depends how deadly the disease and how much of the population catches it. spray some disease with a 90% kill rate over the whole earth so that everyone gets infected. 25 years later do the same thing. (assuming there's no technological protections put in place to stop you from doing it more than once.) In a few generations the population will be pretty resistant.
bacteria just reproduce every 20 minutes while we take 20 years per generation.
Why does it do that? You could say that its a "survival instinct" or that those that don't reproduce better are overwhelmed and annihilated by those that do, but why does that happen? Why must living things always be driven by the need to reproduce? We're on a ball of rock, heat, gas and liquid that revolves around a ball of fusion energy. Why must life propel itself into existing?
this sounds like a variation on the anthropic principle. "isn't it amazing that almost all the living things around us happen to be like/decended-from the ones which happened to be driven to reproduce and as a result had the most kids... this must surely be proof that a god designed the universe"
I think Zero Punctuation said it best. It's a little odd that people believe that we were created in the image of god despite the fact that when you put most humans in a similar position of absolute power over an artifical world with some kinds of simulated life in it they consider the beings within less as things to be loved and cared for and more as TARGETS.
I love Alife simulations, I've even tried writing my own with little environments but in the end I always seem to get bored and start blasting them or infecting them with some kind of plague to liven things up a bit.I'd prefer a universe without any god resembling people like me.
You could. If they're using chemicals to cause a miscarriage to stop those they consider unfit from being born then a fetus which is remarkably resistant to the chemicals involved would get a massive advantage.
Of course the environment(what chemicals they use) might change rapidly but it's still part of the environment.
A child who simply fits their criteria would gain a massive advantage as well.
"Environment" doesn't need to mean trees and snakes.
Anyway, the only way the human race would be in trouble would be if every single member needed tech to have a child. variation is good as long as even a tiny number remain in a state which would allow them to survive without societies help.
It was also started as a british academic project and several other projects in europe. Never mind that it couldn't be an internet until it had more than one network involved it wasn't the first computer network and it wasn't even the first packet switching network. America didn't invent the internet. The funding that went into ARPAnet did help but ARPAnet was not the internet.
For the first time in human history a situation where people benefit from what is essentially anarchy has appeared in the form of the internet.
Despite the spam, the hackers and the botnets the internet has functioned extremely well without governments sticking their noses in. In the case of the hackers it's often the guys who were hacking in 10 years ago using the same knowledge to keep the next generation out.
The internet is not perfect but that's a technical problem to be solved by technical means.
Now that more people use it however governments around the world are trying to stick their noses in and so we need RULES and REGULATIONS and CONTROL.
If it ever came to any kind of digital attack on the US from china that went on and on and on and on and outweighted the financial benefits of having the connection to china at all it could all be solved by having a few hundred guys with axes knock out the various data pipes.
But it doesn't. We make more money by having a connection to china than we ever lose from attacks a hundred times over. It's not war. it's petty theft/extortion and companies trying to get one up on each other.
I'd bet on the biosphere surviving. It might not survive in a state that we'd like but it would survive. fire off as many nukes as you like but come back in 10 million years and you'll find whatever the rats evolved into hunting each other through the forests of asia and the only remains of our civilisation will be a thin layer of dust containing higher than normal levels of uranium in the rock layers. If you don't think the rats and cockroaches will survive then bacteria will. There are bacteria which can survive inside the heart of nuclear reactors then we're not going to kill off the biosphere with just a few hundred thousand nukes. Even if we could blot out the sun entirely for a million years the things living around vents in the deeps of the ocean would keep going as if nothing had happened.
We will never kill the earth, even in a worst case senario we'll be nowhere near as bad as some of the significant events of the past like asteroid hits and super volcanos.
But we could kill ourselves, like bacteria in a dish slowly killing themselves with the products of their own metabolism.
Fortunatly the chances of a friend dying at the hands of a terrorist are so small as to be a joke.
Any given friend of mine is hundreds of times more likely to die in a car wreck, thousands of time more likely to die from cancer, or heart disease. I need to fear my friends being killed by terrorists in the same way I need to fear my friends getting killed by lightening. It might happen but spending your whole life carrying around a Faraday cage would be stupid. Giving up your civil rights to fight lightening would be idiotic.
Yet that's basically what people do. Because even if only a tiny number get killed by terrorists everyone see's it. And that's the point, the groups which use it get attention.
