Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
What would your goal be if you were a hacker?
Improving the Internet 33%
Destroying the Internet 16%
Scaring AOL users 22%
Finding a working vending machine 0%
0wning Quake 5%
Developing the mythical 'Beer' protocol 0%
All of the above XOR none of the above 22%

Votes: 18

 Hackers: Misunderstood

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jan 05, 2002
 Comments:
A common misconception is that hackers are automatically criminals. That the two words go hand in hand.

This is incorrect. There are two types of hackers in the world - the malicious hacker and the common hacker.

diaries

More diaries by PotatoError
To all you Windows Criminals
The financial time bomb
Too controversial for Adequacy
A big HI! from Linuz Zealot
Linux Zealot Tells a Story
Why the GNU licence is a good thing
Why copying copyrighted music isnt wrong.
Okay I'll pay for music
Poz techie seeks same. T-count above 10000.
Human behaviour - my thinking on it
Patenting of hyperlinks
Question
The little things
What is god?
awww
Iraq, Israel, Palestine and Afghanistan
The consequences of Determinism
I think nuclear weapons are good
What IS adequacy all about????
Where are we going?
Secret World Conspiricy Revealed!!!
Diary Entry 24/05/02
The Internet - where is it heading?
Terrifying and Shocking news
w0w I must be 1337 h4X0r
An Introduction to Online Gaming
Why Al-Qeada isn't responsible for the WTC
Linux Zealot - My thoughts about him
How many Adequacy members are there?
Why Internet Piracy is Moral
Trees and Grass. Two more lies of society.
Why US bombs should be banned
The Hunt for God
My vacation to America and what I found there
Are you an Enemy Combatant?
Rock vs Pop
Why we should make all guns illegal
Invasion: America
One Year since 9/11 and Americans haven't changed
Malicious hackers are rare and ARE criminals. Many hacking groups discourage this sort of hacker. This is the kind of person who commits internet fraud or takes down servers to cause disruption or theft. The kind of person who HARMS the internet.

But regular hackers are common and harmless and work to improve the internet.

A very basic definition of 'hacking' is to find a manual route to solving a software problem by finding an alternative route around the problem.

If I have forgotten my own password on my machine I can hack around it. If I want to advance in a game thought cheating I can hack the files and advance my current level. If a program isnt working satisfactory then I can hack it to make it work properly.

If you find some ethical problem with the above activities then consider the following:

If you buy a TV and it doesnt work to your satisfaction is it ethically wrong to attempt to fix it yourself?

Is it ethically wrong to take your TV to pieces? In fact is it illegal to alter or reconfigure any of your personal possesions? No, if you have purchased something then it belongs to you and you can change it and even destroy it if you want as it is now yours. Surely software is no exception, unless you are arguing that its some sort of communist-unownable product existing in a capitalist society, which is plain crazy.

So when someone says they are a hacker it isnt a particually bold statement. Maybe they cheated at winmine once or helped discover a security flaw in someones server but no, they probably dont belong to some cult. More dangerous is if someone says "Im a programmer". Then run.

       
Tweet

Hacker: (n). One who makes furniture with an axe (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by because it isnt on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:37:54 PM PST
It's about time that these fuddy-duddy nonces from the 1960s and 70s just gave up trying to reclaim "their" word, hacker, and simply fell in line with the rest of the world.

Hacker means one thing - evil, computer using ne'r do-wells. It does not mean 'clever programmer' any longer, and it has never meant this outside of the USA.

Outside the USA, the correct word for a clever programmer has always been "coder". Now, with the forces of American Imperialism upon us, coder brethen from the USA approach us, and yet we must shy away from them as if they were lepers - "Uagh! You knowingly name yourself such that people think you are a criminal. Begone!"

Perhaps coders from the USA could use the convenient war on terrorism as an excuse to relaunch themselves under the correct name. However, they are probably too pompous and stubborn to do so. It is a shame.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Hah. (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 06:57:40 PM PST
You're displaying your own moronicity, man.. CRACKER is one who malaciously 'hacks' down servers or programs commonly to what we would refer to as a telnet, rerouting packets through an X.25-9 network, which is basically the raw internet. You have no idea what you're talking about.. USA practically invented the term 'hacker', didn't they? I'm sure some china man started fucking up computers in the US and we labeled him a hacker too huh? Hah. Go somewhere with your fantasies. A 'coder' isn't even how we refer to someone who creates or edits programs.. It's commonly referred to as a scripter or programmer. A hacker doesn't program.. He commands things to happen through a prompt. It's not 'programming' in most cases.. Anyone who knows the first two things about computers can 'hack' (Using your definition)
Someone needs to shoot this man.


 
hacker as the correct name? yes! (none / 0) (#85)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 09:43:07 PM PST
Hacker is definantly the term used for someone that edits just about any file on any computer! Now this turmoil over it being evil and illegal and blah blah blah is all wrong. This evil and illegal person is most commonly and most usually reffered to as a CRACKER. Crackers are the ones that attempt to crack into the sites or other peoples computers. Names are confused as a hacker can be any child or adult with the smallest bit of knowledge in opening a file in word pad and editing it whereas a cracker is someone with extreme knowledge using it to do no good but break things down or steal.


No No Cracker is Southern person (none / 0) (#89)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 03:19:09 AM PST
Or can be a biscuit.


hehe (none / 0) (#98)
by NAWL on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 08:28:23 PM PST
Actually cracker is what old black men call old white men.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

 
I should delete this... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by elenchos on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 05:40:35 PM PST
...on the grounds that it is too repetitive.

You guys keep saying the same thing again and again: there are good and bad hackers, not all hackers are bad. Yes, we GET IT already! We know you think there are two kinds. Repeating it and embroidering it doesn't make it any less false.

Why don't you support it instead of repeating it? What evidence do you have that there are all these law-abiding hackers? It is extraordinary to claim that a group which scoffs at many of our society's laws and rules, including the most basic respect for others' property, still retains some scrupels? That even though they don't respect copyright or patent law, or think that other people have any right to make a living selling the fruits of their labor, would still stay their hand when faced with other laws?

What a very special kind of scofflaws these hackers are! Any proof of this? Any real evidence of all the "good" these imagined Robin Hood hackers do?

No, no evidence. Quit posting the same assertion ad nauseam until you dig up something to stand it on.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Take your medicine. (2.50 / 2) (#3)
by because it isnt on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 06:28:22 PM PST
No, no evidence. Quit posting the same assertion ad nauseam until you dig up something to stand it on.

Quit tilting at windmills, elenchos. Again and again you go "bad hacker" this and "evil hacker" that. People think you get some kind of sick thrill at having your elementary logical errors pointed out to you, given it happens so often. You try to associate hackers with terrorists, thieves and murderers, yet you never give any real evidence, it's always ad-hominem attacks and strawmen arguments that gush from your pen.

So, tonight, enchelos, here is an irrefutable list of Good Deeds performed by your imagined enemies, the "hackers":
  • The Internet: if it were not for hard-working Army scientists working on bomb-proof protocols, and plucky sandal-wearing hippies implementing it all, Microsoft would have had nothing to steal to get Winblows 95 onto the Internet. And without that, there would never have been a market of lunatics for Asylum On Line to sell to.
  • Microsoft Excel: You might think this core business application could only be invented by Microsoft. You would be wrong. It was invented by open-source guru Dan Bricklin. Dan's visionary pro-innovation, anti-Microsoft stance is clear even to this day.
  • "Hackers" at Xerox PARC invented Ethernet, the mouse, the graphical user interface and object-oriented programming. All four run deep into Microsoft's soul, and once again, all four were stolen by the great Satan without recognition or gratitude.
  • Good computers: everyone knows that the only good computers are those from Apple, and you won't be surprised to know that Apple was not only founded by "hackers", but also employs countless "hackers" to help them Think Different, a business strategy which has gained them untold amounts of market share.
I hope I have impressed upon you the basics of how computer history is founded upon the deeds of good "hackers". Perhaps one of these days you will the people behind C++, Java, Scheme, Debian, GNOME, X Windows, OpenGL and XEmacs are all these "hackers" you despise.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

You sir are a fool, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 07:00:47 PM PST
These most certianly are not hackers, but rather entrepreneurs. First this moron - "Potato Error" (no pun intended) - tries to twist reality by liberally redefining the meanings of commonly used terms such as "hacker", and now you try to base your argument on this ludicrous redefinitions.

No where does your post draw an assosiation between the word hacker and these people. You first need to define the word hacker (which I am guessing you used PotatoError's definition), and then you try to feebly argue your points without ever producing the critical link; that these gentlemen where indeed hackers.

