard reality that every BSD developer knows deep down: there are simply *more* linux developers. More. More by a factor of 2 at least, if not more. More software is available for Linux and not for FreeBSD because of this. More hardware is supported and newer technology is in the kernel or on its way. Not because Linux is any "better". Not because it is "better" at marketing. But because there are more developers.
The reasons why there are more linux developers than are FreeBSD developers is the subject of a flame war that I do not wish to be involved in. Sorry:-) Maybe it could be AskSlashdot question? Or would that just be asking for clan wars?
That being said, a final hats off to the FreeBSD people. The Ports system is just too incredibly cool. If you have never used it, it is very much like the debian package system (or so I have heard). I have missed that feature set very much, and I have almost switched to Debian a couple of times just to see if it might work like ports did (sorry, too much RH inertia at this point--but there is still hope;-).
I found it interesting that when asked what desktop they were using, 50% replied KDE, while only 27% replied GNOME. Being a GNOME user myself, I was kind of surprised at how many are using KDE (maybe I'll check it out).
But the real interesting thing was the toolkit question: which toolkit are you interested in developing in? Only 18% replied Qt, while 25% replied GTK. While a good 26% said they didn't know what all this toolkit mess was about.
So it appears (note, this is conjecture) that possibly 30% of the people who use KDE don't know what toolkit KDE is based on. Possibly--I don't want to draw too many conclusions from the numbers.
Why would this be? Do KDE users simply have it easier--i.e. KDE is such a integrated package that knowledge of the underpinnings are not required, etc.? Being a GNOME user, I am very aware of GTK. One, because of the rapid GTK development in the GNOME 0.9 stages, which broke entire versions of GNOME. Two, because of all the initial "political" hub-bub about GNOME being true opne source because of the GPL v. TrollTech/Qt.
What do you think? Is it just numbers, or is there something to this? Why are so many KDE users (almost half in THIS survey) not interested in developing for Qt?
Ok, the results are in. The benchmarks, when administered properly, show that NT outperforms Linux in every category.
We now need to prove the open source model instead of confusing the issue by nursing our bruised egos. I'm already seeing the "denial" posts that hark back to OS/2 days. "Well, they may have gotten better numbers in this, but that doesn't really matter." Yadda, yadda, yadda. What is wrong with you people? Can't you accept the results? Quit playing games and start making progress.
Some would love to argue with me until they are blue in the face about how this doesn't mean NT's better, etc. Fine. That is NOT what I'm talking about. The benchmark has exposed an architectural flaw/oversight. We need to fix this in order to reach the performance numbers we need to be a server operating system. So let's do it. Let's fix it. Start downloading and start coding.
I have linux installed on every one of my file servers. I will be able to fend off the criticism for now. I have faith in out community and in our talent. However, if we continue pointless arguements and pulpit pounding about how linux really is better, instead of making sure that it IS better, we're sunk!
And if you can't code, you can always test. Get involved. This is your operating system.
I would again caution against over generalizations. People mature at their own rates. Many mature in college. Some mature before college. Some mature much later. A college education is not the key to becoming a diverse and well-rounded individual.
I agree that college provides many diverse opportunities for self-improvement. However, the process of becoming your true self should not stop in college, either--and therefore, college is not a requirement to personal growth. It is one of many tools/paths that help in each person's journey of growth and life.
Many people are forced through a death march of studying and test taking in college. Their only free time is often taken up with simply trying to relax and decompress. So while being exposed to so many opportunities for growth, many college students are unable to take advantage of these opportunities. They take courses on philosophy, but barely remember or comprehend them. They are asked to read some of the greatest literary works, and they can only find the time to skip around to prepare for an exam. So, some opportunities are taken advantage of. Some are only half-realized. Others are completely missed.
Let's not denounce the non-college course in an attempt to prevent others from making stupid mistakes (i.e. dropping out when college is a good thing for them at that time). For many, there have been very rewarding and paradigm-shifting experiences outside out of college. Reading the classics on your own is also a great "poor-man" method to attaining the college intellectual experience. In many ways, it can also be superior, allowing you an opportunity to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
College is a good "thing". But it is not a required "thing". It is a huge decision that requires careful thought and evaluation. But then life is full of huge decisions. You will make a mistake eventually. The important thing is to learn, learn, learn through everything you do.
