I'd give you an bit of credit until I read this. [...] It's as if all you do in life is comment about stuff you've never tried just to hear yourself talk.
Feel free to mark me as foe then.
And what's worse? Looking at the add or taking the time posting your comments about the ad that you've never seen? Talk about a waste of time.
That's an interesting point you are taking here. According to you, to hold up the mirror to people who do stupid things is as stupid as the people who do the stupid things. I'm quite happy that history proved you wrong.
No, I haven't, because I did not visit the site. Why should I look at a webpage consisting solely of ads??
Are you guys still drunk from Christmas, or did you get a gift certificate for advanced brain damage? Hell, until today, I had at least a little bit of remaining faith in earth's population, but now I think it definitely all went down the toilet. 4000 years of advanced civilization, and all we do is voluntarily look at ads. I say goodbye to our future.
Which wouldn't work either, since all links in comments are rel="nofollow". Including the link you can include in the comment header as a logged in user.
Wow, have you ever looked up the meanings of the verb to hack? It doesn't mean what you think it means. "To hack into a system" is a sentence derived from the term "hacker". It's not god given, nor does it bear much resemblance to the original meanings of the verb "to hack". Let's have a look at M-W's entry:
a : to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows
b : to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes
c : ANNOY, VEX -- often used with off
to clear or make by or as if by cutting away vegetation
a : to manage successfully
b : TOLERATE
intransitive senses
a : to make chopping strokes or blows ; also : to make cuts as if by chopping
b : to play inexpert golf
to cough in a short dry manner
So, you can see, when seeking for a term to describe the act of breaking into a computer, it doesn't come naturally to use the verb "hack".
But there are two other meanings listed:
a : to write computer programs for enjoyment
b : to gain access to a computer illegally
Surprise surprise, M-W even knows about the original meaning of hacking in the area of computers, and lists it as first meaning. Oh, or let's have a look at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hack:
Informal. To alter (a computer program): hacked her text editor to read HTML.
To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization: hacked the firm's personnel database.
So you see, "to hack into a system" is an artificial term, and does not directly follow from the original meanings of the verb "to hack".
On the other hand, at least dictionaries are listing the benevolent and the malevolent definitions by now.
Security experts instead might very well be hackers, because they are skilled. But security experts are not malevolent! Crackers who break into other's systems to enrich themself or simply to cause other people damage are idiots, and shall not be called hackers (which are benevolent people!). Period.
Yeah, and the businesses generate half of their income by using overloaded terms to describe the properties of their products, knowing exactly that Joe Average does not know that the term they've used also means other things than the one they think it means.
That's why I am against overloading terms with meanings which are quite opposite to each other.
Yes, I remember these days. But what do you want to prove with that argument? I said that the term cracker should be used because it already had a malevolent connotation, instead of hacker.
So, yes, let's come up with some third term! But remember, it must sound cool, otherwise the media is not going to adopt it. Although I feel that this is already in the making. I guess that in some years, everybody who would have been called a hacker by today's media is going to be called cyber terrorist by then. Just imagine the headlines: "Cyber Terrorist Exploits Security Hole in IE to Send Spam".
Bill Gates is a hacker too. [...] A hacker is an untrained person that has professional skills that profess in a certain area that should have taken them years, education, and experience to receive.
No, Bill Gates is not a hacker, and has never been one, because the definition of hacker is not having professional skills although somebody is untrained, it means having exceptional skills, no matter whether trained or not!
It's kind of sad how the computer revolution has turned this word into implying something malicious.
On this one we agree! It's all about clueless media.
You are redefining hackers, just like those clueless (and hopeless) people who called all the attackers hackers.
Ok, then thell me where exactly I redefine hackers?? When the term hacker was first used, it did not have the connotation of being malevolent, trying to harm other people. It was used for individuals who were extremely skilled in some area, or came up with ideas others weren't thinking about.
It was only later when the media started to pay attention to computer related threats. Assholes as these malevolent people were, they called themselves hackers, because they wanted to show off as people who were skilled. The media then quickly embraced the term because it sounded cool and a new term for a new phenomenon is fancy, and started to use it for all black hat people.
the general population is quite capable of overloading word definitions and parsing the precise meaning from the context
No, it is not. What do you think would happen if I said in public I'd be a hacker. What do you think would my mother think about me then? OMG, my son's a criminal. No, I'm not!
They're not hackers, they are crackers. Or intruders. Or black hats. Or fucking idiots. But not hackers. Linus Torvalds is a hacker. Alan Cox is one, and RMS definitely. Maybe even ESR.
Because it sells better. An article claiming that in all developed countries people get addicted to technology is just too obvious a story title. But if its restrained to one country, people ask why, and buy the magazine. Only to realise that they've again been outsmarted by Capt. Obvious.
Wow, could you please explain me how XUL is tied to HTML? And second, can you tell me how XAML is cross-platform?? XAML is a proprietary MS technology, and they showed no intent to make it available for other platforms.
