As I recall back in my "Atari400 / BBS 300bps modem" days. A hacker was someone who hacked into systems via the modem. There even was a TV show about some kids that hacked. Anyone remember the movie War Games?
Yea. I remember then. The TV show was "Wizkids", if I remember right. I loved it. I also liked Wargames. Of course, I also saw them as hollywood versions of my interests - not defacto definitions.;)
Along those lines... its scary talking to kids (I must be getting old) and hear about their interests being fueled by the movie "Hackers".
Kids these days. Back in MY days, we didn't have fancy gigabyte hard drives. We used floppies. We watched Wargames and Wizkids. And we LIKED it that way!
Anyway...
When did "hacker"'s meaning change to Kernal hacker OSS hacker? Did I miss something?
It didn't. Read the classic book "Hackers; Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy (first published in '86 I think, you can buy reprints - and there's an electronic version out there too.. I had a doc for the PalmPilot). Students at MIT began using the term "hack" to describe technical acheivments as early as the late 1950s. Consequently, they fell into coining the phrase "hacker" to describe themselves.
It wasn't until later that specific computer enthusiasts, "hackers", began sparking public interest with their expoits as computer nuisances, vandals, criminals, and now national threats.
I'm sort of afraid to ask this, but....why do these things seem to be centered around the US?
It's interesting that you ask that since your own personal reference is the Australian school system. I grew up in both Australia and the US, so I might be able to offer some insight. Of course, my experiences might be a bit off, since I was relatively young when the shift from Australia to the US was made. However, I like to think that I was a fairly aware kid and able to make some pretty solid observations even at that age.
I was raised in the suburbs of a large city in Australia until age 9, finishing the 3rd grade. We moved to a small town in the northern US, I turned 10, and promptly began the 4th grade at a Catholic school. I was always a bit of an odd kid. I generally found friends on the "fringes" of whatever peer group existed. I moved around a bit, so I had some experience with being the "new kid". But these past experiences didn't prepare me for the differences in Australia and the US.
The difference I noticed seemed to center around culture. American kids seemed much more aggressive than their Australian counterparts.
My new classmates were much more... "worldly"... in their discussions and viewpoints. One might note that this kind of change is a part of "growing up". I feel that it was too sudden a change to not assign some kind of cultural significance to it. It seemed to me that the US kids had done their "growing up" a bit sooner than my Australian friends.
My American classmates seemed much quicker to judge and criticize. Like I said - I had always been a bit of an odd kid. So there was always something different about me compared to my classmates. However, the Australian environment seemed more accepting of this; it would soon become a non-issue. The American environment seemed to thrive on pointing these differences out. Often it was done in a spiteful manner and never ceased.
Now, before I get someone's national pride up... this isn't a "good vs. bad" comparison. They're simply my experiences. Experiences I believe might go a small way to explain why so many US folks can identify with some of these issues while our European (and Australian:) counterparts scratch their heads in wonder.
When the experiences are distilled - it comes down to culture. There are amazing differences. I feel that the only way to really understand that is to either study or experience those differences first-hand (everyone should do a bit of world travel if at all possible).
just think of the people who critisise you as being stupider than you are, merely trying to bring you down because of their dissatisfaction with their own intelligence. Makes you feel better:)
Heh. It took me years to recover from "culture shock" and being different. The realization I had was a variation on that comment - only value the opinions of those who you care about. There are always people around who will be critical; sometimes with an alterier motive. The opinions that are important belong to those you admire and those you trust (be they role models, friends, family, etc). Everything else is noise. Granted, this isn't the magic cure for those who suffer social hell - but it helps.
ignoring their target practice and involvment in paintball - both of which would be more useful in developing skills for tracking down and killing people.
I'm surpised at this too. The second I heard that they played paintball, I was expecting the "anti-paintball" backlash. It hasn't happened near as much as the "violent video game" backlash. Being both a fan of paintball and Quake, I've found it kind of odd.
Of course, while I'm at it, I can't let it go without a quick clarification. Paintball, like video games, do little to prepare you for "combat". Theres little "carnage" to be found. And as a "power" substitution, it also lacks - even the best players get shot out (I would argue that if you have played paintball for a day and haven't been hit once or twice, you're not playing hard enough).
But then, like shooting video games, there are "guns". There are opponents to shoot. It's not an activity that's sanctioned by popular culture. The only difference is paintball occurs in "real space". So yes, it IS amazing there's not more frantic stories about paintball in the media.
