PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
edited May 2004
The original definition of hacker has nothing to do with computers. You can argue all you want about how your "elite" definition is more "right" than the one the majority uses, but since they are both "wrong" the one that is used more wins, and I don't need to tell you which one that is.
[edit] something I might not have made clear in my post: I don't care what definition you use. So you have your own definition for a word, there's nothing wrong with that, but you aren't in a position to complain about the other one. [/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin-Pulse+May 19 2004, 04:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pulse @ May 19 2004, 04:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The original definition of hacker has nothing to do with computers. You can argue all you want about how your "elite" definition is more "right" than the one the majority uses, but since they are both "wrong" the one that is used more wins, and I don't need to tell you which one that is.
[edit] something I might not have made clear in my post: I don't care what definition you use. So you have your own definition for a word, there's nothing wrong with that, but you aren't in a position to complain about the other one. [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course we have a right to complain about something that directly relates to us. It espiecially directly relates to my future career so I hope that I can complain about it. Now it doesn't mean I will achieve anything meriting people changing it in their everyday life because I know thats not going to happen. It's more to show you how many people feel about its usage. Its just like using derogatory words against other people. Do you like people yelling deterogatory terms at you.
Its a word it has feeling and meaning behind it. It may mean nothing to you but it does to some people.
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+May 19 2004, 10:59 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ May 19 2004, 10:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Its a word it has feeling and meaning behind it. It may mean nothing to you but it does to some people. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well the point is that it DOES mean something to us, just something different than it does to you, and when a word is slang it is defined by useage, not by what any one person (except Webster) has to say about it.
Calling someone a hacker isn't necessarily a derogitory term either. Personally I have the upmost respect for all the people I know that I would call hackers. They are very intelligent and most are motivated simply by a sense of curiousity or to test their own abilties with code, these are quite admirable traits. Simply becuase someone uses a term "incorrectly" according to you doesn't automatically mean it is an insult.
Just because someone says it incorrectly doesn't mean it is a insult. I am saying that it is commonly used most of the time real 'hackers' consider it an insult. I am telling you how some people feel about this.
If it really bugs you that much, why don't you hack into the dictionary and define it so you can walk around proving how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.
Don't forget to "stick it" to "the man" and blame "the media" while you're at it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 19 2004, 08:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 19 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-esuna+May 18 2004, 08:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (esuna @ May 18 2004, 08:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[esuna's post]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
Mind if I start calling you 'emo'? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> you attempted to insult somebody, mind if i call you a flamer?
WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this thread is like a bad carnival ride, just getting my jollies in before it gets closed..... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+May 19 2004, 10:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ May 19 2004, 10:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 19 2004, 08:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 19 2004, 08:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-esuna+May 18 2004, 08:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (esuna @ May 18 2004, 08:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[esuna's post]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
Mind if I start calling you 'emo'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> you attempted to insult somebody, mind if i call you a flamer?
i believe we're at an agreement here <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There was no insult or hostility in my last post, but there was in yours.
I asked Ensuna a legitimate question. To him, they are just silly definitions, right? So what does it matter if I call him 'emo'? He shouldn't care, right?
You post made absolutely no sense because definitions do matter to me, and I never said they didn't. I was trying to make a point with ensuna. So not only was your reply completely illogical, but you are trying to flamebait me right now.
All I did was use ensuna's logic against himself. If you can't understand this approach, then please don't repond.
Hate to tell you this but language is shaped by how the word is used. If 90% of the population started using 'Flurglemarj' to mean 'Dance', it'd eventually make its way into the dictionary.
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span>
If it really bugs you that much, why don't you hack into the dictionary and define it so you can walk around proving how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.
Don't forget to "stick it" to "the man" and blame "the media" while you're at it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
Mind if I start calling you 'emo'? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. When you call him "emo" you are mis-using the term because you are going against the common definition. When someone uses the term "hacker" they are going WITH the common definition.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 19 2004, 09:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 19 2004, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hate to tell you this but language is shaped by how the word is used. If 90% of the population started using 'Flurglemarj' to mean 'Dance', it'd eventually make its way into the dictionary.
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
BTW, Most people are using the definition they believe in but a lot of people don't AGREE with that definition so when you use it, even if you are using a different definition, your still going to offend them.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+May 20 2004, 12:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ May 20 2004, 12:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [rant] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> i would explain it, but that would take too long
to keep this thread on topic and as flame free as possible, let us continue as if forlorn had never missed that
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+May 20 2004, 06:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ May 20 2004, 06:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 19 2004, 09:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 19 2004, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hate to tell you this but language is shaped by how the word is used. If 90% of the population started using 'Flurglemarj' to mean 'Dance', it'd eventually make its way into the dictionary.
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
BTW, Most people are using the definition they believe in but a lot of people don't AGREE with that definition so when you use it, even if you are using a different definition, your still going to offend them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Magazine vs. Clip
Every psychotic gun-swinging lunatic has a stroke when you say 'Load another clip in my gun' and screams that you're a fool and 'it's called a magazine FFS!!!!' but almost every dictionary under the sun defines clip as a 'cartridge for holding ammunition'. When semi- and full-automatic firearms first came to be, no one called it a 'clip' (that term was expressely used for weapons like the M1 Garand which literally uses a bunch of bullets clipped into a metal frame), but over time, more people called an ammo cartridge a 'clip', so by all rights, a magazine is a clip.
