The Hacker Manifesto

[iago]

Insecure pseudo-intellectual jerks -- the types that thrive on IRC -- love these sorts of arguments.  It's an easy way to win a fight and assert your superiority.  It doesn't take much for the people who make a fuss to know the supposed original usages.  And the terminology is commonly used interchangeably, so the opportunity to 'catch someone out' frequently arises.  The meaning of a word like this usually derives from how it is used.  If 99.9% of people think of hacker as a general term (that would include crackers), then that is the effective definition of that word.   It's also important to be able to distinguish between being homosexual and being happy.  That doesn't mean the correct route is to chastise people who use gay to mean homosexual.

The hacker/cracker debate is, I think, similar to the "begs the question" debate (whether you can use "begs the question" to mean "asks the question", just because everybody does). And in both cases, I think that the distinction is more important than the distinction between, for example, "gay" and "happy". The difference is, I think, that the terms have very different implications. It's not as simple as the word being redefined in popular culture when the meaning and intent of the original word is lost.

Maybe people enjoy arguing about the definition, I wouldn't know (I don't hang around people like that), but that doesn't make it any less important to avoid adding any more ambiguity to an already insanely ambiguous language.

[while1]

Rule, I'm not sure where the argument started here. We discussed it politely and you came in and said "man, get over yourself and quit arguing, you boring, pedantic, and irritating idiots.

Don't misquote me.  It makes you look stupid when my post is on the same page.  Also there is no argument.

Joe's right, as much as you may not have meant it, you come off as offensive and elitist in almost all your posts.  Try reexamining your word choice (i.e. irritating idiots) if you take offense to someone misinterpreting your words, it's the body language of the internet.  Also, take a chill pill in general.  You come off as an uptight little asian, even if you aren't.

[Rule]

Rule, I'm not sure where the argument started here. We discussed it politely and you came in and said "man, get over yourself and quit arguing, you boring, pedantic, and irritating idiots.

Don't misquote me.  It makes you look stupid when my post is on the same page.  Also there is no argument.

Joe's right, as much as you may not have meant it, you come off as offensive and elitist in almost all your posts.  Try reexamining your word choice (i.e. irritating idiots) if you take offense to someone misinterpreting your words, it's the body language of the internet.  Also, take a chill pill in general.  You come off as an uptight little asian, even if you aren't.

I didn't say irritating idiots.  He misquoted me.  Even the part where the words were linked was a misquote.  Also, I'm not Asian, and I'm not little.  Last I checked you were both little and Asian.  Stop the self-hate.

My post was a rant relevant to the topic at hand.  I wasn't directly accusing anyone here of being irritating, although I was wary of this thread becoming one of those long, boring, pedantic discussions I have seen over and over again on IRC.  Obviously it was misinterpreted.  Not my fault.  I don't care if I offend you.  Many of my posts, including my last ones, were not much different than the social commentary you'd hear from comedians like George Carlin or Bill Maher.

[Joe]

Although I respect you, I have to say that you made the wrong decision posting in this thread at all, if that's the case.

And if I misinterpreted what you said, sorry. Like while1 stated, I can't hear you're tone when you type.

[Rule]

Insecure pseudo-intellectual jerks -- the types that thrive on IRC -- love these sorts of arguments.  It's an easy way to win a fight and assert your superiority.  It doesn't take much for the people who make a fuss to know the supposed original usages.  And the terminology is commonly used interchangeably, so the opportunity to 'catch someone out' frequently arises.  The meaning of a word like this usually derives from how it is used.  If 99.9% of people think of hacker as a general term (that would include crackers), then that is the effective definition of that word.   It's also important to be able to distinguish between being homosexual and being happy.  That doesn't mean the correct route is to chastise people who use gay to mean homosexual.

The hacker/cracker debate is, I think, similar to the "begs the question" debate (whether you can use "begs the question" to mean "asks the question", just because everybody does). And in both cases, I think that the distinction is more important than the distinction between, for example, "gay" and "happy". The difference is, I think, that the terms have very different implications. It's not as simple as the word being redefined in popular culture when the meaning and intent of the original word is lost.

Maybe people enjoy arguing about the definition, I wouldn't know (I don't hang around people like that), but that doesn't make it any less important to avoid adding any more ambiguity to an already insanely ambiguous language.

Most of my sentiments on these things are probably jaded through experience.  I find people often latch onto things like this and make it a point of showing how 'wrong' one party is (when it often isn't clear that either party is especially wrong).  I guess it's internet snobbishness.  You see it all the time when mediocre programmers obsessively mock people who learn VB, or don't code in a particular style, etc.

I do think common usage pretty much defines words like these, and someone shouldn't be chastised for using 'hacker' as a general term that includes cracker.  But yes, clarity is always a good thing.  I think saying "white hat [hacker]" settles it. 

[iago]

You see it all the time when mediocre programmers obsessively mock people who learn VB, or don't code in a particular style, etc.

But vi IS better than emacs! Honest!

[while1]

You see it all the time when mediocre programmers obsessively mock people who learn VB, or don't code in a particular style, etc.

But vi IS better than emacs! Honest!

Agreed.

[rabbit]

Well vim is even better.

[Sidoh]

You see it all the time when mediocre programmers obsessively mock people who learn VB, or don't code in a particular style, etc.

But vi IS better than emacs! Honest!

So true.