Take with a grain of salt, for while I do hold a degree in mathematics and have done networking as well, he was difficult to understand.
Problem 1) Assuming everything in the draft is correct (see following points ), this would require almost global address reassignment, and a complete rework of how addresses are translated and handled. What benefit does this give us over the change to IPv6?
Problem 2) He seems to be completely ignorant of CIDR (classless inter-domain routing), which removed many of the problems with the previous class-based ip scheme. However, this did not 'give-back' the addresses previously assigned. I suppose with his idea, everyone would need a new address anyway, so that would not be a problem:).
Problem 3) **This is the main 'fault' of the argument, and makes me think that it is a joke.*** This structure essentialy requires all traffic to have a 'network' identifier along with the IP address to differentiate the hosts. Each IP address can be used by multiple interfaces(machines), but only one interface will have that particular IP+subnet combination. Each 'set' of subnets will be kept under the 'parent' subnet, so that simple IP collision will not occur. This seems to be so that some routers will not have to be reconfigured. The exercise on how do do this is left to the reader. (I know I don't have a clue, and I don't think Eugine does, either.)
Simply put, IPv4 addresses will be reused by multiple hosts, and we will send another identifier with the address. The combination of this extra identifier (the subnet mask) and the IP address wil make each host unique.
So, My question is, how does this differ so much from implementing IPv6? IPv6 seems cleaner, and easier to implement than changing to this bastardized-IPv4 would be. Also, we would have more addresses available, as this IPv4-A idea would also have us run out fairly soon. (not just machines will need IP addr's in the future. wristwatches, lamps, electrical outlets...these may all be controlled by IP someday. Who knows?)
I couldn't read the whole story. Some 'banner' ad started talking to me. Thats one of my biggest pet peeves.. sound on a web page you can't shut off, and aren't prompted to start or not. Of course, I guess that's what I get for using IE5 on windoze, where you can't turn the sound off easily...
Am I the only one that fears the ad patrol? I have no problem with people making money by selling advertising space.. I have a problem when its as intrusive as possible. Hell, if they could they'd probably make it tap you on the shoulder. Advertising is not evil to me, as it is to some. But, if you make your web ads annoying, not only will I try not to ever give you money, but I'll also stop going to the pages you advertise on. I hope that some advertisers are reading this.
From the article, and another related, it seems that this is not really a buffer overflow exploit, but instead just a bug in the client software that sends more information than is requested by the server.
An exploit would be a discovered bug in the server code that allowed an engineered packet masquerading as the client to obtain privleges or information from the server, or possibly crash or disable it. This, instead was handled by the server in a graceful manner, but now is actively being checked for in order to allow AOL to shut out MS.
As they talk of an 'intercepting user' or some such, that is something that any IM could be vulerable to, bug or not..
This goes along with a pet peeve of mine at work. I must hear 'buffer overflow' twice a day. In fact, in addition to the Y2K verification forms I have to sign for in-house software put in production, on some servers I have to sign 'no buffer overflow vulnerabilities' certs as well..
Many VP's and high level managers think that this is the only type of security hole that can exist. They also seem to think that it always exists. Ahh, well.. they also say the network was 'hacked' when a virus shows up from some user with a screen saver from home.
Last I heard, the current research on it was at the point where to raise a 1/2 ton object to 20,000 ft would require (if it could be built, which isn't possible yet, so this is simple scaling) a $40 billion (to construct) laser, costing $3billion/second to operate about 4 minutes (or $720 billion total in energy, which can't be supplied yet), and the craft itself would need to either have some propulsion method built in to stabilize itself, or else spin fast enough to use gyroscopic forces to stay stable... too fast for any people to survive. Oh, and it says this would be so loud (due to the explosive vaporization of the air) that it would shatter eardrums at 4 miles. Fun fun!
I guess I didn't make myself clear, and I apologize.