Compare the US to other countries. In Europe there are far fewer "school-incidents". You Americans cannot continue to bluntly deny this fact.
I'm inclined to point out that European school systems are quite a bit different than the US environment. But then... so are the relative cultures.
The question being skirted around by the "masses" is what kind of environment spawns this kind of behavior? Is it the culture? Or is it a backlash to the school system? From many of the comments expressed in/. one would have to wonder about the school environment.
In short, the availability of firearms has little to do with these incidents. Explosives were also found, or were the focal point, of many of these cases. The availability of bomb information and household chemicals didn't drive young men to murder.
Anyway, their apps run to several thousand dollars a license, so any place that's running them is going to have plenty of money to throw around, which makes me wonder a bit about the demand for Pro/E on Linux.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I work at a fairly large gov't installation. Odd as it may sound, money is very tight when it comes to IT budgets.
My shop is all Unix (Solaris, HP/UX). However, concidering the cost per workstation, the PHB's have brought up the idea of turning to WinNT. The hardware price lures them. Thankfully, the user base isn't so keen. So in my case, I believe my shop is safe (for now). But it's not the first time I've seen this brought up. And, in other shops within the site, they do use WinNT instead.
Now... I'm a big Linux fan. But I'm not sure I'm ready to give up my Sparcs for Pentiums. But if it avoids WinNT, then by all means. Bring on the port!
What the dominant OEMs seem to have done is ingrained in our minds that a slick public image and a top-of-the-line web site = a reputable dealer.
It's a catch-22. I'm sure most of us here would like to believe in the next garage wizard. We'd be glad to support them. But how do you tell if they ARE just that?
Let's take Apple for example. Their Apple I was hawked at a local homebrew computer club where enthusiasts got to see working prototypes. Later, the duo managed to take their garage-production to a local computer store. It grew from there. The point is, though, that there was physical proof of what they were selling. Interested parties knew with a reasonable amount of certainty that what they purchased would be pretty much what they expected.
But The Steves were also less-known for another computer. My memory on the details is a bit fuzzy - so please bare with me. At a computer convention, Wonziac and Jobs (I believe it was both) put togeather a flyer that outlined, basically, the uber hacker's computer for the time. It had everything people wanted - and it was inexpensive. The conspirators managed to flood the convention floor with their bogus flyers. Pretty soon, there were hordes of people looking for this godsend hardware. But it was a hoax - it never existed.
In this day and age, it doesn't take a convention and flyers to do the same. The 'web is just as effective. In fact, I would go as far as saying it is even more dangerous - it offers the unscrupulous a chance to pull off a hoax AND collect on it annonymously. We SHOULD be skeptical.
So what proof do we need? Well I'm sure everyone would be happy with seeing one personally. But, like others have pointed out, clear pictures of the product and stats goes a long way towards proving the device actually exists. I've seen some pretty messy 'web pages talking about personal (as well as professional) MP3 players that offer that much information. And although they're obviously "garage" quality - they're able to offer more proof than these guys have.
I used to stop flipping channels and watch talkshows when their subject matter involved folks who were tormented as a kid facing their tormenters as adults. I used to think it would be interesting to see this human drama unfold. I used to identify with the idea of going back into your past and seeking closure. I don't stop on those shows anymore. I gave up on them.
Most often than not, the guest would talk a bit about their current success or life. Then they would delve into how their childhood was hell - usually at the hands of specific tormenters. After some tears and pity from the audience, the now-adult tormenter is introduced. The crowd hisses and boos. The tormenter sits down nervously. The tormented wipes away their tears. Then the host asks the tormenter about the incidents that left scars on the tormented's life. The tormenter usually sits there dumbfounded; they either can't remember or attach little significance to the events. What the hell kind of closure is this?
The lesson I've taken from these shows is that adult then-tormenters ('jocks', 'in crowd', 'beutiful people') tend to haze their memory of their past actions. Maybe as adults, they subconciously know what they did was horrible and bury it. Maybe they never understood the depths of anguish caused by their actions. Maybe they just never care. In any case, they certainly are rarely remorsefull.
So what's this got to do with school officials?
OK - big jump here. I'll make the assumption that those who return to the school environment as officials, administrators, teachers, etc. are those who enjoyed their childhood experience. Why would anyone who hated it the first time around return? If this is correct... we can assume that our schools are not ran by those who are, or once were, "misfits". Instead, school officials consist of those who never experienced being ostracized. And even more... they are also the ones who deny their own part in tormenting others as a child.