Want to really fight terrorism? Gently push the media to never report the name or details of any group which commits a terrorist attack, give as little attention as you can to it. Don't blame everything on 9/11. Don't give the videos from terrorist groups any air time. If you do this then terrorism stops being effective. If it stops being effective then it will be used much much less than if it's a guaranteed way to get your cause and politics into the headlines.
Some of the happy ingredients you'll find in common vaccines are formaldehyde (poison) and thimerosal (poison) which breaks down into ethylmercury (poison) and also raw mercury (poison).
on the other hand they started using those preservatives after Staphylococcus infections killed some people. And your soft drink contains CO2(poison), glucose which while being metabolised produces hydrogen peroxide(poison). Sure, it's good to remember that they use these compounds but everything is poisonous at high enough levels and almost everything is safe is particularly small quantities, if a compound is dangerous to use then the doctors will be inclined to push for it to be taken out. A million idiots being told what to think by the Sun newspaper are more likely to get people killed with the "OMFG POISONS!!!! AAAAAHHHH!!! THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL MY BABIES!!!!" since they don't bother looking at the actual numbers.
Want something really scary? If you have a coal fire at home then a few parts per million of it and the the smoke coming off it when it burns is uranium! OMFG! We're all gonna die!!!
Do you have kids who haven't been vacinated yet? (Normal age for vacinations is 4 or 5 in the UK isn't it?)
Well those idiots who refuse to get vaccinated/vaccinate their kids are putting all the kids bellow that age at risk and measles and mumps are no joke. I wonder if it could be considered intentionally infecting others.
Doctors generally like keeping their patients alive, if you can back up your claims you'll have little problem getting doctors to listen. If on the other hand your evidence is cherry picked crap you'll be ignored.
News stations/traditional media: give you one angle, theirs, decided by what's going to get them sued and what's going to sell most copies. What's "true" is a minor concern if it could get them sued.
Bloggers: Give you every angle, largely ignoring what could get them sued, getting most hits could be considered to be like selling most copies but since there's rarely significant money involved this has a very small effect. "true" amounts to whatever the blogger opinion is.
Are we lumping board in with bloggers? I have gotten sick of reading my national newspapers because I got sick of seeing so many stories (a week after I'd seen them online) where half the important facts of the situation were left out entirely and you could see the reporter had decided that X was guilty or that Y had happened and only presented that half of it in the story.
Example: A story a few years ago about a woman who's twins had died because she refused to have a Csection. The (respectable) national newspaper presented the story as a "look how selfish this woman was, she killed her children becuase she was afraid of blemishing her body with a scar, she should have been forced to have a Csection!(for the children)" I should mention that this newspaper tends to push the view of women as incubators whenever abortion issues pop up.
Of course I'd read the story online before that and had run into the little fact that this woman already had kids, at least one of whom had been born by Csection and so she already had csection scars. The newspapers didn't feel that this fact was important yet it completely tore apart their whole story.
But sure those evil bloggers with their lies! they just want to put "real jornalists" out of a job!
With message boards when someone does that another person will jump in with the second half and call bullshit(normally). When newspapers present exactly half the story people treat it as gospel. "I read it in the newspaper!"
Blogs and message boards are a hundred times better to get your information from than all but the very very best traditional news media.
If you only ever read one blog your going to get worse information than from reading one newspaper, on the other hand if you read a few message boards you're likely to get much much much better info than you'll get from the same stories presented in a few normal newspapers.
Lies by omission are still lies and I'd prefer to be told the whole truth along with a pile of falsities than be told only the half of the truth which supports some hacks beliefs or agenda.
Anonimity isn't a myth, you just need to know what to do. People need to know how to cover their asses when they feel the urge to complain about their governments.
Any idea of the legality of publishing simple a step by step explanation of how to use a VPN along with a list of providers in various countries and their prices in australia? Not selling the service, just letting the uninformed know that such things exist.
not really that certain. If the internet hadn't grown up from under the radar it very well could have been treated like traditional media. Want to run a server? You better have a liscence just like the TV broadcasters. Want to connect at all? WEll first you have to authenticate with the central government servers so they know who's doing what on the network.
Our greatest defence for years was that nobody knew enough about it to make laws on it. Now that there's real money involved of course the legislators want to make rules even if they don't have a clue what's going on- kinda like with every other situations that governments touch.