I have no problem with the thought that evolution may be wrong.. However, it should be taught that it is one of the best theories we have to explain our observations. To not teach it because it is not proven is a disservice to our youth.
I also have no problem teaching creationism, however, what basis do we teach it on? In its truist form, it does not fit observation well. If we teach it as something that is believed as true by many (though not as many as evolution, if the 1994 statistic is still true), then what 'magic number' do we cut off teaching 'believed' theories at? if 10,000,000 people believe it, we teach it, but if only 9,999,999 do, we do not?
I truly do think this matter deserves more thought, and while I am for separation of church and state, we can not clothe our youth in ignorance of the beliefs of religions any more than the beliefs of scientists. However, stopping the teaching of our 'best bet' theory of how humans came to be is not the answer we need.
Our science progresses by teaching our best bet to those who would extend it, disprove it, or revamp it. Not teaching it means it will most likely never be disproven or improved upon... only 'rediscovered' to have the battle start again.
Here in Omaha, there has been a continuing debate in the papers and the board of education meetings over evolution. Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either, say the christians. (other religious sects have stayed out of it, or joined the evolution side)
The problem is, the board is buying it. Why? the creationists are saying 'evolution is not a fact. It even says so right in the name! "Theory of Evolution"... If we can't teach the theory of creationism, then that's out too!'. These people actually think that they are right, and the morons on the board are starting to see it that way.
We all expect this of the religious masses... they are simply trying to make sure that everyone believes what they believe. No big deal... but when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem.
Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
Or perhaps a better example, since they say that the theory of evolution can not be experimentally proven (because they have no idea what constitutes an experiment)... How about quantum theory? There are many that think it is plain wrong, that it is incomplete, and that it will soon be replaced. However, they know that it is a GOOD theory and should be taught. Why? because it does a better job of predicting observations than the previous theories. The laser, microwave ovens, genetic sequencing, all would currently be impossible without this theory.. should we stop teaching it because it teaches that there is no-one choosing interactions, that they are chance and statistics? Sure.. why not.
I could go on... these people write in and say "Science has not given us happyness", and then try to argue against teaching "Science" (note how they capitalize it always).. well, I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty miserable if I didn't have/.
So would /. be held responsible?
on
New Cyberlaws
·
· Score: 1
If I post a comment with a link to a site about crack here in HTML format (so it becomes a link), then who is to be charged with this 'crime'? I'm not linking to the web site,/. is./. is not the owner of the content, I am. But I didn't send a link, just some text that/. turned into a link?
And if I just put up a plaintext URL, without making it a link, is that illegal? I'm still directing people to that site, they just have to type it in themselves (or cut and paste).
Despite the obvious unconstitutionality (?) of this law, the logistics are simply insane. I do not think intelligent laws regarding the internet, or computers in general will ever be passed untill a few generations of congressmen have passed. And even then, I'm sure the technology will be ahead of the laws.
But what really worries me are the judges. A clueless judge can do more harm than 5 bad laws. Almost makes me want to buy an island and move out. Anyone want to give me $5 billion?
Well, I've given up on my quest to restore 'hacker' to the clever man, 'cracker' to the clever user breaking in to systems or software, and 'moron' to script kids.
However, This poor misguided soul is what even crackers hate... a person who isn't breaking in to show it can be done, but to mess with the results of a vote that was put on the web in a wonderful show of internet trust. The league didn't have to put the ballots on the web... they could have made me go to wall-mart. But, in recognizing that the internet is a global community that counts, they made it so I don't have to work off those last two Ho-Ho's to vote for some stupid player.
So, when Joe BuisnessOwner hears about this, and then is faced with the decision to web or not to web, what do you think he'll do?
Oh, and not changing the data sent in the form? was that just lazyness or what? (not that I can talk... I used the web to vote)
I also don't think MS can kill Perl. However, your parallel of MFC/C++ with J++/Java is somewhat flawed. Adding MFC libraries to C++ made no difference because if you're writing apps in C++, it pretty much _has_ to be platform specific. The reason one might port to Java isn't speed, it's portability. You can write Java apps and run them anywhere.
