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 It is no longer maintained.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
Computer Hobbyists should call themselves:
Geeks 7%
Computer Hobbyists 32%
Tinkers 0%
Sysadmins 0%
Server Monkeys 25%
Programmers 7%
Techies 3%
IT Professionals 3%
Computer Experts 0%
Nerds 21%

Votes: 28

 Why "Hacker?"

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 23, 2002
 Comments:
The dreary little debate over the "correct definition" of the word "hacker" has been slopping about for a while now, and I've finally figured out what it is that bothers me about the whole thing.
diaries

More diaries by RobotSlave
How much Xanax will be adequate?
I am speechless.
How to Smash Global Industrial Capitalism Without Leaving Your Bar-Stool
Down Time
Irresponsible Meat Judge
A Formal reminder.
Excerpt
Ice Cores
Prepare the Huskies
Circus Roboticus
Idle Amusements
Helpful Tip
Bloody Mary
Declaration of War
Report from the War Department.
Confidential to Karel Jenczek
Dear Mr. Script Kiddie, Sir:
Deletion Notice
Why can't computer hobbyists just call themselves "computer hobbyists?" Or "programmers?" Or, if they need a word that describes a general fix-it mindset, why not use any of the words that were around before computers were invented? How about "handyman," "dabbler," or "inventor?" Or the somewhat older "tinker?" Prefixes such as "cyber-" or "compu-" could easily be attached if the old words aren't sufficiently modern.

What's wrong with the word "coder?" Would it be too difficult to describe oneself as a "sysadmin," if that is what one does? Are the terms "technician" or "repairman" too demeaning, regardless of their accuracy? What about "geek?" If it's the positive term that so many computer hobbyists make it out to be, then why not use it?

What's wrong with the term "IT professional?" How about "computer expert?" The term is good enough for countless grandmothers, so why don't their precocious progeny use it?

Who would be hurt if computer hobbyists started referring to computer criminals as "hackers?" Would it be too difficult to explain to a layman that one's friend or associate is, e.g., a "techie," and not a misanthropic, criminal hacker?

Could it be that the connotation of illicit activity is actually part of what attracts computer hobbyists to the word "hacker?" Do they wish to take on a roguish, independent, no-need-for-rules air, but balk at being labelled criminal? Are computer hobbyists simply unwilling to reap what they sow?

       
Tweet

Basically... (none / 0) (#1)
by Yoshi on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 07:26:18 PM PST
Most of the Lunix users are social misfits. It's obvious from their usage of Lunix. They apparently think they're too good to be using the industry standard OS, which gives them an aura of "elitism." We on the outside can call it "g**kdom."

Because of their social ineptitude, their only 'kicks' are received from trolling other websites with obvious misinformation. Misinformation, such as the superiority of their shareware hacker illegal OS, and other miscellaneous verbiage, centering around their very existence. Yes, that's right, hacker vs. cracker vs. script kiddie or whatever common english terminology they'd like to redefine to incite flames. By responding to their own calls for recognition, we're only encouraging them. Do your part, and ignore the Lunix Trolls.


Straight from the horses ass (none / 0) (#23)
by BurntAsh on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 02:02:19 PM PST
Linux/Unix, although not ready for desktop, it makes the most stable server.

The reason why linux/unix isn't ready for the desktop is because it isn't meant for the newbies.

Your right, we linux/unix users ARE too good for your standard OS, because we like a challenge, not something that will hold your dick for you.

Linux lets the experienced computer user really get to know their system unlike windows and aol who are for the computer illiterate.

So you can blow whatever computer geek bashing shit you want out of your ass, just make sure there is actual truth behind it.


RE: Straight from the horses ass (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by walwyn on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:03:29 PM PST
Dear Mr Horseshit,

Perhaps you are unaware but UNIX has been about for neigh on 30 years. Quite a long time in which to get a decent desktop environment together.

Our software used to support 8 Unix variants along with Windows up untill 4 years ago when our customers switched to NT.

No one wanted a UNIX build any more, they wanted the latest jazzy GUI that NT provided, and the cost of maintaining a compatible GUI, and graphics, APIs across multiple platforms was too expensive when people only wanted one variant.

Our users BTW are highly skilled computer users who have a job to do. What they don't want or need is a fight with the OS.

Linux lets the experienced computer user really get to know their system unlike windows and aol who are for the computer illiterate.

If by 'experienced computer user' you mean 'hide our pr0n surfing from your parents' then you may be right.




Beside the point (none / 0) (#32)
by BurntAsh on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:47:32 PM PST
The whole question/point to my reply is...

Which OS challenges a user to learn their system more.

Windows or Linux/Unix?

You can't tell me that Linux/Unix is easier to use than Windows is.


big red F (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by nathan on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:59:17 PM PST
Please correct the glaring error in your argument, and repost for a better grade. You don't want this on your permanent record.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

tear a new A (none / 0) (#49)
by BurntAsh on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:45:48 PM PST
ya thats great and all but i dont care about my "permanent record", quit sayin gay shit


with an F and an A, we need... (none / 0) (#52)
by nathan on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 06:02:45 PM PST
Seriously, haven't you noticed the homoerotic subtext to your own comments? It's all gay this, anus that.

It's not so scary as all that out in the light, and you'll feel better when you don't have to sweep your true feelings under the rug. Trust me. Out of the closet is where you want to be.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Hm, I see... (none / 0) (#56)
by BurntAsh on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 09:46:17 PM PST
so saying a word such as gay and then mentioning shit, means that I am gay. Ah yes I see so if anything that is said by a certain someone, is relevant to homosexuality, then that makes the person who is speaking gay. And with you speaking about coming out of the closet and gay this and anus that, this makes you a homosexual?


and now for the 'G." (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by nathan on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 10:03:55 PM PST
The last time someone dumped me, I watched trashy TV, ate chocolate macadamias and Jelly Bellies, bitched, and painted my nails.

What was your question again?

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
Thanks (none / 0) (#59)
by walwyn on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 12:41:11 AM PST
I'd missed the original homophopia - I though that he meant lighthearted, bright, or splendid.


 
L/Unix (none / 0) (#77)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:00:13 AM PST
*nix was never meant for the desktop, and never should be used for it unless you're trying to learn how a server is set up and operated.

The end-users want NT. I'll bet your webserver still runs on apache.

If by 'experienced computer user' you mean 'hide our pr0n surfing from your parents' then you may be right.
Watch that sort of speak. Trolls will not be tolerated.


Linux on the Desktop (none / 0) (#109)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 02:33:00 PM PST
My children and wife both use Linux. The neither need to, nor care about "setting up or using a server".

Why should they? They just use it, they don't need to admin it.


 
misfits (none / 0) (#65)
by sigterm on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:30:42 AM PST
i think you need to get a grip on life fella. Your Industry standard comment made me fall out of my chair laughing. If the Industry standard is XP , life as we know it will cease to exist. Heres a question, whats the industry standard for webservers? dns servers? smtp servers? XP is a workstation, plain and simple, play your games and be off with you. <sigterm> <open your mind, you might be surprised what you find>
<sigterm> <www.rootednetworks.com> (open your mind, you'd be surprised whats there)

 
misfits (none / 0) (#66)
by sigterm on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:32:11 AM PST
i think you need to get a grip on life fella.

Your Industry standard comment made me fall out of my chair laughing. If the Industry standard is XP , life as we know it will cease to exist. Heres a question, whats the industry standard for webservers? dns servers? smtp servers?

XP is a workstation, plain and simple, play your games and be off with you.

<sigterm>
<open your mind, you might be surprised what you find>


<sigterm> <www.rootednetworks.com> (open your mind, you'd be surprised whats there)

Have you heard the new Cleveland Steamers album? (none / 0) (#72)
by derek3000 on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 07:42:28 AM PST
(open your mind, you'd be surprised whats there)

I dunno, I didn't find the irrational urge to post the same thing twice. But that's just me.


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

 
It's about power. (none / 0) (#2)
by elenchos on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 07:35:41 PM PST
If a minority group can force the majority to use the language it arbitrarily dictates, then the minority has demonstrated that it has power, that the majority respects that power. In the same way, majorites, or kings, or just goverments, attempt to demonstrate their power by controlling the language used by a minority. They might punish them for using their native language, for example.

The classic parallel is "blacks" demanding that they now be called "African-Americans". It makes little practical difference, but it says a lot about who is in control. The difference between geeks and African-Americans is 300 years of slavery.

Why should geeks need to demand respect and power? They have no real history of oppression to compare with a real discriminated-against minority. They just have a few hurt feelings here and there, but these are hurt feelings which they should simply deal with and forget. These minor hurts are not cause for making arbitrary demands on society at large.