After seeing some of the crap that's gotten printed in "respectable" dead tree journals I feel I must point out that they are most certainly not perfect.
Also keep in mind that some of them also have electronic versions.
Not everything on the web is lies, not everything on paper is truth, both are pretty crap and printed material is only a bit better than electronic.
So these regulations, like rules against anti-competetive practices and insider trading. These evil evil regulations. Lets look at a world without them.
Say I set up a bus service. There's already a larger company providing a bus services in the city but they're expensive. I charge half the price that they do and start to get a lot of buisness and make a small profit. They see what I'm doing and the next week my buisness has dropped right off as they start providing free bus services in my town. They have deep pockets because they're providing service to 100 towns and charging above the real cost. By the end of the month I go bankrupt and they start charging the customers the price they did before(rip off). Pretty soon they don't have to worry about startups because it's become known they'll bankrupt anyone who tries.
If someone with enough money to make a significant loss in startup sets up the company then they can take over large areas and make sure they're the only real choice. Once they're bigger than their competitors it's just a matter of bankrupting the last of them with variations on this and then charging double the price.
Or how about a market where there's 3 major companies. they provide something essential so all agree to fix their prices (remember no evil government regulations against price fixing) and all make huge piles of money.
Mike has insider knowledge in a company and uses it to make a fortune in shares screwing over everyone else. (none of those horrible insider trading laws.)
The fact is that if you have a large pile of money starting off the game you can take over a small industry and jack up the prices/ kill off any startups with less money. take over a few small markets and really rake in the dough and you can take over some bigger markets with the money from those.
When I was a child we had an old machine my dad had salvaged from the skip at work, when I was about 3 I started playing a simple maths game, I don't know whether it was my sister or parents who first put me playing it but I remember the game well.
It had a list of different games with counting and memory stuff, the one I remember best was the addition game. It printed up something like "5+3=" in big primary coulors on a blue background with 5 baloons below the 5 and 3 baloons bellow the 3 etc. Hell the answer would never be more than 9 so there was only a handful of different sums.
It had a fairly awful voice synth which would speak the question and and then if you got it correct you'd get one of 4 or 5 silly complements "That's fantastic!" "great!" etc etc Perfect for kids in other words.
It kept score in the bottom right corner with how many answers you'd got correct. I'd sit in front of it for hours enthralled. My mother relates how I used to proudly march into the kitchen at age 3 and 4 and announce "I've got half a hundred!" "I've got a hundred!" etc
I'd love to find a copy of this or some updated version with better sound as it really was fantastic. Hell I'd be half tempted to write my own version of it if I ever had kids of my own.
I learned math before I ever learned how to read or write with a pencil. It was dull in school when we were being taught basic math and I was bored because the class was trying to understand the concept of plus and minus. But it put me ahead in math and once you're ahead it's easy to stay ahead.
I owe a great deal to that game and my family for sitting me in front of it. If anyone knows what this is called or where to find it I'd love to know who the dev was so I can thank them.
At the same time I wish my dad had sat down with me at a young age and taught me how to code a little. He tended to hand me manuals which while fine for students tends to be a bit of a hurdle when you don't understand most of the words on the first page and get discouraged.
Has the situation of "cops who the homeowner says didn't announce themselves busting down the door gets shot" ever come up? Otherwise you still have to hesitate to make sure it isn't a government official.
I wouldn't feel safe without my shotgun pointed at the door and hooked up to the doorhandle with string.
The problem with this is that if years from now you register an account at a site under "john doe" or some other fake name, or break the TOS in other ways keeping in mind that site owners can put any crazy shit in the terms of service then this precedent makes you guilty of hacking. Posting fads on a site where it's against the TOS? Hacking. Failing to mark a link as NSW on boards where it's against the TOS? Hacking.
See where this is going? Given that I can put anything I like into a TOS- I've never heard of any legal restrictions, what's to stop me making it against the TOS to register on my board if you're black? Then I can charge those to violate with hacking.
Slashdot Mirror
depends how deadly the disease and how much of the population catches it.
spray some disease with a 90% kill rate over the whole earth so that everyone gets infected.
25 years later do the same thing. (assuming there's no technological protections put in place to stop you from doing it more than once.)
In a few generations the population will be pretty resistant.
bacteria just reproduce every 20 minutes while we take 20 years per generation.