You are a moron, please go back to your childish bedwetting websites where you can discuss such things as toilet humor, and potty jokes which is all you sir seem capible of discussing. You will be worthy of our praise when you can prove that these gentleman were hackers, not entrepreneurs.

Good day to you sir. PS: We all know who really created the internet, AOL-Timewarner, Inc., moron.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

Sir, I apologise for the language-rape. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by because it isnt on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 07:33:12 PM PST
I am indeed guilty of using the "H" word. This was purely to aid enchelos's comprehension of my piece - he is an American, after all.

You are absolutely correct in describing these people as entrepreneurs - I understand this is the business world's term for a person who embodies traits of experimentation, risk taking, intelligence, charm, wit, and so on. If that's the case, then you and I are talking about the same thing. Coming from an engineering background, I would describe such a person as a "coder" (see my other post for commentary). Of course, these are two sides of the same coin.

Naturally, these great people would not wish to associate themselves with terrorists, so they would refrain from using the "H" word. However, you will find that less subtle persons have accidentally spilled the beans. Furthermore, you will note that Dan Bricklin's opinions are almost identical to those of notorious h*****s.

PS: We all know who really created the internet, AOL-Timewarner, Inc.

The quality of AOL-TW is really impressive, isn't it? David Irving couldn't do it, IngSoc couldn't do it (although they did have a good try), but AOL have succeeded in convincing everyone of their agenda; namely, that they created the Internet. My hat goes off to them, it really does.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
excuse me? (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 11:41:27 PM PST
AOL-timewarner didnt even exist untill recently, you psychotic twit. and, by the way, you dont actually have a PhD...


Sir, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:39:36 AM PST
You, Anonymous Reader, are a twit. You are the most inconsistant poster on this weblog.

Sir, if you wish to play with the grown ups, I sugest you prove your claims. I beg of you, o wise one, please provide proof that this AOL-Timewarner was incorporated after the Internet was created. I doubt you, and your small, multiple personality mind could ever produce such evidance.

PS: I have a PhD in Economics and another in Physics. My disserations where on Former Soviet Economic Conditions, and on Quantum Nutrino-Muon Studies, both of which you sir are too small minded, and too unintelligent to comprehend. I would appreciate a little respect when addressing me, it is Dr. Martino Cortez (sir) to you, sir.

Thank you,


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

So you have no knowledge in computing? (1.00 / 1) (#33)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:59:32 AM PST
Then why do you keep making up this crap about AOL. Someone posted that AOL owned the internet and for some weird reason, you and a few others took to it.
How about going to google and typing: "internet history". THat should sort out the problem.
Thing is that im sure you know the truth but are trying to annoy us.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

google runs on Linux (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:16:13 AM PST
Mission critical operations which value the integrity and accuracy of their data don't do this. Next you'll be sending us to slashdot for our "facts."


integrity and accuracy (none / 0) (#100)
by PotatoError on Mon Jan 14th, 2002 at 12:57:30 PM PST
noone would ever use Windows for a system requiring integrity.
Windows crashes all over the place. Find me one nuclear power station that runs windows NT. Not saying that they would run linux though - most web servers run Unix because its more secure.

Windows still has lots to learn from linux before it is half as secure. God, do you know how many ports are left open by default on windows?
Did you know that 95% of all win2000 home PC's contain major security holes that havent been fixed which can be used by malicious people to 'break in'.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
That is Dr. Cortez to you sir, (none / 0) (#50)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:32:49 PM PST
I must ask you refer to me as Dr. Cortez. I did not go to graduate school for six years to have twits such as yourself salute me incorrectly.

Sir, I am a Economist, and a Business Man. I have been in the business for well over twenty years. I have seen many fads come and go. I have seen go-go boots come and go. I've seen large gas guzzling fancy cars come and then pass into the night.

As a business man, the internet fascinates me. I had to get a peice of it. No other company struck me as having such vision, such might as AOL-Timewarner, who had invented the Internet as it is today. Without AOL, our Internet would be full of sudo-intellectual peons such as yourself, PotatoError. We, the americans, owe a great deal to AOL for shaping our internet's longevity.

Good day to you sir, may I suggest you be more polite in your next response.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

woops... (none / 0) (#71)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 09:13:40 PM PST
No no no, lemme help you out here with real references:

Internet n : worldwide network of computer computer networks that use the TCP/IP network protocols to facilitate data transmission and exchange [syn: cyberspace]

Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

Explination: The internet is simply the PC's connected together for data transfer through TCP/IP, it's not the WWW as you might accidentally think it is. I'm just clarifying this, not Trolling you or otherwise insulting you.

Some Background:
The internet was theorized in 1962 by J.C.R. Licklider of MIT. It was finally put into action after he finalized his theory of Packet Switching and then joined DARPA and thus named ARPANET. Afterwards, it grew and expanded until finally in 1972 an electronic mail system was designed by Ray Tomlinson at BBN, written after the ICCC conference was held to show off the unvieling of the 'internal network of computers' afterwards dubbed, INTERNET. From the devise of e-mail came the need for the World Wide Web (WWW).

Further Information:
www.isoc.org
www.isoc.org/history (all of the history here)

World Wide Web:
www n : a collection of internet sites that offer text and graphics and sound and animation resources through the hypertext transfer protocol [syn: world wide web, web, WWW]


Source: WordNet 1.6, 1997 Princeton University

Explination: Basically this works through a TCP/IP protocol called HTTP, or Hypertext Transer Protocol ( good source: www.acronymfinder.com ). It's a layering of the Internet.

I'll just take a direct quote from http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ :
"In October 1994, Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the Web, founded the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,Laboratory for Computer Science [MIT/LCS] in collaboration with CERN, where the Web originated, with support from DARPA and the European Commission. For further information on the joint initiative and the contributions of CERN, INRIA, and MIT, please see the statement on the joint World Wide Web Initiative."

Ok, this basically proves that AOL-Time Warner didn't invent the Internet, but hey..I'll keep going to completely prove my point.

Firstly, AOL was a small Internet provider initially beaten up by Prodigy. Prodigy had something go wrong and lost their share, AOL took over.

AOL's history as posted on www.aoltimewarner.com:
"Founded in 1985, America Online, Inc., based in Dulles, Virginia, is the world's leader in interactive services, Web brands, Internet technologies and e-commerce services. America Online, Inc., operates: AOL, with more than 30 million members, and CompuServe, with more than 3 million members, the company's two worldwide Internet services; several leading Internet brands including ICQ, AOL Instant Messenger, Digital City and MapQuest; the new AOLbyPHONE; the AOL Anywhere.com and Netscape.com portals; the Netscape 6, Netscape Navigator and Communicator browsers; AOL Moviefone, the nation's No. 1 movie-listing guide and ticketing service; AOL@School, a free online learning tool for K-12 classrooms; and Spinner.com and NullSoft's Winamp, leaders in Internet music. i-Planet E-Commerce Solutions, a Sun-Netscape Alliance, provides easy-to-deploy, comprehensive e-commerce solutions for the Net Economy."

Note they DID innovate A LOT, but they are just an ISP and always have been. No where in there does it mention the Internet OR World Wide Web.

As for AOL Time Warner:
"On February 11, 2000, America Online, Inc. (AOL) and Time Warner Inc. (Time Warner) filed joint applications under Sections 214 and 310(d) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 214, 310(d), requesting Commission approval of the transfer of control to AOL Time Warner of licenses and authorizations controlled by AOL and by Time Warner or its affiliates or subsidiaries. On March 21, 2000, the parties supplied the Commission with a supplemental public interest statement. This transfer of control would take place as the result of the proposed mergers of AOL and Time Warner, following which both AOL and Time Warner would become wholly owned subsidiaries of a newly formed holding company, AOL Time Warner. The ultimate ownership and control of those entities holding licenses and authorizations would be transferred from AOL and Time Warner to AOL Time Warner. (View the Public Interest Statement: [ MSWord | Text ].)"
Taken from http://www.fcc.gov/csb/aoltw/aoltw.html

I think this definitely proves my point.

And besides, you think too highly of yourself. I don't give a shit that you have a PHd. For all I care, you might not.

But truely, you cannot deny THIS.

I CAN give you more information if you wish. You may e-mail me: shadowwolf@wolfenet.com and I will give you more information via a suitable contact method.

Thank you.


 
...didn't spend 6 years at Evil Medical School... (none / 0) (#80)
by Hegemonistic on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 08:23:10 AM PST
Hope everyone can stand the levity. The Dr.'s comments reminded me of a humorous line from Austin Powers.