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


Hey, el nachos: (1.25 / 4) (#4)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 09:01:18 PM PST
You misspelled "majorities". Got a dictionary?


 
A troll's reply to a troll's post (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:33:33 PM PST
Hackers are the DEFINITION of respect and power.


 
True. (none / 0) (#67)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:37:52 AM PST
If a minority group can force the majority to use the language it arbitrarily dictates, then the minority has demonstrated that it has power, that the majority respects that power.

Absolutely. He who controls the language, and all that. I mean, just look at Colin Powell. Now, he doesn't want you to pronounce his name, "Colin", like every other Colin on the planet. No, he has a special "Cohlen" for you. It is things like this that make him powerful. Do you think a "Kevin", or "David" could be Secretary of State? Not unless they pronounce themselves key-van or dee-ayvihd.

Why should geeks need to demand respect and power?

Why would anyone climb Everest? Because it's there. Seriously, if you had the opportunity to gain respect and power, why not take the chance? Especially if all that is required is to define the rules of discourse.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

But why should anyone listen? (none / 0) (#101)
by elenchos on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:37:14 PM PST
If you want to waste your time demanding tokens of respect that you will never get, go ahead. Society is actually safer if you spend you time that way instead of writing viruses.

What matters to me is recognizing that geeks are destined to fail at this effort to grab political power, as they always have. Anyone who kowtows to the geek identity movement is a fool, because geeks in fact are unimportant and don't need to be handled with respect or consideration.

If you are a geek and want to spend your time in a useful way, I would say quit writing screeds demanding that everyone say 'cracker' instead of 'hacker', and go join gym. Go see a psychologist (preferably Freudian). Go shopping for some good shoes and some decent outfits. This sort of thing will make your life better. Trying to redefine words is just pissing up a rope.


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


Controlling discourse. (none / 0) (#104)
by because it isnt on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:03:44 AM PST
What matters to me is recognizing that geeks are destined to fail at this effort to grab political power, as they always have. Anyone who kowtows to the geek identity movement is a fool, because geeks in fact are unimportant and don't need to be handled with respect or consideration.

But of course. Geeks are not as important as hackers. They haven't reached the same level of skill, of discipline, of ethical standards of hackers. Geeks are destined to fail if they remain who they are. They must work hard to achieve entry to hackerdom. Only hackers can make our nation proud.

I would say quit writing screeds demanding that everyone say 'cracker' instead of 'hacker'.

I quite agree. Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
I wish... (none / 0) (#3)
by heimdall on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 07:55:11 PM PST
that this whole debate over semantics would just die.

enough about whether it's spelled cracker or hacker already! isn't it enough that you know what people are talking about when they use the word?!


Quiet, you. (none / 0) (#79)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:05:02 AM PST
I wish that these libertarians would just shut the hell up.


 
Why? (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 10:26:24 PM PST
Why should hackers pick another term? Why should they change something they have used longer because the majority controlled my mindless idiots can't get it right? Do you ask a black person to change the color of his skin simply because there are a lot of morons that think all black people are criminals?

Besides the terms porgrammers and coders wouldn't work because not all hackers are programmers and coder. Take people like Steve Wozniak. He was an engineer who built circuit boards.

I ask again. Why should we hackers change simply because there are people that can't figure things out?


Um, because Hacker means Criminal? (none / 0) (#7)
by RobotSlave on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 11:21:33 PM PST
What's wrong with "techie," then? Why not "geek?"

Don't you understand? "Hacker" means "computer criminal" to a great many people, and not all of them are "mindless idiots," either. Some people have understood "hacker" to mean "computer criminal" for over twenty years now.

Black folk have never changed the color of their skin to suit language, but they have, in fact, changed the language they use to describe themselves when older terms took on offensive meanings. Do you know any black folk who still call themselves "negroes" or "colored people?" Have you not met black folk who would prefer you call them "African American" rather than "black?" Do you know anyone of asian descent who prefers to be called "oriental?"

Of course not. When words describing minorities take on negative associations in society at large, and the negative associations can not be shouted down, the old language is abandoned in favor of new terms.

Why can't computer hobbyists just adopt a new, positive term? Would it hurt anyone if you were to refer to yourself as a "techie?"

On the other hand, aren't you hurting yourself, and many other computer hobbyists, by refusing to accept an unfortunate shift in language, and move on?

In refusing to accept this battle as lost, are you not damaging the larger fight to remove the unfounded taint of criminality from innocent computer hobbyists?

What is it about the word "hacker" that is so precious that it must be retained, regardless of the consequences? Must you sacrifice the reputations of your peers in order to retain a title that is itself no more than a frivolous neologism, one whose negative connotations go back as far as its widespread use?

Again, I have a great deal of trouble understanding this tenacity absent a perverse attraction to the very negative associations under scrutiny.


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

Does it matter? (none / 0) (#8)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 11:52:56 PM PST
What's wrong with "techie," then?

Too fuzzy and uncertain meaning. A "techie" can be a bored phone repairman with a voltmeter and the knowledge that doesn't go over the troubleshooting checklist, with more interest in what will be for dinner than in the technology.

Why not "geek?"

Similar reason.

We have a word with accurate definition. Why to change it all of sudden?

Don't you understand? "Hacker" means "computer criminal" to a great many people, and not all of them are "mindless idiots," either.

If anyone equals "hacker" with "criminal", s/he is an idiot.

Some people have understood "hacker" to mean "computer criminal" for over twenty years now.

These people apparently tend to resist closer understanding for quite long time.

Why can't computer hobbyists just adopt a new, positive term? Would it hurt anyone if you were to refer to yourself as a "techie?"

Because it is a cat-and-mouse game. We have the power, the raw unadulterated power of the technology, the arcane knowledge that goes beyond the understanding of the Commons. We are the witches of the modern times. Naturally we are chased and ostracized. If we will change the name, all we will get is maybe 5 years until we will have to change it again. This way we at least have a stable, well-defined term, backed with decades of history. The term respected within our rank. Nothing other matters, compromises not accepted.

On the other hand, aren't you hurting yourself, and many other computer hobbyists, by refusing to accept an unfortunate shift in language, and move on?

Why? And where to move on to? Only to "move on" again after a while? Bah.

In refusing to accept this battle as lost, are you not damaging the larger fight to remove the unfounded taint of criminality from innocent computer hobbyists?

If they don't want to be criminalized, they shouldn't tinker with anything beyond the understanding of Joe Sixpack and his opinion-shaping version Jim Journalist.

What is it about the word "hacker" that is so precious that it must be retained, regardless of the consequences?

Maybe not allowing Joe Sixpacks of the world to talk into our matters, including the terminology?

Without us, the technology wouldn't be by far as developed as it is now. How many of fundamental breakthroughs - including the personal computer itself - was born in the minds of hackers? Now we are expected to follow the wishes of the ones who don't know what key is the "any" key they have to press to continue?

You are barking at a wrong tree. Go complain to the media.

Blind obedience was never my strong side. I will not bow down. Regardless of the consequences.


I see now. (none / 0) (#11)
by RobotSlave on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:51:38 AM PST
How on earth can you possibly claim that taking on a new term won't work until you've tried it? Sure, black Americans have gone through quite a few labels, but their history is much more problematic than that of the computer hobbyist.

Asians and asian-americans haven't had to do much in the way of changing language since "oriental" was phased out, have they? Why on earth do you think computer hobbyists would have a harder time of it? And how can you possibly justify the refusal to make an honest effort?

Actually, I was most struck by this part of your comment, which I found quite revealing:

"We have the power, the raw unadulterated power of the technology, the arcane knowledge that goes beyond the understanding of the Commons. We are the witches of the modern times. Naturally we are chased and ostracized."

This sort of rhetoric betrays exactly the sort of attraction to malicious connotations that I've been talking about. To some degree, your use of the word "hacker" mirrors the positive use of the word "nigger" amongst black Americans, in that it suggests that the user is to be feared, confirms an oppressed status, and suggests an understanding of the world unavailable to outsiders.

But just as the word "nigger" is also used in a negative manner amongst black Americans, so too is the word "hacker" used with a negative intent amongst computer professionals. To pretend otherwise becomes an admission of obliviousness to the culture that one is presuming to speak for.

Your attitude toward the press, and the public at large, is interestingly contradictory. On the one hand, you find them beneath you, but on the other hand, you care very much about the words they use to describe you.

If this were a case exactly analagous to that of the word "nigger," I would expect you to simply wish to see the word expunged from public discourse entirely, but it would appear that our analogy breaks down here.