Why does it do that? You could say that its a "survival instinct" or that those that don't reproduce better are overwhelmed and annihilated by those that do, but why does that happen? Why must living things always be driven by the need to reproduce? We're on a ball of rock, heat, gas and liquid that revolves around a ball of fusion energy. Why must life propel itself into existing?
this sounds like a variation on the anthropic principle. "isn't it amazing that almost all the living things around us happen to be like/decended-from the ones which happened to be driven to reproduce and as a result had the most kids... this must surely be proof that a god designed the universe"
I think Zero Punctuation said it best. It's a little odd that people believe that we were created in the image of god despite the fact that when you put most humans in a similar position of absolute power over an artifical world with some kinds of simulated life in it they consider the beings within less as things to be loved and cared for and more as TARGETS.
I love Alife simulations, I've even tried writing my own with little environments but in the end I always seem to get bored and start blasting them or infecting them with some kind of plague to liven things up a bit.I'd prefer a universe without any god resembling people like me.
You could. If they're using chemicals to cause a miscarriage to stop those they consider unfit from being born then a fetus which is remarkably resistant to the chemicals involved would get a massive advantage.
Of course the environment(what chemicals they use) might change rapidly but it's still part of the environment.
A child who simply fits their criteria would gain a massive advantage as well.
"Environment" doesn't need to mean trees and snakes.
Anyway, the only way the human race would be in trouble would be if every single member needed tech to have a child. variation is good as long as even a tiny number remain in a state which would allow them to survive without societies help.
It was also started as a british academic project and several other projects in europe.
Never mind that it couldn't be an internet until it had more than one network involved it wasn't the first computer network and it wasn't even the first packet switching network.
America didn't invent the internet.
The funding that went into ARPAnet did help but ARPAnet was not the internet.
Fantastic!
Imaginary things are now real!
Imaginary people now have all the rights of real people!
There is no cyberwar.
For the first time in human history a situation where people benefit from what is essentially anarchy has appeared in the form of the internet.
Despite the spam, the hackers and the botnets the internet has functioned extremely well without governments sticking their noses in. In the case of the hackers it's often the guys who were hacking in 10 years ago using the same knowledge to keep the next generation out.
The internet is not perfect but that's a technical problem to be solved by technical means.
Now that more people use it however governments around the world are trying to stick their noses in and so we need RULES and REGULATIONS and CONTROL.
If it ever came to any kind of digital attack on the US from china that went on and on and on and on and outweighted the financial benefits of having the connection to china at all it could all be solved by having a few hundred guys with axes knock out the various data pipes.
But it doesn't. We make more money by having a connection to china than we ever lose from attacks a hundred times over.
It's not war. it's petty theft/extortion and companies trying to get one up on each other.
I'd bet on the biosphere surviving. It might not survive in a state that we'd like but it would survive.
fire off as many nukes as you like but come back in 10 million years and you'll find whatever the rats evolved into hunting each other through the forests of asia and the only remains of our civilisation will be a thin layer of dust containing higher than normal levels of uranium in the rock layers.
If you don't think the rats and cockroaches will survive then bacteria will. There are bacteria which can survive inside the heart of nuclear reactors then we're not going to kill off the biosphere with just a few hundred thousand nukes.
Even if we could blot out the sun entirely for a million years the things living around vents in the deeps of the ocean would keep going as if nothing had happened.
We will never kill the earth, even in a worst case senario we'll be nowhere near as bad as some of the significant events of the past like asteroid hits and super volcanos.
But we could kill ourselves, like bacteria in a dish slowly killing themselves with the products of their own metabolism.
Fortunatly the chances of a friend dying at the hands of a terrorist are so small as to be a joke.
Any given friend of mine is hundreds of times more likely to die in a car wreck, thousands of time more likely to die from cancer, or heart disease.
I need to fear my friends being killed by terrorists in the same way I need to fear my friends getting killed by lightening.
It might happen but spending your whole life carrying around a Faraday cage would be stupid.
Giving up your civil rights to fight lightening would be idiotic.
Yet that's basically what people do. Because even if only a tiny number get killed by terrorists everyone see's it. And that's the point, the groups which use it get attention.
Want to really fight terrorism? Gently push the media to never report the name or details of any group which commits a terrorist attack, give as little attention as you can to it. Don't blame everything on 9/11. Don't give the videos from terrorist groups any air time. If you do this then terrorism stops being effective. If it stops being effective then it will be used much much less than if it's a guaranteed way to get your cause and politics into the headlines.