You might not like being called a 'Hacker' or 'Cracker' and having the negative definition with it, but that's the way it's going to be, and it probably will not change.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 21 2004, 12:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 21 2004, 12:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+May 20 2004, 06:29 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ May 20 2004, 06:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 19 2004, 09:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 19 2004, 09:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hate to tell you this but language is shaped by how the word is used. If 90% of the population started using 'Flurglemarj' to mean 'Dance', it'd eventually make its way into the dictionary.
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
BTW, Most people are using the definition they believe in but a lot of people don't AGREE with that definition so when you use it, even if you are using a different definition, your still going to offend them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Magazine vs. Clip
Every psychotic gun-swinging lunatic has a stroke when you say 'Load another clip in my gun' and screams that you're a fool and 'it's called a magazine FFS!!!!' but almost every dictionary under the sun defines clip as a 'cartridge for holding ammunition'. When semi- and full-automatic firearms first came to be, no one called it a 'clip' (that term was expressely used for weapons like the M1 Garand which literally uses a bunch of bullets clipped into a metal frame), but over time, more people called an ammo cartridge a 'clip', so by all rights, a magazine is a clip.
You might not like being called a 'Hacker' or 'Cracker' and having the negative definition with it, but that's the way it's going to be, and it probably will not change. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not entirely the same thing.
To someone who's sensitive to the differences between the terms "cracker" and "hacker", it's almost an insult to call a lowlife who has nothing better to do than break into people's machines and mess them up a "hacker", since the term traditionally applies to a talented computer expert who has contributed enough to their community to earn the title, out of respect.
It's like calling someone a "master" when you should call them a "theif"; it's insulting to people who deserve the title "master" to be effectively categorised into the same lot as theives, because people use the term "master" when they shouldn't. It's <i>not</i> the same as misuse of technical jargon (clip\magazine). Calling a clip a magazine is more akin to calling a monitor a computer.
I'm not denying that the term "hacker" has been stained badly by the media, and in a way, computer wizardry has as well (see above relevant post by Black Mage). Considering this, it's silly to get offended by it. But that doesn't mean that, now that you guys know the difference, you shouldn't at least make an effort to use the right terms.
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+May 20 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ May 20 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To someone who's sensitive to the differences between the terms "cracker" and "hacker", I feel they need to grow a thicker skin and stop messing their pants over a definition of a word. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed.
<!--QuoteBegin-MedHead+May 21 2004, 04:20 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MedHead @ May 21 2004, 04:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+May 20 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ May 20 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To someone who's sensitive to the differences between the terms "cracker" and "hacker", I feel they need to grow a thicker skin and stop messing their pants over a definition of a word. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Fixed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You've already made your opinion clear; there's no need to flamebait.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+May 18 2004, 10:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ May 18 2004, 10:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I find that too many people nowadays confuse the term hacker with the correct term cracker.
The definition of a Hacker is one who is excellent at computer programming and solving computer problems.
A Cracker is one who unlawfully attempts to, or gains access to computer information that was not in this persons posession.
The only reason people use hackers as a term for cracker is due to the media's ignorance. They have misrepresented the term Hacker and have given it a bad rep.
I hope everyone will try to correct themselves when they say hacker with a negative connotation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You lost the war, face it. The definition of hacker, like the definitions of a lot of other words, is changing.
'fraid you can't keep claiming to have the "correct" definition when the majority disagrees.
You have the original definition, true. But the correct one is another matter entirely.
Next time I see someone cheating in NS I'll call them a 'Cracker' and see what the reaction will be. Most likely, they'll take the term 'Cracker' to mean 'You're crackers' (ie: nuts).
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+May 20 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ May 20 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To someone who's sensitive to the differences between the terms "cracker" and "hacker", it's almost an insult to call a lowlife who has nothing better to do than break into people's machines and mess them up a "hacker", since the term traditionally applies to a talented computer expert who has contributed enough to their community to earn the title, out of respect. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Anyone who is so "sensitive" to the difference between the terms "hacker" and "cracker" sounds like a pretty elitist person. They insist that the masses agree with them simply because they say so, and about such a small thing as a word no less. Really, if the old "hackers" are so concerned with loosing their title to madern hackers, they should just make up a new title and stop complaining to everyone else to change the way they use their slang merely to give them their prestigious status back.
That kind of thinking will just lead to further segregation, and in the end, it's the hackers who define and determine how all the systems [not just computers] work, and when you have problems, the only people you can turn to, are the people you cast aside because you decided that their problem wasn't worth considering.