Then again, if you want an experience that will help you grow personally and learn responsibility, you could always try marriage;-)
I attended college for three years before being forced to drop out because of an illness in the family. I was forced to go to work full-time. Today, now five years later, I earn wages at the top of my field, being flown from city to city because my computer skills are in such high demand. Where did I get those skills? High School. I had a fantastic High School program that taught me college level programming concepts. I took my Advance Placement test and tested out of two years of college Comp Sci courses. My college degree, however, was in English Literature--not Comp Sci.
So, am I an example of succeeding without a college degree? Yes and no. I had very little "college" training, but my teachers in High School gave me excellent training that was on the level of the first two years of a Comp Sci degree. I also had to literally work my way up from the mail room to high-level consulting. It took me five years to get here without the parchment. In those five years, I had to prove myself over and over again. I read book after book, training myself in methodology and then putting it into practice in the real world.
From my perspective, I went to college--self-taught, self-motivated. It wasn't accredited, but then it didn't cost as much either. Not everyone can/should do that. But let's not exagerate college to anything more than it is--learning and limited experience in the field. Some can do without the organized environment that college provides (some actually do better). Some need the structure--not that they can't do it on their own, but that it just works better and faster for them.
From someone who hasn't finished his bachelor's degree, I'd have to acknowledge some hurt feelings on the behalf of the "uneducated" minority. Time and time again, I have had to fight my way through a gate guarded by a degree-bigot. Someone who assumed that I was an untrained underachiever riding the coat-tails of the IT shortage. That's annoying and demeaning--especially since many times my experience is equal to or better than their experience.
A college degree would have made my life a lot easier in some ways. It would have given me good experience in a diverse range of areas. But I've done that on my own now. Granted, it was probably harder this way. But I have read the same books Comp Sci students have read, and I have applied it in the workplace. So, one way or another, I received the valuable experience needed to do my job.
I just did it a little differently than most. As I do all things.
Point? Look for the experience and the training. This can come through college, college and work experience, or work experience alone. What counts is the ability to get the job done--and that ability does not solely depend on college training. There are many ways to get the training and knowledge. College is one of many, and for many, it is the easiest and best way. And that's all it is.
Ultimately, I believe the government has done exactly what has set out to do. It probably knew that it didn't have a real hard case, but it pressed on. Why? This simple reason:
----
Forbes: What do you plan to do when you get out of prison?
Mitnick: "I don't know, but once I get out of here and get on with the rest of my life, I'll never intentionally violate the law."
----
True Purpose? Crush. Utterly and completely crush and break Mitnick. And by crushing him, discourage others. Read the alt.2600 website some time. There are other stories, equally, if not more frightening of crackers getting caught and having their civil liberties violated. Stories of Secret Service witnesses making incredible claims of terrorism because a cracker had a war dialer--and thus this proves he's out to destroy the fabric of society.
FUD, plain and simple. But FUD with a clear purpose. And it works.
I don't advocate cracking. But I understand some of the reasons people do it. It is against the law, so there will be a penalty. However, many of these accused crackers aren't even getting due process. And that is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
OK, obviously, people are selling their notes. But who here would do that? I have often found that "geeks" are often very big on "earning" knowledge. I can't imagine many of us here, after busting our cans and taking good notes would then hand those over to someone else so they could leech off of our efforts.
I'm speaking from experience here. In High School, I was one of the top computer science students in our program. My teacher used the same basic materials from year to year. She would change the tests, but the basic questions remained the same--almost exactly the same. Enter my brother, one year behind me. He asks to look at my class notes and finds a treasure trove--I had every class, every quiz, every program, every test. I loved this stuff, so my notes where very thorough. Suddenly, my brother started getting 100's on his pascal tests. He had the tests before he went in; it was no contest.
And no learning was taking place. I'm sure he would say he was learning, but I knew he wasn't. Plus it pissed me off that all my hardwork was subsidizing his grades. I'm sure many of you would identify. I'm all for helping others; I tutor many people. But I'm against people taking shortcuts and trying to circumvent the learning process.
