The media will never start using "hacker" and "cracker" the way we'd like them to
"We?" What's all this "we" stuff? The adoption of "cracker" by the script-kiddies to mean something else in addition to saltine and Southern racist and illicit-vault-opener remains among the dopey-est linguistic forays of the past twenty years. For many of "us," "cracker" can't cease having any IT-related meaning fast enough.
Of course, if "war-driving" enters the popular lexicon of national newsrooms with any meaning beyond a description of what soldiers do in their Hummers, than "cracker" will finally be out-dopey-ified, but we've got our fingers crossed...
Sure, if I don't want to read about Google, don't open the article, I know. But I can't even do a search on the site here without now being reminded it's a "Google Slashdot." (See new button on bottom of this page.)
The Slashdot promotion of Google is reaching Onion-Level parody status, 'cept it's not a parody, it's real.
Just... rest it... mebbe a coupla two-three days, but just... rest it.
You haven't answered my question; you just unilaterally decide that the rise of secularism in America and the issue of prayer in schools and the language in the Pledge of Allegiance are not topics for discussion. Don't they teach debate in High School anymore?
The reason more individuals take pot shots at Christians is because they are by FAR the majority in this country
Again: Why is narrow-minded and provincial bigotry against a majority religion and its adherents any less narrow-minded, provincial and bigoted than ridicule of a non-majority religion? Why is Christian-bashing 'cool,' and making fun of Hindus un-cool and politically-incorrect and trollish? Is it just Callow Youth's natural rebelliousness against The Establishment and what's popular? Are Christians the Britney Spears of religion, and Buddhists some cool new indie band? Help me out here...
(For sake of the argument, let's pretend for a moment that all of American Christians are Protestant Fundamentalists, which is the skewed view that is pushed by the haters (I still haven't figured out whether this is just ignorance or calculated propaganda...))
MysticGoat is suggestive of my natal chart: I was born at a moment of much Capricorn (Sea Goat) influence at a time when four planets were arranged in the parallel trines and sextiles that form a mystic rectangle.
I'm not sure you and eye would see eye-to-eye on anything; I'm from Earth.
That said, I know precisely what Wiccan means, but I figured by advancing some stereotypes in my original post I could better illustrate how narrow-minded a worldview the original anti-Christian poster possessed.
The funny thing is, if the poster had written "jew" or "muslim" or "wiccan" instead of "christian" he'd have been modded "troll" or "flamebait" so fast it'd make your Q'ran flush.
You know I'm right.
My principal regret, as an entertainer and not as a moralist, is that it's not funny. He should've used "wiccan." "Wiccan" would've been funny. In fact, he could have gotten a whole funny thread going out of it, riffing on the whole goth space-vampire costumes and makeup and all. It still would have been bigoted and small-minded and ill-informed, but at least then it would have been funny.
God luv ya, AC, and perect timing on a Friday afternoon to boot.
Seriously: I read this submission and couldn't get that famous image of that student in China standing up against a tank out of my mind. Gosh, you think that fellow went home at the end of the day and blogged about it? Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, he posted to Democratic Underground, making a poll and asking for consensus...
BTW, the grinding sound you hear is John Peter Zenger tumbling about in his grave.
I remember when personal computers were just finding a niche in business, and your choices were an x86 running DOS and a Mac. For us DOS guys, MS was this amazing Sorcerer's Tower in Redmond that kept coming up with newer, better office and personal apps. And we watched in awe as the graphics programs for Windows began to nose up on their Mac counterparts (if not their user base). MS was Great!
Then, somewhere along the line, circa early-mid 90's, somebody looked up and realized how pervasive they were. The Novell and WordPerfect satellites had been completely absorbed into the ever-burgeoning and hungry DeathStar they orbited, and even our phones, PDAs, TV set-top boxes, and browsers began to sport the Brand of the Beast. The backlash began, but the tide was unstem-able. We had become a Microsoft Nation, save for a few cells of Linux revolutionaries and a Mac sub-culture that, by its own choice, would not breed and so could not be counted upon in the long haul.
