http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_Manifesto
I'm sure most of you have read it before, but I came upon it last night and it was a quick interesting read that pretty much sums it up. I'd call it the Cracker Manifesto though, but still..
You don't understand it if you think it should be the Cracker Manifesto.
Quote from: topaz~ on August 02, 2008, 09:05:14 PM
You don't understand it if you think it should be the Cracker Manifesto.
Agreed. I don't even see how you would come to the conclusion that it pertains more to a cracker...
God dammit, Joe...
Wait, fuck, I'm totally an idiot. I mixed up Hacker vs Cracker due to lack of sleep. I thought crackers were the good guys and hackers were the bad guys.
So yeah, the hacker manifesto is totally right. Sorry.
Quote from: rabbit on August 02, 2008, 10:26:21 PM
God dammit, Joe...
Nice post.
Quote from: Joe on August 02, 2008, 10:33:30 PM
Wait, fuck, I'm totally an idiot. I mixed up Hacker vs Cracker due to lack of sleep. I thought crackers were the good guys and hackers were the bad guys.
Huh... I don't think you understand the term 'cracker'- someone who engages in cracking (software or hardware). Sure crackers are usually thought of more of as 'bad guys', but hackers can also be 'good guys' and 'bad guys' or both. i.e. white hat, black hat, grey hat.
My understanding of a 'cracker' is could be wrong though.
The Hacker's Manifesto doesn't necessarily pertain to a single kind of hacker, but all of them, whether black hat, white hat, or grey hat.
Being a being a bad guy or good guy has nothing to do with it.
The main difference is that crackers actively engage in breaking the law for the sake of breaking the law. Hackers don't.
The definitions have become all mixed up due to media attention.
But the basic definition (hackers are good guys, crackers are bad) is as accurate as it's getting. But it's hardly a meaningful distinction anymore.
I've had this discussion many times, and it's always boring, pedantic, and irritating. I'm sick of idiots trying to elevate themselves through bullshit issues like this. (e.g. hacker vs cracker)
Quote from: Rule on August 02, 2008, 11:02:42 PM
I've had this discussion many times, and it's always boring, pedantic, and irritating. I'm sick of idiots trying to elevate themselves through bullshit issues like this. (e.g. hacker vs cracker)
To answer your question, yes, I am awesome.
Quote from: Rule on August 02, 2008, 11:02:42 PM
I've had this discussion many times, and it's always boring, pedantic, and irritating. I'm sick of idiots trying to elevate themselves through bullshit issues like this. (e.g. hacker vs cracker)
It may be boring and pedantic, but it's also a pretty important distinction. For example, I am most definitely a hacker, but I'm also definitely not a cracker.
I think I prefer the terms white/grey/blackhat, though. It's much clearer.
joe we still need to work on your table manners
Quote from: iago on August 02, 2008, 11:08:23 PM
Quote from: Rule on August 02, 2008, 11:02:42 PM
I've had this discussion many times, and it's always boring, pedantic, and irritating. I'm sick of idiots trying to elevate themselves through bullshit issues like this. (e.g. hacker vs cracker)
It may be boring and pedantic, but it's also a pretty important distinction. For example, I am most definitely a hacker, but I'm also definitely not a cracker.
I think I prefer the terms white/grey/blackhat, though. It's much clearer.
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.
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. (http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12861.msg159325.html#msg159325)
Quote from: Joe on August 02, 2008, 11:36:05 PM
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. (http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12861.msg159325.html#msg159325)
Don't misquote me. It makes you look stupid when my post is on the same page. Also there is no argument.
Quote from: Rule on August 02, 2008, 11:28:22 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Rule on August 02, 2008, 11:39:43 PM
Quote from: Joe on August 02, 2008, 11:36:05 PM
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. (http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12861.msg159325.html#msg159325)
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.
Quote from: while1 on August 03, 2008, 12:18:37 AM
Quote from: Rule on August 02, 2008, 11:39:43 PM
Quote from: Joe on August 02, 2008, 11:36:05 PM
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. (http://forum.x86labs.org/index.php/topic,12861.msg159325.html#msg159325)
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.
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.
Quote from: iago on August 03, 2008, 12:12:21 AM
Quote from: Rule on August 02, 2008, 11:28:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Rule on August 03, 2008, 02:45:26 AM
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!
Quote from: iago on August 03, 2008, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rule on August 03, 2008, 02:45:26 AM
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.
Well vim is even better.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/real_programmers.png)
Quote from: iago on August 03, 2008, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: Rule on August 03, 2008, 02:45:26 AM
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.