Some of you would argue that my brother learned by looking at my tests and notes. That would be wrong. Call me a jerk, but I went to my comp sci teacher and matter-of-factly told her about what my brother was doing. She wasn't mad at my brother; more mad at herself. So she took the next test and worded the True/False questions almost identically to the original tests--except they were opposite. My brother bombed the next test.
He was pissed with me, but I told him he would have to do the work himself. He did so so, for a while, all the while pissed at me for spoiling his perfect plan. He went on to do very well after a few more weeks. But he worked a lot harder for it than he had before.
People should do their own work. Everyone has a right to do what they want with their notes (I think the college's are wrong here). But it bothers me that anyone would choose to sell their notes so that someone else could basically cheat their way through a class.
Hey slashdot editors! I know you are busy, and maybe that's why you thought interviewing JP would be a great idea. I've already posted a comment on why I think this is a very bad idea. So I thought I would try and be productive. Here is a list of people who are of the right caliber to merit an interview (that is to say, try interviewing great folk like this FIRST before wasting your time and ours on JP):
(from the 1999 Free Software Award Nominee page)
Granted, some of these have been covered already, but maybe a handful at the most. I must confess to maybe knowing who 10% of these people are. I would sure like to know something about the rest of them. Just imagine all the cool stuff each of these people has to offer--why in the world are we looking to interview inflamatory, damaging people like JP?
Just trying to help :-) I figure 80 some odd suggestions should keep you busy for a while.
I have to agree. I stumbled accorss JP's site by accident, without knowing his history and reputation. But after a couple of weeks of reading his news stories and the Mailbag responses he would post, I came to realize this guy had nothing to offer me. He seemed combatant and inflamatory, posting "straw men" and just ripping them apart. Granted, you are entitled to do what you want with your hate mail, but if you have ever read the mailbag, you know what I mean.
Again, this was all without any prior knowledge of his history and his reputation. You could call it objective (whatever that means). My "objective" opinion of him after a few weeks of reading--NOT WORTH READING.
So, it is with GREAT disappointment that I see this article post. Why would we EVER care what he has to say? What are we going to do? Interview Jess Berst and ask him how he can be so clueless yet have a job as a tech-beat writer? I mean, come on! There are dozens and dozens of great and talented people I would rather hear from than people of JP's infamy.
.John,
id has set the pace for years now, with revolutionary games like Wolfenstein-3D, Doom, Quake. As you continue work on Quake 3, I'm wondering where you see your efforts heading next? What will be the "holy grails" that the next id game will attain?
On a similar note, what non-id games have you been impressed with? Are there any games that you saw and thought, "Now that's an original/cool game!"
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
Really. That's probably the solution you are looking for. There is a specific abstraction pattern that could easily do what you are talking about--they actually use X toolkits as an example. :-)
Of course, that's assuming you use C++. You could do it in C, but I wouldn't recommend it. Trying to apply the Design Patterns to a non-object oriented language (no flames, please) is difficult unless you really know both OOP and C. But if you are writing for Qt, you are probably using C++ anyways.
I can't remember the DP name: I thought it was an Abstract Factory or a Prototype.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
Well, it's a shame that it has happened, but it was unfortunately inevitable. I used to use OS/2, but gave up after Merlin--such a new OS with so little hardware support. But I always missed the PM. And I would love a chance at implementing it.
SOM is basically CORBA. If you know CORBA, then you know quite a bit already about the paradigm of SOMObjects and the PM. I know that GNOME uses an ORB (although a limited one). Perhaps some of us old OS/2ers could start putting our efforts into something like GNOME or something new entirely?
Again, it is just a crying shame to have watched OS/2 die such a slow death over the past four years. It's almost a relief; now we can get on with our lives. Instead of hoping against all hope that IBM might see the light, we can get down to the business of simply doing it better.
Farewell, OS/2.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
I've used both FreeBSD and Linux, and I ran into an unfortunate reality. If you want to use common everyday hardware and still get the newest feature sets, short of using Windows 98, Linux is really your only choice.