I am often reminded of the affection I and so many others had for MS 15 years ago, seeing it mirrored here daily in the gushing PR presented as "reporting" on the front page of slashdot. But MS brokered only tools, no matter how empowered those tools made us feel. Google brokers knowledge, and if we don't monitor their growth at least as cynically as we do that of Microsoft, we are fools.
I'm not gonna be like "Whoa, Doctor Cyclops, as much as I respect the work you've done in perfecting the Orbital Neutron Death Ray, we here at SPECTOR just feel that your homosexuality sends the wrong message about our values as an evil conspiracy out to destroy the world.
Y'know, I've always had my suspicions about those Bond Villains. All that cat stroking... And the tight yellow jumpsuits... the prosthetics... Damn, it's all so clear to me now!!
Re:Why would the crackers tell them?
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 1
It doesn't matter what "the media" think.
I want to live on your planet.
It matters what is correct.
Not with language, it doesn't. Lemme guess, you refuse to use contractions because they are a lazy bastardization of 'real, correct' language? Didn't think so.
Here's how it works: Language evolves, based upon the way people write and speak it. New words come into the OED every year "by popular demand," but "cracker" still refers to salty wafers, white U.S. southern bigots, and the criminal element who break into vaults (this last usage is commonly preceded by a 'safe-' to distinguish it from the first two).
"Hacker" has made it into the language as, broadly, a malicious computer guy. You'll be happy to know that it has pretty much edged out the former meaning, that of a bad golfer (seriously).
Is this good? Bad? Why do you care, it just is. Now, I was a hacker for that brief, shining moment circa early nineties when 'hacker' did in fact refer to 'computer hobbyist. But then bad guys came along, and it was easier for the media and Hollywood to refer to them merely as "hackers" rather than "bad hackers." "Crackers," because of all its saltine and redneck baggage, never had a chance at being adopted. Still doesn't, outside of High School Computer Clubs and the occasional O'Reilly book that may pander to them.
The only reason "cracker" endures today in conversations like this is that young computer software hobbyists fancy themselves not as young computer software hobbyists, but as something 733ter. They may derive comfort that they are not the only group that comports itself as such: My wife is a birdwatcher, and her crowd insists they be called "birders." "Birdwatcher" has that passive, old fuddy-duddy connotation, and these psychos are young, get up before dawn's crack, maintain databases, etc. But like the Trekkies who want to be called Trekkers, it requires more than just a specialist group's desire to change language, the rest of the English speaking world has to agree that circumstances merit a change.
We lost "hacker," and "birder" and "Trekker" are just non-starters. So it goes.
But, hey, here's some good news, Wireheads: From out of nowhere, "firewall" has eclipsed the original meaning of the word to now be primarily IT-centric. Bet there are a lot of old-time firefighters who are pissed they now have to qualify what they mean when they refer to the barriers they erect to keep blazes in check, no?
Re:Why would the crackers tell them?
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 1
Then you should have no problem winning the contest, no? Or will your mom allow you to stay up that late. Oh wait...your mom's here, I'll just ask her once her mouth is free...
Jokes about my Mom, eh? (She's been dead longer than you've been alive, by the way...) Guess that means I've won the debate. Not only that, your witty repartee has only gone to further substantiate my theory that the only people keeping this 'cracker/virii/boxen' language-managling alive are the 14-year-old script-kiddie cyberpunk wannabes still upset they learned to read only after Mondo 2000 stopped publishing. You're the computer-hobbyist equivalent of today's high school Led Zepp fanatic, and you probably dress the same way.
Or does your Mom dress you?
Get with the times, Junior. Those who worship the past are doomed to be shoved into their locker by those who 'get it.'
Re:Why would the crackers tell them?
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 1
Aside from what the media says, do you actually know how hacking and cracking are defined?
Actually, I've probably forgotten more about the topic -- and language, and jargon, and how it all inter-relates and evolves -- than you'll ever know. Thanks for asking.
Re:Why would the crackers tell them?
on
Hack IIS6 Contest
·
· Score: 2, Funny
If I was a serious cracker that's what I'd do.
And if I was a serious cracker, I'd want to be topped with a serious kind of cheese, like maybe a strong Stilson...
Which is to say, d00D, the word is "hacker," like it says in the article, and is recognized universally throughout any media intended for those beyond high school reading level.
