When I explain complex facts to laymen, I don't try, I do it fully. I carefully walk them through the facts from their current knowledge to the new knowledge. Given clear communication and rational argument, most people are receptive and learn - fundamentalism is largely to blame for one not accepting the knowledge.
No. Hackers hack. That doesn't mean it is bad. It sounds like you've redefined the tem, but a lot of people would disagree.
The common old terminology, where a programmer or writer were called 'hackers' is definitely replaced with the group of people that bypass security in pursuit of knowledge... but I don't agree that the common conception is that they are all doing bad things.
You know, the quote button is an excellent choice for good answers to stupid questions - then you can be modded up and he modded to oblivion, while retaining everything that was written...;-)
I don't usually quote people, but I can tell you practice what you preach;)
The Chinese are very efficient and productive people/nation. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already ahead of the game for this 'free' resource. I will be surprised if the Brits are the first to tap it.
In the US, we are all(incuding lawyers) grand people of much spirit and common good. But resonant tones of abcess arise at the behest of a capital oriented society, no matter how good the individual thought he did at his job.
But should we change this? Most people are comfortable.
The lawyers, judges (previous lawyers whose colleagues are all lawyers, and politicians (over 80% are lawyers) have established a pretty serious level of JOB SECURITY, haven't they?
Sorry for the last sentence. It was more of a metaphor/poem than an insult, but I see how it can be mistaken.
Aside from that, and my assumption I'm speaking to deaf ears, the rest of my post is not inflammatory at all. Plain and clear facts/observations/opinions. I don't sugar coat, but that doesn't make it bad.
From my understanding, you are correct. The reason my prior arguments don't make your point is that in the preceding posts, and th article, 'hackers' was used as a generalized population that included both of the subclasses you described... so I stayed in context. You make a good point here....
Watch the documentary I linked earlier so you can understand this conversation. Your quick google search to 'prove' the mob deals drugs is irrelevant and likely an outlier/deviant.
Once you understand how the mob actually works, then you can re-read this whole conversation and see the striking similarites between the mob and this litgious cabal.
It is illegal to conspire or collude for the purpose of extortion, and it is also illegal to burden the courts with persistent unreasonable litigation.
The real Mob conducts their 'crime' in similar ways that, on the surface, appear legal. What you see in movies/HBO is not what really goes down.
This documentary will stream on netflix. You will see why it was hard for the FBI to crack down on the Mob -- that they conducted themselves very much within the scheme of what has the appearance of legal activity.
If you don't watch it to learn what I mean, I'll give you a breakdown of one example given in the film.
1) Dude1: decides to build a new construction in a place with mob influence.
2) Wiseguy1/Wiseguy2 stop by and have a casual conversation about how Dude1 *will* buy his concrete from "Legit Company A", a company that charges about $1/cu.ft. over normal market prices.
If Dude1 agrees, life goes on as normal and it would appear that Dude1 isn't a good shopper.
If Dude1 disagrees....
3) Deliveries from various orders needed for the business never come. 4) Protests/Picket-lines show up at the build site.
If Dude1 still disagrees.....
5) Wiseguy1/Wiseguy2 have a physical intervention that changes Dude1's mind, or ends Dude1.
---------
It isn't a reach to say that the topic at hand follows these same 'on paper' techniques to extort money. It is very much the same a minor difference being that the lawyers don't actually do physical intimidation, but rather legal.
Compared to non-hackers, statistically, YES THEY DO.
Hackers have some of the most advanced social skills in society.
Lol. Sure. I would say that they have advance skills of affecting society, but the term 'social skills' has a widely accepted connotation for which your use of the word does not apply.
The problem isn't lack of social skills, it's the addition of alcohol, drugs, and lots of attractive young fangirl/cheerleader type women who seem to think hackers are cool for some reason but who don't even care about hacking. A lot of these women are out of their element...
No. These are human beings in a physical place in a society that has laws and expectations that will not be ignored by subculture (ignore it all day and you will end up in jail or fired or both). The reality of that subculture's dysfunctional facets does *not* provide 'reason', nor does it justify the complete bullshit you're spewing here. You're using the 'she asked for it' argument, and you might find some other assholes to agree with you, but the majority of Americans (this was in Vegas, in the US) don't pay credence to that 'argument' at all and bluntly reject them. There is a big difference between an explanation and the implication of responsibility. You are implying that the victims of harassment had partial responsibility --- no. A naked woman rubbing herself all over the guy next to you is *NOT* required to accept harassment from you of any kind -- to assume you are welcome to the same without her permission is absurd. If you can't control yourself when you see attractive women, you need a psychiatrist.
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole (from the perspective of those who disagree).