<!--QuoteBegin-AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+May 21 2004, 07:02 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ May 21 2004, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+May 20 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ May 20 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To someone who's sensitive to the differences between the terms "cracker" and "hacker", it's almost an insult to call a lowlife who has nothing better to do than break into people's machines and mess them up a "hacker", since the term traditionally applies to a talented computer expert who has contributed enough to their community to earn the title, out of respect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Anyone who is so "sensitive" to the difference between the terms "hacker" and "cracker" sounds like a pretty elitist person. They insist that the masses agree with them simply because they say so, and about such a small thing as a word no less. Really, if the old "hackers" are so concerned with loosing their title to madern hackers, they should just make up a new title and stop complaining to everyone else to change the way they use their slang merely to give them their prestigious status back.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, it would be elitist <i>if</i> there was very little difference between hackers and crackers. There actually is a very big difference. Hackers are not a subset of crackers, nor are crackers a subset of hackers.
Crackers get their jollies from breaking security for mallicious purposes, such as stealing sensitive information (and before you say it, yes, I know what your opinion is on the value of information. Can we just put that aside for a moment and agree that, to most of the corporate world, information <i>does</i> have a very real value?), and other types of causing damage and harm. They don't have to be technically skilled, either. They just have to know how to exploit a security hole.
A hacker may posess the technical knowledge necessary to find such holes, but that's not what they... do. Hackers are intensely fascinated with their chosen aspect of computers, and know practically everything there is to know about it, as well as being highly technically competant.
It's a little difficult to describe this to a non-programmer (and that's <i>not</i> elitism on my part. I say it's hard to describe because it's hard to describe - not because it's difficult to understand. But I digress), but I'll try using an example of a master car mechanic (and I don't claim to have exceptional knowledge of automobiles, so if there's something critically wrong with this analogy then I apologise in advance). Anyway. Let's say they know every single part in a car - exactly what it does, how it's made, how it fits with the other parts, the noise it makes when everything's running ok, the noise it makes when it's not running well. Let's say they can perform incredible feats of technical wizardry on cars to make them more efficient (faster, cleaner, less wear on the parts, etc).
Now, someone with this phenomenal skill with cars is going to know all kinds of subtle ways of causing terrible damage to a car, maybe even so subtle that you don't know how or what they've done, and only know about it when your car suddenly breaks when you're out on the road. More realistically: with such incredible knowledge of how cars work, they would know <i>exactly</i> how to compromise the security of a car and, well, steal it. Yes, they know about how to do damage to cars, but that's not what they <i>do</i>. They fix cars. Maybe they even put together buggies out of spare parts. And the reason why they have such incredible talent with cars is because they're utterly fascinated by them, and they love what they do. They have a burning thirst for knowledge of how cars work. Maybe it's only a specific kind of vehicle.
My point is, a hacker, in the true sense of the term, is like the car mechanic. The difference between a master car mechanic and a thug who knows how to get a locked car's door open and hotwire it is enormous, and it doesn't end simply with motive. The thug probably doesn't give two ****s about how the car works, other than the knowledge required to steal it and drive it. Maybe they do. Maybe they even have advanced knowledge of cars, and a fascination with them. Perhaps they're even master mechanics themselves.
But imagine how ludicrous it would be if you assumed that every mechanic was a car theif! Even worse, if you couldn't tell the difference between car theives and master mechanics (or, more to the point, <i>don't care, and consider the difference a trivial, elitist distinction</i>), so you call them by the same label!
So, finally, please understand that my point isn't that it's unfair and terrible and a crime to use the wrong terms, nor that calling a hacker a cracker is liable to make them collapse in a blubbering heap. *rolls eyes* pfft. My point is that the distinction is <i>not</i> trivial, nor is it merely technical, nor is it difficult or an inconvenience to use the correct terms!
<!--QuoteBegin-Black Mage+May 20 2004, 10:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Black Mage @ May 20 2004, 10:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Useless post <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Did you say something?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. When you call him "emo" you are mis-using the term because you are going against the common definition. When someone uses the term "hacker" they are going WITH the common definition. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You miss the point, and yet prove my point nicely. There is no more of a common definition to 'hacker' than there is 'emo'.
And I figured Ensuna wouldn't respond to me, because the question I asked is pretty much uncounterable.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 20 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 20 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Next time I see someone cheating in NS I'll call them a 'Cracker' and see what the reaction will be. Most likely, they'll take the term 'Cracker' to mean 'You're crackers' (ie: nuts). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you ever heard of the term cheater? I don't see why you would call some CHEATING a HACKER. Do you see where I am getting with this?
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+May 20 2004, 08:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ May 20 2004, 08:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Yes, it would be elitist <i>if</i> there was very little difference between hackers and crackers. There actually is a very big difference. Hackers are not a subset of crackers, nor are crackers a subset of hackers.
Crackers get their jollies from breaking security for mallicious purposes, such as stealing sensitive information (and before you say it, yes, I know what your opinion is on the value of information. Can we just put that aside for a moment and agree that, to most of the corporate world, information <i>does</i> have a very real value?), and other types of causing damage and harm. They don't have to be technically skilled, either. They just have to know how to exploit a security hole.
A hacker may posess the technical knowledge necessary to find such holes, but that's not what they... do. Hackers are intensely fascinated with their chosen aspect of computers, and know practically everything there is to know about it, as well as being highly technically competant.
