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 It is no longer maintained.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
Worst result of hobbyist programming:
Unbreakable encryption for terrorists. 9%
Pirated copies of Microsoft Windows and Office. 7%
The Code Red Worm. 16%
Emacs. 32%
Lunix. 12%
Back Orifice. 5%
The DoS attack on Adequacy.org. 10%
MP3s and Napster. 4%

Votes: 185

 Enough already! Ban programming.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Oct 11, 2001
 Comments:
Programming computers is, for practically everyone, something done far away in exotic software engineering facilities by a priesthood of ultra-specialized, half-mad obsessive-compulsives. This is as it should be, and it is where we get the software we use every day to do our online banking, send email, and get productive work done. Though few normal people have any experience of it, or know anyone who does it, there is another kind of programming performed outside this legitimate sphere, one that you probably assumed was illegal, but shockingly, is not.

This other kind of programming also affects us every day, but negatively, as a continuous series of massive disruptions to the worldwide economy in the form of viruses, in the form of important and useful computer services being sabotaged with denial-of-service, in the form of defacement attacks, and in the form of substantially higher prices for all sorts of intellectual property such as software, DVD movies and music on CD, all due to piracy. I'm talking about "hacking" of course. It is the evil dark side to all the good that computers have brought us, and we are all sick of it. The time has come to put a stop to "hacking", because we can no longer tolerate the damage "hackers" cause, and the potential risk of terrorism when, not if, "hackers" go to work for such forces of mayhem as have begun an onslaught of terror against not just the United States, but Western Civilization's freedom to be loose and decadent in general.

ip_theft

More stories about IP Theft
Foreigner hacker indicted for stealing US films.

More stories by
elenchos

Kill Yr Idols: God
Monsters Incorporated: Film Review and Merchandise Buyer's Guide.
Review: The Spitfire Tour at EWU Nov. 20
Are you Adequate?
Tolkien, autism, and geeks: peas in a pod.
The End of Hacking: A Holiday Un-Buyer's Guide
Foreigner hacker indicted for stealing US films.
Remember. Do not eat today.
Caffeinated mints, and getting into the body you desire.
It's time to surrender.
Teenage problems, teenage solutions.
No, you STILL can't look at Kate or Ashley, and if you do you are a filthy pervert.
For a time, our society tolerated "hackers" because they promised that something useful would come of their shady and secretive tinkering. Yet we have had nothing but a harvest of bitter fruit from "hackers", and it is now time to pull the plug. It is time to ban all unlicensed computer programming, and take steps to ensure that no one outside of government, select universities, and state-sanctioned private-sector corporate software engineering facilities is given the knowledge, skills, or means to write or compile computer code of any kind. Amateur or hobbyist computer programming has grown from a minor annoyance to a major social disease, and it simply can no longer be tolerated.

Although ordinary decent people will find this suggestion to be obvious to the point of banality -- in fact, I'm sure many of you are surprised that amateur computer programming was ever legal! -- many of those who associate themselves with the "hacker community" will bridle at the suggestion. Strictly as an exercise, it would perhaps be diverting to entertain some of their more obvious objections.

The first cry in defense of hobbyists toying with this dangerous technology is that hackers have already proven their worth by producing a valuable piece of software -- namely, the Apache web server. Others would even claim that more than one useful program has been written in the garages and and lonely bedrooms of hobbyists. There are two delusions at work here.

One of these delusions is that any of the Open Source applications that have found some utility in business and industry were written by amateurs. The truth is that Apache began it's life as the work of professional coders employed by Amazon.com, and as any software engineer you want to ask can tell you, nothing of value was added by anyone but professionals. In truth, the work of the gainfully employed programmers on this project was often interrupted and even sabotaged by the ham-fisted meddling of the teenage wanna-be's and self-styled "gurus" who have accumulated around professional Open Source projects like so many leeches and barnacles. This episode alone demonstrates that if there is anything good to come out of Open Source methodology, it will only be helped along by the removal of dilettantes from the picture. Indeed, once the "hackers" have been outlawed, Open Source will very likely reach new heights of utility and quality, and perhaps even fulfill the promise of greatness that Open Source advocates have been making for years.

The other delusion, or I should say piece of misinformation, that has been perpetrated by "hackers" is that there are many other "tools" that have been created by hackers and gifted to a grateful world by our benevolent hobbyists. What about Emacs, for example? What about it? Emacs was originally created at MIT, a trusted part of the US military research establishment. Obviously, such facilities and their (suitably cleared) employees will never be banned. The time has come to ban the reckless tourists from the programming field, not legitimate university researchers. It is true that Emacs, and similar tools have subsequently been "enhanced" by "hackers". Generally, we have seen a pattern of mind-boggling feature creep and software bloat as a result of this. Emacs, for all its admirers, is the worst known example of this. In addition, all of the "functionality" that has been added to Emacs, or other "tools" touted by free software hackers such as Flex, Bison, gcc, etc. are hacker's tools. That means that they are like lock picks or zip guns. They have no inherent functionality that is not ultimately malevolent and illegal in its purpose. This is not utility or service. This is disservice.