Nothing you say, from downplaying what HFT's actual impact on real business is, to the assumption that 'legal' means 'good', could ever change the fundamental belief in a common good that your critics hold.
You'll notice your response is self-oriented. That your address of the situation is from a 'me' perspective: what is bad for 'me / that the market may not be a good idea for all people to participate, etc. This doesn't help your argument in the eyes of people that care about each other.
I don't have time to go into long depth, nor do I have the interest since I'm pretty sure my argument will fall on deaf ears, so I will keep this in gist:
HFT generates income/money through a process by which there is no tangible interest between the investor and the actual business. Regardless of who 'participates' in HFT directly, everyone is still part of the system -- my friends and family, my society, my government -- they work at those businesses, and the value of their dollar is reduced with inflation. I argue that HFT results in the tricky and rapid siphoning of 'value' from an actual business, with actual employees and products, whereby the investor has no due interest in the business. No public business would agree with tricks to investment systems that strip value from the business. And while I find it impossible to generate 'extra wealth', many in defense of HFT have argued that HFT generates 'extra wealth' and that the standard value-based investments of the market and its normal ways and projections go unaffected --- yet this cannot be true, and everyone knows you can't get something from nothing --- and furthermore, if your 'extra wealth' actually is real, but dumps directly into our economy, then that is actually uncontrolled inflation that devalues the dollars of people not using exploits to generate wealth (people who actually do tangible/functional/valuable things that have inherent value, not 'created value').
From the perspective of the common man, the markets exist for long term investment in good business, and are used for limited-liability ownership and economic stability.
From the perspective of the wealth baron, the markets exist for the sole purpose of increasing wealth and hoarding the power it enables.
The reason you see so much vitriol is that very few people actually consider the world from the 'wealth baron' perspective whose criteria enforce a pursuit of self interest and greed (thanks Ayn Rand and Milton Freeturd for your irrational arguments that the greedy love). Most people care for their neighbors and want the best for their countrymen. Respect and value for community is on a decline in the US, largely as a product of the influences of media that is owned and controlled by extremely wealthy oligopolies -- this phenomenon of increased selfishness is not apparent in first world countries where media/information is not throttled by the extremely wealthy, and/or where critical thinking is emphasized.
Good luck selling your bad breath by word of mouth; did you know you had bad breath?
It means that the disease of being 'overly casual' has continued its spread upward, and that the dignity of the middle class will be defeated from within.
This sounds *exactly* like how organized crime (mobs) operate. Where the hell is the FBI I'm paying for? Will they please focus on relevant issues?!?!?!
Scientists don't usually endanger themselves and others if/when they design research and experiments. I do iPS Cell research and I wouldn't do anything I could concieve might hurt me or others. Most dangerous elements in my work can be accounted for, we glove/suit up to protect from virii and other materials. But in the case we are talking about, the dangerous byproduct is the alternate utility of the knowledge.... you could say that we might be safe by limiting access to the materals that this hypothetical knowledge requires.... but look at nuclear weapons! Not only is there lots of unaccounted materials, even the weapons have gone missing (a lot).
A gun is dangerous in the hands of a child. In context, the gun becomes an inevitable threat for the child is ignorant and curious. Your reference to the neutrality of materials sounds nice, but escapes reality. We should not let our pride assume we 7 billion real humans are ready for some answers yet.
On your point.... do you believe there are questions we shouldn't ask? To me, vaporizing the earth from a how-to perspective seems taboo.... that the gains from the answer may not be worth the risk of making publicly available answers that others could utilize....
The flaw in this research, in my opinion, is that the ambitions and ego of the researchers are more powerful than the obvious cautions/repercussions. And while we would like to answer every question about the universe, might we consider the current irrational/feudal state of mankind at present and intelligently delay certain foci until mankind is prepared to healthily understand the answers??
So when you buy CocaCola for.07 seconds, was it their strong business model you had confidence in? Was your analysis of the public that they wouldcontinue to appreciate the company, and thus you wanted to invest?
Oh.... you didn't give a rats ass about the real business with the real employees and products. You just wanted to sneak $100k out of the place in an unnoticeably fast way. You sound like a good person. (Sarcasm)
I can't believe people like you bought my democracy out from under me and made this heartless means to making money "legal".
Slashdot Mirror
Coward stalker troll. Lol.
When I explain complex facts to laymen, I don't try, I do it fully. I carefully walk them through the facts from their current knowledge to the new knowledge. Given clear communication and rational argument, most people are receptive and learn - fundamentalism is largely to blame for one not accepting the knowledge.
No. Hackers hack. That doesn't mean it is bad. It sounds like you've redefined the tem, but a lot of people would disagree.
The common old terminology, where a programmer or writer were called 'hackers' is definitely replaced with the group of people that bypass security in pursuit of knowledge... but I don't agree that the common conception is that they are all doing bad things.