You want, instead, to reverse the commonly understood meaning of the word "hacker" to fit your own agenda. It is not enough for you to use it amongst your peers in a certain way; instead, you care very much about what "Joe Sixpack" and "Jim Journalist" think, and you want them to love you, and use your special sacred word in a loving manner. Meanwhile, you continue to attack their intelligence in the most savage, callous manner imaginable.

I do not suggest that you engage in "blind obedience" or "bow down." I suggest instead that you offer or accept new terms in order to help others understand you, or more precisely, your innocent peers. You, Mad Geek, have already admitted in this forum to criminal computer activity.

This brings up a very different and more sinister motive. You may very well want to keep the term "hacker" in flux, thereby enabling you to use the protestations of innocents as an unwitting shield to hide your disregard for the law, and more importantly, the principles behind it.

I had not considered the possibility of this sort of despicable manipulation in my musings on the strange continuing attachment of computer hobbyists to the word "hacker," but now that I think about it, it makes all too much sense. Innocents are too often the pawns of those who would use their innocence as a shield.

 

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this comment, in whole or in part, without written permission from the author. Line-by-line rebuttals are particularly prohibited.


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

I see now. (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:09:39 AM PST
In RE the following signature:
-----------
2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this comment, in whole or in part, without written permission from the author. Line-by-line rebuttals are particularly prohibited.
-----------
Assuming USA copyright laws, doesn't the badging of copyright on your statement implicitly allow critical review of the content of the copyrighted statement, negating your explicit restriction on annotated rebuttal commentary? Also, there seems a certain level of arguable ambiguity associated with the wording of your signature. When you specify "You may not reproduce this comment[...]" couldn't that be read to indicate that the statement of copyright only covers the copyright statement itself?

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your clarification. My apologies if my reproduction of your copyright statement for the purpose of illustrating my questions represents a perceived violation of the claimed copyright. Regards, -CUTH


Ah, legal questions. (none / 0) (#102)
by RobotSlave on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 11:10:12 PM PST
Dear Cuthbert:

If you wish to find answers to your questions without incurring the expense of professional legal assistnace, I suggest you go to your local law library and look up "fair use." You probably don't have the training or experience to accurately interpret the relevant statutes and case histories, but you should be able to glean at least a vague understanding of the issues.

I think you'll find that permissible critical use of a copyrighted work falls far short of publication of an annotated edition of the original work.

Alternately, as a legal consultant, my scale starts at $300 per hour, with a four hour minimum. If you want more specific answers to your questions, please provide contact information, and I will get back to you when my schedule permits.


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

Legal advice from monkeys. (2.50 / 2) (#103)
by because it isnt on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 01:36:25 AM PST
my scale starts at $300 per hour

For $350 per hour, I can get you someone who can spell "assistance".
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
You're an elitist fool (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by iat on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:21:10 AM PST
A "techie" can be a bored phone repairman with a voltmeter and the knowledge that doesn't go over the troubleshooting checklist, with more interest in what will be for dinner than in the technology.

We have the power, the raw unadulterated power of the technology, the arcane knowledge that goes beyond the understanding of the Commons.

If anyone equals "hacker" with "criminal", s/he is an idiot.

Maybe not allowing Joe Sixpacks of the world to talk into our matters, including the terminology?


Do you actually believe all that crap you just spouted? Has society been so cruel to you that you have to treat everyone else (the non-techies) with such a condescending attitude? Is there really any need to look down upon the phone repairman, or upon the layperson who doesn't susbcribe to your definition of the word "hacker"?

Naturally we are chased and ostracized.


Let me let you into a little secret: not all people with knowledge and expertise in technology are chased and ostracised.

You are ostracised because you have no social skills, personality or ability to relate to everyday people.
You are chased because you have a bad attitude towards the rest of society - they're only reciprocating your disdain of them.
You are shunned because you're an unstable freak with a love of guns.

Face up to it: the problem lies with you, not society.

We are the witches of the modern times.


Get over yourself.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

Well (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:38:44 PM PST
mad scientist is right though isnt he? go on - admit it.


 
Ahhh, yet (none / 0) (#10)
by William Sargis on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:45:07 AM PST
What's wrong with "techie," then? Why not "geek?"

Often when people hear techie the enivion someone that is trying (whether or not it's true) to sound like they have more knowledge than they do. Besides techie is a term thrown around by people who generally like to "mess" with their computers. Whether they know all about what they are doing is another matter. It's a very general term that can describe someone that likes to simply upgrade their computer. This is far from someone who designs circuit boards.

As for geek, that's just silly. It's pretty much always been a slang term used to insult someone who's nerdy, or goofy. It's a stereotype. There's enough problems with stereotypes on this sight alone attributed with linux users, hackers and geeks. They are not one in the same no matter what some people might think.

Don't you understand? "Hacker" means "computer criminal" to a great many people, and not all of them are "mindless idiots," either. Some people have understood "hacker" to mean "computer criminal" for over twenty years now.

Not quite twenty years. However, it's good to see that at least one person admits that it meant something different. For 30 years it was a positive term. It would be just like trying to choose another word like geek or techie. It would likely take twenty years for people to forget the origins of the owrd and accept it as something positive. Hacker is our word and we want it back. I don't see the problem with that. Most people in the IT sector haven't forgotten the original meaning. This is especially true of many engineers (software/hardware). It's the Dopey Joe Schmo computer user that only knows how to surf the web, send email, and download porn that we need to educate. In a way way we're kind of like (I hate to say it) Republicans. It's a trickle down effect. However, with the increase in OSS or just alternatives to the past more and more people are coming around. I mean look above at your original comment. With some real education it didn't take long for you to admit that it once meant something positive.

Do you know any black folk who still call themselves "negroes" or "colored people?" Have you not met black folk who would prefer you call them "African American" rather than "black?" Do you know anyone of asian descent who prefers to be called "oriental?"

Depends. Old black people still refer to themselves as color folk. It's not really dependent on time. Quite a few southern blacks still say colored and negro. Hell, negro is still used in many parts of America. I haven't met a black person yet that was offended being called black. It would also depend on what part of Asia you were referring to. Asia as in China? I don't think people from eastern Russi would like to be called oriental. Besides if you were to look up oriental you will notice it's actually an offensive term originally used for the Chinese. Of course Americans are rather silly when it comes to murdering language. Take an American Taco and throw a bunch of salsa on it and the call it a Fiesta Taco. Gimme a break.

Why can't computer hobbyists just adopt a new, positive term? Would it hurt anyone if you were to refer to yourself as a "techie?"

Already covered that

On the other hand, aren't you hurting yourself, and many other computer hobbyists, by refusing to accept an unfortunate shift in language, and move on?

As I have mentioned before most people recognize an understand the difference if you take just a little time to explain it to them. As long as you don't waste your time just before they sit down and watch pieces of shit like "Hacker" or "Max Knight: Ultra Spy" written by idiot that don't bother looking up anything in a dictionary. I found this why looking up computer movie stuff. It makes a lot of sense.

Must you sacrifice the reputations of your peers in order to retain a title that is itself no more than a frivolous neologism, one whose negative connotations go back as far as its widespread use?

Most of my peers (computer "geeks" and non) understand the difference. However, they and even I sometimes use hacker (in the mailicious sense) just to make sure that Joe Scmo understands what we mean. We only do this to clarify. We also make sure to use cracker an crack more often. Watch the news sometime like ABC World New Now. Notcie how they use both terms. I am not totally against someone using the word hacker when referring to someone that breaks into networks. However, they need to make sure that they claify it. What pisses me off is this believe that all hackers are criminals and only want to break the law.

Hackers aren't all bad. Just like any line of work people can use their skills for "evil" If a gang of locksmiths were caught using their knowledge of lock picking, would you make the same claims? Would you post [all] locksmiths=criminals?

People hear words like hacker and reverse engineeing and they think all kinds of silliy stuff. Reverse engineering isn't illegal. Hell, MS recently praised OSS programmer who reverse engineer software to allow Xbox gamers to play online. Microsoft's service won't be available for another year. Reverse engineering is not bad. It doesn't involve stealing source code and stealing files. If you had a program and you liked how it worked but thought it had too much unnecessary, buggy, crap that hogged resources you might think you could do a better job. You write your own version but make it work and look similar but do it the way you think it should be done. Cracking registration codes isn't reverse engineering. That's warez.

Note: Please do not confuse reverse engineering with the temporarily quiet battle between Apple and Microsoft.

Again, I have a great deal of trouble understanding this tenacity absent a perverse attraction to the very negative associations under scrutiny.

A lot of people believe white=racist. Why is it that no one has ever suggested we stop using that term?