Is it now so hard to see these same officials as the ones who ignore, if not contribute to, actions that generate such a rift in our schools? Faced with this rift... these actions of voilence and an all but impossible-to-judge group of "individual thinkers", "non-conformists", and "misfits"... they seek out other causes.
They refuse to address the root of their problems. There are no easy answers. So instead they latch onto what they don't themselves understand; media, digital communities, games, music. All are dangerous. Even the Texas Governer has called for school uniforms to combat dress that defines individuals. The power of the trenchcoat - nonconformity is dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Along those lines... its scary talking to kids (I must be getting old) and hear about their interests being fueled by the movie "Hackers".
Kids these days. Back in MY days, we didn't have fancy gigabyte hard drives. We used floppies. We watched Wargames and Wizkids. And we LIKED it that way!
Anyway...
It didn't. Read the classic book "Hackers; Heroes of the Computer Revolution" by Steven Levy (first published in '86 I think, you can buy reprints - and there's an electronic version out there too.. I had a doc for the PalmPilot). Students at MIT began using the term "hack" to describe technical acheivments as early as the late 1950s. Consequently, they fell into coining the phrase "hacker" to describe themselves.
It wasn't until later that specific computer enthusiasts, "hackers", began sparking public interest with their expoits as computer nuisances, vandals, criminals, and now national threats.
It's interesting that you ask that since your own personal reference is the Australian school system. I grew up in both Australia and the US, so I might be able to offer some insight. Of course, my experiences might be a bit off, since I was relatively young when the shift from Australia to the US was made. However, I like to think that I was a fairly aware kid and able to make some pretty solid observations even at that age.
I was raised in the suburbs of a large city in Australia until age 9, finishing the 3rd grade. We moved to a small town in the northern US, I turned 10, and promptly began the 4th grade at a Catholic school. I was always a bit of an odd kid. I generally found friends on the "fringes" of whatever peer group existed. I moved around a bit, so I had some experience with being the "new kid". But these past experiences didn't prepare me for the differences in Australia and the US.
The difference I noticed seemed to center around culture. American kids seemed much more aggressive than their Australian counterparts.
My new classmates were much more... "worldly"... in their discussions and viewpoints. One might note that this kind of change is a part of "growing up". I feel that it was too sudden a change to not assign some kind of cultural significance to it. It seemed to me that the US kids had done their "growing up" a bit sooner than my Australian friends.
My American classmates seemed much quicker to judge and criticize. Like I said - I had always been a bit of an odd kid. So there was always something different about me compared to my classmates. However, the Australian environment seemed more accepting of this; it would soon become a non-issue. The American environment seemed to thrive on pointing these differences out. Often it was done in a spiteful manner and never ceased.
Now, before I get someone's national pride up... this isn't a "good vs. bad" comparison. They're simply my experiences. Experiences I believe might go a small way to explain why so many US folks can identify with some of these issues while our European (and Australian :) counterparts scratch their heads in wonder.
When the experiences are distilled - it comes down to culture. There are amazing differences. I feel that the only way to really understand that is to either study or experience those differences first-hand (everyone should do a bit of world travel if at all possible).
Heh. It took me years to recover from "culture shock" and being different. The realization I had was a variation on that comment - only value the opinions of those who you care about. There are always people around who will be critical; sometimes with an alterier motive. The opinions that are important belong to those you admire and those you trust (be they role models, friends, family, etc). Everything else is noise. Granted, this isn't the magic cure for those who suffer social hell - but it helps.
I'm surpised at this too. The second I heard that they played paintball, I was expecting the "anti-paintball" backlash. It hasn't happened near as much as the "violent video game" backlash. Being both a fan of paintball and Quake, I've found it kind of odd.
Of course, while I'm at it, I can't let it go without a quick clarification. Paintball, like video games, do little to prepare you for "combat". Theres little "carnage" to be found. And as a "power" substitution, it also lacks - even the best players get shot out (I would argue that if you have played paintball for a day and haven't been hit once or twice, you're not playing hard enough).
But then, like shooting video games, there are "guns". There are opponents to shoot. It's not an activity that's sanctioned by popular culture. The only difference is paintball occurs in "real space". So yes, it IS amazing there's not more frantic stories about paintball in the media.
I'm inclined to point out that European school systems are quite a bit different than the US environment. But then... so are the relative cultures.