 
Physics? (none / 0) (#65)
by philipm on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 04:14:16 PM PST
You spelled Nutrino wrong Marty.

Oh, and you got your PhD in physical chemistry, not physics.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Just because you got a PhD doesn't make you right. Everyone knows that the Soviet Union is still alive and well.


--philipm

Sir, (none / 0) (#87)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:39:18 PM PST
Hah, you've been reading to far into your liberal education to belive that the Soviet Union is still alive and well. Why just last week I was shopping at a WalMart in Berlin whil away on business.

If you knew anything about the super-intelligent, mega-rich such as myself, you would know that I in no way touch a keyboard to write these eloquent postings. I have a team of naked female typists who write on a whim, and perform on a whim. While you nitpick posters spelling and grammar, I will be enjoying a hot massage followed by a soak in a hot tub while being served by some of the worlds most beautiful women.

Good day to you philipm sir,


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
Rubbish (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 04:40:56 PM PST
Sir

If indeed you gained a PhD for a dissertation on Neutrino-Muon Studies, how come you can't spell it? Or, for that matter, "dissertation"? You are clearly a fraud and an impostor: both criminal offences.

The real AR


Sir, (none / 0) (#86)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:33:13 PM PST
As always, I must apologize on behalf of my nude female typists who write all my postings on this web-log. Any typographical error is indicative of the typist, not the mind. And in our case, my psychotic friend, the typist, and the mind, while often tangled closly and passionatly together, are not one and the same.

Good day to you sir,


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
Hah. He's the twit? (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 07:04:47 PM PST
Okay, Sir. I guess you not being able to spell 'Suggest' and your evident lack of knowledge about the internet fueled this need to say he's the twit instead of yourself. "Anonymous Reader" That you, Mr PhD, were bitching at happens to be correct. You don't know jack shit about the net, do you?! Time Warner internet services are owned by AOL, for one. For two, AOL came along after the internet was made to make some cash and has thus expanded. Do you honestly think that after this long it would have only gotten to version, what, 8.0? AOL is just the most widely know internet service provider, it in no way invented the internet. If you have a PhD in physicts and economics, what the hell are you doing posting in an internet topic? You need to stay in your own fields, so you don't make yourself look like more of a moron. Your only basis of argument thus far has been discrimination on the grounds of how old your current opponent is; Do you honestly think that you're making us look bad? You're like a 14 year old. I'm older than you so I'm better. Hah.. I'd expect more from an elementary schooler.


Sir, (none / 0) (#88)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 10:43:01 PM PST
Do you actually expect me to put the time into teaching such juvinille minds as yourself? Sir, I have golf, rock climbing, massage therapy, hot tubbing, and sailing. I dont have the time to discuss such inane matters as who created the internet. While you seem to know everything there is to know about AOL versioning, I save my great intelligance for wise business moves, or a long game of chess with the most renowned players in the world.

As far as your unsubstantiated claim that I am 14, all I can say is Tu Quo Que. Get a life anonymous reader, you spend far to much time posting, then changing your mind. Perhaps you need to see the light of day some more.


--
Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

 
Loosest definition of hacker I've ever seen (none / 0) (#8)
by Robert Reginald Rodriguez on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 07:54:02 PM PST
So every single person who ever used a computer is a hacker now? No wonder every single thing a normal person would find useful was made by hackers. Why stop at computers? I hear hackers built the great wall of China, the Pyramids of Egypt and even discovered America! Also, they invented everything, and ran all the countries in the world when they were doing well. British hackers won the second world war, and American hackers won the Vietnam war.

How would that work?


yea and I heard that... (none / 0) (#34)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 03:00:32 AM PST
AOL invented the internet and owns it.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAAA
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Sounds alright to me. (none / 0) (#38)
by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:37:23 AM PST
So every single person who ever used a computer is a hacker now? No wonder every single thing a normal person would find useful was made by hackers. Why stop at computers? I hear hackers built the great wall of China, the Pyramids of Egypt and even discovered America! Also, they invented everything, and ran all the countries in the world when they were doing well. British hackers won the second world war, and American hackers won the Vietnam war.

Actually, yes, that sounds quite correct. Primitive hackers would not have access to computers, so they would "hack" with objects like bricks, guns, and ballot boxes. I like your thinking, Sir. Of course, you realise that Vietnamese hackers won the Vietman war, yes?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Sad thing is... (none / 0) (#9)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 08:10:08 PM PST
...everyone knows that the only good computers are those from Apple,...

Sad, very sad thing, is that Commodore hadn't good enough marketing. Amiga 500 was the best ever machine of its era... (...and later up to A4000...)

Imagine what we could have now. Not spending so much time stuck with 640 kB memory limit and obsolete Intel architecture (Motorola was able to run around Intel in circles), having a GUI that would be actually usable...

Sad times when mediocre technology always wins by mere force of money...


Amigas (none / 0) (#11)
by because it isnt on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 08:50:24 PM PST
Sad, very sad thing, is that Commodore hadn't good enough marketing.

As an embittered Amiga user, I can tell you there was a hell of a lot wrong with CBM, far more than just their marketing. They also had abysmal business sense, and let 90% developed killer Amigas like the A3000-T be killed off at the last minute, and cheaper, shoddier things like the A4000 were put out. All the problems people have with A4000s were already fixed in the A3000-T - CBM deliberately introduced problems, in order to bring down the chip count and the overall cost of what was meant to be their flagship machine.

What really killed the Amiga (apart from games companies taking a leap of faith at Sega and Nintendo, where the margins were higher) was its insistance on hardware backwards compatibility. Old Amiga software, with slight tweaks will run on any Amiga, even the newest kinds, without resorting to any actual emulation. But I digress...

Not spending so much time stuck with 640 kB memory limit and obsolete Intel architecture (Motorola was able to run around Intel in circles), having a GUI that would be actually usable...

To be fair, Intel don't like their 80x86 architecture any more than we do, but certain products don't run on anything else. The other limitations you cite are purely software limits. You can fix these by running a modern operating system.

Sad times when mediocre technology always wins by mere force of money...

Yes. When I'm burning a CD-R (50 for $20) in my CD-RW drive ($100), using the new 512Mb of RAM I got in a cereal packet, I think to myself "why did the computer industry come up with a standardised hardware specification? That leads to commoditization, and lower prices. If everybody made different, incompatible hardware, all suited to different consumer's needs, they could charge a premium for packaged solutions and make money selling replacement software when a consumer moves from one hardware platform to another!". It makes sense, you know.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Standards, compatibility, etc. (none / 0) (#12)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 09:06:40 PM PST
What really killed the Amiga (apart from games companies taking a leap of faith at Sega and Nintendo, where the margins were higher) was its insistance on hardware backwards compatibility.

So why it hadn't killed Wintel?
Backwards compatibility is good. We still run some pieces of ancient software from 286 times - the requirements hadn't changed, the software is custom-written; it does exactly what we want, it is proven to be reliable, and it'd be madness to "upgrade" it only because it is formally obsolete.

The other limitations you cite are purely software limits. You can fix these by running a modern operating system.

Guess what I am doing on production machines.

If everybody made different, incompatible hardware, all suited to different consumer's needs, they could charge a premium for packaged solutions and make money selling replacement software when a consumer moves from one hardware platform to another!". It makes sense, you know.

You understood me wrong. Standardization is good thing. But mediocre technology becoming the standard is Fucking Bad Thing! (And don't let me start a-bitchin' about Beta vs VHS...)


Moore's Law (none / 0) (#14)
by because it isnt on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 09:31:58 PM PST
So why it hadn't [hardware backwards compatibility] killed Wintel?

Because there's no such thing as hardware backwards compatilibity on the Wintel platform. You're expected to abstract everything through the BIOS, or use whatever OS's interface is provided (which will used a specific driver). There is very little "hardware banging" going on in IBM PC software, it's all abstracted away. And that's why it still works today. Most Amiga games and demos completely dump the OS and bang the hardware like crazy. Given the Amiga has such a huge backlog of hardware-banging software titles, you risk 90% software incompatibility if you make an incompatible chipset and try and mask the differences in the OS.

You understood me wrong. Standardization is good thing. But mediocre technology becoming the standard is Fucking Bad Thing! (And don't let me start a-bitchin' about Beta vs VHS...)