It's a little difficult to describe this to a non-programmer (and that's <i>not</i> elitism on my part. I say it's hard to describe because it's hard to describe - not because it's difficult to understand. But I digress), but I'll try using an example of a master car mechanic (and I don't claim to have exceptional knowledge of automobiles, so if there's something critically wrong with this analogy then I apologise in advance). Anyway. Let's say they know every single part in a car - exactly what it does, how it's made, how it fits with the other parts, the noise it makes when everything's running ok, the noise it makes when it's not running well. Let's say they can perform incredible feats of technical wizardry on cars to make them more efficient (faster, cleaner, less wear on the parts, etc).
Now, someone with this phenomenal skill with cars is going to know all kinds of subtle ways of causing terrible damage to a car, maybe even so subtle that you don't know how or what they've done, and only know about it when your car suddenly breaks when you're out on the road. More realistically: with such incredible knowledge of how cars work, they would know <i>exactly</i> how to compromise the security of a car and, well, steal it. Yes, they know about how to do damage to cars, but that's not what they <i>do</i>. They fix cars. Maybe they even put together buggies out of spare parts. And the reason why they have such incredible talent with cars is because they're utterly fascinated by them, and they love what they do. They have a burning thirst for knowledge of how cars work. Maybe it's only a specific kind of vehicle.
My point is, a hacker, in the true sense of the term, is like the car mechanic. The difference between a master car mechanic and a thug who knows how to get a locked car's door open and hotwire it is enormous, and it doesn't end simply with motive. The thug probably doesn't give two ****s about how the car works, other than the knowledge required to steal it and drive it. Maybe they do. Maybe they even have advanced knowledge of cars, and a fascination with them. Perhaps they're even master mechanics themselves.
But imagine how ludicrous it would be if you assumed that every mechanic was a car theif! Even worse, if you couldn't tell the difference between car theives and master mechanics (or, more to the point, <i>don't care, and consider the difference a trivial, elitist distinction</i>), so you call them by the same label!
So, finally, please understand that my point isn't that it's unfair and terrible and a crime to use the wrong terms, nor that calling a hacker a cracker is liable to make them collapse in a blubbering heap. *rolls eyes* pfft. My point is that the distinction is <i>not</i> trivial, nor is it merely technical, nor is it difficult or an inconvenience to use the correct terms! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> All right, all you're doing here is redifining what being a hacker USED to mean. We are concerned with what it means NOW, and frankly what you say has no bearing on this. It's all about popular opinion, and popular opinion says (more or less) that a hacker="someone who finds holes in security and exploits them for purposes of curiosity or to prove that they can" and a cracker="someone who hacks merely for the purposes of destroy information." If nearly everyone (and I can be reasonably sure most everyose does this, literally EVERY person I know outside of this particular thread uses the term hacker "incorrectly" even people you would describeh as hackers) uses slang (which is always defined by the culture that uses it) "incorrectly", how can they be wrong? The majority is the group that defines slang in the first place. And anyone who says "This word means this simply because I say so" about such a concept is inherintly elitist. Can you give a reason WHY hacker has such a set meaning (besides "tradition" which is a useless reason when talking about slang)? Is it in the dictionary? Can you give me the genealogy of the word from its latin roots? Heck the word itself sounds like someone would "hack" apart some code, exploiting its weakness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You miss the point, and yet prove my point nicely. There is no more of a common definition to 'hacker' than there is 'emo'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course there's a common definition to hacker, basically it's someone who exploits security holes and code to mess with said code or gain access through said security, usually for reletively benign purposes. And Emo is a kind of music that has heavy derivations from punk, but it usually more melodious and (most) of its ceontent deals with sadness, breakups, or other "deep" topics. Although this definition isn't going to cover all variations, I'd say most people would agree with me that these are pretty much the common defintions at this time. Anyone who used the term "emo" to describe Esuna in a non-joking manner would probably get laughed out of the room, because most people use the common definition, which would not be Esuna.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jim has Skillz+May 21 2004, 05:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Jim has Skillz @ May 21 2004, 05:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-EEK+May 20 2004, 02:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ May 20 2004, 02:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Next time I see someone cheating in NS I'll call them a 'Cracker' and see what the reaction will be. Most likely, they'll take the term 'Cracker' to mean 'You're crackers' (ie: nuts). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Have you ever heard of the term cheater? I don't see why you would call some CHEATING a HACKER. Do you see where I am getting with this? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> that and most cheaters are pathetic script kiddies, refer to them as such
PulseTo create, to create and escape.Join Date: 2002-08-29Member: 1248Members, Constellation
<!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+May 20 2004, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ May 20 2004, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[post explaining to us something we already understand but disagree with]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your entire argument revolves around the "Traditional" definition of the word. Allow me to point out the big gaping hole, in an annoyingly large font, because you seem to have missed it the first time:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><b>The traditional definition of "Hacker" has nothing to do with computers</b></span>.