I got this whole Alice's Restaurant Flashback moment reading this. Sorry.
But back home in the 21st Century, am I the only one who sees this as a better-than-average recruiting effort on the part of the U.S. Army (at a time when their falling shy of their recruitment goals)? I'm guessing they are hoping scenes like this play out at recruitment stations across the fruited plain:
Wired Reader: "Um, I read how, like, the army is hiring and training all these 733t Uber-hax00rs to, like, simply own terrorist websites and shit...?"
Recruiting Officer: "Yup. Sign here."
WR: "So, like, do we get to wear baggy camo pants and high boots and put our hats on backward and shit...?"
RO: "Sure. Sign here."
WR: "Umm, so, does our brigade or garrison or whatever have, like, our own kewl insignia, like a fist holding lightning bolts or some rad shit like that...?"
RO: "Uh huh. Sign here."
WR: "What are we called, like, the '81st Cybernetic,' or the 'Electric Underground' or some cool shit like that...?"
RO: "Something like that. Sign here."
WR: "And I get to carry a gun?"
RO: "Oh, Yes. And we give you free bullets and coffee. Sign here."
WR: "Free Coffee?! D00d, I'm, like, so-o-o-o-o there! Where do I sign?"
The question is, does the title of "journalist" make those laws inapplicable to you.
And, if so, does the title of "blogger" also make one a journalist?
For my nickel, that's the issue with legs in this little fracas. If bloggers have all the rights and freedoms traditionally afforded journalists, do they have the attendant responsibilities as well? And if so, who is in charge of telling them exactly what those are? Moreover, if a blogger has all the freedoms and none of the responsibilities of a journalist, why in hell would any journalist worth his fedora ever elect to work for Big Established Media ever again?
I would be very concerned if I was in a class where the teacher felt the need to simplify all politics into "left vs right".
I woul be very concerned if I was in a class where the students were citing Wikipedia.
Seriously. If you're trying to make any kind of credible argument outside of the slashdot/kuro5hin parallel universes, you need some references more legit than the wiki.
So do it, who's stopping you from buying Britannica?
Nobody, Niblet. I have a subscription to the online edition, and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. (In the Real World -- hell, even in the Academic World -- you can't use a Wikipedia citation and be viewed credibly.) My original [ironic] point was that a Britannica/Wiki marriage would be sweet if it combined the former's content with the latter's price structure.
That, or I am a socialist with a grudge against anyone who seeks profit at the expense of the free exchange of information.
You might be. I know that I am a capitalist who is more than happy to pay a professional editor to ensure that the information is correct and not the product of a dare formulated in the back of a schoolbus.
Sure, I know *most* of the stuff in wiki is *usually* right, and it's certainly updated more frequently (for good or ill) than Britannica, but consistency trumps all.
Dude, you've posted a picture of your CAT on your website.
Not only is your right to use the entire Internet revoked, but you're sentenced to be sent back in time to 1993 to sysop a GEnie chatroom discussion on Babylon 5.
I also thought he was a good fit as host of In Search of
Guys like Nimoy and Superman's Dean Cain get their host duties on shows about the bizarre and outre because of their notoriety in Science Fiction fandom, not despite it. Were those duties lucrative and status-uplifting, then the type-casting would not be so feared.
The most famous typecasting story (or is it considered an urban myth these days?) is about George Reeves, the TV Superman of my childhood. So fixed was he in the public eye as Supes, and so unable to land any other acting job in the Westerns-obsessed industry at the time, that he killed himself.
Does this mean I'm going to have to give the bookstore my Personal information when I buy the Anarchist Cookbook ?
Hate to break this to you, Boy-O, but if you actually buy The Anarchist's Cookbook, you're a lousy Anarchist.
In fact, I think the authors have made a special Poser's Edition available specifically for the people who offer to buy the ACB, with all the plastic explosive recipes altered just enough so that you blow your fool hands off...
Slashdot Mirror
The media will never start using "hacker" and "cracker" the way we'd like them to
"We?" What's all this "we" stuff? The adoption of "cracker" by the script-kiddies to mean something else in addition to saltine and Southern racist and illicit-vault-opener remains among the dopey-est linguistic forays of the past twenty years. For many of "us," "cracker" can't cease having any IT-related meaning fast enough.