Prior to my Linux days and prior to my FreeBSD days, I used OS/2. I was constantly driven nuts by the fact that OS/2 didn't support most of my hardware. If you have used OS/2 in the past, you know what I'm talking about. You buy a computer you can afford that is chock full 'o cheap hardware that OS/2 can't even guess at. When I gave up the ghost on OS/2, I tried FreeBSD, only to run into the same problem. Meanwhile, my buddy keeps trying to help me out ... "What do you mean that card isn't supported. I know Linux supports it ..."
Now I want to tip my hat to the FreeBSD folks. It is a GREAT operating system. Really, it is. No amount of FUD or stupidity on either side can change that. I'm sure they have even fixed some of the hardware support issues I initially had. But here is the cold, hard reality that every BSD developer knows deep down: there are simply *more* linux developers. More. More by a factor of 2 at least, if not more. More software is available for Linux and not for FreeBSD because of this. More hardware is supported and newer technology is in the kernel or on its way. Not because Linux is any "better". Not because it is "better" at marketing. But because there are more developers.
The reasons why there are more linux developers than are FreeBSD developers is the subject of a flame war that I do not wish to be involved in. Sorry :-) Maybe it could be AskSlashdot question? Or would that just be asking for clan wars?
That being said, a final hats off to the FreeBSD people. The Ports system is just too incredibly cool. If you have never used it, it is very much like the debian package system (or so I have heard). I have missed that feature set very much, and I have almost switched to Debian a couple of times just to see if it might work like ports did (sorry, too much RH inertia at this point--but there is still hope ;-).
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
I found it interesting that when asked what desktop they were using, 50% replied KDE, while only 27% replied GNOME. Being a GNOME user myself, I was kind of surprised at how many are using KDE (maybe I'll check it out).
But the real interesting thing was the toolkit question: which toolkit are you interested in developing in? Only 18% replied Qt, while 25% replied GTK. While a good 26% said they didn't know what all this toolkit mess was about.
So it appears (note, this is conjecture) that possibly 30% of the people who use KDE don't know what toolkit KDE is based on. Possibly--I don't want to draw too many conclusions from the numbers.
Why would this be? Do KDE users simply have it easier--i.e. KDE is such a integrated package that knowledge of the underpinnings are not required, etc.? Being a GNOME user, I am very aware of GTK. One, because of the rapid GTK development in the GNOME 0.9 stages, which broke entire versions of GNOME. Two, because of all the initial "political" hub-bub about GNOME being true opne source because of the GPL v. TrollTech/Qt.
What do you think? Is it just numbers, or is there something to this? Why are so many KDE users (almost half in THIS survey) not interested in developing for Qt?
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
Ok, the results are in. The benchmarks, when administered properly, show that NT outperforms Linux in every category.
We now need to prove the open source model instead of confusing the issue by nursing our bruised egos. I'm already seeing the "denial" posts that hark back to OS/2 days. "Well, they may have gotten better numbers in this, but that doesn't really matter." Yadda, yadda, yadda. What is wrong with you people? Can't you accept the results? Quit playing games and start making progress.
Some would love to argue with me until they are blue in the face about how this doesn't mean NT's better, etc. Fine. That is NOT what I'm talking about. The benchmark has exposed an architectural flaw/oversight. We need to fix this in order to reach the performance numbers we need to be a server operating system. So let's do it. Let's fix it. Start downloading and start coding.
I have linux installed on every one of my file servers. I will be able to fend off the criticism for now. I have faith in out community and in our talent. However, if we continue pointless arguements and pulpit pounding about how linux really is better, instead of making sure that it IS better, we're sunk!
And if you can't code, you can always test. Get involved. This is your operating system.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
I would again caution against over generalizations. People mature at their own rates. Many mature in college. Some mature before college. Some mature much later. A college education is not the key to becoming a diverse and well-rounded individual.
I agree that college provides many diverse opportunities for self-improvement. However, the process of becoming your true self should not stop in college, either--and therefore, college is not a requirement to personal growth. It is one of many tools/paths that help in each person's journey of growth and life.