Some of the happy ingredients you'll find in common vaccines are formaldehyde (poison) and thimerosal (poison) which breaks down into ethylmercury (poison) and also raw mercury (poison).
on the other hand they started using those preservatives after Staphylococcus infections killed some people.
And your soft drink contains CO2(poison), glucose which while being metabolised produces hydrogen peroxide(poison).
Sure, it's good to remember that they use these compounds but everything is poisonous at high enough levels and almost everything is safe is particularly small quantities, if a compound is dangerous to use then the doctors will be inclined to push for it to be taken out. A million idiots being told what to think by the Sun newspaper are more likely to get people killed with the "OMFG POISONS!!!! AAAAAHHHH!!! THEY'RE TRYING TO KILL MY BABIES!!!!" since they don't bother looking at the actual numbers.
Want something really scary? If you have a coal fire at home then a few parts per million of it and the the smoke coming off it when it burns is uranium! OMFG! We're all gonna die!!!
Doctors generally like to keep their patients alive. If the case for not vacinating people wasn't bullshit they'd switch.
So evidence or GTFO.
Do you have kids who haven't been vacinated yet? (Normal age for vacinations is 4 or 5 in the UK isn't it?)
Well those idiots who refuse to get vaccinated/vaccinate their kids are putting all the kids bellow that age at risk and measles and mumps are no joke.
I wonder if it could be considered intentionally infecting others.
So lets hear this rock solid evidence.
Doctors generally like keeping their patients alive, if you can back up your claims you'll have little problem getting doctors to listen. If on the other hand your evidence is cherry picked crap you'll be ignored.
Sp come on.Solid facts and figures or GTFO
News stations/traditional media: give you one angle, theirs, decided by what's going to get them sued and what's going to sell most copies. What's "true" is a minor concern if it could get them sued.
Bloggers: Give you every angle, largely ignoring what could get them sued, getting most hits could be considered to be like selling most copies but since there's rarely significant money involved this has a very small effect. "true" amounts to whatever the blogger opinion is.
Are we lumping board in with bloggers?
I have gotten sick of reading my national newspapers because I got sick of seeing so many stories (a week after I'd seen them online) where half the important facts of the situation were left out entirely and you could see the reporter had decided that X was guilty or that Y had happened and only presented that half of it in the story.
Example:
A story a few years ago about a woman who's twins had died because she refused to have a Csection. The (respectable) national newspaper presented the story as a "look how selfish this woman was, she killed her children becuase she was afraid of blemishing her body with a scar, she should have been forced to have a Csection!(for the children)" I should mention that this newspaper tends to push the view of women as incubators whenever abortion issues pop up.
Of course I'd read the story online before that and had run into the little fact that this woman already had kids, at least one of whom had been born by Csection and so she already had csection scars. The newspapers didn't feel that this fact was important yet it completely tore apart their whole story.
But sure those evil bloggers with their lies! they just want to put "real jornalists" out of a job!
With message boards when someone does that another person will jump in with the second half and call bullshit(normally). When newspapers present exactly half the story people treat it as gospel. "I read it in the newspaper!"
Blogs and message boards are a hundred times better to get your information from than all but the very very best traditional news media.
If you only ever read one blog your going to get worse information than from reading one newspaper, on the other hand if you read a few message boards you're likely to get much much much better info than you'll get from the same stories presented in a few normal newspapers.
Lies by omission are still lies and I'd prefer to be told the whole truth along with a pile of falsities than be told only the half of the truth which supports some hacks beliefs or agenda.
Anonimity isn't a myth, you just need to know what to do.
People need to know how to cover their asses when they feel the urge to complain about their governments.
Any idea of the legality of publishing simple a step by step explanation of how to use a VPN along with a list of providers in various countries and their prices in australia?
Not selling the service, just letting the uninformed know that such things exist.
not really that certain.
If the internet hadn't grown up from under the radar it very well could have been treated like traditional media.
Want to run a server? You better have a liscence just like the TV broadcasters.
Want to connect at all? WEll first you have to authenticate with the central government servers so they know who's doing what on the network.
Our greatest defence for years was that nobody knew enough about it to make laws on it. Now that there's real money involved of course the legislators want to make rules even if they don't have a clue what's going on- kinda like with every other situations that governments touch.
and this has happened how much since china built it's firewall?