I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

Your arguments could be used against you, too. (none / 0) (#13)
by RobotSlave on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:11:53 AM PST
From what I understand of the word "hacker," it originally didn't have anything to do with computers at all, because they hadn't been invented yet. So "techie" might apply to other fields, but isn't that perfectly in keeping with the original label? And I've certainly heard the word "hacker" used by people who are attempting to sound more knowledgable than they actually are, or by people who merely fuss about with their computers without doing anything difficult. So "techie" and "hacker" are no different in that sense, either-- both can be abused. Techie, however, is never used to describe computer criminals.

The earliest reference to a computer hacker in the mainstream press that I've been able to dig up was on April 13, 1983, in the Wall Street Journal. It is reasonable to assume that the term was in use for some time before that, perhaps a year or so. What is notable is that in that first reference to computer hackers in the mainstream press, the term had already taken on the meaning of "one who breaks into computer systems." While articles later that year did, in fact, note the earlier, more benign meaning, no earlier reference can be found in which the word refers to innocent gadget enthusiasts, technical tinkerers, or backyard engineers.

There are, of course, earlier references in the mainstream press to amateurs called "hackers." Amateur golfers. Why shouldn't we restore this "original" meaning, rather than the one that computer hobbyists are so strangely attached to? Let "hackers" be an antiquated term for amateur golfers. Let "crackers" be an antiquated, derrogatory term for white people. Find a new term for computer criminals. And a new term for computer enthusiasts.

In telling me that I admit "hacker" once meant something positive, are you not yourself admitting that it now means something negative? Why can't you start there, and move on? How is your nostalgia for the benign electronics "hacker" of the 1950s any better than the nostalgia of a Republican for the "family values" of the same era?

You can claim that the word "hacker" is only used in a negative sense by computer enthusiasts when they wish to "clarify" something to "Joe Scmo [sic]," but I've heard it used negatively by computer professionals in other ways. I've heard it used to describe young programmers who display little skill or forethought, and I've heard it used to refer to people who break into systems, used in the company soley of people with considerable knowledge of computers. That these negative meanings persist even after "education" has taken place is rather telling. The fact that you don't acknowledge this in your post is also interesting.

There is another aspect of the problem, one that will not go away no matter how much a computer enthusiast might want it to. The fact of the matter is that people who are interested in committing computer crime, but not particularly interested in programming or otherwise devising systems, refer to themselves as hackers. You can call them "script kiddies" until you are blue in the face, but when they are interviewed, they will invariably describe themselves as "hackers."

If you really want to take back the term "hacker," then you will have to take it away from the criminals, not from the press. you must convince script kiddies to call themselves script kiddies. You must persuade the crackers to start calling themselves crackers. Frankly, I don't think this will ever happen.

Once criminals have a noble-sounding name for their activities, they'll never revert to a derrogatory word. The wise course, I think, will be to let the criminals have the word "hacker," and let that word gather an ever more negative image as innocent computer enthusiasts adopt a new term for themselves, such as "techie," or "computer enthusiast," or whatever else may come.

 

© 2002, RobotSlave. you may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the author. Line-by-line rebuttal is expressly prohibited.


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

look (none / 0) (#24)
by William Sargis on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 02:30:07 PM PST
It's simple. The term didn't always mean what it does now. It was ours and we want it back.

Let's say for the sake or argument that we did change it and pick something. In only a short amount of time the media and average computer users would start using it instead. They would think that's it's nothing more than a new hip trendy slang term to describe the same thing.

Why should we change the name every cuple of years? So we can all turn into trendy assholes no worse than every teenie bopper on MTV?




I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

What? (none / 0) (#38)
by RobotSlave on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:26:06 PM PST
If you haven't even tried to find a new name once, then how can you possibly complain about having to find a new one every few years?

The invented term "open source" seems to have taken hold. I don't see anyone clamoring for a new term, there, despite all the fuss that was made when it was coined. Why should a new term for computer enthusiasts be any more problematic?

I don't think the word "hacker" was ever "yours." It "belonged" to amateur golfers before even the transistor was invented. Why don't you give it "back" to the golf community, and find a term for yourself that isn't burdened with prior claims?


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

We have (none / 0) (#42)
by William Sargis on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:51:38 PM PST
We have gone through the motions of techie, geek, and almost any name. The problem is that most people usually like to further classify them. When someone hears techie they general think of someone who fiddles with the guts of the somputer or of any number of systems. Not everyone makes that links with computers.

As for the term open source, it's nothing new. People generally think that open source is some new thing that sprouted up with the popularity of linux. The simple truth is, is that open source software was the first. Hell, what kind of protection could you possibly have with punch cards? Open source has been around for decades. People simply don't understand that open source didn't start with linux. Look at history. Most if not all software was open source.




I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

Don't be dense. (none / 0) (#47)
by RobotSlave on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:23:12 PM PST
Sure, lots of software was distributed with source code in the early days. But it wasn't called "open source" software, you dimwit. The term "open source" was coined by one Eric Raymond less than a decade ago, because he took political issue with Richard Stallman's term, "Free Software."

Do you understand my point yet, or were you ignorant of that particular bit of computer history?

Just let me know if you need to be further "educated" about the term "open source," which enjoys widespread and unproblematic use, and the older term, "free software," which suffered from confusion with shareware and criminal pirated software.


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

Actually (none / 0) (#54)
by William Sargis on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 07:17:14 PM PST
Actually open source was a term sometimes used by companies such as AT&T when it freely licensed the roginal Unix code to UCBerkeley. It wasn't really a term but more of a simple description. It was used to define licensing which allow the licensee to freely use the code. It wasn't widely used but it was used. Nobody really thought of it as being a term or a definition of how they were licensing it. That's what Eric Raymond did. He combined the term with the definition as well as further defining it. Open source project have been around for quite some. You do have to admit that is much easier than "licensing which allows for access to and modification of the source code". He further defined what it meant. Before it was just a term that was kicked around. Nobody really thought about it but used it.

As for the confusion of the term free software there seems to be a lot of it on this site. I don't really see a poblem with either of the terms or their definition. There are always going to be people out there that just can't get the concepts through their heads. Will they ever understand that it's free as in freedom not cost, and open source but still falls under the terms of the license agreement?




I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

How many times do I have to repeat this? (none / 0) (#58)
by RobotSlave on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 11:21:59 PM PST
I think you're taking some pretty broad liberties with what constitutes "usage" of a term, but so be it. Let's just go with it.

You're saying that "open source" was used now and then before it became "official."

And the word "techie" is currently used now and then to describe computer enthusiasts, as are many other "unofficial" terms.

The old term for "open source" had problems, because it caused confusion and gave some people the wrong idea.

The current term for computer enthusiasts has problems, because it causes confusion and gives some people the wrong idea.

Are you just completely unwilling to connect the dots here?

Computer enthusiasts (and in turn, the press) embraced the term "open source," and left the old term behind.

What is so magical about the term "hacker" that prevents you from embracing a new term, such as "techie," and leaving the old, problematic one behind?


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

ahhh (none / 0) (#60)
by William Sargis on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 12:44:57 AM PST
We haven't left the term behind. We have simply clarified its meaning. Open source and free software are terms that are still used despite the fact that they cause confusion among the uniformed. The term open source is not there to replace free software. Just because it's open source doesn't make it free (as in freedom not cost).

Take Microsoft's Shared Source Program. It makes its source code open to only a slect few developers (only after they drown them in nondisclosure forms). However, the source code is not free to modify or use. Hell it's not even open for peer review. So the fact is, is that open source and free software are related terms but you cannot use one to mean the other in every instance.

So what if hacker has changed meanings? Hackers will continue to use the term because those who know its meaning will understand. If someone raises an issue with a hacker then most are happy to explain in a civilized manner. They will explain to them the what a hacker is and how they differ from malicious hackers which they refer to as crackers.

You see it's the ability to figure things out for yourself. They used to teach this in schools. Forget prayer let's get this concept back in the calssroom. Armed with the knowledge to figure out the difference they can know that there a hackers that benefit technology and "hackers" that use their skills for "evil". So next time they hear a news report about hackers they will know that it's only a small group of hackers. Hopefully, those not "in the know" will stop believing that all hackers = criminals.

Why should hackers change for everyone else? We know what it means and we'll continue to use it. If we have to explain the difference to some people along the way and explain to them we're not out to take down the internet (which we help create) that's fine. Hopefully, they know a few things so it's a little easier. I mean mentioned the command prompt and idiots like elenchos, osm and Yoshi throw a fit.

How fast after we were to pick a new name do you think it would catch on? And how fast would the uniformed start thing [insert name here] were bad? They likely think it was just another trendy word drummed up by the media. There have been some attempts to change the name. Unfortunately, they're usually products of dumbass screenwriters (or at least sound like it) or skriptkiddies. Geeks, CodeWarriors, and TurboNerd to name a few.