MS made their Java IDE create Java apps that would run ONLY on Windows (unless you jumped through hoops). (Actually, only on a MS JVM running on windows... even worse). So anyone using J++ from MS was defeating the ENTIRE purpose Java was created. What were they thinking? They also made thier JVM so that it wouldn't run 100% pure apps as well as MS java apps. Again, not trying to stay true to the Java concept.
No, MS didn't kill Java... but they tried as hard as they could to co-opt it. What will they do to perl? Perl's licence should keep them from making proprietary Windows 'language extensions', but since when has MS cared about that? they'll do it anyway, and let the layers deal with it.
And if they do add 'extensions' to Perl, and make a VB-style IDE for Perl? --It makes CGI programming, Perl programming easy! Yaay, use it! (oh, and if you don't change lots of settings, the Perl will only run under a MS interpreter. The MSPerl interpreter is free, though, and easily available, so no problem, right?).
It won't kill perl. Most Perl is used on platforms that MS can't influence, and by people who don't like them. They may try (and they may not, who knows?), but I don't think anything will come from it.
This is entirely too true. I'm 25, with one year of college credit. I'm making over $100K a year programming (hell, my current assignment is in Visual Basic! that's not even programming!) as a consultant. I'm working with people doing the SAME thing, as consultants from the SAME company, the SAME age as me that are making 44-50K $US. Why? the got this job straight out of school, and they didn't know how to negotiate. All three of us bill out at the same rate.
While it's true that one of them does no work at all, it's all the same to the consulting company. What they want are bodies that can pass an interview at a client site, either do decent work or fool the client, and be billed at $70-120/hr.. all the while being payed $20-$25/hr. I don't know about you, but if I were an employer that could get away with this, I'd want more grads at $40K making me $100K then people making $110K making me $30K. You?
It's not really the fact that we love linux that's the problem here. The real problem is an old one.
How many of you remember your first days on IRC, or the first time you tried to set up your machine and asked for help on usenet. I'm sure that while you had the title 'newbie' you got a few helpful comments, and some great insights, but you also got flamed for being 'stupid' by all the kids that thought they were better than you. You were told 'RTFM' and 'Read the FAQ, idiot.'
And how do most linux users see windows users? As tech-less wonders, that's how. "Sure, he might be a brain surgeon, but he can't even compile a kernel!"
This is the problem. A group of people found validation and a heightened sense of self-worth because they had more technical knowledge then you did. Now, you're accepted and looked up to by that same group.
So what does the Linux crowd shout when we hear windows users knocking at the door? Well, the loudest cries (and easiest to remember) are the insults, the stupid one-line dismissive responses. Sure, there are lots of balanced opinions, but who remembers those? and how many of those are held by outspoken people?
You can't stop this mindless chatter, anymore than you can get a group of schoolchildren to stop teasing each other. And removing the schoolchildren will stunt the growth of the community. All we can do is help balance it out by presenting well thought out viewpoints and arguments in a sane, rational manner, to try and drown out the people who say 'winbloz sux, and linux rulz'. You can't make them stop. You can only guide them to a better approach.
The minute sombody posts a comment to try and up thier point tally, even if it is extremely intelligent.. ? If the comment IS extremely intelligent, then I would LIKE it to be posted. That's what I'm here for. If someone trys to up thier score by posting "whee... first", they will fail, and possibly lose a point or two if they had it. This would discourage bad posts and encourage good posts. Plus, it would allow those posters that we know have insightful comments (regardless of if they are right or not) to boost the score of the posts they want, instead of having ALL thier posts boosted.
If we stick with this system (which I personally don't like all that much), then a person with 2 good comments will start showing up at the top of my list with thier regular insipid ones. (If I understand correctly). I'd rather the pool.