The reason that hobbyists work so feverishly hard on creating this kind of tool is precisely because they are locked out of the world of the normal, decent software engineer, where professional-grade IDEs, debuggers, and similar tools are abundant. Those with ultimately criminal intent must cobble together their own weapons. There are dozens, even hundreds of these types of destructive programs in circulation, such as those mentioned, as well as the notorious "Back Orifice", or the hacker operating system, "Lunix". While a "hacker" could disingenuously and spuriously argue that each one of these various illegal programs has some redeeming social value, it is clear that taken as a whole, such "warez" do not in fact benefit anyone except "hackers" and other criminals.

Rather than waste any more time tediously demonstrating this fact for each of these "hacker's" tools, it would be best to move on to the other canard that "hackers" raise in defense of their "freedom" to "hack". And that would be freedom itself. Is there a right to "hack"? Well, of course there most certainly is not. Is there a right to build atomic bombs or breed anthrax bacilli in one's back yard? Is there a right to spy on your government and pass on that information to our foreign enemies, merely because you have chosen espionage as a "hobby"? Perhaps you could claim that your interest in espionage is driven by an innate curiosity, a desire to discover new things and understand how the world works. And so what? Such apologetics are amusing coming from children, but to hear an adult make such excuses is not funny at all. It is merely sad.

Few precocious adolescent "hackers" are capable of understanding why responsible nations must ban "hacking", but as adults we can all recognize that these apologetics for hobbyist "hacking" carry no weight at all, and so we must do what is right. If you style yourself a "hacker" and you really want to play around with dangerous toys, be it source code, fissionable material, or biotoxins, then you have only one route open to you: go to college and prove that you really have the mental horsepower to cut the mustard, and prove also that you are a loyal patriot who can be trusted with potentially deadly power. Then, and only then, will a decent society trust you with the secrets of our most awesome technology. Those too impatient to wait, too dull to get into a university, and too flaky to get security clearance due to low character, drug abuse, and trafficking with unsavory characters are simply out of luck. And it's a good thing too.

Is it practical to ban "hacking" now?

Absolutely. There is no better time than now. As we have seen by the recent mass murders by terrorists, computer technology is a mainstay of criminals, and they rely most on such "free" tools as text editors and military-grade encryption programs that "hackers" use simply because they think it is cute to play with such power. But the rest of society has lost patience with this childish diddling, and the civilized world has said unequivocally that we want strong legal safeguards enacted to put an end to "hacking" and terrorism. We most especially have no qualms about banning activities like playing with explosives or creating software when these so-called "hobbies" are restricted to a tiny fringe element who for whatever reason gets no pleasure from healthy pastimes like fly fishing or drinking alcohol at gentlemen's clubs.

Put simply, normal folks are not going to let themselves get blown up because a tiny minority of freaks like to "hack". If you aren't willing to code for Uncle Sam, then don't code at all.
 
 
 
 

Author's note:  Since it is likely that many so-called g**ks or "hackers" will read this article and will perhaps become angry about it, and then, typically, lose control of their anger, I want to this opportunity to ask them to please refrain from attacking Adequacy.org in retaliation. Though you might disagree with an opinion that you read, that is no reason to launch a denial of service attack against the medium. Please use your reason and, if you feel strongly, engage in a polite dialogue, rather than acting out your anger with illegal "hacking" attacks. Thank you for not attacking this web site.

       
Tweet

Get rid of computers altogether. (2.66 / 3) (#2)
by Starship Trooper on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 02:24:54 PM PST
Studies have shown that computers do nothing to increase worker productivity; they have simply been shoehorned into our workplaces by hype and false claims of being "easy to use" and "faster". The Internet is little more than an interactive television set, and with an Internet connection in practically every school and business, workers' and students' time is spent more and more on useless sites such as hotmail and slashdot. Obviously, this time used to be spent getting actual work done, and any productivity gained by using computer software is offset by the loss to Internet, Minesweeper and other distractions. I say we banish computers from our workplaces, and give them back to the garage-based "haxors" they originally came from. These "haxors" could hardly cause any damage when they are the only ones using computers.
---
A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

Not radical enough (4.66 / 3) (#4)
by Anonymous Coward on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 02:58:31 PM PST
Ban all amateur decision making. Most non-experts make decisions based on misleading incomplete information and attempts by corporations to confuse and seduce (aka advertising.) As a result, we vote people like Bush into office. We need government by experts and indeed EVERYTHING done by experts.