We're fine with it. The one real thing that pisses off hackers are obviously uneducated paranoid people that like to make bogus claims like "I am a professional, so I'm smarter than you and you're a criminal" simply because you talk about something they obviously know nothing about. I'm sorry but it's rather difficult to believe that when you claim to be running WindowsXP on a token ring network (which W2K and XP don't support) running IIS (which isn't even included with either version of XP nor will it run) and uitilizing the XP firewall because you're afraid someone is going to 404 you by stealing you iMac address and IP tokens.




I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

New name (none / 0) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:01:34 AM PST
Geeks: and deal with all the geek jokes, especially at this site?

Computer Hobbyist: too vague, could be used for computer case designers

Tinkers: sounds too much like that fairy bitch from Peter Pan

SysAdmins: not all sysadmins are hackers

Server Monkeys: see SysAdmins

Programmers: not all programmers are hackers

Techies: sounds too much like a word you'd use for dumbass Level 1 MCSE tech support reps

Computer Expert: ever see those CompUSA (???) commercials with Kathy Ireland and Dick Clark, ewww, uniforms and minimum wages sales

Nerds: see geeks


"Hacker" suffers from most of these prob (none / 0) (#64)
by RobotSlave on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:30:10 AM PST
Consider:

Hacker draws geek jokes, and criminal jokes, to boot.

Hacker is vague. The people who build custom cases usually think of it as "hacking." Just ask them. They'll call a fancy case a "great hack."

Hackers sounds like a word you'd use for dumbass Level 1 MCSE tech support reps.

Hacker: ever see those ads for independent computer retailers, ewww, dumb logos and minimum wages sales

I still think "techie" is a good phrase. It suffers from many of the problems you've listed, just like "hacker," but at least it's never been used as a label for people who break into computer systems.

 

PS: "Fairy bitch?" Sweet Jesus. And people wonder why there aren't more women in IT.


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

There, you just went and said the IT word (none / 0) (#90)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:38:06 PM PST
WHen did this topic ever concern IT?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
A definition set I consider canonical... (none / 0) (#41)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:50:17 PM PST
...is here.

It is my personal reference system, not intended for public access yet. I am aware about the bugs and I will address them when I will feel about to do so. Meanwhile handle with care.

Warning: the server is on a slow line and the result page is loooong.


 
Oh dear (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by walwyn on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:40:42 PM PST
With some real education it didn't take long for you to admit that it once meant something positive.

With some real education you would know that once 'girl' meant 'boy', and that 'appeasement' once had no negative connotations. The truth is that, and whine as much as you like, the primary usage of 'hacker' outside of geekdome means 'one engaged in illegal attacks on computer networks'.

What pisses me off is this believe that all hackers are criminals and only want to break the law.

But they are.

If a gang of locksmiths were caught using their knowledge of lock picking, would you make the same claims? Would you post [all] locksmiths=criminals?

No, we would call them 'criminal locksmiths', in the case of those that break into computer systems we have a perfectly adequate word that requires no adjective, that word is 'hacker'.


 
Why indeed. (none / 0) (#19)
by walwyn on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 09:34:17 AM PST
'Hackers' can call themselves anything they want - "a bunch of bananas" for example. However in doing so they should not then complain when thought of as 'fruits'.
<p>
Similarly by choosing a term like 'hacker' they cannot subsequently complain when the rest of the world associates them with illegal activity.<p>
Geeks, simply do not have control over language or the everyday meaning of words.<p>
In any case why should the rest of us have to correct your imbecile spelling of <i>colour</i>.



hello geek (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:33:34 PM PST
You type your own HTML rather than using one of Microsofts Fine HTML writing products. A true geek.


Microsoft HTML... (none / 0) (#44)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:58:40 PM PST
...is perverted version of the real HTML. Their authoring products do either funny or sad job, depending on which side of the barricade you are.

For more talk about one of the aspects of the subject see Demoroniser, a perl script aimed to correct the worst of their incompatiBILLities.

The source editor together with working knowledge of HTML is the best authoring tool ever; no mouse clicking can ever replace a brain.


 
How about this RobotSlave? (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 23rd, 2002 at 10:43:52 PM PST
Maybe when dumbasses like you can quit calling tech support for simple problems and murder tech jargon trying to sound coll we'll talk. I mean it's nimrods like yourself that think that the web and the internet are the same thing and that the terms can be used synonymously.

Perhaps when people stompy saying upload when the mean download and vice versa we'll talk. I'm supposed to keep a straight face when some dumbass says he downloaded the internet onto a floppy?

One more thing RobotSlave. Putting a disk with a virus on it next to a new disk won't make the new one sick.


To: Uppity tech support drone (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:41:30 AM PST
From: The people who buy computer equipment and services on the understanding that help will be available when they need it, no matter how new they are to computers.

The reason your job exists is so that people can call you to ask for help with those simple problems for which you deride them. What do you expect them to call you about? Help with their Pearl scripts? Kernel hacking questions?

If everyone knew as much as you about the computers, you wouldn't have a job. By the same token, if everyone knew as little as you about computers, the whole industry would fall apart. If you don't like being asked simple questions, I suggest you get your MCSE and move up in the computer world, rather than hanging on the bottom rung and complaining on the internet.

People who work tech support and consider themselves hackers aren't hackers of any definition. The correct term is nerd. You are a nerd.


A retort (none / 0) (#15)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:43:24 AM PST
From: The people who buy computer equipment and services on the understanding that help will be available when they need it, no matter how new they are to computers.

New drivers are required to study the traffic rules. They even have exams to pass. Where I live, the exams include the basic principles of operation of the car engine. Why it is so hard to accept that in order to use a technology you have to - gasp - learn?

The reason your job exists is so that people can call you to ask for help with those simple problems for which you deride them.

...While people with more interesting problems wait on the line or can't get the required time of the support to answer their problems.

What do you expect them to call you about? Help with their Pearl scripts? Kernel hacking questions?

WHY NOT???

If everyone knew as much as you about the computers, you wouldn't have a job. By the same token, if everyone knew as little as you about computers, the whole industry would fall apart.

What is the most important ability of the hackers in comparison with the Plebs is the ability to learn new things. If there is something needed to master, and it is at least basically interesting, it will be mastered. The actual status of hackers' knowledge is ever-changing and growing.

If you don't like being asked simple questions, I suggest you get your MCSE and move up in the computer world, rather than hanging on the bottom rung and complaining on the internet.

Or getting a hired help to whom you will shift the trivialities. Just teaching one for myself.

Why MCSE? You know that its true meaning is "Must Call Someone Experienced"? Why are you all obsessed with certifications and paper sheets in cheap plastic frames?

People who work tech support and consider themselves hackers aren't hackers of any definition. The correct term is nerd. You are a nerd.

What about the hackers who serve as techsupport because of being available - who aren't primarily techsupport and only double as one because of that it is necessary at the moment? Been there, done that, currently on the way out of it.


Internet licenses (none / 0) (#17)
by iat on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 06:14:57 AM PST
New drivers are required to study the traffic rules. They even have exams to pass. Where I live, the exams include the basic principles of operation of the car engine. Why it is so hard to accept that in order to use a technology you have to - gasp - learn?

We've already proposed the idea of Internet licenses on Adequacy, the very same concept that you appear to be advocating here (albeit indirectly, via analogy to driving licenses). Although I can't be bothered to check, I would imagine that you were against the idea of Internet licenses when we first proposed them.


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

Techsupport licences (none / 0) (#18)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 06:53:28 AM PST
Although I can't be bothered to check, I would imagine that you were against the idea of Internet licenses when we first proposed them.

I am strongly against the idea of limiting access to the Net.

However, I'm in favour of a scheme that would make people eligible for technical support services. A sort of elementary courses with basic certification. Making sure that its holder knows what a network cable is, and that a printer will work better when it is switched on. And that "My Internet doesn't work" isn't a proper error report.

Even without the certification, you could call techsupport. However, you will be on the mercy of the support person who then will have no other obligation to help you than their own good will. Eventually you would have to pay higher fees.

There has to be a sort of cat o' nine tails hovering above the users' backs, as it is apparently the only way to open the manuals and - gasp - read them before cluelessly asking for help.


Supporting your users (none / 0) (#20)
by walwyn on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 10:04:46 AM PST
Even without the certification, you could call techsupport. However, you will be on the mercy of the support person who then will have no other obligation to help you than their own good will. Eventually you would have to pay higher fees.

Our customers pay $1000,s each year for the right to call our support desk. For which they obtain curtesy, access to high quality support, and advice on the best way of using our products, irrespective of their ability to phrase their problem in the correct jargonese.