Many people are forced through a death march of studying and test taking in college. Their only free time is often taken up with simply trying to relax and decompress. So while being exposed to so many opportunities for growth, many college students are unable to take advantage of these opportunities. They take courses on philosophy, but barely remember or comprehend them. They are asked to read some of the greatest literary works, and they can only find the time to skip around to prepare for an exam. So, some opportunities are taken advantage of. Some are only half-realized. Others are completely missed.
Let's not denounce the non-college course in an attempt to prevent others from making stupid mistakes (i.e. dropping out when college is a good thing for them at that time). For many, there have been very rewarding and paradigm-shifting experiences outside out of college. Reading the classics on your own is also a great "poor-man" method to attaining the college intellectual experience. In many ways, it can also be superior, allowing you an opportunity to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
College is a good "thing". But it is not a required "thing". It is a huge decision that requires careful thought and evaluation. But then life is full of huge decisions. You will make a mistake eventually. The important thing is to learn, learn, learn through everything you do.
Then again, if you want an experience that will help you grow personally and learn responsibility, you could always try marriage ;-)
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
I attended college for three years before being forced to drop out because of an illness in the family. I was forced to go to work full-time. Today, now five years later, I earn wages at the top of my field, being flown from city to city because my computer skills are in such high demand. Where did I get those skills? High School. I had a fantastic High School program that taught me college level programming concepts. I took my Advance Placement test and tested out of two years of college Comp Sci courses. My college degree, however, was in English Literature--not Comp Sci.
So, am I an example of succeeding without a college degree? Yes and no. I had very little "college" training, but my teachers in High School gave me excellent training that was on the level of the first two years of a Comp Sci degree. I also had to literally work my way up from the mail room to high-level consulting. It took me five years to get here without the parchment. In those five years, I had to prove myself over and over again. I read book after book, training myself in methodology and then putting it into practice in the real world.
From my perspective, I went to college--self-taught, self-motivated. It wasn't accredited, but then it didn't cost as much either. Not everyone can/should do that. But let's not exagerate college to anything more than it is--learning and limited experience in the field. Some can do without the organized environment that college provides (some actually do better). Some need the structure--not that they can't do it on their own, but that it just works better and faster for them.
From someone who hasn't finished his bachelor's degree, I'd have to acknowledge some hurt feelings on the behalf of the "uneducated" minority. Time and time again, I have had to fight my way through a gate guarded by a degree-bigot. Someone who assumed that I was an untrained underachiever riding the coat-tails of the IT shortage. That's annoying and demeaning--especially since many times my experience is equal to or better than their experience.
A college degree would have made my life a lot easier in some ways. It would have given me good experience in a diverse range of areas. But I've done that on my own now. Granted, it was probably harder this way. But I have read the same books Comp Sci students have read, and I have applied it in the workplace. So, one way or another, I received the valuable experience needed to do my job.
I just did it a little differently than most. As I do all things.
Point? Look for the experience and the training. This can come through college, college and work experience, or work experience alone. What counts is the ability to get the job done--and that ability does not solely depend on college training. There are many ways to get the training and knowledge. College is one of many, and for many, it is the easiest and best way. And that's all it is.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."
Ultimately, I believe the government has done exactly what has set out to do. It probably knew that it didn't have a real hard case, but it pressed on. Why? This simple reason:
----Forbes: What do you plan to do when you get out of prison?
Mitnick: "I don't know, but once I get out of here and get on with the rest of my life, I'll never intentionally violate the law."
----True Purpose? Crush. Utterly and completely crush and break Mitnick. And by crushing him, discourage others. Read the alt.2600 website some time. There are other stories, equally, if not more frightening of crackers getting caught and having their civil liberties violated. Stories of Secret Service witnesses making incredible claims of terrorism because a cracker had a war dialer--and thus this proves he's out to destroy the fabric of society.
FUD, plain and simple. But FUD with a clear purpose. And it works.
I don't advocate cracking. But I understand some of the reasons people do it. It is against the law, so there will be a penalty. However, many of these accused crackers aren't even getting due process. And that is wrong.
"Doubt your doubts and believe your beliefs."