Making programming illegal is too little too late.
The government who will licence our programmers was elected by idiots and misled amateur voters.
We need to start at the top. Maybe the Myers-Briggs will help select experts for us. Arent they experts at such things?
-- Support the home page homeless.

 
IDIOTS (2.50 / 2) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 05:52:57 PM PST
I can not believe what you people are suggesting.
1) if you think computers don't do anything for productivity you are seriously lacking intelligence. how do you think we are able to fly planes, drive cars, use a microwave? its all with the help of computers. if it weren't for computers, you would be taking cold baths, eating half cooked food, and laboring every day on the field.

2) licensing programming has got to be the most ridiculous idea i have ever heard of. whoever promotes the idea of banning amatuer programming obviously knows nothing about the software industry. a lot of software you use or hear about is optimized by those amature programmers. how do you think operating systems like linux evolved? it was developed by amature programmers, optimized by amature programmers, and is today used by huge coporations in a variety of flavors.

if you still think programming should be made illegal, move to afghanistan where electronics are illegal. maybe you'll live a lot happier there.


Where do you find these optimizations? (3.50 / 2) (#10)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:20:26 PM PST
If there is any "optimization" in Lunix that was done by a hobbist, I'm completely ignorant of it. Perhaps you could point out an example of such an "optimization". And what do you mean by this term anyway? That some non-professional with no university training or connection to the legitimate software engineering discipline somehow made Lunix run better? How? Where?

And then we have the question of what good any such "optimization" could have done anyway. Lunix is a OS by "hackers" for "hackers." Does it have any practical use outside of the "hacker" underground? And don't start telling me about IBM building Beowulf clusterers either. IBM is a trusted defense contractor and no one could object to their work on this technology. But where is there a role for tinkerers in that?

Your example of using computers to "fly planes, drive cars, use a microwave" are quite telling. Aren't all these things embedded systems? Does that have anything to do with desktop PCs? And do hobbyists have anything to do with programming the computers that make planes fly?

No. "Hackers" strictly work on making planes crash.


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


Linux programmers no go school (1.00 / 1) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:06:10 AM PST
<<If there is any "optimization" in Lunix that was done by a hobbist, I'm completely ignorant of it. Perhaps you could point out an example of such an "optimization". And what do you mean by this term anyway? That some non-professional with no university training or connection to the legitimate software engineering discipline somehow made Lunix run better? How? Where? >>

First you ARE completely ignorant.

Second, most people who work on the Linux kernel, including those at IBM, have computer Science degrees. Linus Torvalds has a Maters Degree in Computer by the way.


Linux Torvalds is no hobbyist. Don't take credit. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:57:53 AM PST
This is typical of how "hackers" steal. If they aren't swiping your music or your bank account number, they are taking credit for things they didn't do. It's just lucky they can't steal your girlfriend. They'd do it in a second if they could guess how.

Linux Torvalds was obviously qualified to go to a university, and did his famous work at a university. No "hacker" could get into a university, and once there, no "hacker" would be allowed to use expensive equipment or to meddle with any important projects. Torvalds was granted this responsibility because he could be trusted, hence he cannont be considered a "hacker". He was not and is not any kind of amateur or hobbyist. The entire point of this discussion is to limit programming to only trustworthy professionals like Linux Torvalds, and to put an end to the dangerous foolishness of dilettanes. The kiddies can't claim they are useful by taking credit for work done by pros.

As far as my ignorance of these "optimizations", are you keeping the details a secret? I keep asking: what hobbyist (non-professional) added any so-called "optimization" to Lunix? Who? Where? Why is it so difficult to show me the evidence for this extraordinary claim?


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


The posts continue... (3.00 / 2) (#87)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:59:33 AM PST
The name of the OS is Linux. The name of it's principal creator is Linus Torvalds. If it's not too hard, please refer to each as such.

Linus Torvalds can very well be considered a hacker. Hacker is not necessarily a term which implies criminal intent (refer to the definition I just posted).

If you are interested in the developement process of the Linux kernel (which you admit to being ignorant of), please refer to Kernel Traffic. It's a summarization of mailing list discussions by the active developers of the Linux kernel. Also, if you would like a look into the people behind some of the code, check out an article printed by Linux Magazine. You'll notice that the short descriptions don't really touch on their backgrounds. You see, Linux is an open developement environment. In order to make a contribution, you don't submit your resume, you submit code. If the code is useful, it's included, if not, it's not included. It's that simple.