Your definition is not correct, because of popular usage, and was never correct, because you did not invent the word. Let's say a bunch of car mechanics decide that they want to call themselves thieves. Eventually, thief takes on a different meaning for everyone else, and then the car mechanic "Thieves" get mad at everyone else for using the word "Incorrectly" despite doing the same thing themselves. That is what you are doing.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pulse+May 21 2004, 08:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pulse @ May 21 2004, 08:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SoulSkorpion+May 20 2004, 05:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SoulSkorpion @ May 20 2004, 05:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[post explaining to us something we already understand but disagree with]<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your entire argument revolves around the "Traditional" definition of the word. Allow me to point out the big gaping hole, in an annoyingly large font, because you seem to have missed it the first time:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><b>The traditional definition of "Hacker" has nothing to do with computers</b></span>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Er... It <i>does</i>. Sorry. Read <a href='http://info.astrian.net/jargon/' target='_blank'>this</a> and then get back to me. AllUrHive raises a far more valid point, one which I'm going to need to think about and reply to some time other than right after I've woken up (ie, now).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyone who used the term "emo" to describe Esuna in a non-joking manner would probably get laughed out of the room, because most people use the common definition, which would not be Esuna.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there you run into a loop-hole.
Do you honestly think the majority of the populace out there knows what 'emo' means? It's no more than us knowing the difference between cracker and hacker. I'm sure in the actual elite programming circles the two words are used, to diferentiate from the two, but go just a little outside of said group, and people just use what's easier for them. If it were easier for me to call ensuna emo because I don't know what else to call him (if for some strange reason I felt the need to place him in an MTV group (LOL), which is kind of absurd by works for this discussion), then I must be as ignorant as those who refuse the acknoledge the difference between a cracker and hacker.
Thing is, I personally could care less about these weird slang definitions, I would probably call someone hacker or emo depending on anything, but the reason I bring this point up is that, boy, do I hate double-standards.
Hack - and more importantly quick hack - is to put something together in a program quickly to get the job done, but not necessarilly in the most efficent way. Angband and ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery), are famous Roguelike games that contain hundreds and perhaps THOUSANDS of hacks and qhacks (quick hacks) to get a job done. because of this, they are often very buggy and have noodle-like-tangled coding, as well.
I belive the whole "hacker" thing began with some early game where someone made the first wallhack. thus said people, when accused, were called "hackers" or "to wallhack". They were also probably called hackers as they qhacked all their programs together having very tangled and messy code. (remember what a qhack is? look up.)
just some assumptions and theories using what i know. (No, you can't cheat in ADOM or Angband because of the qhacks and hacks in the game. However, you could exploit the bugs they have or have caused; too bad they crash the game 9/10 times)
Comments
[edit] something I might not have made clear in my post: I don't care what definition you use. So you have your own definition for a word, there's nothing wrong with that, but you aren't in a position to complain about the other one. [/edit]
[edit] something I might not have made clear in my post: I don't care what definition you use. So you have your own definition for a word, there's nothing wrong with that, but you aren't in a position to complain about the other one. [/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course we have a right to complain about something that directly relates to us. It espiecially directly relates to my future career so I hope that I can complain about it. Now it doesn't mean I will achieve anything meriting people changing it in their everyday life because I know thats not going to happen. It's more to show you how many people feel about its usage. Its just like using derogatory words against other people. Do you like people yelling deterogatory terms at you.
Its a word it has feeling and meaning behind it. It may mean nothing to you but it does to some people.
Well the point is that it DOES mean something to us, just something different than it does to you, and when a word is slang it is defined by useage, not by what any one person (except Webster) has to say about it.
Calling someone a hacker isn't necessarily a derogitory term either. Personally I have the upmost respect for all the people I know that I would call hackers. They are very intelligent and most are motivated simply by a sense of curiousity or to test their own abilties with code, these are quite admirable traits. Simply becuase someone uses a term "incorrectly" according to you doesn't automatically mean it is an insult.
If it really bugs you that much, why don't you hack into the dictionary and define it so you can walk around proving how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.
Don't forget to "stick it" to "the man" and blame "the media" while you're at it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
Mind if I start calling you 'emo'?
If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
Mind if I start calling you 'emo'? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
you attempted to insult somebody, mind if i call you a flamer?
i believe we're at an agreement here
this thread is like a bad carnival ride, just getting my jollies in before it gets closed..... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
Mind if I start calling you 'emo'? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
you attempted to insult somebody, mind if i call you a flamer?
i believe we're at an agreement here <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There was no insult or hostility in my last post, but there was in yours.
I asked Ensuna a legitimate question. To him, they are just silly definitions, right? So what does it matter if I call him 'emo'? He shouldn't care, right?
You post made absolutely no sense because definitions do matter to me, and I never said they didn't. I was trying to make a point with ensuna. So not only was your reply completely illogical, but you are trying to flamebait me right now.
All I did was use ensuna's logic against himself. If you can't understand this approach, then please don't repond.
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span>
If it really bugs you that much, why don't you hack into the dictionary and define it so you can walk around proving how right you are and how wrong everyone else is.