I certainly agree. However, the IBM PC architecture is no longer as bad as it used to be. Standards keep evolving along with Moore's expectations, and less constrained systems like Macs and Suns can take advantage of things like high-speed backplane standards, etc, etc. The standard at the moment isn't so bad, and it's really tweakable to your needs (if you like that sort of thing. If you don't, you have Macs and pre-built PCs which are already fixed in place and set for you).
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
a couple little thing (none / 0) (#17)
by NAWL on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:38:44 PM PST
Xerox PARC really didn't invent those things. They were invented by guru Douglas Englebart. PARC was just the first to implement them and put them together.

Also for anyone saying that MS didn't steal from Apple can go here.

1985-1993
At the same time, Sculley became locked in a battle with Microsoft's Bill Gates over the introduction of Windows 1.0, which had many similarities to the Mac GUI. Gates finally agreed to sign a statement to the effect that Microsoft would not use Mac technology in Windows 1.0--it said nothing of future versions of Windows, and Gates' lawyers made sure it was airtight. Apple had effectively lost exclusive rights to its interface design. This would prove to be an important document in future lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft, involving the Windows interface.
1997-2000
Jobs, who by now was being referred to as "interim CEO," made the keynote speech, and spoke of the company's upcoming aggressive advertising campaign, upcoming new Macs, and Rhapsody. He also announced an almost entirely new Board of Directors, including Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle. But he saved the best for last. In a ground breaking decision, Jobs announced an alliance with Microsoft. In exchange for $150 million in Apple Stock, Microsoft and Apple would have a 5-year patent cross-license and, more importantly, a final settlement in the ongoing GUI argument. Microsoft agreed to pay an unreleased sum of additional funds to quiet the allegations that it had stolen Apple's intellectual property in designing its Windows OS. Microsoft also announced that Office '98, its popular office package, would be available for the Mac by years end.





Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

you forgot something (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:45:44 PM PST
The GUI had its roots in the 1950s but was not developed until the 1970s when a group at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) developed the Alto, a GUI-based computer. The Alto was the size of a large desk, and Xerox believed it unmarketable. Jobs took a tour of PARC in 1979, and saw the future of personal computing in the Alto. Although much of the Interface of both the Lisa and the Mac was based (at least intellectually) heavily on the work done at PARC, and many of the engineers there later left to join Apple, much of the Mac OS was written before Job's visit to PARC. When Jobs accused Bill Gates of Microsoft of stealing the GUI from Apple and using it in Windows 1.0, Gates fired back:
No, Steve, I think its more like we both have a rich neighbor named Xerox, and you broke in to steal the TV set, and you found out I'd been there first, and you said. "Hey that's no fair! I wanted to steal the TV set!
The fact that both Apple and Microsoft had gotten the idea of the GUI from Xerox put a major dent in Apple's lawsuit against Microsoft over the GUI several years later. Although much of The Mac OS is original, it was similar enough to the old Alto GUI to make a "look and feel" suit against Microsoft dubious.


 
Accusing law-abiding computer scientists... (none / 0) (#26)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:34:34 AM PST
...of being hackers changes nothing. It is a re-definition of what a hacker is, not evidence that hackers are not criminals, or that there is any limit to their lawbreaking.

I think it's funny how all the other paranoids attack you when you are trying to make their case for them. You guys are your own worst enemies, you know.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


think for a second (none / 0) (#28)
by NAWL on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:24:02 AM PST
And what makes you think that law abiding computer scientists have any problem being called or referring to themselves as hackers?

Just because you claim to be one doesn't mean you know squat.




Hey, if you consider the fifth grade your senior year, what else can you be besides a pompous jackass?

How about this? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by iat on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 04:28:49 AM PST
And what makes you think that law abiding computer scientists have any problem being called or referring to themselves as hackers?

How about this comment which I assume you have read since you replied to it (taking care not to respond to the points I made)? In that post, I quite clearly said that during my former career as a law-abiding software developer, I would have strongly objected to being called a "hacker" since this term would cast doubt upon my professionalism. Futhermore, I would never have referred to myself as a "hacker", instead preferring to describe myself as a "programmer", "software developer" or "software engineer".


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

 
You failed Reading Comprehension 101, yes? (none / 0) (#37)
by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:33:30 AM PST
Accusing law-abiding computer scientists of being hackers changes nothing. It is a re-definition of what a hacker is, not evidence that hackers are not criminals, or that there is any limit to their lawbreaking.

As you appear to have missed an important point. Namely, that these law-abiding computer scientist may have called themselves "hackers" at a time when the word had a different meaning. Another example would be a thirtysomething describing an event as "totally trick". 30 years ago, trick meant "impressive". Now it means "deception". Etymologists and linguists will confirm to you that the meanings of words and phrases change over time, and between different cultures. Take the Israeli military, for example. In the USA, they would be called "freedom fighters". The rest of the world, however, would call them "terrorists", or "murderers".

So, as you can see, it is quite possible that great computer scientists called themselves "hackers", in a more innocent time when the word didn't mean "criminal delinquent scum". As you may also have noticed, some great computer scientists agree with hackers that copy protection is a bad thing, but with the distinction that they do not approve of criminally breaking said protection. They would prefer that cultural items were lost forever, rather than go against the will of the US Government.

I think it's funny how all the other paranoids attack you when you are trying to make their case for them. You guys are your own worst enemies, you know.

On the contrary, I find it humourous that you believe they are attacking me. No, they are purely interested in improving the accuracy of my points, for which I thank them.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
how about prison? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by philipm on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 06:49:22 PM PST
95% of prisoners are innocent. heh heh.

See any parallels?

Maybe you should check your Token Passing logs for any instances of Potato Error.


--philipm

 
why? (none / 0) (#32)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:54:49 AM PST
Why not take the 'philosophy' of CyberArmy, that hacker training ground:

"CyberArmy is a group of netizens who believe in a deregulated Internet, which is free from external control. We believe in providing tools to assist others who believe in a free Internet - we support Open Source. We campaign against those who abuse the free nature of the Internet. We believe that spammers, child pornographers, web based scammers, and malicious hackers are enemies of the Internet. We believe that the Internet can be self-regulated, and that we, as equipped and knowledgable netizens, can control and suppress abusers of the Internet, with legal methods, by consolidating together as a united CyberArmy."
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
and we keep saying it till you really dig it!!! (1.00 / 2) (#35)
by MainFrame on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 03:35:45 AM PST
quote: "You guys keep saying the same thing again and again: there are good and bad hackers".
and we will say it again, untill you dig it.
we will say it 1.000.000 times more, untill you know what we mean.
and you might not know this, but hackers are people who never give up. so when you delete the second post about this subject, we will create 10 more. you can't stop it.

and by the way, the US government has many hackers that break into systems for the government. but no one is mentioning that. 'it's for the good sake' yea, it is. but isn't deleting a kiddie porn site from the net also for the good sake? but when we do, and the government finds out, we get a huge note, while they are profiting by it, cause they don't have to rent a hacker theirself, which costs them money. maybe this is a bit overdone, but, it's clear now i hope.

MainFrame

HACKERS 4 EVER



 
"Own?" What do you mean, "own?&quo (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by RobotSlave on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 07:08:36 PM PST
Who do you think you are, Steve Ballmer? Exactly what part of Winmine, or any other piece of proprietary software, do you think you "own?"

Look, Skippy, unless you're a Microsoft Shareholder, you can't make any claim to "owning" Winmine. If you're a legitimate Winmine end-user, then what you've got is a license to use Winmine. That license has terms. And if you use, abuse, or "hack" Winmine in any way that violates those terms, then you are breaking the law. When you are breaking the law, you are a criminal, Skippy, and no amount of wishful thinking or rationalization will change that.

Give up the TV analogy. You do own your TV. You don't own your proprietary software. When you buy your software license, you "own" the software in the same sense that the commuter "owns" the bus once he's paid his fare. In other, smaller, words: you don't own it at all. Does the guy next to you on the bus have the right to tinker with the brakes? You're damned right he doesn't, and that's a bit of a relief, now isn't it?

Since you're being completely obtuse and uninteresting, I'll take a minute to bring up and address the argument that you were too dreary to come up with on your own: What rights does a Microsoft stockholder have to Winmine? He owns it in part, but does that mean he can do whatever he wants with it? Of course not. If that were true, then I could buy one share of GM for about fifty American Dollars, and then go down to the Viper factory and drive away in a shiny new sports-car. Don't hear about too many people doing this sort of thing, do you?

When a child in kindergarten wants to abuse or misuse a toy that belongs to the school, the tyke will often try to get his way by yelling "IT'S" MINE," sincerely believing that the item is entirely subject to his whim simply because it happens to be clutched in his grubby little fist. The disagreeable little urchin is wrong, and so are you.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Right or wrong... (none / 0) (#10)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 08:35:55 PM PST
Exactly what part of Winmine, or any other piece of proprietary software, do you think you "own?"