Of course, if "war-driving" enters the popular lexicon of national newsrooms with any meaning beyond a description of what soldiers do in their Hummers, than "cracker" will finally be out-dopey-ified, but we've got our fingers crossed...
Sure, if I don't want to read about Google, don't open the article, I know. But I can't even do a search on the site here without now being reminded it's a "Google Slashdot." (See new button on bottom of this page.)
The Slashdot promotion of Google is reaching Onion-Level parody status, 'cept it's not a parody, it's real.
Just... rest it... mebbe a coupla two-three days, but just... rest it.
You haven't answered my question; you just unilaterally decide that the rise of secularism in America and the issue of prayer in schools and the language in the Pledge of Allegiance are not topics for discussion. Don't they teach debate in High School anymore?
The reason more individuals take pot shots at Christians is because they are by FAR the majority in this country
Again: Why is narrow-minded and provincial bigotry against a majority religion and its adherents any less narrow-minded, provincial and bigoted than ridicule of a non-majority religion? Why is Christian-bashing 'cool,' and making fun of Hindus un-cool and politically-incorrect and trollish? Is it just Callow Youth's natural rebelliousness against The Establishment and what's popular? Are Christians the Britney Spears of religion, and Buddhists some cool new indie band? Help me out here...
(For sake of the argument, let's pretend for a moment that all of American Christians are Protestant Fundamentalists, which is the skewed view that is pushed by the haters (I still haven't figured out whether this is just ignorance or calculated propaganda...))
I'm not sure you and eye would see eye-to-eye on anything; I'm from Earth.
That said, I know precisely what Wiccan means, but I figured by advancing some stereotypes in my original post I could better illustrate how narrow-minded a worldview the original anti-Christian poster possessed.
Thanks for playing.
The funny thing is, if the poster had written "jew" or "muslim" or "wiccan" instead of "christian" he'd have been modded "troll" or "flamebait" so fast it'd make your Q'ran flush.
You know I'm right.
My principal regret, as an entertainer and not as a moralist, is that it's not funny. He should've used "wiccan." "Wiccan" would've been funny. In fact, he could have gotten a whole funny thread going out of it, riffing on the whole goth space-vampire costumes and makeup and all. It still would have been bigoted and small-minded and ill-informed, but at least then it would have been funny.
Round up everyone who still drop the word "meme" into conversation and beat them bloody with aluminum softball bats.
Alright, alright, it may not be much of a "strategy" but words can't express how good it would feel.
God luv ya, AC, and perect timing on a Friday afternoon to boot.
Seriously: I read this submission and couldn't get that famous image of that student in China standing up against a tank out of my mind. Gosh, you think that fellow went home at the end of the day and blogged about it? Ooh, ooh, I know, I know, he posted to Democratic Underground, making a poll and asking for consensus...
BTW, the grinding sound you hear is John Peter Zenger tumbling about in his grave.
I remember when personal computers were just finding a niche in business, and your choices were an x86 running DOS and a Mac. For us DOS guys, MS was this amazing Sorcerer's Tower in Redmond that kept coming up with newer, better office and personal apps. And we watched in awe as the graphics programs for Windows began to nose up on their Mac counterparts (if not their user base). MS was Great!
Then, somewhere along the line, circa early-mid 90's, somebody looked up and realized how pervasive they were. The Novell and WordPerfect satellites had been completely absorbed into the ever-burgeoning and hungry DeathStar they orbited, and even our phones, PDAs, TV set-top boxes, and browsers began to sport the Brand of the Beast. The backlash began, but the tide was unstem-able. We had become a Microsoft Nation, save for a few cells of Linux revolutionaries and a Mac sub-culture that, by its own choice, would not breed and so could not be counted upon in the long haul.
I am often reminded of the affection I and so many others had for MS 15 years ago, seeing it mirrored here daily in the gushing PR presented as "reporting" on the front page of slashdot. But MS brokered only tools, no matter how empowered those tools made us feel. Google brokers knowledge, and if we don't monitor their growth at least as cynically as we do that of Microsoft, we are fools.