I'll admit, most of the work on the kernel is done by "professionals" and people involved in higher education. That would only make sense. Creating an operating system is an ambitious project and in order to make useful contributions, you have to have great knowledge and experience with computing ideas and techniques.

Calling for the ban of "unlicensed" programming is ridiculous. Much of the interest in a system like Linux, or computer systems in general, is due to the fact that anybody can use a computer and get acquainted with computing concepts. Just because most consumer desktop users don't take advantage of the oppurtunity is no reason to ban the practice altogether.

When a computer user is able to write a virus which can hobble all users of a certain operating system, it's indicative of a poorly designed OS and/or poorly infomed users. The effects of Nimda, Code Red, etc. are all easily avoidable, it's just that computer users don't take responsibility for their systems and the system creators made some poor design decisions.

The licensing idea is not a bad one, but I believe you're taking the wrong approach. I say, license computer users (which include those who choose to program). Before somebody drops a grand or two on a complicated machine, they should be educated on it's uses and maintenance. This way, you don't have home users with an unpatched Windows NT/2000 machine just waiting to get infected with the latest strain of Nimda or Code Red. This way, you don't have inquisitive, but ignorant, email users opening up an attatchment named "readme.exe" (and the fact that that file can completely corrupt the OS is a bad OS design decision). I don't know about you, but I'm a fan of legislation that expands our freedoms and makes excercising them easier.

This is typical of how "hackers" steal.
What? He didn't take credit for anything. He said that you are ignorant. He then said, "the developers of Linux...", while not claiming to be one himself. How can that be construed as stealing? Please refrain from making blanket statements, especially when they are unfounded. The gross stereotypes running abound on this site sicken me. You all might as well start calling me a "nigger" and telling me to go back to "hood". Your treatment and ideas towards "g**ks" are fundamentally the same as other racist or discriminatory behavior.

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -



This is ridiculous! (none / 0) (#107)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:39:55 AM PST
Bill Gates never finished college and now he is Microsoft's head programmer. Never mind that fact (which I can't wait to see how some of you socialist pricks will spin) he is also the head of the so called MCSE that so many of you believe should become the defacto standard for programming.
The U.S. government, alright it was really the FBI, went out and hired the help of the former Cult of the Dead Cow. For those of you who don't know the CDC was one of the top hacking organizations in the world. They are now dispersed through the highest levels of the FBI and CIA and working on keeping your PIN numbers, drivers licenses, bank accounts and ever girlfriends (I couldn't believe how stupid that comment was) safe.
How about the stories we hear day after day about amateur programmers who broke into a secured system somewhere only to turn around and tell the administrator about the security hole and how to fix it?
If we didn't have people like this Microsoft's world would quickly become the bible and all of our information could be easily compromised.
Aside from that, if you ban amateur programming in the U.S., you still have to deal with offshore hackers who will be launching attacks from abroad (and believe me they will). Mafia Boy is from Montreal, Canada.
Contrary to popular belief the U.S. does not govern the world. China, Russia, Europe, etc... all have programmers capable of creating mass damage at any one time. Making it illegal in the U.S. will not stop adequacy.org (an accurate name given the basis for this whole argument) from being brought down again and again.
I do have a solution for you though. Perhaps if you all went to the scrap yards, fixed up some model "T" Fords and moved to wheat fields in the middle of Oklohoma then you could live like Mormon's and never worry about the world of evil technology which would be passing you by.

P.S. If not for the tinkering of mad scientists, evil warlocks and terribly derranged artists modern medicine would never have been invented and people would still be dying from things like the Chicken Pox.



 
stupid people offer stupid solutions (none / 0) (#147)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:48:29 PM PST
How the hell do you expect anyone to take this concept of banning and licensing seriously when you have no concept of programming what-so-ever.

Hell your definition of HACKER is utter bullshit.

This ideology that ALL Linux users are goofey looking hackers, with no money, no life is utterly rediculous. I supposed Bill Gates looks like George Clooney in your mind (fag). Not all programmers look like they stepped out of Revenge of the Nerds. This proves that you have NO IDEA what's going on in the world today and are VERY close minded.

Is Linux a hacker OS? Yes, but not in the way you think. Hacking a kernel and hacking/cracking networks are to VERY different things. Almost ANY programmer (whether a kid in his parent's basement, a High School Student, a University Student or a University Graduate) has the potential skills to be a hacker. What kind of hacking is another story.

If you want to use your methodology to label hackers then EVERY programmer working at Microsoft is a HACKER.