The binary files saved on the medium.

You do own your TV. You don't own your proprietary software.

What about the firmware? Modern TVs, VCRs, and next to everything - even the cars - are in fact computers, with "proprietary software" in EPROMs. Tinkering with the TV now extends to plucking the EPROM from its socket (or desoldering it), reading, disassembling, editing, burning back to the chip. No principial difference from making pure-hardware modifications in the era before microcontrollers.

When you buy your software license, you "own" the software in the same sense that the commuter "owns" the bus once he's paid his fare.

Wrong analogy - could maybe apply to "software as service". Better analogy here could be "modifications on rented car"; but even then, could anyone argue if I'd rent a car from them, hotrod the engine, wreck it, then restore it from backup copy, and return exactly the car I rented, without a single scratch?

The disagreeable little urchin is wrong, and so are you.

Right or wrong, who has a hexadecimal editor has the power. And, as obviously the central paradigm of American foreign policy says, Might makes right.

Or are you just jealous that you don't know enough juju (or are too scared with the very idea of violating the Almighty Alwayscorrect Law) to do the modifications yourself?


You disgusting little brute. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by RobotSlave on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 09:22:32 PM PST
You most certainly do not own the proprietary software files that you have been allowed to save on your "medium." You have purchased the right to use them, but you do not own them.

The only fitting analogy for these "software files" is that of a set-top cable TV box. Say you order cable service, and the cable company comes and sets up a set-top box in your house. You do not own the set-top box, and you do not have the right to modify it. The cable company owns the set-top box. You have a right to use it. You do not own the set-top box.

I am repeating myself deliberately, becuase you seem to have a very difficult time grasping the simple fact that you do not own the proprietary software that you use.

Once again, I ask you to give up the TV analogy. It does not apply. You own your TV. You do not own your proprietary software. We are not discussing firmware. We are discussing proprietary software.

You do not support your assertion that the bus analogy does not apply. Therefore, the bus analogy stands.

Your car rental analogy does not demonstrate what you seem to think it does. You can, in point of fact, rent a car, modify it, wreck it, repair it, and return it. Furthermore, in modifying it, you would have broken the law. In wrecking it, you would have broken the law again. In repairing it and attempting to return it as though nothing had happened, you would be breaking the law once more. You would be a criminal, just as you are a criminal when you "hack" proprietary software.

Modifying proprietary software, or violating your end user license in any other way, is a crime. If you violate it, you are breaking the law. If you break the law, you are a criminal. I restate this, because you seem to have difficulty understanding it.

As to "might makes right," I will repeat myself yet again: When you are breaking the law, you are a criminal, Skippy, and no amount of wishful thinking or rationalization will change that.

I do not rob banks because I respect and understand the law, not because I fear it, and certainly not because I lack bank-robbing "juju." In fact, I would not expect one to develop such "juju" until after one had decided to rob banks. So too with proprietary software "hacking."

I find your arguments laughably childish, and utterly dispicable. You disgust me, but I think I am beginning to understand the criminal hacker mindset.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

So I am a criminal. Big deal. (none / 0) (#16)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:32:39 PM PST
We are not discussing firmware. We are discussing proprietary software.

Where's the difference, except location in EEPROM (or FEPROM) instead of in a binary file? In the first case I own the chip, in the second case I own the drive.

You do not support your assertion that the bus analogy does not apply. Therefore, the bus analogy stands.

The bus analogy fails, as shown here: A bus is a service. You enter it, you leave it, you aren't in direct control of it. A car is a tool; you drive it, you control the most minute aspects of where it goes.

You can, in point of fact, rent a car, modify it, wreck it, repair it, and return it. Furthermore, in modifying it, you would have broken the law. In wrecking it, you would have broken the law again. In repairing it and attempting to return it as though nothing had happened, you would be breaking the law once more.

You missed the crucial detail: I said nothing about repairing the wrecked car, I was talking about restoring it from a backup, a version totally indistinguishable from the original. This is the virtue of software against hardware: You can back it up before doing potentially destructive operations on it, unlike a car. After all, the rental service gets their car back, so why they should complain. My "crimes" are therefore mala prohibita, not mala per se. Where is the damage?

As to "might makes right," I will repeat myself yet again: When you are breaking the law, you are a criminal, Skippy, and no amount of wishful thinking or rationalization will change that.

So I am a criminal. Big deal. Now what? Shoot me? Put me into jail? For what? For daring to read forbidden text (in this case decompiled binary)? For daring to rewrite it? Many "Respectable Big Players" are doing illegal things, and either nobody cares or they get just slap on wrists. So why I should not do the same? Just because I don't have billions in shares?

It's my computer. I have exclusive rights to determine both what data will enter and leave it, and what code runs on it. I have the ownership right to each and every DRAM cell in my DIMM modules, including the right to know and manipulate their content. I have the ownership right to each and every sector on my hard drive, including the right to read and modify their content. I have both the right, the will, and the tools to enforce my will. (By the way, very good tool.[1]) Why I have this right? Because I can enforce it. I was making computers march to my whistle and drum back when 64 kB RAM was a lot, and when XT with 640 kB RAM, CGA, and no HDD was still nice thing to have. I got used to getting what I want, even if it takes ripping it out of the virtual guts of the machine. If I want a modification, I can either beg a vendor, who will either ignore me or will charge me my yearly wage, or become a criminal and do it myself. Sorry, I prefer being a criminal against being powerless.

Now you come and lecture me about laws. Laws my posterior, the ones in question are bought anyway. Let me reiterate: Might makes right. And if you still want to preach, explain me what real damage I done, what is the difference for the outside world if I run modified software against the version if I'd be a Law Abiding Little Obedient Good Citizen and don't dare to touch the binaries and put up with the trivial-to-fix design deficiencies.

In fact, I would not expect one to develop such "juju" until after one had decided to rob banks.

So I should forget everything I know about security systems, both the wiring, sensors, and centrals? About guns and explosives? About acetylene torch? About oxygen lance? Just because I hadn't decided to rob a bank? Bloody no! Knowledge is power, a weapon. I will not voluntarily disarm myself.

[1] Excellent for changing ie. the sizes of items in system dialogs. If you ever wondered why file-open dialog is so small, or why the dropdown menu from the drives list is short so you have to scroll down to access your network drives, or wanted to redefine a keyboard shortcut or restructure a menu, Resource Hacker is exactly the program you need. By the way - you know that the Properties: dialogs in MSIE aren't true resources, but are defined as HTML code, including javascripts? That they are strikingly simple to edit? That you can actually make the "Address (URL)" boxes reasonably big so you can see more than mere two lines of the URL? That by editing a single byte in explorer.exe you can turn the "[win] Start" button to "[win]", making it a reasonably small icon so it doesn't occupy the precious space on the bottom bar? Not even talking on higher level - direct editing of executable code itself? You still value The Law more than the ability of at least partially freeing yourself from the corporate dictate?


you utter, utter idiot (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:58:03 PM PST
Cant you fucking read?

It's my computer. I have exclusive rights to determine both what data will enter and leave it, and what code runs on it.

But you do not have exclusive rights over software which you have not written yourself. If you install licensed software, you have consented to the license be it Microsoft's EULA (which forbids thieving) or the communist GPL (which forbids economic freedom.)

The story ends there.

The only exclusive control you have over software is software you write yourself.


Bite me. (none / 0) (#21)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 11:17:25 PM PST
If you install licensed software, you have consented to the license be it Microsoft's EULA (which forbids thieving) or the communist GPL (which forbids economic freedom.)

There are doubts about legal enforceability of software EULAs. I heard about no single case when any charges were brought against a physical person modifying software for themselves. All cases I heard about are high-profile warez distributions. And believe me, my ears are sensitive. I don't have the bad luck of living in Virginia, so no UCITA for me.

Even my lawyer takes custom software mods from me.


They wont arrest you anyway (none / 0) (#31)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:51:26 AM PST
The laws are only there to stop people from dissassembling, editting, and redistributing software as their own.
Noone cares if you just edit your own copy because it will never effect anyone. Its up to the software author to prosecute anyway and they wont bother if you have purchased their software - taking their customers to court would prompt a massive boycott of their products.