There has to be a sort of cat o' nine tails hovering above the users' backs, as it is apparently the only way to open the manuals and - gasp - read them before cluelessly asking for help.

Users don't RTFM because in most cases it is written in geekese, is totally impenetratable, and does not adress their needs.




Why should they (none / 0) (#27)
by William Sargis on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:21:26 PM PST
Why should a company provide free tech support for people that shouldn't even use the product? If a company designs software for use by professionals should it provide free tech support and services to the dipshit who just happened to get ahold of a copy?

Why should tech support reps sit on the phone with someone like Yoshi exaplaining how to use all the advanced feature of Windows Advanced Server when they're not even smart enough to use Windows (let daddy hold your hand because you're a fucking idiot) XP? Let's say the tech rep is an MCSE. Let's go a step further. Let's say he/she is an smart MCSE, as it's such an easy certification to get and really just prooves you're a good test taker.

Should this person have to explain the fundamentals of a PC to the customer because he/she can't figure out how to use an OS that wasn't designed for the every dumbass luser? I amazes me how much time and money people that people spend with tech support trying to figure out why a phone cord won't plug into a RJ-45 jack. I don't think people should get free tech support whenever they buy a computer. Well, at least not 3-5 years. They should get it for a little while the be forced to buy [insert program] for Dummies or that Video Professor they always run commercials for. I wonder why I have to sit on hold with tech support because they sent me the wrong system. Here's a funny story I read recently:
We maintain a 24 hour, 800 number call desk for our maintenance contract customers, a very expensive undertaking. Non-contract customers can call as well, but our per-call maintenance charge is $250/hour, with a minimum of three hours. If you only call us occasionally, it's a lot cheaper than a contract, but it's clearly designed to discourage trivial calls.

In 1996 a per-call customer called. "What does MSDOS stand for?" she asked. We told her. Her firm paid the $750 bill without demur.
Think of how many people would be forced to read a few books or take some simple course if tech support charged for every call. Sure maybe not $250/hour but some fee.

The community college only 10-15 minuted from my house offers free courses. People can go there and take free classes on how to use Windows and MS Office. Beyond tech support, think of how much time and money you and schools could save because they would have to spend so much time starting with the basics.




I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

Dipshit is as dipshit does. (none / 0) (#48)
by walwyn on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:26:01 PM PST
If a company designs software for use by professionals should it provide free tech support and services to the dipshit who just happened to get ahold of a copy?

What part of
Our customers pay $1000,s each year for the right to call our support desk.
didn't you understand? Perhaps you should RTFP in future.

I wonder why I have to sit on hold with tech support because they sent me the wrong system.

They put on hold until you realized that you should be calling customer support!


allow me to clarify (none / 0) (#53)
by William Sargis on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 07:04:01 PM PST
Some organisations lump tec upport in with customer support. The like to call it the help desk. Whenever I call customer support my call is usually forwarded to tech support because the customer support representative does seem to understand the difference betwenn the 4100 and then 4100s.




I cut my hands up in the dark and just sat there and bled, while the whole world fell apart inside of my head.

 
Nobody ever got run over by a computer (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:27:06 PM PST
  1. Tech support is a marketing device. It exists so companies can sell computers to people who don't know how to use them. If they didn't have tech support, they would lose sales. That's why tech support's purpose is to answer "stupid" questions.

  2. I don't care how you think people should learn about computers. Neither do they. Neither I nor they think they should have to take their first steps in computing without someone to help them. Your opinion of how they should learn is immaterial.

  3. So-called "hackers" are just deluded nerds, who have convinced themselves that knowing a lot about computers makes them immeasurably better than their fellow man. Mechanics generally know more about cars than nerds know about computers, but mechanics have never tried to pull this elitist crap on anyone. That's why we like mechanics better, and why they are respected, while "hackers" are not.

  4. You are a nerd. If you were a hacker, you'd break into computers. That's the simple truth. Even if your definition of hacker was the correct one, you'd still be a nerd. You just are.

    Let me explain something to you. The public has never been interested in boring programmers, no matter what you call yourselves. They were briefly interested in computer hackers, who hacked into computers. The attempt by boring programmers in the late nineties to "reclaim" the term is simply an attempt to steal what remains of the cachet surrounding the word. You are attempting to usurp the (somewhat dubious) prestige won by others, in a cynical effort to enhance your own image.



T Reginald Gibbons Is a Stupid Fuck!!! (none / 0) (#36)
by AmnAzeroth on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:08:33 PM PST
Listen to me you idiotic lunatic!

You are NOT a good father, you know NOTHING about computers, and more than likely your son is NOT a hacker!

Do you know what Comet cursor is? Its a Program that changes your mouse pointer to a pokemon --- OH GOD HOW DANGEROUS!!!

Do you know what BonziBuddy is? Its a stupid Purple Monkey who talks to you
DEAR GOD NOOO!!!

Did you ever stop and try to listen to your son? If you did you might have found out that he wasnt actually doing anything! Believe me it takes a great deal to be a hacker it isnt that easy, in fact, thats WHY people hack - they do it for the CHALLENGE you stupid fuck! I am now 18 Years old and I have built my own computer from scratch, with an AMD processor, a GeForce2 MX Video card, 394 Megs of RAM and a Sound blaster LIVE!, Ive also changed ISP's about 20 times, Does that make me a hacker? NO! All I do is play games and work on my college assignments.

For your information a Hacker is someone who tests security defenses on a a system to see if they are breakable then tells the operator of the system that there are holes in it and shows what he did to do it. These vigilante's are Hackers (aka White-hat hackers)

The people who you so eledgedly call hackers are really called Crackers (or Black-Hat hackers), those are the "Cyber-terrorists" that has every Reginald Gibbons in the world hiding in churches behind a crucifix.

With all this mouthing off you do about crackers I wouldnt be surprised if one comes after YOU and YOUR family.

Suck my Dick man!


Did you that (none / 0) (#46)
by walwyn on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:11:08 PM PST
Comet cursor is a notorious trojan. As is BonziBuddy.


ok? (none / 0) (#63)
by DG on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:20:57 AM PST
you don't know anything about trojans if you call comet cursor one, it is what is called scumware as it says on that site it is not a trojan, the ad-aware program stops the server from asking you if you want to install the ad-ridden crap companys write like ad pop-ups and such, the company that makes comet cursor would be shut down if they made trojans... do you even know what your are talking about?
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Lets see (none / 0) (#68)
by walwyn on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 04:59:34 AM PST
It comes dressed as a gift. Has a surprise hidden inside. Which steals your bandwidth, sniffs around your registry and history files, ferries your secrets back to its base.

What more do you want - Ajax and Ulysses to leap out of your monitor at you?



great idea! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
by nathan on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 05:37:28 AM PST
What more do you want - Ajax and Ulysses to leap out of your monitor at you?

Yes, please, that'd rock!

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
wow.. (none / 0) (#85)
by DG on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 11:25:28 AM PST
very good, you read something on trojans not much really but, thats ok you still didn't prove to me how comet cursor is considered a trojan from that site you posted, looks to me like it's ad crap not a trojan, maybe you don't read the definition of a trojan or what scumware is, get back to me when you do..
2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
I agree for once!!!! (none / 0) (#91)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:41:13 PM PST
That damn program always ends up somewhere on my harddrive....and I swear I cant remember downloading it.
Fucking trojans.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
By your own admission (none / 0) (#74)
by dmg on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 08:23:21 AM PST
I am now 18 Years old and I have built my own computer from scratch, with an AMD processor, a GeForce2 MX Video card, 394 Megs of RAM and a Sound blaster LIVE!, Ive also changed ISP's about 20 times, Does that make me a hacker?

You really have to ask this question after you admitted it so clearly ?

Anyone who has changed ISPs 20 times, and has enough in-depth knowledge of computers to know what the acronym AMD stands for is hardly a run-of-the mill computer user.

I suggest you do not go around shouting about your illegal hacking activities, as the FBI may well start to take an interest in you, and you would not want that, would you ?

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

DMG, You suck. (none / 0) (#105)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:32:37 AM PST
You want to know something DMG? You're one of my favorites on the site. You're as clueless as a brick wall, but thanks to that you've provided me with hours of amusement. All of your talk of the FBI and illegal hacker activities gets old fast though. You know, as well as I do, that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you also know that the FBI could give a rats ass about the alleged 'illegal hacking' of the only intelligent people on this site.

Hell, I built my system from scratch, I've got an AMD, and I built my mom a system with an AMD. Does that make us BOTH hackers? How about my 60 year old Grandma, and my friend's 75 year old Grandma? Are they both hackers because they chose a higher quality processor than the one you're running? NO. But you aren't going to see it this way, because you're an idiot.