Remember, because this forum is very open to the public, you can't stop stupid posts. I'd rather keep the system open, then try to eliminate ALL the ways a clever idiot (heh) can abuse/.
Can't they be labeled correctly?
on
CNN on "hackers"
·
· Score: 2
Anyone else here remember Tymnet? When with a good understanding of a system, you could make it do what you wantedin clever and obscure ways? When computer time was billed? Hackers were, at that time, great programmers, or incredible system admins, or both.
People who broke into other computers were sometimes called hackers, but they did it using pure wits and skill. Hardly ever did they damage a system, they just wanted free computer time, or to be able to connect to another computer without paying for a LD call. Few 'hackers' broke into machines or networks, but those that did were almost always just having fun. True, I don't want anyone to have fun on my machine, but they were at most trespassers.. annoyances.
Now, enter the 1990s. Kids with 'virus creation kits' and 'syn bombers' that are already built for them do damage because then they can be '3133t', or have some other title that involves looking like a moron. They do thier best to install backOrifice on some poor housewives web-surfing machine and terrorize her. Then they get together and try to out-posture each other. How many of these 'hackers' have simply found a person who shared the C drive of thier machine and have a cable modem, then installed backOrifice or Netbus and called themselves a hacker 'D00D'? Do these people understand what they did or how they did it? No, but at least they can read the easy steps to do it... I can put a book on a photocopier, but does that make me a novelist?
Hacker has become a label for the latter group, and given the former a bad name. So let's call these 'new hackers' by a different, appropriate name. 'Morons' or 'Juvenile Losers' comes to mind.
For the few that DO know what they are doing, but still damage systems, let's call them 'assholes' (pardon my french). For if you really understand computers, and use that to hurt others, that's like knowing kung fu, and running around town beating people up.
I submit these new labels to the net community, hoping that I can once again call myself a 'hacker' and not have people either hate me, or ask me to crash thier boss' system.
Slashdot Mirror
Take with a grain of salt, for while I do hold a degree in mathematics and have done networking as well, he was difficult to understand.
:).
.these may all be controlled by IP someday. Who knows?)
Problem 1)
Assuming everything in the draft is correct (see following points ), this would require almost global address reassignment, and a complete rework of how addresses are translated and handled. What benefit does this give us over the change to IPv6?
Problem 2)
He seems to be completely ignorant of CIDR (classless inter-domain routing), which removed many of the problems with the previous class-based ip scheme. However, this did not 'give-back' the addresses previously assigned. I suppose with his idea, everyone would need a new address anyway, so that would not be a problem
Problem 3)
**This is the main 'fault' of the argument, and makes me think that it is a joke.*** This structure essentialy requires all traffic to have a 'network' identifier along with the IP address to differentiate the hosts. Each IP address can be used by multiple interfaces(machines), but only one interface will have that particular IP+subnet combination. Each 'set' of subnets will be kept under the 'parent' subnet, so that simple IP collision will not occur. This seems to be so that some routers will not have to be reconfigured. The exercise on how do do this is left to the reader. (I know I don't have a clue, and I don't think Eugine does, either.)
Simply put, IPv4 addresses will be reused by multiple hosts, and we will send another identifier with the address. The combination of this extra identifier (the subnet mask) and the IP address wil make each host unique.
So, My question is, how does this differ so much from implementing IPv6? IPv6 seems cleaner, and easier to implement than changing to this bastardized-IPv4 would be. Also, we would have more addresses available, as this IPv4-A idea would also have us run out fairly soon. (not just machines will need IP addr's in the future. wristwatches, lamps, electrical outlets..
I for one will still support IPv6. You?
I couldn't read the whole story. Some 'banner' ad started talking to me. Thats one of my biggest pet peeves.. sound on a web page you can't shut off, and aren't prompted to start or not. Of course, I guess that's what I get for using IE5 on windoze, where you can't turn the sound off easily...