The law cant incorperate this truth though because it would create various loop holes for illegal copying.
This way they can just about arrest anyone..and I mean anyone. Legally if you save this web site in cache overnight then you have just infringed copyright and can be arrested..probably never go as far as court though.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Go on, bray at the moon. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:42:28 AM PST
Now that you've admitted that your "hacking" is criminal, you and your cohorts sit there chortling and reassuring one another that the laws in question will never be enforced.

Hah.

Just you wait. You pissed your pants when Skylarov was arrested, and now you and your criminal bretheren are all swaggering about, blustering and slapping one another on the back and saying that it can never happen again, just because one little case was dropped.

To think the Law is wrong is one thing, but to think you are above the Law entirely puts you back on the level of that disgusting little kindergarten urchin.

"It's mine," you howl. We'll see about that, Skippy.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Who is "Skippy"? (none / 0) (#45)
by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:43:45 AM PST
"It's mine," you howl. We'll see about that, Skippy.

Sir, I am confused. Do you have it on good authority that Mr PotatoError's name is indeed "Skippy", or are you simply being a condescening little shit? If the latter is correct, then I recommend signing up for debating classes or elocution lessons. That way, you may be able to put your points across without being thought less of.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Thank you, Captain Sophisticated. (none / 0) (#46)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:16:25 PM PST
"...a condescending little shit?"

It's always nice to see someone undermine the very point they are trying to make.

And what benefit would elocution lessons provide in a written forum? Here's a nickle, Skippy. Go buy yourself a bigger vocabulary.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

At your service. (none / 0) (#55)
by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:16:33 PM PST
It's always nice to see someone undermine the very point they are trying to make

Welcome to Adequacy. You must be new here.

And what benefit would elocution lessons provide in a written forum?

You could pronounce "Sklyarov" correctly, for a start. You then wouldn't make the embarrassing mistake of misspelling his name. Balancing a book on your head while walking, and investing in a smoking jacket and pipe will also benefit you immensely.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

A spelling flame? How droll. (none / 0) (#58)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:33:20 PM PST
Next thing you know, you'll be "correcting" my transliteration of "Leenoos Torfaldz."

Only unwashed newbies, such as yourself and your criminal "hacker" cohorts, contradict themselves here. The better contributors are quite consistent in their positions and arguments, no matter how controversial.

By the way: does it hurt? Do you get a hollow feeling in your gut when you present the incredibly strained argument that a transliteration or typo that you don't like might be prevented by an "elocution" class? Did it make you wince when it was pointed out that you used the word "elocution" without knowing what it meant? Isn't it awful to feel like you must get the "last word," even though you have nothing left to say on the matter?

It sure looks like it hurts.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Linuz Xealots (none / 0) (#64)
by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 03:40:50 PM PST
Next thing you know, you'll be "correcting" my transliteration of "Leenoos Torfaldz."

There's a glaring typo on the meta page. I'm really torn apart with worry - should I report this to the site admins, or is it actually designed to ensnare me? They do things like that, you know.

The better contributors are quite consistent in their positions and arguments

That's a rather kind way of describing argumentum ad nauseum.

you used the word "elocution" without knowing what it meant?

I've known what elocution means since 1984, the problem is that other people know what it means too and want to nitpick when I use it carelessly. I suppose I could act like you and insinuate that my errors were intentional, designed to provoke a response.

By the way: does it hurt?

Yes, it does indeed hurt seeing you recycle your old material within the space of 35 minutes. Are you really that hard up for jokes, Skippy?
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Don't try to change the subject. (none / 0) (#67)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 06:50:47 PM PST
Fussing over what sort of error, precisely, you made when you mis-used the word "elocution" is hardly shedding any light on your illegal "hacking" activities.

This sort of pointless hair-splitting is just as useless as, for instance, pointing out the fact that I might be repeating myself to make a point, to be funny, or perhaps because my infantile opponents have demonstrated such incredible inability to understand a given statement the first time around.

At least in repeating myself I'm not resorting to the one school-yard retort that is so poor as to be universally recognized as an admission of defeat, to wit: "so are you." Skippy.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Churlishness (none / 0) (#69)
by because it isnt on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:13:06 PM PST
hardly shedding any light on your illegal "hacking" activities.

I have already shown in this article how "hackers" are paragons of virtue and how they rescue small animals from trees, carry ladies over muddy puddles, etc, etc. Please treat them with the respect they obviously deserve, and do not bore them to death with trivial complaints about minor errors of articulation.

I might be repeating myself [...]

Spare me the details of your latest introspection session. Psychiatrists are heavily compensated for listening to their clients whinging on and on. Please do not bore me at length with the irrelevant details of your life, unless you intend to pony up the money first.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

I wash my hands of you. (none / 0) (#70)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 08:16:31 PM PST
Trollop.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

it's been said before, but... (none / 0) (#79)
by derek3000 on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 06:59:30 AM PST
Pot. Kettle. Black. Thank you, whoever I'm biting it from.




----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

 
I think it is sort of approval. (none / 0) (#49)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:32:38 PM PST
Do you have it on good authority that Mr PotatoError's name is indeed "Skippy", or are you simply being a condescening little shit?

According to the Online Slang Dictionary, "damn skippy" means "a phrase indicating approval, excitement, or support; RIGHT ON. ("Damn skippy!")

Maybe it's derived from that, and is a moniker meaning agreement and approval?


Does it hurt? (none / 0) (#53)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:59:19 PM PST
When you post something that strained, something that lame, do you feel a sense of shame, Skippy? Do you get a hollow feeling in your gut?

Once your argument has been decimated, doesn't it just mortify you that you don't have the sense to quit, and instead compulsively dredge up the weakest attempt at humor imaginable simply to give yourself the impression that you've had the "last word?"

It certainly looks like it would hurt.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
your selection of "facts" is apalling (none / 0) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:04:55 AM PST
There are doubts about legal enforceability of software EULAs.

Jurisprudence is not the same as slashdoubts. There are judicial doubts about the GPL, on the other hand, which is why the FSF has never tested their communist manifesto in court.


 
YES!!! Hackers are criminals! (none / 0) (#25)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:31:23 AM PST
We finally agree. You don't care what the law says. You do whatever you want and don't give a second thought to what society has decided you may and may not do, nor do you care about adhering to a licence agreement that you voluntarily accepted. You simply lied about your intent to follow the license agreement.

This makes you untrustworthy. If you are in the habit of placing your trust in people with as sketchy a history as yourself, you are a fool, in additon to being a knave. Your word is no good, and you have no respect for the law.

You are a hacker, in other words. QED.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


hypocrit (none / 0) (#30)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:46:43 AM PST
What about those 100 year old laws which are so stupid but noone has been bothered to revoke them?

Sure, you break these all the time so that makes you a criminal too.

Of course you will argue that they are "stupid laws and dont count". Well now we are agreeing on something.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Which laws are you accusing me of breaking? (none / 0) (#39)
by elenchos on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:05:38 AM PST
I'm not aware of any. Enlighten me.

The laws I'm speaking of are those that congress and law enforcement are well aware of. Certainly the Internet users and businesses, the book and music industry, the software industry, and everyone who cares about the safety and security of our information infrastructure has not "forgotten" about the laws against hacking.

And the license agreements you enter into are not 100 years old, and no matter how stupid they are, you are not forced to enter into them. If you don't like the terms offered for proprietary software or content, then turn them down.

And again, we all finally agree that you do not respect the law. This is the critical point.


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


 
corrections (none / 0) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:39:10 AM PST
What about those 100 year old laws which are so stupid but noone has been bothered to revoke them?

The GPL is not a law, nor is it 100 years old. Sure it's stupid -- immoral, even -- but until the FSF gets the cojones to test it in court, we fight it by speaking the truth, not by violating its list of restrictions upon our Freedom.

I have some sad news for you: hackers are inconsistent with their "principles". On the one hand they react like cats being given a bath whenever an honest person has the temerity to make the honest mistake of misunderstanding their purposefully obfuscated "license", on the other hand they purposefully, gleefully violate traditional copyright on the pretense that it is "stupid".

To summarize: decent folk think measures against honest labor are stupid, criminals -- by which I mean hackers without loss of generality -- think measures against theft are stupid.

Bravo. Your insight is showing.


Thank you, thank you... (none / 0) (#75)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:03:29 PM PST
Thank you for generalizing hackers from the very very small percentage that are represented on this particular webpage. I'm sorry you feel this way, but most hackers feel similarly regarding certain laws and tend to perform the same way they always have. The hackers you speak of are, in no way, the way you see here. I'm sorry you don't necessarily get the impression or the ability to see as you deserve, but I really can't help you find them either ( I don't think it's fair ). If you look hard enough, the people who break laws, though, aren't necessarily bad.