You, DMG are the reason people need to pass a test to own a computer. You, and your kind, are the reason they have warning labels on everything. Warning on an iron: Do not iron clothes while wearing them. Was that you?

Next time you open your pie hole I suggest you do a little something called research. Oh, and I don't mean reading through ast garbage by T, Reginold Gibbons, because he seems to know about as much as you do. Go to a library, check out a few books on basic computer operation, and maybe the dummies guide to the internet. Then, after you have at least some idea of what you're talking about, go ahead and argue with those of us that do this stuff for a living.


 
hmm (none / 0) (#12)
by seduce on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 02:46:54 AM PST
guess what, call us hackers or whatever the hell you want, we are the still the smartest, most creative, and intelligent humans on earth, and if we wanted to really take down the world, or your world for that matter, we could in a heartbeat, respect us and we respect you, judge us and we judge you, the problem is we dont care what you think and will always be around, i am a hacker and proud to say it. fuck you all


Get real (3.00 / 1) (#16)
by iat on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 06:04:17 AM PST
call us hackers or whatever the hell you want, we are the still the smartest, most creative, and intelligent humans on earth

Living in the darkness of your parents' basement while playing computer games, reading comics and occasionally going to college when it suits you doesn't qualify as smart, creative or intelligent.

if we wanted to really take down the world, or your world for that matter, we could in a heartbeat

Go on then, I challenge to "take down the world". You have precisely one heartbeat to accomplish this ambiguously defined challenge. Your geek machismo and teenage bravado impresses no-one. Grow up.

i am a hacker and proud to say it. fuck you all

Wow, you've really proven that you're one of the most intelligent humans on Earth, haven't you?


Adequacy.org - love it or leave it.

in response (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:50:19 PM PST
"Living in the darkness of your parents' basement"
not true.

"while playing computer games"
A good hobby...more worthwhile than watching sport games IMO.

"reading comics"
Oh please

"and occasionally going to college when it suits you"
Cuz college is shite and they cant teach anything worthwhile about computers - therefore they arent educating US so why turn up?

"Go on then, I challenge to "take down the world"."
If all of us got pissed enough we would..but you 'challenging' us to do it isnt what I mean...maybe if the US government attempts to pass internet licensing or whatever weird schemes people on this site have come up with then yes, we would get pissed. Even then we arent hostile enough to want to "take down the world".

"Wow, you've really proven that you're one of the most intelligent humans on Earth, haven't you?"
All of us use this site so I dont think are entitled to use that line on one another.





eh? (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 05:32:52 AM PST
All of us use this site so I dont think are entitled to use that line on one another

This makes no sense.


thats true (none / 0) (#92)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:43:44 PM PST
dont think any of it does
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
You are right!!!! (none / 0) (#110)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun May 12th, 2002 at 07:36:40 AM PST
This is the first post i see which is not completely idiotic!!!!!!
Thank god! somebody with a brain!

Free information for everybody!


 
important note: (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 12:16:47 PM PST
"coder" is reserved for true assembly coders and bit-twiddlers, not C or high level language interface programmers.


important note (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:06:28 PM PST
"Dont care" is reserved for speaking to hackers, geeks and assorted tinkering monkeys who do our bidding. Usage: I dont care what time it is, the reason I dont bother to remember my password is because you're the password janitor, and the reason why I trashed the manual is because one of us has better things to do than read it."

I hope I'm not responding to a criminal hacker.


unimportant note (none / 0) (#31)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 03:47:10 PM PST
I dont care what time it is, the reason I dont bother to remember my password is because you're the password janitor, and the reason why I trashed the manual is because one of us has better things to do than read it."

Then don't wonder when after asking what key is the "any key" you get told that it is the power button, that after the Windows rot caused your computer to crash twice per hour you get your disk formatted and all data erased (because the site policy specified in the manual said you have to backup your data daily - and it's not our worry you trashed the manual), and that your new password will be 60 characters long. And no, you will not be permitted to run [whatever third-party program] on your machine, it is against the security policies (which don't apply so strictly to ie. the secretary, but she is cuter than you and instead of bossing us around at 3 am she bribes us with cups of coffee). Oh - I'd forget - the scheduled server downtime is planned to two hours before your deadline, which you are doomed to miss.

Don't piss the admins. Their memory is long, their power is high, and their creativity is infamous.


Bullshit (none / 0) (#35)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:07:16 PM PST
You talk big on the internet, but sysadmins are typically placid, nervous creatures. You're all horribly afraid of everyone who has a better haircut than you, which is to say everyone else at your workplace. Sysadmins never actually do anything to upset anyone. You'd get fired instantly if you did, and you don't have the guts to try it anyway.


Heh. (none / 0) (#40)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:38:28 PM PST
You talk big on the internet, but sysadmins are typically placid, nervous creatures.

Nervous because they are familiar with both the cluelessness of the users and the unreliability of the Modern Technology - and know who will have to clean up after the excrement will inevitably hit the fan again. Tech depts in certain large companies here even have betting pools on what will be the next crash.

You are the one who talks big. I doubt you would dare to handle the Administrators like rags.

You're all horribly afraid of everyone who has a better haircut than you, which is to say everyone else at your workplace.

Afraid? Heh. Without us, they'd have nothing, from web to email to their precious databases.

Sysadmins never actually do anything to upset anyone.

The main reason here is, at least according to my experiences, that nobody dares to anger them.

You'd get fired instantly if you did, and you don't have the guts to try it anyway.

I don't shoot at innocents. As far, nobody begged me for a revenge yet - though I advised on revenge methods to a couple of less fortunate friends. The best ways are the ones where the damage itself is caused by the target's own mistake and can't be attributed directly to you.

Also, if you are easy to replace, you apparently flunked your Job Security 101 course.


You work tech support (none / 0) (#43)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:54:51 PM PST
By your own admission, so job security isn't exactly something you have experience with. The rest of your comment I read as a weak-kneed concurrence with my statements. Thank you.


Doubling as one, but it goes to end... (none / 0) (#45)
by The Mad Scientist on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:08:42 PM PST
...then I will return back to fulltime hardware/software development, tinkering with security, and other more interesting things to do. I am serving on the ugly end of phone line as addition to my normal duties; it was a temporary arrangement "just for a week". Now, after half-year, I decided I don't want to cope anymore and we are hiring a fulltime techsupport.

The friend, a hacker as well, will take over all user-related tasks after he will be taken onboard. Which is a matter of a week.

Then - farewell users!


 
you are your argument's worst enemy (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:58:31 PM PST
Then don't wonder when after asking what key is the "any key" you get told that it is the power button, that after the Windows rot caused your computer to crash twice per hour you get your disk formatted and all data erased ...

Wow, no criminal tendencies at all.


 
u think WE give a shit? (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 04:10:02 PM PST
Ive collected (probably illegally) lists including loads of peoples passwords.

I could have used them - you know how many accounts I could have accessed? How much stuff I could have found out?

But no, I didnt. Why not? Because I dont give a shit about peoples data. Its all junk in my opinion. Therefore I have less regard for your passwords than you can possibly understand.
Just that I can do stuff if I needed to do it is good enough for me. Im sure many people feel the same. Only fools would harm the internet, which afterall is our creation - even if I admit I am a nothing in the big scheme of things.

"the reason I dont bother to remember my password is because you're the password janitor"
Thats fair enough.


u think WE we pay the lowest salary on the (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 05:55:50 PM PST
tech scale to listen to your grandiose opinion of self? Printer is out of paper, there's a clever boy.


 
Glad to see you took the high road. (none / 0) (#55)
by derek3000 on Sun Mar 24th, 2002 at 08:43:58 PM PST
I could have used them - you know how many accounts I could have accessed? How much stuff I could have found out? But no, I didnt. Why not? Because I dont give a shit about peoples data. Its all junk in my opinion. Therefore I have less regard for your passwords than you can possibly understand.

It's a shame it was apathy, not morality, that led you to do it though.

Congratulations for proving RobotSlave's point. Just goes to show that 1 shit post from a hacker can say more than a well constructed one from my fellow Adequacy readers, who are truly some of the most intelligent people in the world.


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

Hmmm (none / 0) (#76)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 08:36:28 AM PST
I dunno about that whole "Adequacy readers, who are truly some of the most intelligent people in the world" bit there. After seeing some of the steaming crap these people have taken to heart as truth I'd have to disagree with you.

Take Mr. T. Reginold Gibbon's bit on "How To Tell If Your Son Is A Hacker". Anyone that had any shred of intelligence would be wondering if it was a joke, or if he was serious. If I need to explain why then you can include yourself with the rest of the "Intelligent" adequacy readers.