I'm not gonna be like "Whoa, Doctor Cyclops, as much as I respect the work you've done in perfecting the Orbital Neutron Death Ray, we here at SPECTOR just feel that your homosexuality sends the wrong message about our values as an evil conspiracy out to destroy the world.
Y'know, I've always had my suspicions about those Bond Villains. All that cat stroking... And the tight yellow jumpsuits... the prosthetics... Damn, it's all so clear to me now!!
It doesn't matter what "the media" think.
I want to live on your planet.
It matters what is correct.
Not with language, it doesn't. Lemme guess, you refuse to use contractions because they are a lazy bastardization of 'real, correct' language? Didn't think so.
Here's how it works: Language evolves, based upon the way people write and speak it. New words come into the OED every year "by popular demand," but "cracker" still refers to salty wafers, white U.S. southern bigots, and the criminal element who break into vaults (this last usage is commonly preceded by a 'safe-' to distinguish it from the first two).
"Hacker" has made it into the language as, broadly, a malicious computer guy. You'll be happy to know that it has pretty much edged out the former meaning, that of a bad golfer (seriously).
Is this good? Bad? Why do you care, it just is. Now, I was a hacker for that brief, shining moment circa early nineties when 'hacker' did in fact refer to 'computer hobbyist. But then bad guys came along, and it was easier for the media and Hollywood to refer to them merely as "hackers" rather than "bad hackers." "Crackers," because of all its saltine and redneck baggage, never had a chance at being adopted. Still doesn't, outside of High School Computer Clubs and the occasional O'Reilly book that may pander to them.
The only reason "cracker" endures today in conversations like this is that young computer software hobbyists fancy themselves not as young computer software hobbyists, but as something 733ter. They may derive comfort that they are not the only group that comports itself as such: My wife is a birdwatcher, and her crowd insists they be called "birders." "Birdwatcher" has that passive, old fuddy-duddy connotation, and these psychos are young, get up before dawn's crack, maintain databases, etc. But like the Trekkies who want to be called Trekkers, it requires more than just a specialist group's desire to change language, the rest of the English speaking world has to agree that circumstances merit a change.
We lost "hacker," and "birder" and "Trekker" are just non-starters. So it goes.
But, hey, here's some good news, Wireheads: From out of nowhere, "firewall" has eclipsed the original meaning of the word to now be primarily IT-centric. Bet there are a lot of old-time firefighters who are pissed they now have to qualify what they mean when they refer to the barriers they erect to keep blazes in check, no?
Then you should have no problem winning the contest, no? Or will your mom allow you to stay up that late. Oh wait...your mom's here, I'll just ask her once her mouth is free...
Jokes about my Mom, eh? (She's been dead longer than you've been alive, by the way...) Guess that means I've won the debate. Not only that, your witty repartee has only gone to further substantiate my theory that the only people keeping this 'cracker/virii/boxen' language-managling alive are the 14-year-old script-kiddie cyberpunk wannabes still upset they learned to read only after Mondo 2000 stopped publishing. You're the computer-hobbyist equivalent of today's high school Led Zepp fanatic, and you probably dress the same way.
Or does your Mom dress you?
Get with the times, Junior. Those who worship the past are doomed to be shoved into their locker by those who 'get it.'
Aside from what the media says, do you actually know how hacking and cracking are defined?
Actually, I've probably forgotten more about the topic -- and language, and jargon, and how it all inter-relates and evolves -- than you'll ever know. Thanks for asking.
If I was a serious cracker that's what I'd do.
And if I was a serious cracker, I'd want to be topped with a serious kind of cheese, like maybe a strong Stilson...
Which is to say, d00D, the word is "hacker," like it says in the article, and is recognized universally throughout any media intended for those beyond high school reading level.
Let it go... just.. let it go...
If the EFF offered its own course in Intellectual Property
That'd be sort of like the Fox giving a tutorial in henhouse construction.
I got this whole Alice's Restaurant Flashback moment reading this. Sorry.
But back home in the 21st Century, am I the only one who sees this as a better-than-average recruiting effort on the part of the U.S. Army (at a time when their falling shy of their recruitment goals)? I'm guessing they are hoping scenes like this play out at recruitment stations across the fruited plain:
Wired Reader: "Um, I read how, like, the army is hiring and training all these 733t Uber-hax00rs to, like, simply own terrorist websites and shit...?"