The pile of mountain dew cans they would leave behind is probably gonna be worth a couple hundred bucks. Nevermind it is on your living room floor.
Since they will, at least, buy their own food, its like getting free money back!
You know, the quote button is an excellent choice for good answers to stupid questions - then you can be modded up and he modded to oblivion, while retaining everything that was written... ;-)
I don't usually quote people, but I can tell you practice what you preach ;)
.
Ferrous
Welcome to Slashdot.
People usually demand relevant/logical points...
...for a couple years.
The Chinese are very efficient and productive people/nation. I wouldn't be surprised if they are already ahead of the game for this 'free' resource. I will be surprised if the Brits are the first to tap it.
You are both wrong, and wikileaks continues without him.
the point is to strike fear into onlookers... to prevent people from agreeing or doing the same.
....as Nintendo Underpowered?
Fanboi mod me funny. The gamecube was the last "powerful" nintendo.
In the US, we are all(incuding lawyers) grand people of much spirit and common good. But resonant tones of abcess arise at the behest of a capital oriented society, no matter how good the individual thought he did at his job.
But should we change this? Most people are comfortable.
The lawyers, judges (previous lawyers whose colleagues are all lawyers, and politicians (over 80% are lawyers) have established a pretty serious level of JOB SECURITY, haven't they?
Wooosh.....
(I think s/he was referring to 'emotional patents')
Sorry for the last sentence. It was more of a metaphor/poem than an insult, but I see how it can be mistaken.
Aside from that, and my assumption I'm speaking to deaf ears, the rest of my post is not inflammatory at all. Plain and clear facts/observations/opinions. I don't sugar coat, but that doesn't make it bad.
From my understanding, you are correct. The reason my prior arguments don't make your point is that in the preceding posts, and th article, 'hackers' was used as a generalized population that included both of the subclasses you described... so I stayed in context. You make a good point here....
Oprah... 9000!
Watch the documentary I linked earlier so you can understand this conversation. Your quick google search to 'prove' the mob deals drugs is irrelevant and likely an outlier/deviant.
Once you understand how the mob actually works, then you can re-read this whole conversation and see the striking similarites between the mob and this litgious cabal.
Or you're a troll...
I didn't say that... here's a hint "...on the surface..."
Also, anyone that knows the mob knows they do not sell drugs. It brings heat and the real mob isn't as risky as the movie mob.
It is illegal to conspire or collude for the purpose of extortion, and it is also illegal to burden the courts with persistent unreasonable litigation.
The real Mob conducts their 'crime' in similar ways that, on the surface, appear legal. What you see in movies/HBO is not what really goes down.
This documentary will stream on netflix. You will see why it was hard for the FBI to crack down on the Mob -- that they conducted themselves very much within the scheme of what has the appearance of legal activity.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43392317/?__source=vty|mobmoney|&par=vty
If you don't watch it to learn what I mean, I'll give you a breakdown of one example given in the film.
1) Dude1: decides to build a new construction in a place with mob influence.
2) Wiseguy1/Wiseguy2 stop by and have a casual conversation about how Dude1 *will* buy his concrete from "Legit Company A", a company that charges about $1/cu.ft. over normal market prices.
If Dude1 agrees, life goes on as normal and it would appear that Dude1 isn't a good shopper.
If Dude1 disagrees....
3) Deliveries from various orders needed for the business never come.
4) Protests/Picket-lines show up at the build site.
If Dude1 still disagrees.....
5) Wiseguy1/Wiseguy2 have a physical intervention that changes Dude1's mind, or ends Dude1.
---------
It isn't a reach to say that the topic at hand follows these same 'on paper' techniques to extort money. It is very much the same a minor difference being that the lawyers don't actually do physical intimidation, but rather legal.
I hope this has been informative.
Hackers don't lack social skills.
Compared to non-hackers, statistically, YES THEY DO.
Hackers have some of the most advanced social skills in society.
Lol. Sure. I would say that they have advance skills of affecting society, but the term 'social skills' has a widely accepted connotation for which your use of the word does not apply.
The problem isn't lack of social skills, it's the addition of alcohol, drugs, and lots of attractive young fangirl/cheerleader type women who seem to think hackers are cool for some reason but who don't even care about hacking. A lot of these women are out of their element...
No. These are human beings in a physical place in a society that has laws and expectations that will not be ignored by subculture (ignore it all day and you will end up in jail or fired or both). The reality of that subculture's dysfunctional facets does *not* provide 'reason', nor does it justify the complete bullshit you're spewing here. You're using the 'she asked for it' argument, and you might find some other assholes to agree with you, but the majority of Americans (this was in Vegas, in the US) don't pay credence to that 'argument' at all and bluntly reject them. There is a big difference between an explanation and the implication of responsibility. You are implying that the victims of harassment had partial responsibility --- no. A naked woman rubbing herself all over the guy next to you is *NOT* required to accept harassment from you of any kind -- to assume you are welcome to the same without her permission is absurd. If you can't control yourself when you see attractive women, you need a psychiatrist.