I guess I didn't make my point clear enough. (1.00 / 1) (#169)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:48:41 PM PST
How the hell do you expect anyone to take this concept of banning and licensing seriously when you have no concept of programming what-so-ever.
I don't take the concept of banning programming seriously (note my comment where I refer to the idea as "ridiculous"). I am familiar with programming methods and concepts. If I gave the impression that I wasn't, I apologize because you've gotten the wrong impression. I thought it was clear (from that post and my previous ones) that I am familiar with computing topics such as Linux, operating systems, programming, etc.

Hell your definition of HACKER is utter bullshit.
It is, however, the definition of hacker most accepted by the Linux community and more importantly by the dictionary I posted the link to (and by other dictionaries too). The main point I was trying to get across was that a hacker is not inherently malicious. For the sake of clarity, it would be nice if in the comments posted here, people would use the term "cracker" to refer to a hacker with a malicious intent.

This ideology that ALL Linux users are goofey looking hackers, with no money, no life is utterly rediculous.
I completely agree with this statement. If I said anything which implied otherwise, it was completely unintentional.

If you want to use your methodology to label hackers then EVERY programmer working at Microsoft is a HACKER.
I agree. I do not believe I would be of line if I were to say, "Microsoft employees are paid to hack Windows code". The term hack, according to it's dictionary definition, is "to write or refine computer programs skillfully". That happens to be exactly what Microsoft developers do with Windows code.

I realize that there are also negative connotations to the word "hack", but I am not using it in that sense when I refer to either Linux or Windows developement.

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -



definition (0.00 / 1) (#222)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:18:48 AM PST
" It is, however, the definition of hacker most accepted by the Linux community and more importantly by the dictionary I posted the link to (and by other dictionaries too). The main point I was trying to get across was that a hacker is not inherently malicious. For the sake of clarity, it would be nice if in the comments posted here, people would use the term "cracker" to refer to a hacker with a malicious intent."

I believe he was referring to the definition from the "Adequacy Dictionary for DumbShits" ("fixed" by the editor's and hopefully it's 100% correctly, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA).


 
living in a bubble (3.00 / 1) (#96)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:39:42 AM PST
<< No "hacker" could get into a university, and once there, no "hacker" would be allowed to use expensive equipment or to meddle with any important projects.>>

That is a very ignorant statement. At the University of FLorida, I knew lots of people who did hacking, using expensive university equipment. And Robert Tappin Morris, who released one of the first internet viruses, released that virus at a University, and he wrote it using their equipment.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
Optimization (none / 0) (#186)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:54:31 PM PST
He's referring to the thousands of Usenet posts by amteur coders that said, "hey, maybe this would work more quickly if it was written this way".

The beauty of Open source is that with each progressive version of an operating system, not only do people bitch and complain about bugs in their system, but they actually FIX them on their own, and submit them to the authors. The authors get the credit, of course, and I'd not have it any other way.

Without amateur programmers, however, linux would have remained in the stone ages.


 
Ludicrous licensing (3.66 / 3) (#13)
by Starship Trooper on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:31:34 PM PST
2) licensing programming has got to be the most ridiculous idea i have ever heard of.

Yeah, and I bet you think licensing drivers is ludicrous as well. In today's "wired" marketplace, safe computer programming is just as important as safe driving is to get from place to place. Malicious and incompetent programmers, just like malicious and incompetent drivers, can cost other people their lives or property. A license to keep these bad seeds "off the streets" of the Internet, so to speak, would only make things safer.
---
A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

very poor analogy (none / 0) (#76)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 04:04:28 AM PST
programming and driving cars are two very different things. What do you mean when you say "safe computer programming?". If you mean properly written code written with good security methodologies, than almost every software company should be shut down right now. Poor programming om Microsoft's part is what gave us Code Red I/II/III Nimda et. al. Very few, if any commercial software is written very well, and most of it is not written very "safely" Remember all those "illegal operations" your computer performs?

One other thing about the car analogy. how does issuing licences keep non-licenced people from driving??? If I have no licence I can still steal a car and run people over with it, ditch the car, and leave the state. Remember, licencing things does nothing to curtail illegal activities.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

MS = buggy (1.00 / 1) (#145)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:37:48 PM PST
Go to www.microsoft.com/security and click Security Bulletins.

There is a HUGE list of KNOWN bugs in Microsoft products reported on Microshaft's own web site.

These are the people you want to be in charge of this stupi-ass licensing concept!?!


Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#151)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:33:19 PM PST
So Lunix has no bugs? That's demonstratably false.
At least MS post the bugs on their site, unlike Lunix Ltd.


ignorance (none / 0) (#187)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:05:22 PM PST
first, it's spelled Linux, not Lunix. Second thre is no Lunix (or Linux) Ltd. Third, this notion that bugs are not tracked or fixed is just plain false. There is a mailing list read daily by hundreds of Linux developers all over the world who are working continually to improve Linux and find and fix bugs. It is not common for bug fixes to be released within hours of them being discovered. Conrast this wth MS's bug fix process which can take days, weeks, or even months.

Please get your facts straight before trying to enlighten people with your "wisdom".

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

Look (none / 0) (#216)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 08:08:48 AM PST
If MS take time to fix their bugs, unlike Linuz Corp., isn't that a better thing than hacking changes on? Obviously it is.


you no write so good (none / 0) (#270)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:41:59 AM PST
please demonstrate how "Obviously it is."
preferably in more comprehensible english


 
Hmm (none / 0) (#185)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:50:31 PM PST
D'you realize that if microsoft's 'qualified' programmers had any sense, they'd have fixed the known bugs before allowing the release of the OS?


 
stop writing amature! (3.66 / 3) (#44)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:48:58 AM PST
You'd think your given hacker's obsession with porn sites would be sufficient to familiarize him with the spelling of amateur. This is indicative of the substandard intelligence which infects hackers, I'm afraid, and I must plead you stick to data entry so as not to imperil innocents. I'd have begged you to wank more attentively in the future if I didnt know the distinguishing feature of all criminals and hackers in particular was Attention Defecit Disorder. Your post is saddens on just so many levels.


your spelling is off, so everything you say is (none / 0) (#95)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:33:44 AM PST
wrong.

You actually spelled amateur two different ways in your post.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
g**k crooks (4.20 / 5) (#5)
by otak on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 04:27:12 PM PST
As regular readers of adequacy.org may remember, I agree with elenchos.

The most annoying trait of g**k crooks is constantly pretending that their criminal activities are not only legal, but are also morally justified. Witness the regular trotting out of the 'fair use' argument. Every time some new way of stealing other people's property gets posted on slashdot, CmdrTaco or one of his hacker buddies feels obliged to post some whining justification of its existence on the grounds that it could have a legal use under some extremely unlikely set of circumstances. I'm sure that if Taco and friends had been aboard the aircraft hijacked for the WTC attack they would have been bleating about how box cutters would have a legitimate use "like, if one of the passengers got stuck in a box, dude".

Another regularly advanced excuse is that breaking into other peoples intellectual property is justified "because otherwise DVDs and things won't, like, work on Lunix, dude". Well, sorry buddy, but you're still a thief even if you're stealing to support your bastard offspring of an Operating System. The DVDs in my local shops won't work in my DVD player while they're sitting on a shelf in town, but that doesn't give me an excuse to go and steal them.

Maybe g**ks just can't handle the thought of being criminals, or maybe years of playing video games and wanking over video porn has convinced them that whatever they believe is true, is true. Either way they're a bunch of self-serving amoral jerks, and the sooner we can legislate them out of existance the better.


I don't know why I keep doing this... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:09:17 PM PST
Well, sorry buddy, but you're still a thief even if you're stealing to support your bastard offspring of an Operating System. The DVDs in my local shops won't work in my DVD player while they're sitting on a shelf in town, but that doesn't give me an excuse to go and steal them.
Let me illustrate a situation I encountered not too long ago.

I have a computer. I went to a local computer shop and bought a DVD-ROM drive. In the aims of having the best performance, I also bought a Hollywood+ DVD decoder card. I went to Best Buy and bought a DVD. I took my legally purchased equipment back home and proceeded to set everything up.

At the time, I was using Debian (a distribution of Linux). I downloaded it for free, which is fully legal and encouraged by it's producers.

My problem is that the data on the DVD is encrypted and without some sort of software to decrypt it, I cannot watch the movie.

Note that all I said I want to do is to watch the movie. This, as far I know, is a legal use of the DVD I bought. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that that is the exact purpose the DVD was produced for.

I did install a version of DeCSS along with DVD viewing software in order to use all the equipment and DVDs (that I bought) for their intended purposes. However, I am technically breaking the law.

In order to use the software that comes with the decoder card, I have to pay Microsoft to use their OS, so I can use the manufacturers software and drivers (which can be construed as a direct result of the fact that Microsoft has a near monopolistic hold on the desktop OS market). The manufacturer does not produce Linux drivers. This is logical, since the Linux market is very marginal. It would not make business sense for the company to spend the time and resources to produce and maintain Linux versions of their software.

However, thanks to the hardwork and technical knowledge of a group of Linux users, a Linux version of the drivers for the hardware are being produced. Like a lot of Linux drivers and software, the support isn't as full featured or easy to use as the official Windows based counterpart. By using it, I was able to use the equipment I legally bought.