Recruiting Officer: "Yup. Sign here."
WR: "So, like, do we get to wear baggy camo pants and high boots and put our hats on backward and shit...?"
RO: "Sure. Sign here."
WR: "Umm, so, does our brigade or garrison or whatever have, like, our own kewl insignia, like a fist holding lightning bolts or some rad shit like that...?"
RO: "Uh huh. Sign here."
WR: "What are we called, like, the '81st Cybernetic,' or the 'Electric Underground' or some cool shit like that...?"
RO: "Something like that. Sign here."
WR: "And I get to carry a gun?"
RO: "Oh, Yes. And we give you free bullets and coffee. Sign here."
WR: "Free Coffee?! D00d, I'm, like, so-o-o-o-o there! Where do I sign?"
RO (smiling): "Here, son. Sign right here."
The question is, does the title of "journalist" make those laws inapplicable to you.
And, if so, does the title of "blogger" also make one a journalist?
For my nickel, that's the issue with legs in this little fracas. If bloggers have all the rights and freedoms traditionally afforded journalists, do they have the attendant responsibilities as well? And if so, who is in charge of telling them exactly what those are? Moreover, if a blogger has all the freedoms and none of the responsibilities of a journalist, why in hell would any journalist worth his fedora ever elect to work for Big Established Media ever again?
I would be very concerned if I was in a class where the teacher felt the need to simplify all politics into "left vs right".
I woul be very concerned if I was in a class where the students were citing Wikipedia.
Seriously. If you're trying to make any kind of credible argument outside of the slashdot/kuro5hin parallel universes, you need some references more legit than the wiki.
So do it, who's stopping you from buying Britannica?
Nobody, Niblet. I have a subscription to the online edition, and it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. (In the Real World -- hell, even in the Academic World -- you can't use a Wikipedia citation and be viewed credibly.) My original [ironic] point was that a Britannica/Wiki marriage would be sweet if it combined the former's content with the latter's price structure.
That, or I am a socialist with a grudge against anyone who seeks profit at the expense of the free exchange of information.
You might be. I know that I am a capitalist who is more than happy to pay a professional editor to ensure that the information is correct and not the product of a dare formulated in the back of a schoolbus.
Sure, I know *most* of the stuff in wiki is *usually* right, and it's certainly updated more frequently (for good or ill) than Britannica, but consistency trumps all.
Britannica taking over Wiki? Too bad it's only a fantasy. Short of Britannica putting its content on the Web free, this would be the next best thing.
You realize, of course, that it's the snot-nosed punk-ignorance of statements like yours that are causing the Left's decline in America, don't you?
And WTF is "unsurping?" I can't figure out if it's a typo or you're actually more clever than your High School too-cool-for-the-room rant lets on...
...
Oh, wait, you think those are the SAME THING?! Either I woke up in 1982 again (hate when that happens...) or you just haven't been paying attention...
Your low UID is hereby revoked.
Dude, you've posted a picture of your CAT on your website.
Not only is your right to use the entire Internet revoked, but you're sentenced to be sent back in time to 1993 to sysop a GEnie chatroom discussion on Babylon 5.
I also thought he was a good fit as host of In Search of
Guys like Nimoy and Superman's Dean Cain get their host duties on shows about the bizarre and outre because of their notoriety in Science Fiction fandom, not despite it. Were those duties lucrative and status-uplifting, then the type-casting would not be so feared.
The most famous typecasting story (or is it considered an urban myth these days?) is about George Reeves, the TV Superman of my childhood. So fixed was he in the public eye as Supes, and so unable to land any other acting job in the Westerns-obsessed industry at the time, that he killed himself.
Does this mean I'm going to have to give the bookstore my Personal information when I buy the Anarchist Cookbook ?
Hate to break this to you, Boy-O, but if you actually buy The Anarchist's Cookbook, you're a lousy Anarchist.
In fact, I think the authors have made a special Poser's Edition available specifically for the people who offer to buy the ACB, with all the plastic explosive recipes altered just enough so that you blow your fool hands off...