How about (My favorite) the AMD sweatshops? That one is even worse than Mr. Gibbon's story. I have to admit that I get a kick out of you guys though. Story after story, post after post, and reply after reply you people never cease to make me laugh.

Thanks for the laughs guys, you rock. *GRIN*


Just goes to show how stupid you really are. (none / 0) (#78)
by derek3000 on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:02:44 AM PST
I guess anything not relating to computers is too hard for you to grasp. There's a fine line you have to walk, and you obviously haven't figured it out. Keep trying.


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

 
I have been trolled. (none / 0) (#80)
by nathan on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:14:29 AM PST
Exactly what steaming crap have I taken to the heart as truth? I expect examples or an apology.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

 
A correction. (none / 0) (#100)
by RobotSlave on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:37:10 PM PST
From what I've observed, anyone with a "shred of intelligence" knows whether the well-known article by Mr. Gibbons is "a joke, or if he was serious."

It's the people without a "shred of intelligence" who are left "wondering."


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

 
Whoa, dude. Dude! (none / 0) (#81)
by hauntedattics on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:19:35 AM PST
Is it part of your personal mission statement to make my day on a regular basis?



I've got to have some allies... (none / 0) (#82)
by derek3000 on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:38:06 AM PST
for the second phase of my plan. Don't worry; when you are needed, you will be called upon, and the group will be thankful for it. So very thankful.


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

Swear allegiance to the flag (none / 0) (#83)
by because it isnt on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 10:54:41 AM PST
whatever flag they offer. Never hint at what you really feel.

Teach the children quietly for some day sons and daughters will rise up and fight where we stood still.*

* (C) 1985 Rutherford / Neil
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

May I suggest (5.00 / 1) (#93)
by jvance on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:51:49 PM PST
©? It's ¬ that hard. ∧ ΥΟ∪′Π βξ Ε£ξξΤ, ∂ΦΦ∂
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

I'm an oldskool ASCII boy. (none / 0) (#106)
by because it isnt on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 03:47:43 AM PST
I pray that you and your friends never travel over 7-bit lines.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
...why we should care? (none / 0) (#71)
by The Mad Scientist on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 07:38:48 AM PST
Why the hell we should care what the Plebs thinks about us?

Can't they just shut up and accept the fact that technology is a package deal and that if they want to use it they have to cope with us?

We all are dependent on technology. Only some can master it. These ones have the real power. Don't piss off the powerful.


Let's clear this up ONCE and FOR ALL. (none / 0) (#73)
by dmg on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 08:16:10 AM PST
We all are dependent on technology. Only some can master it. These ones have the real power. Don't piss off the powerful.

You have no power whatsoever. So long as you want a paycheck you will do what you are told. Almost anyone could "master" computers, its not exactly rocket science. Indeed computer science hardly justifies being called "science" at all.

Face facts, you 'hackers' are no more indispensible than the guy who refills the vending machines. OK, so I couldn't do it myself, but if he gets all uppity with ideas above his station about how "powerful" he is, he will be replaced in a hurry by someone who understands their position in the heirarchy.

So call yourselves whatever you like, but be aware you are barely one step above a blue-collar worker in the scheme of things.



time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

yea (none / 0) (#87)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:07:39 PM PST
and you just wasted 5 mins of your life posting on this site so who the fuck are you?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
woah! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by poltroon on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:34:35 PM PST
It sounds like you may be confusing "computer science" with the socalled "mastery" of computers achieved by hackers. While you're correct in saying that what the hackers do isn't rocket science, what does it have to do with computer science?


 
jerk. (none / 0) (#75)
by nathan on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 08:35:36 AM PST
Back in the day, I programmed my Apple II in (undocumented) assembly language. I didn't find it all that hard. On the other hand, I last wrote a program (in Delphi) in 1995. I find music and politics much harder than computers.

Once and for all, what makes tech workers so special? Without farmers you'd have nothing to eat. Without soldiers you'd have no national security. Without tailors you'd be naked. Without political leadership there'd be economic and social chaos as relationships between other fields fell apart.

Get over yourself.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

oh come on (none / 0) (#88)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:31:50 PM PST
Without techies you'd have no computers and no microchips:

No tvs, shite cars, no wrist watches, no mobile phones, no hi-fi's, no credit cards, you get the idea.

Hospitals would suck - no life support systems, no machines such as x-ray - no advanced treatments.

Police - no national criminal databases, no fingerprint databases, no DNA databases, ie no databases. No CCTV networks and just 1900s communications. In fact the whole country would have just 1900s communications. No fax machines, no internet.

Airports at their current size cant cope without computers. I imagine your bank also has a heavy dependancy on computers. Also supermarkets.

As for National Security - the military would have no decent aircraft, no smart bombs, basically anything with a microchip is out. You'd have to rely on ground troops. Nukes would never have been invented - and we know that they singlehandedly prevented world war III between the US and Soviet Union.

We havent even touched on the implications involved in computer design. Buildings, Aircraft, Cars, all are designed and using computers - development in these areas would suffer if computers didnt exist.

Yes you could survive without all these things but the standard of living would greatly decline and many people would probably die.

Yes food is more important for survival and therefore you could argue that farms have a higher importance. But you could argue that farms today are a creation of technology - ie they are not the same as the old farms. Pesticides, Fertilisers, Farm machinery, all products of technology. Without techies there would not be this technology and farms would not be able to sustain the population.

Technology shapes and controls society and in turn society shapes and controls technology. Its a balanced cycle like nature. If someone has the power of technology they have the power to control society.

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

balls. (none / 0) (#94)
by nathan on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:40:04 PM PST
Without the military, the g**ks wouldn't have the freedom to download as much pr0n as they can spank to. Anyway, g**ks hardly control "technology." Let's see you DoS a B-2 or an M-16.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

and.. (none / 0) (#97)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:48:49 PM PST
..without Edison we wouldnt have any lightbulbs in our houses right?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

you are a liberalist. (none / 0) (#98)
by nathan on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:55:54 PM PST
Also, I'll wager, an idiot, and most likely a gap-toothed, spavined, scrofulous son of a whore.

Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

heheh (none / 0) (#99)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 03:11:04 PM PST
how can i possibly respond to that?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
you have got to be kidding (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:05:04 PM PST
You are deluding yourself if you think that someone who has learned how a computer operates has any 'power' that others don't. I hate to tell you this, but computer mastery is not terribly difficult.
You might be surprised to learn that a lot of people have other activities in their lives that are far more interesting to them then a computer, and therefore do not care to spend their valuable time learning the intricacies of what is just a tool to them.


 
What power? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by elenchos on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 11:25:10 AM PST
If geeks had any power, how come the way things turn out is always the exact opposite of what the geeks want? If the geeks were actually in control, would Micro-Soft be the #1 computer company? Would IBM and Intel hold such power? AOL? How many products, companies and protocols have gone by the wayside in spite of the best efforts of geeks to support and promote them? If geeks had any power, where is Loki? Whither VA Software? Geeks are obviously not the ones calling the shots in technology.

And outside of technology, in the legislature for example, do geeks call the tune? As far as UTICA, the DMCA, and every other tech law, they call the exact opposite of the outcome. If geeks had any say, would Jar Jar Binks exist? Would "Final Fantasy" have flopped? Would they still be allowing so many low-wage Indian programmers into the US? Name any topic you want, and if there is a geek position on that topic, then that position is invariably the loser.

You should write more on this subject, however. I think it would be instructive to hear why you delude yourself into thinking you and your kind are so important. I suspect your relations with your mother and father play a significant role in the creation of this belief.


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


Power... (none / 0) (#86)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 01:06:16 PM PST
Well someone obviously made you post that long reply...

On another note: You think Microsoft isnt made up of geeks???

"Geeks are obviously not the ones calling the shots in technology."
you should understand your mistake just by reading your own post again.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Is this your new ploy? (none / 0) (#95)
by elenchos on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:40:17 PM PST
I notice you tried writing ordinary flames whenever you were proven wrong, but that didn't fly. So now you are trying to taunt those who have written replies for having written replies? And you think that is going to work on Adequacy.org???

Maybe that would work on a kurobot, but I like writing and don't consider it a chore. Why do you think I do this?


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


hmm this sounds familiar (none / 0) (#96)
by PotatoError on Mon Mar 25th, 2002 at 02:45:23 PM PST
to something ive written before
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
C&C Music Factory (none / 0) (#107)
by carrotrope2002 on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 12:15:46 PM PST
I'VE GOT THE POWWAAHH!!!!!!




put, put, put the needle on the record


 

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.