Am I the only one that fears the ad patrol? I have no problem with people making money by selling advertising space.. I have a problem when its as intrusive as possible. Hell, if they could they'd probably make it tap you on the shoulder. Advertising is not evil to me, as it is to some. But, if you make your web ads annoying, not only will I try not to ever give you money, but I'll also stop going to the pages you advertise on. I hope that some advertisers are reading this.
From the article, and another related, it seems that this is not really a buffer overflow exploit, but instead just a bug in the client software that sends more information than is requested by the server.
An exploit would be a discovered bug in the server code that allowed an engineered packet masquerading as the client to obtain privleges or information from the server, or possibly crash or disable it. This, instead was handled by the server in a graceful manner, but now is actively being checked for in order to allow AOL to shut out MS.
As they talk of an 'intercepting user' or some such, that is something that any IM could be vulerable to, bug or not..
This goes along with a pet peeve of mine at work. I must hear 'buffer overflow' twice a day. In fact, in addition to the Y2K verification forms I have to sign for in-house software put in production, on some servers I have to sign 'no buffer overflow vulnerabilities' certs as well..
Many VP's and high level managers think that this is the only type of security hole that can exist. They also seem to think that it always exists. Ahh, well.. they also say the network was 'hacked' when a virus shows up from some user with a screen saver from home.
Last I heard, the current research on it was at the point where to raise a 1/2 ton object to 20,000 ft would require (if it could be built, which isn't possible yet, so this is simple scaling) a $40 billion (to construct) laser, costing $3billion/second to operate about 4 minutes (or $720 billion total in energy, which can't be supplied yet), and the craft itself would need to either have some propulsion method built in to stabilize itself, or else spin fast enough to use gyroscopic forces to stay stable... too fast for any people to survive. Oh, and it says this would be so loud (due to the explosive vaporization of the air) that it would shatter eardrums at 4 miles. Fun fun!
I guess I didn't make myself clear, and I apologize.
I have no problem with the thought that evolution may be wrong.. However, it should be taught that it is one of the best theories we have to explain our observations. To not teach it because it is not proven is a disservice to our youth.
I also have no problem teaching creationism, however, what basis do we teach it on? In its truist form, it does not fit observation well. If we teach it as something that is believed as true by many (though not as many as evolution, if the 1994 statistic is still true), then what 'magic number' do we cut off teaching 'believed' theories at? if 10,000,000 people believe it, we teach it, but if only 9,999,999 do, we do not?
I truly do think this matter deserves more thought, and while I am for separation of church and state, we can not clothe our youth in ignorance of the beliefs of religions any more than the beliefs of scientists. However, stopping the teaching of our 'best bet' theory of how humans came to be is not the answer we need.
Our science progresses by teaching our best bet to those who would extend it, disprove it, or revamp it. Not teaching it means it will most likely never be disproven or improved upon... only 'rediscovered' to have the battle start again.
Here in Omaha, there has been a continuing debate in the papers and the board of education meetings over evolution. Apparently, if creationism can not be taught, evolution should not be either, say the christians. (other religious sects have stayed out of it, or joined the evolution side)
/.
The problem is, the board is buying it. Why? the creationists are saying 'evolution is not a fact. It even says so right in the name! "Theory of Evolution"... If we can't teach the theory of creationism, then that's out too!'. These people actually think that they are right, and the morons on the board are starting to see it that way.
We all expect this of the religious masses... they are simply trying to make sure that everyone believes what they believe. No big deal... but when educated people start to decide that we should NOT teach scientific theories that have held up to the highest scrutiny, then we have a problem.
Should we stop with the Theory of Gravity? If we do, do they think if everyone quits learning about it, we won't fall down? But it's a theory, anyway, so we should quit teaching it..
Or perhaps a better example, since they say that the theory of evolution can not be experimentally proven (because they have no idea what constitutes an experiment)... How about quantum theory? There are many that think it is plain wrong, that it is incomplete, and that it will soon be replaced. However, they know that it is a GOOD theory and should be taught. Why? because it does a better job of predicting observations than the previous theories. The laser, microwave ovens, genetic sequencing, all would currently be impossible without this theory.. should we stop teaching it because it teaches that there is no-one choosing interactions, that they are chance and statistics? Sure.. why not.