I was happy and so were the equipment manufacturers since I bought their hardware. On top of that, they didn't even have to spend time and resources supporting me, since that was being done by a group of people completely unaffiliated with the company (when I switched the computer over to Windows 2000, they did hear from me though, because their Win2K support was marginal at the time).

I really don't understand how this situation can be construed as negative. I'm happy becuase I'm making use of the equipment I legally purchased. The equipment manufacturers are happy becasue they made money off of the said purchases. The Linux driver developers are happy because they have another user providing feedback for the work their doing. The DVD producers are happy, because I'm happily consuming one of their products. But wait....

The DVD producers aren't happy. I am using software (not produced by them) that makes use of the hardware (not produced by them) that I bought in a way not sanctioned by them. They aren't able to milk this situation for all it's worth. By trying to get a strangle hold on the DVD player market and lobbying for increased legislated control over how products not produced by them can be used, they end up infringing on the rights of people like me, who just want to make use the stuff they bought.

I would attempt to take the time to refute the argument made by the main poster. But arguing the opposite perspective around here is an incredibly laborous process (just look at the length of this post). I have to constantly explain anything remotely technical (notice the excessive use of parentheses) becuase otherwise I will be construed as "g**k" trying to "confuse" all the "normal people" with my technical mumbo jumbo. Hopefully, the above post will be read and understood. Hopefully, it won't be modded down like most all my other posts for expressing an alternate viewpoint (thanks Craig McPherson!). Hopefully, I'll recieve a similarly logical reply.

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -


*notes*
My dad named me the "II" becuase he thought "Jr." sounded funny. If you have any problems, take them up with him.

Please excuse any spelling mistakes. I don't really believe that detriments the point I'm trying to make.

Also, don't mistake this for a Windows vs Linux argument. As I said above, I switched from Linux to Windows.


irrelevant (3.66 / 3) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:01:22 AM PST
Your problems with Lunix are your own to resolve legally without special recognition for your failure to integrate with the rest of humanity in favor of pursuing hacker ethics.

In order to use the software that comes with the decoder card, I have to pay Microsoft to use their OS, so I can use the manufacturers software and drivers

So? In order to fill your alluring clothes, you must pay grocers before transmuting their cheezos and dip into sickly, white hacker lard. Using your logic, I can justify siphoning gas from my neighbor's car in order to run the SUV I legally bought from Ford. CSS belongs to someone just as clearly as the petrol belongs in your neighbor's gas tank.

You cannot steal things with impunity simply because you are a hacker; ignorance has never been an excuse for breaking the law and hacker is just high tech ignorance. You have failed to understand this article completely.


This site is a joke right? (2.00 / 2) (#66)
by Smuttley on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:46:56 AM PST
first of all I just want to check, this site is a joke right? You guys really aren't serious about this stuff are you?

Any way on with it

Your problems with Lunix are your own to resolve legally without special recognition for your failure to integrate with the rest of humanity in favor of pursuing hacker ethics.

First of all it's called Linux, at first I thought you'd just made a typo but no it would seem that you just can't spell.

Secondly what ever happened to having a choice? A choice to be ripped off by Microsoft or to use a decent OS, like Linux (not Lunix).

Third, how the hell is by-passing CSS to watch a legally bought DVD on a legal OS, on legal hardware illegal? No one stole the code to CSS, some 16 year old kid managed to by pass it with ease with a very simple piece of code. If i had written CSS I would be ashamed of myself for having written such a useless piece of software. I don't have to pay for a licence to watch a VHS tape, why the hell should I pay you a licence to watch a legally bought DVD, the DVD I bought didn't come with any Terms and Conditions telling me what system I can watch it on and which I can't.

Well having read a few more articles on this site I have decided it's must be a joke. If not then it's blind idiots like most of those here who let huge corporations like Microsoft obtain such powers over governments and laws.


Nothing wrong with CSS (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:53:38 AM PST
It conforms to the US crypto export laws from the time it was written. This restricts it's keysize. The cipher used in CSS, named cryptomeria I believe, remains uncracked. The people at fault were xing, who failed to implement CSS correctly, opening up a hole for the hackers to get in and do what hackers do: steal intellectual property.

Really, it's xing who should be ashamed.


of course there is (5.00 / 2) (#73)
by Smuttley on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:50:07 AM PST
I'm sorry, but how exactly is being able to play a DVD stealing IP? it's not as if you couldn't copy a DVD before DeCSS anyway, and I don't see linux users charging people to watch their DVD on a system using DeCSS.