"Sometimes we have to do things we KNOW are bad against our will in the hope that one day the injustices that plague us will finally be alieved. We will thrive as the people we truely are. Truth be told, we will not submit or stop."
-- A Hacker Creed

Please stop judging us from a few who give bad impressions, though I think a good number of people on this site are pretty decent.


Injustices? Alieved? (none / 0) (#91)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 04:15:15 AM PST
That is literally the worst attempt at a creed I have ever seen. I hear there are people making running shoes in the China for less than one percent of the final sale price of a single pair of sneakers each day. These people are beaten and humiliated and currently have little hope for emancipation from their labours.

What piss-weak injustices can you possibly weigh against theirs? If you had as much moral fibre as you are attempting to claim, you would not be hammering out misspelled mission statements in support of your electronic temper tantrums. You would be helping people with real problems.


So true (none / 0) (#94)
by Thon on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 08:27:59 PM PST
I was under the impression that, in order to claim civil disobedience, you needed to stand for something. I was also under the impression that lining your own coffers didn't constitute a stance.


"I undrestand"

 
T Reginald Gibbons... what are you talking about? (none / 0) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jan 14th, 2002 at 04:42:03 PM PST
You elude the subject. Let me ask you this: What is the definition of a hacker? A hacker is a problem solver. They will think outside the box to solve a problem. Whether that solution is legal or illegal, moral or immoral, is irrelevant, and it is still considered hacking.

That being said, by claiming that hackers are untrustworthy and lack integrity, you are prejudging hundreds of thousands of people. This statement would be in no way different from saying that females are evil because one cheated on you in high school. It is prejudgemental, ignorant, and immature.

I've read your article regarding detecting whether or not one's son may be a "hacker." Your knowledge on the subject is far lesser than it should be in order to justify banning your son from his computer, let alone writing an entire article about it on the Internet.

I was a hacker just as you described for several of my teenage years. I fit all 10 of your indications. Where am I now? I have a full-time job as a programmer for the Attorney General's Office. I follow the samurai code, I have never broken a promise or raised my voice in anger for as long as I can remember. I have no enemies, I befriend all who I have met. I've never been detained by any law enforcement agency. I am a true friend to all who know me, and open-minded in regards to all discussions. Who are you to judge me?


 
thats wrong (none / 0) (#29)
by PotatoError on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:39:23 AM PST
Both your counter arguments are flawed.
A bus ticket is paying for a service not a product.
At kindergarten of course toys dont belong to you as they are property of the kindergarten.

If I purchase anything then that copy is mine. Whether it be a door, a radio or a program.
Im not saying that I then own the software patents and I am free to illegally distribute it.
No, im saying that my one copy is mine to do whatever I want to it in private. Burn it, scramble it, read it in any way possible, edit it, screw it up, etc. Its not the "manufarctures" concern once I have bought it.
Notice its illegal to do stuff like disassembling the software and posting the information on the internet just as is the same with any electrical goods too.
Whats this about a license agreement? I didnt see any paper or sign anything when I bought my software at the shop - just as I dont sign any licenses if I buy a Radio or a table.

I cant see how you can argue otherwise unless you are arguing that software is completely different from physical products. Are you arguing that?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Yeah, right... (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:42:08 PM PST
No, im saying that my one copy is mine to do whatever I want to it in private. Burn it, scramble it, read it in any way possible, edit it, screw it up, etc.
If you think so, you ought to read those licence agreements before you click "I Agree".


 
You force me to repeat myself, you grubby urchin. (none / 0) (#61)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:53:48 PM PST
Yes, I am saying that buying a licence to use proprietary software is different from buying a physical product.

Yes, I am saying that buying a license to use proprietary software is like buying the right to ride the bus from one part of town to another.

If you want to call that a "service," then so be it. What you can not do, Skippy, is say that you "own" the proprietary software that you have licensed. I can see that you want very much for this to be the case, but wishing does not make it so.

You can feign ignorance of the instrument by which you are permitted to use proprietary software, the End User License Agreement, but this feigned ignorance will be no help to you in a court of Law.

Can you touch Winmine? What are its physical dimensions? How much does it weigh? Is it waterproof?

Where on earth did you get the idea that Winmine is a physical product?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Huh (none / 0) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 09:41:37 PM PST
Well, it depends on the EULA. A good number of EULA's only prevent you from disassembling, modifying, or changing otherwise AND DISTRIBUTING that product in any way. That means, YES you can usually alter, change, or crack a code as long as you DO NOT distribute it (the source object and any accompanying binaries) under your name or that of the companies. Either way it's a falsifaction or slanderous action, which is the primary reason for EULA's ( to prevent malicious people from falsely representing that of a corporation ).

Thank you.


Come back to reality-land. (none / 0) (#74)
by RobotSlave on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 09:53:32 PM PST
In your little fantasy-land, you have pretended that "a good number" of proprietary software EULAs contain a "but only if you redistribute it" catch-all loophole, when in fact the only license that you know of that does, in fact, contain such a provision, is the GNU GPL.

If you think you can prove me wrong, then feel free to go out and find ten proprietary software products whose licenses contain the FSF-style loophole, and then come back here and list the products together with the relevant citations from their EULAs.

Best of luck.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#76)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:22:03 PM PST
I renick that previous statement, I was mistaken. Unfortunately, this was in software up until recently I guess, because none of my new software seems to have that clause in it :-(

The GNU GPL license does not state this either, though. The GNU GPL license ONLY forces you to distribute source code along with the GNU GPL license itself with any distribution, whether sale or other form of distribution. That's it.

As prrof, you may reference to the GNU site itself:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html


 
warning (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by dirty monkey man on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:09:48 PM PST
people out there DO NOT TAKE APART YOUR TELEVISION. my uncle died doing this, there are electrical pieces in there that are still on even when the tv is off and they killed him. (i understand this was just an illustrative point you were making but i wouldn't want the kids out there dead over it)


Clarifying the warning: (none / 0) (#19)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Jan 5th, 2002 at 10:56:37 PM PST
people out there DO NOT TAKE APART YOUR TELEVISION.

More accurately, do not take apart your television UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

my uncle died doing this, there are electrical pieces in there that are still on even when the tv is off and they killed him.

The CRT doubles as a capacitor. In dry air it can keep anode voltage (up to 25,000 volts) for hours. It's the reason it is suggested to short it after removing the covers. Similar for the capacitors in the switching power supply, but they don't hold the charge for so long nor they have so high voltage (not even lousy 300 V). On the other hand, they have higher capacity (and if nothing other, it stings badly and colleagues then make fun of you for the rest of the day). It is possible (and sometimes necessary) to work on powered-on TV or a monitor with stripped covers, but not even I have guts for it and rather hire a friend when I need a repair.


oh, the details! (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 11:11:26 AM PST
Your prurient fascination with instruments of grisly death is shocking but hardly atypical of remorseless, psychopathic criminals such as, for example, hackers.


Electricity? Grisly? (none / 0) (#47)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:24:15 PM PST
Your prurient fascination with instruments of grisly death is shocking but hardly atypical of remorseless, psychopathic criminals such as, for example, hackers.

What's grisly on electric shock?

*Crack*, and you are gone.

However, if you'd like to read about grisly death stories, I'd suggest a book "Electricity doesn't forgive"; but I don't think it was ever printed in English, nor reprinted from 70's. It is a pretty little book; each story has two parts. One is the story itself, in narrative form. The other one is the analysis - what went wrong and how it could've been prevented. It is very interesting. Taught me a lot of respect to electricity, and also that it isn't scary. Dangerous yes, scary no.

There were funny stories (like a cat fried in electric arc after sneaking into transformer station, or a mouse fried on a clampboard of an engine, or the case of a tram driver that pissed on badly covered 400V fuse box of the tram (and then had to lie to his colleagues for a week that he got lumbago)), and outright grisly stories too (like the case of a serviceman cleaning a stone mill and switching it on when he was inside, or a serviceman hanging between 6000V wires at the moment a not entirely disconnected leads went under current again). Shame it isn't in English. If I'd have the time, I'd ponder to make a translation for the Net...


I have a suggestion of my own. (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:32:34 PM PST
Read the only book that matters, the Bible. Now stop trying to intimidate us with your personal anecdotes about torturing God's little furry creatures. It wont work, hacker.

"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I know that Thou art with me." (Psalms 23)

You are a criminal.


Come on :) (none / 0) (#51)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:47:41 PM PST
Read the only book that matters, the Bible.