I could go on... these people write in and say "Science has not given us happyness", and then try to argue against teaching "Science" (note how they capitalize it always).. well, I don't know about you, but I'd be pretty miserable if I didn't have
If I post a comment with a link to a site about crack here in HTML format (so it becomes a link), then who is to be charged with this 'crime'? I'm not linking to the web site, /. is. /. is not the owner of the content, I am. But I didn't send a link, just some text that /. turned into a link?
And if I just put up a plaintext URL, without making it a link, is that illegal? I'm still directing people to that site, they just have to type it in themselves (or cut and paste).
Despite the obvious unconstitutionality (?) of this law, the logistics are simply insane. I do not think intelligent laws regarding the internet, or computers in general will ever be passed untill a few generations of congressmen have passed. And even then, I'm sure the technology will be ahead of the laws.
But what really worries me are the judges. A clueless judge can do more harm than 5 bad laws. Almost makes me want to buy an island and move out. Anyone want to give me $5 billion?
Well, I've given up on my quest to restore 'hacker' to the clever man, 'cracker' to the clever user breaking in to systems or software, and 'moron' to script kids.
However, This poor misguided soul is what even crackers hate... a person who isn't breaking in to show it can be done, but to mess with the results of a vote that was put on the web in a wonderful show of internet trust. The league didn't have to put the ballots on the web... they could have made me go to wall-mart. But, in recognizing that the internet is a global community that counts, they made it so I don't have to work off those last two Ho-Ho's to vote for some stupid player.
So, when Joe BuisnessOwner hears about this, and then is faced with the decision to web or not to web, what do you think he'll do?
Oh, and not changing the data sent in the form? was that just lazyness or what? (not that I can talk... I used the web to vote)
I also don't think MS can kill Perl.
However, your parallel of MFC/C++ with J++/Java is somewhat flawed. Adding MFC libraries to C++ made no difference because if you're writing apps in C++, it pretty much _has_ to be platform specific. The reason one might port to Java isn't speed, it's portability. You can write Java apps and run them anywhere.
MS made their Java IDE create Java apps that would run ONLY on Windows (unless you jumped through hoops). (Actually, only on a MS JVM running on windows... even worse). So anyone using J++ from MS was defeating the ENTIRE purpose Java was created. What were they thinking? They also made thier JVM so that it wouldn't run 100% pure apps as well as MS java apps. Again, not trying to stay true to the Java concept.
No, MS didn't kill Java... but they tried as hard as they could to co-opt it. What will they do to perl? Perl's licence should keep them from making proprietary Windows 'language extensions', but since when has MS cared about that? they'll do it anyway, and let the layers deal with it.
And if they do add 'extensions' to Perl, and make a VB-style IDE for Perl? --It makes CGI programming, Perl programming easy! Yaay, use it! (oh, and if you don't change lots of settings, the Perl will only run under a MS interpreter. The MSPerl interpreter is free, though, and easily available, so no problem, right?).
It won't kill perl. Most Perl is used on platforms that MS can't influence, and by people who don't like them. They may try (and they may not, who knows?), but I don't think anything will come from it.
This is entirely too true. I'm 25, with one year of college credit. I'm making over $100K a year programming (hell, my current assignment is in Visual Basic! that's not even programming!) as a consultant. I'm working with people doing the SAME thing, as consultants from the SAME company, the SAME age as me that are making 44-50K $US. Why? the got this job straight out of school, and they didn't know how to negotiate. All three of us bill out at the same rate.
While it's true that one of them does no work at all, it's all the same to the consulting company. What they want are bodies that can pass an interview at a client site, either do decent work or fool the client, and be billed at $70-120/hr.. all the while being payed $20-$25/hr. I don't know about you, but if I were an employer that could get away with this, I'd want more grads at $40K making me $100K then people making $110K making me $30K. You?