Don't forget to "stick it" to "the man" and blame "the media" while you're at it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I'm not mistaken, you are into trance music (or punk or whatever and you dress a bit differently), no?
Mind if I start calling you 'emo'? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. When you call him "emo" you are mis-using the term because you are going against the common definition. When someone uses the term "hacker" they are going WITH the common definition.
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
BTW, Most people are using the definition they believe in but a lot of people don't AGREE with that definition so when you use it, even if you are using a different definition, your still going to offend them.
i would explain it, but that would take too long
to keep this thread on topic and as flame free as possible, let us continue as if forlorn had never missed that
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
BTW, Most people are using the definition they believe in but a lot of people don't AGREE with that definition so when you use it, even if you are using a different definition, your still going to offend them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Magazine vs. Clip
Every psychotic gun-swinging lunatic has a stroke when you say 'Load another clip in my gun' and screams that you're a fool and 'it's called a magazine FFS!!!!' but almost every dictionary under the sun defines clip as a 'cartridge for holding ammunition'. When semi- and full-automatic firearms first came to be, no one called it a 'clip' (that term was expressely used for weapons like the M1 Garand which literally uses a bunch of bullets clipped into a metal frame), but over time, more people called an ammo cartridge a 'clip', so by all rights, a magazine is a clip.
You might not like being called a 'Hacker' or 'Cracker' and having the negative definition with it, but that's the way it's going to be, and it probably will not change.
<span style='color:white'>You want me to change a few things about your account?</span><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<span style='color:white'>Be nice.</span>
BTW, Most people are using the definition they believe in but a lot of people don't AGREE with that definition so when you use it, even if you are using a different definition, your still going to offend them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Magazine vs. Clip
Every psychotic gun-swinging lunatic has a stroke when you say 'Load another clip in my gun' and screams that you're a fool and 'it's called a magazine FFS!!!!' but almost every dictionary under the sun defines clip as a 'cartridge for holding ammunition'. When semi- and full-automatic firearms first came to be, no one called it a 'clip' (that term was expressely used for weapons like the M1 Garand which literally uses a bunch of bullets clipped into a metal frame), but over time, more people called an ammo cartridge a 'clip', so by all rights, a magazine is a clip.
You might not like being called a 'Hacker' or 'Cracker' and having the negative definition with it, but that's the way it's going to be, and it probably will not change. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not entirely the same thing.
To someone who's sensitive to the differences between the terms "cracker" and "hacker", it's almost an insult to call a lowlife who has nothing better to do than break into people's machines and mess them up a "hacker", since the term traditionally applies to a talented computer expert who has contributed enough to their community to earn the title, out of respect.
It's like calling someone a "master" when you should call them a "theif"; it's insulting to people who deserve the title "master" to be effectively categorised into the same lot as theives, because people use the term "master" when they shouldn't. It's <i>not</i> the same as misuse of technical jargon (clip\magazine). Calling a clip a magazine is more akin to calling a monitor a computer.
I'm not denying that the term "hacker" has been stained badly by the media, and in a way, computer wizardry has as well (see above relevant post by Black Mage). Considering this, it's silly to get offended by it. But that doesn't mean that, now that you guys know the difference, you shouldn't at least make an effort to use the right terms.
Fixed.
Fixed. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You've already made your opinion clear; there's no need to flamebait.
The definition of a Hacker is one who is excellent at computer programming and solving computer problems.
A Cracker is one who unlawfully attempts to, or gains access to computer information that was not in this persons posession.
The only reason people use hackers as a term for cracker is due to the media's ignorance. They have misrepresented the term Hacker and have given it a bad rep.
I hope everyone will try to correct themselves when they say hacker with a negative connotation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You lost the war, face it. The definition of hacker, like the definitions of a lot of other words, is changing.
'fraid you can't keep claiming to have the "correct" definition when the majority disagrees.
You have the original definition, true. But the correct one is another matter entirely.
Anyone who is so "sensitive" to the difference between the terms "hacker" and "cracker" sounds like a pretty elitist person. They insist that the masses agree with them simply because they say so, and about such a small thing as a word no less. Really, if the old "hackers" are so concerned with loosing their title to madern hackers, they should just make up a new title and stop complaining to everyone else to change the way they use their slang merely to give them their prestigious status back.
Anyone who is so "sensitive" to the difference between the terms "hacker" and "cracker" sounds like a pretty elitist person. They insist that the masses agree with them simply because they say so, and about such a small thing as a word no less. Really, if the old "hackers" are so concerned with loosing their title to madern hackers, they should just make up a new title and stop complaining to everyone else to change the way they use their slang merely to give them their prestigious status back.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, it would be elitist <i>if</i> there was very little difference between hackers and crackers. There actually is a very big difference. Hackers are not a subset of crackers, nor are crackers a subset of hackers.
Crackers get their jollies from breaking security for mallicious purposes, such as stealing sensitive information (and before you say it, yes, I know what your opinion is on the value of information. Can we just put that aside for a moment and agree that, to most of the corporate world, information <i>does</i> have a very real value?), and other types of causing damage and harm. They don't have to be technically skilled, either. They just have to know how to exploit a security hole.