If you read the complete Wikipedia article you linked to you will realise that trolling does not always consist of typing unproven accusations in 133t sp34k.
If you reread my post above, you will clearly see that I called him a troll in disguise, i.e. a non-obvious troll.
That depends on, amongst other things, how much you value the performance of your output code, and how much you need to use a widely portable compiler.
If you look at the original question of that guy, he says "I'd like those applications to be usable on the Linux and perhaps Mac OS X platforms." Looks to me as he does neither mentions Windows nor performance, but Unix and cross-architecture portability. Despite, TheSkepticalOptimist goes on to advertise MS stuff like it would be his last day.
For example, if you're writing for Wintel, the Visual Studio suite has blown away anything the GNU tools had to offer in terms of development environment, usefulness of debugging tools, quality of generated code, and various other rather important metrics.
Funny you mention that. AFAICT, Intel's compilers are still better than the MS ones.
And what's so cruel about that? The next time the article revision history is looked over, the changes are simply reverted. Past has shown that people are fast in reverting things!
Furthermore, if they wanted immediate impact, they wouldn't have put him in the research department, but one level below Gates or so, to make clear that he's the man who has the say, and everyone must listen.
So how can YOU prove this?? I, for one, would rather cry for a maybe nearby ship, or save my energy for staying alive.
Apart from that, beliefs in god are only a way to prevent our minds from going insane in the light of doubt about one's role in life, and the questions of why something happened and what is going to come. I suggest you go and read some psychology textbooks.
It is perfectly legal to belief in god, when you are aware of the fact that it is only a model to keep your mind balanced. But don't go on and try to infest science by introducing ID and other BS thinkings, because it does not mentally help. As a sidenote, church isn't very useful as well. One could make religions far more lean by cutting out the church, and only limit to the basic religious principles.
Slashdot Mirror
Feel free to mark me as foe then.
That's an interesting point you are taking here. According to you, to hold up the mirror to people who do stupid things is as stupid as the people who do the stupid things. I'm quite happy that history proved you wrong.
Are you guys still drunk from Christmas, or did you get a gift certificate for advanced brain damage? Hell, until today, I had at least a little bit of remaining faith in earth's population, but now I think it definitely all went down the toilet. 4000 years of advanced civilization, and all we do is voluntarily look at ads. I say goodbye to our future.
b : to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes
c : ANNOY, VEX -- often used with off
b : TOLERATE intransitive senses
b : to play inexpert golf
So, you can see, when seeking for a term to describe the act of breaking into a computer, it doesn't come naturally to use the verb "hack".
But there are two other meanings listed:
b : to gain access to a computer illegally
Surprise surprise, M-W even knows about the original meaning of hacking in the area of computers, and lists it as first meaning. Oh, or let's have a look at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hack:
So you see, "to hack into a system" is an artificial term, and does not directly follow from the original meanings of the verb "to hack".
On the other hand, at least dictionaries are listing the benevolent and the malevolent definitions by now.
Security experts instead might very well be hackers, because they are skilled. But security experts are not malevolent! Crackers who break into other's systems to enrich themself or simply to cause other people damage are idiots, and shall not be called hackers (which are benevolent people!). Period.
That's why I am against overloading terms with meanings which are quite opposite to each other.
So, yes, let's come up with some third term! But remember, it must sound cool, otherwise the media is not going to adopt it. Although I feel that this is already in the making. I guess that in some years, everybody who would have been called a hacker by today's media is going to be called cyber terrorist by then. Just imagine the headlines: "Cyber Terrorist Exploits Security Hole in IE to Send Spam".
It was only later when the media started to pay attention to computer related threats. Assholes as these malevolent people were, they called themselves hackers, because they wanted to show off as people who were skilled. The media then quickly embraced the term because it sounded cool and a new term for a new phenomenon is fancy, and started to use it for all black hat people.
Thank you.
Have a look at the website he links from his name: he simply reposts his own blog entries verbatim here on Slashdot.
2. Distribute millions of CDs containing the Intarweb to households worldwide
If you reread my post above, you will clearly see that I called him a troll in disguise, i.e. a non-obvious troll.
If you look at the original question of that guy, he says "I'd like those applications to be usable on the Linux and perhaps Mac OS X platforms." Looks to me as he does neither mentions Windows nor performance, but Unix and cross-architecture portability. Despite, TheSkepticalOptimist goes on to advertise MS stuff like it would be his last day.
Funny you mention that. AFAICT, Intel's compilers are still better than the MS ones.
Apart from that, beliefs in god are only a way to prevent our minds from going insane in the light of doubt about one's role in life, and the questions of why something happened and what is going to come. I suggest you go and read some psychology textbooks.
It is perfectly legal to belief in god, when you are aware of the fact that it is only a model to keep your mind balanced. But don't go on and try to infest science by introducing ID and other BS thinkings, because it does not mentally help. As a sidenote, church isn't very useful as well. One could make religions far more lean by cutting out the church, and only limit to the basic religious principles.