It's not really the fact that we love linux that's the problem here. The real problem is an old one.
How many of you remember your first days on IRC, or the first time you tried to set up your machine and asked for help on usenet. I'm sure that while you had the title 'newbie' you got a few helpful comments, and some great insights, but you also got flamed for being 'stupid' by all the kids that thought they were better than you. You were told 'RTFM' and 'Read the FAQ, idiot.'
And how do most linux users see windows users? As tech-less wonders, that's how. "Sure, he might be a brain surgeon, but he can't even compile a kernel!"
This is the problem. A group of people found validation and a heightened sense of self-worth because they had more technical knowledge then you did. Now, you're accepted and looked up to by that same group.
So what does the Linux crowd shout when we hear windows users knocking at the door? Well, the loudest cries (and easiest to remember) are the insults, the stupid one-line dismissive responses. Sure, there are lots of balanced opinions, but who remembers those? and how many of those are held by outspoken people?
You can't stop this mindless chatter, anymore than you can get a group of schoolchildren to stop teasing each other. And removing the schoolchildren will stunt the growth of the community. All we can do is help balance it out by presenting well thought out viewpoints and arguments in a sane, rational manner, to try and drown out the people who say 'winbloz sux, and linux rulz'. You can't make them stop. You can only guide them to a better approach.
The minute sombody posts a comment to try and up thier point tally, even if it is extremely intelligent.. ?
/.
If the comment IS extremely intelligent, then I would LIKE it to be posted. That's what I'm here for. If someone trys to up thier score by posting "whee... first", they will fail, and possibly lose a point or two if they had it. This would discourage bad posts and encourage good posts. Plus, it would allow those posters that we know have insightful comments (regardless of if they are right or not) to boost the score of the posts they want, instead of having ALL thier posts boosted.
If we stick with this system (which I personally don't like all that much), then a person with 2 good comments will start showing up at the top of my list with thier regular insipid ones. (If I understand correctly). I'd rather the pool.
Remember, because this forum is very open to the public, you can't stop stupid posts. I'd rather keep the system open, then try to eliminate ALL the ways a clever idiot (heh) can abuse
Anyone else here remember Tymnet? When with a good understanding of a system, you could make it do what you wantedin clever and obscure ways? When computer time was billed? Hackers were, at that time, great programmers, or incredible system admins, or both.
People who broke into other computers were sometimes called hackers, but they did it using pure wits and skill. Hardly ever did they damage a system, they just wanted free computer time, or to be able to connect to another computer without paying for a LD call. Few 'hackers' broke into machines or networks, but those that did were almost always just having fun. True, I don't want anyone to have fun on my machine, but they were at most trespassers.. annoyances.
Now, enter the 1990s. Kids with 'virus creation kits' and 'syn bombers' that are already built for them do damage because then they can be '3133t', or have some other title that involves looking like a moron. They do thier best to install backOrifice on some poor housewives web-surfing machine and terrorize her. Then they get together and try to out-posture each other. How many of these 'hackers' have simply found a person who shared the C drive of thier machine and have a cable modem, then installed backOrifice or Netbus and called themselves a hacker 'D00D'? Do these people understand what they did or how they did it? No, but at least they can read the easy steps to do it... I can put a book on a photocopier, but does that make me a novelist?
Hacker has become a label for the latter group, and given the former a bad name. So let's call these 'new hackers' by a different, appropriate name. 'Morons' or 'Juvenile Losers' comes to mind.
For the few that DO know what they are doing, but still damage systems, let's call them 'assholes' (pardon my french). For if you really understand computers, and use that to hurt others, that's like knowing kung fu, and running around town beating people up.
I submit these new labels to the net community, hoping that I can once again call myself a 'hacker' and not have people either hate me, or ask me to crash thier boss' system.