A hacker may posess the technical knowledge necessary to find such holes, but that's not what they... do. Hackers are intensely fascinated with their chosen aspect of computers, and know practically everything there is to know about it, as well as being highly technically competant.
It's a little difficult to describe this to a non-programmer (and that's <i>not</i> elitism on my part. I say it's hard to describe because it's hard to describe - not because it's difficult to understand. But I digress), but I'll try using an example of a master car mechanic (and I don't claim to have exceptional knowledge of automobiles, so if there's something critically wrong with this analogy then I apologise in advance). Anyway. Let's say they know every single part in a car - exactly what it does, how it's made, how it fits with the other parts, the noise it makes when everything's running ok, the noise it makes when it's not running well. Let's say they can perform incredible feats of technical wizardry on cars to make them more efficient (faster, cleaner, less wear on the parts, etc).
Now, someone with this phenomenal skill with cars is going to know all kinds of subtle ways of causing terrible damage to a car, maybe even so subtle that you don't know how or what they've done, and only know about it when your car suddenly breaks when you're out on the road. More realistically: with such incredible knowledge of how cars work, they would know <i>exactly</i> how to compromise the security of a car and, well, steal it. Yes, they know about how to do damage to cars, but that's not what they <i>do</i>. They fix cars. Maybe they even put together buggies out of spare parts. And the reason why they have such incredible talent with cars is because they're utterly fascinated by them, and they love what they do. They have a burning thirst for knowledge of how cars work. Maybe it's only a specific kind of vehicle.
My point is, a hacker, in the true sense of the term, is like the car mechanic. The difference between a master car mechanic and a thug who knows how to get a locked car's door open and hotwire it is enormous, and it doesn't end simply with motive. The thug probably doesn't give two ****s about how the car works, other than the knowledge required to steal it and drive it. Maybe they do. Maybe they even have advanced knowledge of cars, and a fascination with them. Perhaps they're even master mechanics themselves.
But imagine how ludicrous it would be if you assumed that every mechanic was a car theif! Even worse, if you couldn't tell the difference between car theives and master mechanics (or, more to the point, <i>don't care, and consider the difference a trivial, elitist distinction</i>), so you call them by the same label!
So, finally, please understand that my point isn't that it's unfair and terrible and a crime to use the wrong terms, nor that calling a hacker a cracker is liable to make them collapse in a blubbering heap. *rolls eyes* pfft. My point is that the distinction is <i>not</i> trivial, nor is it merely technical, nor is it difficult or an inconvenience to use the correct terms!
Did you say something?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That has NOTHING to do with the argument at hand. When you call him "emo" you are mis-using the term because you are going against the common definition. When someone uses the term "hacker" they are going WITH the common definition.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You miss the point, and yet prove my point nicely. There is no more of a common definition to 'hacker' than there is 'emo'.
And I figured Ensuna wouldn't respond to me, because the question I asked is pretty much uncounterable.
Have you ever heard of the term cheater? I don't see why you would call some CHEATING a HACKER. Do you see where I am getting with this?
Crackers get their jollies from breaking security for mallicious purposes, such as stealing sensitive information (and before you say it, yes, I know what your opinion is on the value of information. Can we just put that aside for a moment and agree that, to most of the corporate world, information <i>does</i> have a very real value?), and other types of causing damage and harm. They don't have to be technically skilled, either. They just have to know how to exploit a security hole.
A hacker may posess the technical knowledge necessary to find such holes, but that's not what they... do. Hackers are intensely fascinated with their chosen aspect of computers, and know practically everything there is to know about it, as well as being highly technically competant.
It's a little difficult to describe this to a non-programmer (and that's <i>not</i> elitism on my part. I say it's hard to describe because it's hard to describe - not because it's difficult to understand. But I digress), but I'll try using an example of a master car mechanic (and I don't claim to have exceptional knowledge of automobiles, so if there's something critically wrong with this analogy then I apologise in advance). Anyway. Let's say they know every single part in a car - exactly what it does, how it's made, how it fits with the other parts, the noise it makes when everything's running ok, the noise it makes when it's not running well. Let's say they can perform incredible feats of technical wizardry on cars to make them more efficient (faster, cleaner, less wear on the parts, etc).
Now, someone with this phenomenal skill with cars is going to know all kinds of subtle ways of causing terrible damage to a car, maybe even so subtle that you don't know how or what they've done, and only know about it when your car suddenly breaks when you're out on the road. More realistically: with such incredible knowledge of how cars work, they would know <i>exactly</i> how to compromise the security of a car and, well, steal it. Yes, they know about how to do damage to cars, but that's not what they <i>do</i>. They fix cars. Maybe they even put together buggies out of spare parts. And the reason why they have such incredible talent with cars is because they're utterly fascinated by them, and they love what they do. They have a burning thirst for knowledge of how cars work. Maybe it's only a specific kind of vehicle.