"large corporate site-license "
not
"Small corporate site-license "
You can have a small to medium buisness and still get fucked.
After seeing some of the crap that's gotten printed in "respectable" dead tree journals I feel I must point out that they are most certainly not perfect.
Also keep in mind that some of them also have electronic versions.
Not everything on the web is lies, not everything on paper is truth, both are pretty crap and printed material is only a bit better than electronic.
all they have to do to get their market back is stop releasing security patches or release lower and lower quality patches.
So these regulations, like rules against anti-competetive practices and insider trading.
These evil evil regulations.
Lets look at a world without them.
Say I set up a bus service. There's already a larger company providing a bus services in the city but they're expensive. I charge half the price that they do and start to get a lot of buisness and make a small profit.
They see what I'm doing and the next week my buisness has dropped right off as they start providing free bus services in my town. They have deep pockets because they're providing service to 100 towns and charging above the real cost.
By the end of the month I go bankrupt and they start charging the customers the price they did before(rip off).
Pretty soon they don't have to worry about startups because it's become known they'll bankrupt anyone who tries.
If someone with enough money to make a significant loss in startup sets up the company then they can take over large areas and make sure they're the only real choice.
Once they're bigger than their competitors it's just a matter of bankrupting the last of them with variations on this and then charging double the price.
Or how about a market where there's 3 major companies. they provide something essential so all agree to fix their prices (remember no evil government regulations against price fixing) and all make huge piles of money.
Mike has insider knowledge in a company and uses it to make a fortune in shares screwing over everyone else. (none of those horrible insider trading laws.)
The fact is that if you have a large pile of money starting off the game you can take over a small industry and jack up the prices/ kill off any startups with less money.
take over a few small markets and really rake in the dough and you can take over some bigger markets with the money from those.
I'd interpret it as "all those other adds shouldn't have run"
It's still false advertising even if everyone is doing it.
When I was a child we had an old machine my dad had salvaged from the skip at work, when I was about 3 I started playing a simple maths game, I don't know whether it was my sister or parents who first put me playing it but I remember the game well.
It had a list of different games with counting and memory stuff, the one I remember best was the addition game.
It printed up something like "5+3=" in big primary coulors on a blue background with 5 baloons below the 5 and 3 baloons bellow the 3 etc. Hell the answer would never be more than 9 so there was only a handful of different sums.
It had a fairly awful voice synth which would speak the question and and then if you got it correct you'd get one of 4 or 5 silly complements "That's fantastic!" "great!" etc etc
Perfect for kids in other words.
It kept score in the bottom right corner with how many answers you'd got correct.
I'd sit in front of it for hours enthralled. My mother relates how I used to proudly march into the kitchen at age 3 and 4 and announce "I've got half a hundred!" "I've got a hundred!" etc
I'd love to find a copy of this or some updated version with better sound as it really was fantastic. Hell I'd be half tempted to write my own version of it if I ever had kids of my own.
I learned math before I ever learned how to read or write with a pencil. It was dull in school when we were being taught basic math and I was bored because the class was trying to understand the concept of plus and minus. But it put me ahead in math and once you're ahead it's easy to stay ahead.
I owe a great deal to that game and my family for sitting me in front of it. If anyone knows what this is called or where to find it I'd love to know who the dev was so I can thank them.
At the same time I wish my dad had sat down with me at a young age and taught me how to code a little.
He tended to hand me manuals which while fine for students tends to be a bit of a hurdle when you don't understand most of the words on the first page and get discouraged.
Has the situation of "cops who the homeowner says didn't announce themselves busting down the door gets shot" ever come up?
Otherwise you still have to hesitate to make sure it isn't a government official.
I wouldn't feel safe without my shotgun pointed at the door and hooked up to the doorhandle with string.
yes but capone really had commited fraud.
The problem with this is that if years from now you register an account at a site under "john doe" or some other fake name, or break the TOS in other ways keeping in mind that site owners can put any crazy shit in the terms of service then this precedent makes you guilty of hacking.
Posting fads on a site where it's against the TOS? Hacking.
Failing to mark a link as NSW on boards where it's against the TOS? Hacking.
See where this is going?
Given that I can put anything I like into a TOS- I've never heard of any legal restrictions, what's to stop me making it against the TOS to register on my board if you're black? Then I can charge those to violate with hacking.