Tell me three arguments why the only book that matters isn't Qu'ran. Members of both camps claim their Book is the most important one, and use so same arguments...

Now stop trying to intimidate us with your personal anecdotes about torturing God's little furry creatures.

Intimidating? Even the mouse crawled to the clampboard on its own. I consider the stories rather amusing. :)

"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I know that Thou art with me." (Psalms 23)

Sounds like a gun advertisement.

You are a criminal.

It's more fun!


I should report you to the FBI (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 12:57:19 PM PST
Tell me three arguments why the only book that matters isn't Qu'ran.

  • George Bush
  • Donald Rumsfeld
  • Richard Cheney

    The results are in: God buried our cowardly enemies in their caves because In God we Trust.


  • Filthy Bunch of Ignorants? (none / 0) (#54)
    by The Mad Scientist on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:12:57 PM PST
    George Bush
    Donald Rumsfeld
    Richard Cheney


    Bush is controlled by Cheney. This makes him a dependent variable. One more reason?

    The results are in: God buried our cowardly enemies in their caves because In God we Trust.

    According to possible alternative explanation of the prophecies, it can quite easily mean the temporary victory of the Evil, which marks the beginning of the 30 years of rule of the Antichrist. Surely you looked thoroughly into Dubya's eyes?

    Are we really sure who is good and who is bad, or do we just believe who tells us so?

    I don't know what side is the right one. I keep my doubts.


    no, duh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:21:02 PM PST
    I don't know what side is the right one. I keep my doubts.

    Doubt == lack of faith == hell. Why are you trying to convince me that you are immoral? I've already read your admitted lack of respect for law and order.

    You are an apalling creature.


    Mr Right Hand Man, sir (none / 0) (#57)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:31:41 PM PST
    Please stop abusing the feature of anonymity offered to you, each such message adds to Dr. Cortez's confusion, and we are all very concerned about this at Adequacy.


     
    Mindless... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 09:51:34 PM PST
    Doubt == Questioning == Innovation == Advancement == Success

    Are you too foolish to realize that if there wasn't doubt, NOTHING you use right now would exist? No one would question or doubt the current methods and try their own! It's the basis of ALL inventions!!! Oh my GOD! Wake up and open your eyes, life is not all you are told it is by a book and a few fools who posess a large amount of power amongst people who fear to question.


    you == failure (none / 0) (#77)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 10:50:58 PM PST
    It's the basis of ALL inventions!!!

    The topic was about faith and the concept of "right", as in morally correct. Curiosity about the material world is different kettle of fish, my little uncomprehending friend.


     
    Hacker == Satanism (none / 0) (#62)
    by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:56:50 PM PST
    Bush is controlled by Cheney.

    Every man is in possession of his own soul, Einstein. I've had quite enough of correcting your trivial category errors, you heathen idiot.


     
    Rust Never Sleeps (none / 0) (#60)
    by iat on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 01:48:48 PM PST
    However, if you'd like to read about grisly death stories, I'd suggest a book "Electricity doesn't forgive" [...] Shame it isn't in English. If I'd have the time, I'd ponder to make a translation for the Net...

    Although what you are suggesting would violate copyright laws (and so I obviously can't condone your idea), I must admit that I'd be interested in reading your translation. Please tell us if you ever decide to translate the book.


    Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

     
    I must respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#90)
    by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 04:04:54 AM PST
    As a fervent home handyman, I conduct over one hundred volts of alternating current several times a year, occasionally through my teeth. It isn't so much a crack as it is a powerful buzzing sensation that feels something like being punched repeatedly and very rapidly at the point of contact. That's an insufficient description, but it is a very unusual sensation. It isn't over instantly. It takes a while to kill you, or else I would be dead several times over.


    heh... (none / 0) (#96)
    by hdyw on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 09:32:16 AM PST
    i myself have been zapped several times by almost 1000 volts...LoL. not pleasent.


     
    you stupid... (none / 0) (#102)
    by havocbtf on Sat Jan 19th, 2002 at 07:25:19 PM PST
    you never cease to amaze me!!!

    volts are not what kills you in fact it has just about nothing to do with it. it is the amps that would electricute you. something can be 3000000 volts and if it is only one amp you woun't get electricuted.

    please educate yourself before to critisize people.




     
    here's hoping (none / 0) (#68)
    by dirty monkey man on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 07:08:43 PM PST
    that someone you love dies and then when you bring it up in conversation to help people some smartass chimes in unasked and basically says they died because they were stupid.

    thanks a lot.


    disregard (none / 0) (#81)
    by dirty monkey man on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 08:34:41 AM PST
    please disregard the above post, i was having a bad day and was definitely too harsh. i know you were just helping out with extra information.


     
    Are you a computer professional? (none / 0) (#63)
    by The Mad Scientist on Sun Jan 6th, 2002 at 02:59:21 PM PST
    So you deny you are a hacker and you feel secure. Your concerns are well-addressed by this cartoon strip. :)

    The sad part is that it isn't entirely untrue.


     
    fools (none / 0) (#84)
    by upfucd on Mon Jan 7th, 2002 at 09:33:38 PM PST
    a hacker is simply someone that knows the ins and outs of the computer and whatever computer language their working with. they can usualy change things at will but stick to trying to improve a security system or new software.

    a malicious hacker is called a CRACKER. get it straight


    Correction - "Cracker" definition (none / 0) (#99)
    by doofus on Thu Jan 10th, 2002 at 05:04:51 PM PST
    a malicious hacker is called a CRACKER. get it straight

    This is a "cracker."


     
    t reginald gibbons (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 12:17:03 PM PST
    you know not of which you speak. you are an idot and a bafoon. hackers are not criminals, and do not contribute to chinees slavery in factories. your ignorance is almost too difficult for me to comprehend. when it comes to hacking, keep your comments to yourself, you have no clue.

    ps your son is not a hacker, this is what i posted to that message.

    YOU ARE A FOOL
    Idiocy is present in your article, you should look up the various topics before you start judging. "LINUX" properly spelled, is not a hacker O.S. but simply not a mainstream commercial O.S., and is actually better. AMD is not a third world "copy" of american chips.AMD happens to make processors that are less expensive, but are much faster and more powerful than "top of the line" pentiums. As for more ram and hard drive space, this is a common want by computer users, and is not what you make it out to be at all. Quake is a video game, not a hacker training playground, and anyone who knows anything about hacking will laugh at you. The other programs you have mentioned are harmless, and should also be looked over.Please, dont make blind claims in the future, for you know not what you are talking about.Hacking is not illegal.It is used for an educatonal experience, and is used to find holes in security in your system, to correct them.Cracking is illegal and is clearly shunned upon in the hacking world.



    Thank You Lord... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Casper44 on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 04:18:17 PM PST
    T Reginald Gibbons you know not of what you speak. So for the love of god keep your trap shut. I mean sweet moses smell the roses, have u even used flash? Do you even know what it is? and baggy pants , spiked hair , u pretty much just described half the population of every public high school in the USA and Canada (sorry i do not know the trends in other countries , unlike some people i dont talk about things i dont know). And what was up with that glow stick stuff? i mean did u walk into a hacker rave while stalking your kids to one of their "teen parties" ?




     
    Lunatics!!! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jan 8th, 2002 at 09:32:35 PM PST
    Those of you who expressed doubt: Commend yourselves for living under the light of logical righteousness. You are brilliant in your journey to ASK QUESTIONS AND SEEK LOGICAL ANSWERS.

    Those of you who claimed the Bible as the only book that matters; declared that the Qu'ran (or Koran, whichever pleases you most) was not significant; associate hackers with satanists, criminals, and ignorants; say that doubt=lack of faith=hell; and generally sound unintelligent; are all damned to an eternity of fear and ignorance.

    You fear learning something you new. You fear that which you do not understand. You are wimps in the eyes of an angry, yet educated critic.

    Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering. And all the while I laugh at you because you will never know what it is like to truly UNDERSTAND the dynamic world around you.

    I am not a heretic, and I am not a satan worshiper. God gave me a gift that most are not worthy of. And I plan to use it.


    Umm, dear... (none / 0) (#97)
    by hauntedattics on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 10:01:13 AM PST
    You may not be a heretic, or a satan-worshipper, but you certainly are a reckless quoter of movies with mediocre screenplays. Save the Lucas butt-licking for starwars.com, OK?

    A few words of advice - self-righteous declaiming and constant self-complimenting don't really go down that well here. Take a deep breath, have a martini and join us when you've climbed down off that high horse. You might learn something unexpected and enriching from others, and you might find you actually have something to say.




     

    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.