The question being skirted around by the "masses" is what kind of environment spawns this kind of behavior? Is it the culture? Or is it a backlash to the school system? From many of the comments expressed in /. one would have to wonder about the school environment.
In short, the availability of firearms has little to do with these incidents. Explosives were also found, or were the focal point, of many of these cases. The availability of bomb information and household chemicals didn't drive young men to murder.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I work at a fairly large gov't installation. Odd as it may sound, money is very tight when it comes to IT budgets.
My shop is all Unix (Solaris, HP/UX). However, concidering the cost per workstation, the PHB's have brought up the idea of turning to WinNT. The hardware price lures them. Thankfully, the user base isn't so keen. So in my case, I believe my shop is safe (for now). But it's not the first time I've seen this brought up. And, in other shops within the site, they do use WinNT instead.
Now... I'm a big Linux fan. But I'm not sure I'm ready to give up my Sparcs for Pentiums. But if it avoids WinNT, then by all means. Bring on the port!
It's a catch-22. I'm sure most of us here would like to believe in the next garage wizard. We'd be glad to support them. But how do you tell if they ARE just that?
Let's take Apple for example. Their Apple I was hawked at a local homebrew computer club where enthusiasts got to see working prototypes. Later, the duo managed to take their garage-production to a local computer store. It grew from there. The point is, though, that there was physical proof of what they were selling. Interested parties knew with a reasonable amount of certainty that what they purchased would be pretty much what they expected.
But The Steves were also less-known for another computer. My memory on the details is a bit fuzzy - so please bare with me. At a computer convention, Wonziac and Jobs (I believe it was both) put togeather a flyer that outlined, basically, the uber hacker's computer for the time. It had everything people wanted - and it was inexpensive. The conspirators managed to flood the convention floor with their bogus flyers. Pretty soon, there were hordes of people looking for this godsend hardware. But it was a hoax - it never existed.
In this day and age, it doesn't take a convention and flyers to do the same. The 'web is just as effective. In fact, I would go as far as saying it is even more dangerous - it offers the unscrupulous a chance to pull off a hoax AND collect on it annonymously. We SHOULD be skeptical.
So what proof do we need? Well I'm sure everyone would be happy with seeing one personally. But, like others have pointed out, clear pictures of the product and stats goes a long way towards proving the device actually exists. I've seen some pretty messy 'web pages talking about personal (as well as professional) MP3 players that offer that much information. And although they're obviously "garage" quality - they're able to offer more proof than these guys have.
I used to stop flipping channels and watch talkshows when their subject matter involved folks who were tormented as a kid facing their tormenters as adults. I used to think it would be interesting to see this human drama unfold. I used to identify with the idea of going back into your past and seeking closure. I don't stop on those shows anymore. I gave up on them.
Most often than not, the guest would talk a bit about their current success or life. Then they would delve into how their childhood was hell - usually at the hands of specific tormenters. After some tears and pity from the audience, the now-adult tormenter is introduced. The crowd hisses and boos. The tormenter sits down nervously. The tormented wipes away their tears. Then the host asks the tormenter about the incidents that left scars on the tormented's life. The tormenter usually sits there dumbfounded; they either can't remember or attach little significance to the events. What the hell kind of closure is this?
The lesson I've taken from these shows is that adult then-tormenters ('jocks', 'in crowd', 'beutiful people') tend to haze their memory of their past actions. Maybe as adults, they subconciously know what they did was horrible and bury it. Maybe they never understood the depths of anguish caused by their actions. Maybe they just never care. In any case, they certainly are rarely remorsefull.
So what's this got to do with school officials?
OK - big jump here. I'll make the assumption that those who return to the school environment as officials, administrators, teachers, etc. are those who enjoyed their childhood experience. Why would anyone who hated it the first time around return? If this is correct... we can assume that our schools are not ran by those who are, or once were, "misfits". Instead, school officials consist of those who never experienced being ostracized. And even more... they are also the ones who deny their own part in tormenting others as a child.
Is it now so hard to see these same officials as the ones who ignore, if not contribute to, actions that generate such a rift in our schools? Faced with this rift... these actions of voilence and an all but impossible-to-judge group of "individual thinkers", "non-conformists", and "misfits"... they seek out other causes.
They refuse to address the root of their problems. There are no easy answers. So instead they latch onto what they don't themselves understand; media, digital communities, games, music. All are dangerous. Even the Texas Governer has called for school uniforms to combat dress that defines individuals. The power of the trenchcoat - nonconformity is dangerous.