My point is, a hacker, in the true sense of the term, is like the car mechanic. The difference between a master car mechanic and a thug who knows how to get a locked car's door open and hotwire it is enormous, and it doesn't end simply with motive. The thug probably doesn't give two ****s about how the car works, other than the knowledge required to steal it and drive it. Maybe they do. Maybe they even have advanced knowledge of cars, and a fascination with them. Perhaps they're even master mechanics themselves.
But imagine how ludicrous it would be if you assumed that every mechanic was a car theif! Even worse, if you couldn't tell the difference between car theives and master mechanics (or, more to the point, <i>don't care, and consider the difference a trivial, elitist distinction</i>), so you call them by the same label!
So, finally, please understand that my point isn't that it's unfair and terrible and a crime to use the wrong terms, nor that calling a hacker a cracker is liable to make them collapse in a blubbering heap. *rolls eyes* pfft. My point is that the distinction is <i>not</i> trivial, nor is it merely technical, nor is it difficult or an inconvenience to use the correct terms! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
All right, all you're doing here is redifining what being a hacker USED to mean. We are concerned with what it means NOW, and frankly what you say has no bearing on this. It's all about popular opinion, and popular opinion says (more or less) that a hacker="someone who finds holes in security and exploits them for purposes of curiosity or to prove that they can" and a cracker="someone who hacks merely for the purposes of destroy information." If nearly everyone (and I can be reasonably sure most everyose does this, literally EVERY person I know outside of this particular thread uses the term hacker "incorrectly" even people you would describeh as hackers) uses slang (which is always defined by the culture that uses it) "incorrectly", how can they be wrong? The majority is the group that defines slang in the first place. And anyone who says "This word means this simply because I say so" about such a concept is inherintly elitist. Can you give a reason WHY hacker has such a set meaning (besides "tradition" which is a useless reason when talking about slang)? Is it in the dictionary? Can you give me the genealogy of the word from its latin roots? Heck the word itself sounds like someone would "hack" apart some code, exploiting its weakness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You miss the point, and yet prove my point nicely. There is no more of a common definition to 'hacker' than there is 'emo'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course there's a common definition to hacker, basically it's someone who exploits security holes and code to mess with said code or gain access through said security, usually for reletively benign purposes. And Emo is a kind of music that has heavy derivations from punk, but it usually more melodious and (most) of its ceontent deals with sadness, breakups, or other "deep" topics. Although this definition isn't going to cover all variations, I'd say most people would agree with me that these are pretty much the common defintions at this time. Anyone who used the term "emo" to describe Esuna in a non-joking manner would probably get laughed out of the room, because most people use the common definition, which would not be Esuna.
Have you ever heard of the term cheater? I don't see why you would call some CHEATING a HACKER. Do you see where I am getting with this? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
that and most cheaters are pathetic script kiddies, refer to them as such
Your entire argument revolves around the "Traditional" definition of the word. Allow me to point out the big gaping hole, in an annoyingly large font, because you seem to have missed it the first time:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><b>The traditional definition of "Hacker" has nothing to do with computers</b></span>.
Your definition is not correct, because of popular usage, and was never correct, because you did not invent the word. Let's say a bunch of car mechanics decide that they want to call themselves thieves. Eventually, thief takes on a different meaning for everyone else, and then the car mechanic "Thieves" get mad at everyone else for using the word "Incorrectly" despite doing the same thing themselves. That is what you are doing.
Your entire argument revolves around the "Traditional" definition of the word. Allow me to point out the big gaping hole, in an annoyingly large font, because you seem to have missed it the first time:
<span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><b>The traditional definition of "Hacker" has nothing to do with computers</b></span>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Er... It <i>does</i>. Sorry. Read <a href='http://info.astrian.net/jargon/' target='_blank'>this</a> and then get back to me. AllUrHive raises a far more valid point, one which I'm going to need to think about and reply to some time other than right after I've woken up (ie, now).
And there you run into a loop-hole.
Do you honestly think the majority of the populace out there knows what 'emo' means? It's no more than us knowing the difference between cracker and hacker. I'm sure in the actual elite programming circles the two words are used, to diferentiate from the two, but go just a little outside of said group, and people just use what's easier for them. If it were easier for me to call ensuna emo because I don't know what else to call him (if for some strange reason I felt the need to place him in an MTV group (LOL), which is kind of absurd by works for this discussion), then I must be as ignorant as those who refuse the acknoledge the difference between a cracker and hacker.
Thing is, I personally could care less about these weird slang definitions, I would probably call someone hacker or emo depending on anything, but the reason I bring this point up is that, boy, do I hate double-standards.
<a href='http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/c.html#cracker' target='_blank'>Cracker</a>
<a href='http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/h.html#hacker' target='_blank'>Hacker</a>
I belive the whole "hacker" thing began with some early game where someone made the first wallhack. thus said people, when accused, were called "hackers" or "to wallhack". They were also probably called hackers as they qhacked all their programs together having very tangled and messy code. (remember what a qhack is? look up.)
just some assumptions and theories using what i know. (No, you can't cheat in ADOM or Angband because of the qhacks and hacks in the game. However, you could exploit the bugs they have or have caused; too bad they crash the game 9/10 times)