MOD UP!
A simple, yet clear explanation of the probable root of this issue. Well put.
You're just digging yourself a deeper hole (from the perspective of those who disagree).
Nothing you say, from downplaying what HFT's actual impact on real business is, to the assumption that 'legal' means 'good', could ever change the fundamental belief in a common good that your critics hold.
You'll notice your response is self-oriented. That your address of the situation is from a 'me' perspective: what is bad for 'me / that the market may not be a good idea for all people to participate, etc. This doesn't help your argument in the eyes of people that care about each other.
I don't have time to go into long depth, nor do I have the interest since I'm pretty sure my argument will fall on deaf ears, so I will keep this in gist:
HFT generates income/money through a process by which there is no tangible interest between the investor and the actual business. Regardless of who 'participates' in HFT directly, everyone is still part of the system -- my friends and family, my society, my government -- they work at those businesses, and the value of their dollar is reduced with inflation. I argue that HFT results in the tricky and rapid siphoning of 'value' from an actual business, with actual employees and products, whereby the investor has no due interest in the business. No public business would agree with tricks to investment systems that strip value from the business. And while I find it impossible to generate 'extra wealth', many in defense of HFT have argued that HFT generates 'extra wealth' and that the standard value-based investments of the market and its normal ways and projections go unaffected --- yet this cannot be true, and everyone knows you can't get something from nothing --- and furthermore, if your 'extra wealth' actually is real, but dumps directly into our economy, then that is actually uncontrolled inflation that devalues the dollars of people not using exploits to generate wealth (people who actually do tangible/functional/valuable things that have inherent value, not 'created value').
From the perspective of the common man, the markets exist for long term investment in good business, and are used for limited-liability ownership and economic stability.
From the perspective of the wealth baron, the markets exist for the sole purpose of increasing wealth and hoarding the power it enables.
The reason you see so much vitriol is that very few people actually consider the world from the 'wealth baron' perspective whose criteria enforce a pursuit of self interest and greed (thanks Ayn Rand and Milton Freeturd for your irrational arguments that the greedy love). Most people care for their neighbors and want the best for their countrymen. Respect and value for community is on a decline in the US, largely as a product of the influences of media that is owned and controlled by extremely wealthy oligopolies -- this phenomenon of increased selfishness is not apparent in first world countries where media/information is not throttled by the extremely wealthy, and/or where critical thinking is emphasized.
Good luck selling your bad breath by word of mouth; did you know you had bad breath?
It means that the disease of being 'overly casual' has continued its spread upward, and that the dignity of the middle class will be defeated from within.
This sounds *exactly* like how organized crime (mobs) operate. Where the hell is the FBI I'm paying for? Will they please focus on relevant issues?!?!?!
Scientists don't usually endanger themselves and others if/when they design research and experiments. I do iPS Cell research and I wouldn't do anything I could concieve might hurt me or others. Most dangerous elements in my work can be accounted for, we glove/suit up to protect from virii and other materials. But in the case we are talking about, the dangerous byproduct is the alternate utility of the knowledge .... you could say that we might be safe by limiting access to the materals that this hypothetical knowledge requires.... but look at nuclear weapons! Not only is there lots of unaccounted materials, even the weapons have gone missing (a lot).
A gun is dangerous in the hands of a child. In context, the gun becomes an inevitable threat for the child is ignorant and curious. Your reference to the neutrality of materials sounds nice, but escapes reality. We should not let our pride assume we 7 billion real humans are ready for some answers yet.
On your point.... do you believe there are questions we shouldn't ask? To me, vaporizing the earth from a how-to perspective seems taboo.... that the gains from the answer may not be worth the risk of making publicly available answers that others could utilize....
The flaw in this research, in my opinion, is that the ambitions and ego of the researchers are more powerful than the obvious cautions/repercussions. And while we would like to answer every question about the universe, might we consider the current irrational/feudal state of mankind at present and intelligently delay certain foci until mankind is prepared to healthily understand the answers??
So when you buy CocaCola for .07 seconds, was it their strong business model you had confidence in? Was your analysis of the public that they wouldcontinue to appreciate the company, and thus you wanted to invest?
Oh.... you didn't give a rats ass about the real business with the real employees and products. You just wanted to sneak $100k out of the place in an unnoticeably fast way. You sound like a good person. (Sarcasm)
I can't believe people like you bought my democracy out from under me and made this heartless means to making money "legal".