The MPAA is just pissed off that some naughty people are getting away with watching DVDs without using a piece of software that the developers had to pay a stupid amount of money for a CSS licence. If watching movies that you've paid good money for is illegal I hate to think what's next. Well in fact if the SSSCA bill gets through I know what will be next, open source software.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with the way I watch DVDs as I live in the UK which doesn't recognise the stupid DMCA and therefore for me there is nothing wrong with using DeCSS. It's just the unfortunate people in the US, where the government puts corporate rights before the right's of it's own people, who are accused of stealing when they watch movies.


It is a violation of the license agreement. (5.00 / 2) (#160)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:27:32 PM PST
If you don't like the agreement, then don't buy the product.

If you read the GPL, and you don't want to be bound by it, then don't agree to it and don't use GPL software. By using the IP covered by the license, you are agreeing to be bound by it. It is all very simple.

This is an example of the hypocricsy of hackers. They are happy to demand that other people be bound by license agreements like the GPL, but they think they have a special privilige to violate licenses they don't find to be advantageous to themselves.


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


Lawlessness (5.00 / 1) (#162)
by Observer on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:57:36 PM PST
Ludicrous licenses have simply been met with equally ludicrous opposing licenses. Corporate terms restrict usage to a very narrow acceptable band, whereas open terms do the opposite.

It's cause and effect, the search for balance. If someone intentionally attacks my home, I fight to be able to protect my home. To reasonable people, many of the legislature being passed by corporations seems greedy and overbearing. Equate this with an abusive parent who is angry at a child because the child is growing up and isn't willing to be held down with the yoke of supporting the parent that has abused him.

Look around you. Who would want to be a martyr? Why should corporations be any different? They are entities not unlike any individual human. Of course they'll want things a certain way, and will keep their icy grasp on the law of the land until they simply slip into oblivion. It is this clout that must be relinquished in order for progress to happen. Any corporation which allows itself to fade will give rise to others.

The stifling of democracy in this country has simply given rise to a plethora of miniature dictatorships, many of which are the size of small nations. Why should companies be treated any differently than governments? They are already above the law, however, so it would seem that hope is mostly lost. Especially since many on this board and the United States in general advocate the compliance of degrading mandates. Lobbied legislature to enforce overly obsequious licensing schemes will not fix the problem. It will only become worse, and by then, we will all be paying the price whether we were for or against it. History repeats itself.

I'll be moving to an undisclosed location far from the reaches of mega-conglomerate corporations now, thanks for the oppression and spiritual decay.


 
GPL (none / 0) (#183)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:35:08 PM PST
The GPL is a very simple thing.

If you're going to distribute it, give the proper credit, and provide the source code.

Most people don't distribute it.

Also, there's noting in the licenses on the DVDs *I* own that says viewing this DVD is illegal. I don't know aobut you.


 
If you think this site is a joke (5.00 / 1) (#126)
by dmg on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:39:39 AM PST
Read the FAQ. It is in our meta section.

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

 
You ignorant git (none / 0) (#109)
by typical geek on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:50:40 AM PST
<i>. I went to Best Buy and bought a DVD. </i>
<p>
Yes, you own the media, but you don't own the data, you license it. The original owners of the data (the copyright owners) can set terms on what you can or can't do with the data.
<p>
You hackers have a severe myopia on other's peoples' rights. If I were to take this Linux source code, change the comments and descriptive files to call it typicalux and sell it for thousands of dollars without the source code, you would all be up in arms. If I worked at Microsoft and incorporated chunks of the Linux source code into Windows, you would all be up in arms. <b>It's the same issue.</b> If the copyright owners only want you to play it on Windows machines, they have that right.
<p>
Next you hackers will be complaining that you can't drive your cars down the middle of a schoolyard, or mining companies can't use explosives for fun, or doctors can't sell you morphine for your parties.


gcc is to software freedom as guns are to personal freedom.

Licencing agreement (none / 0) (#132)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:26:43 AM PST
The Licence agreement for the DVD goes something like this "you agree not to distribute copies of this media, or rebroadcast it without express written consent etc." It doesn't say "you must play this DVD with XYZplayer and it must only be played on Microsoft operating systems." The agreement only restricts what you can do with your media, not how you do it.

If I own a CD/DVD/VHS/whatever. I can make a copy of it, leave the original in the basement at home and carry the copy around with me to play in the car, at work etc. And I can (at least should be able to) play that CD/DVD/VHS/whatever in any player I want.

Now what is wrong with that?

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

 
This is embarassing. (none / 0) (#327)
by BleedingDark on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 07:31:39 AM PST
Please tell me you're kidding. Using legally purchased hardware and media and using it on an unsupported Operating System is logically the same (according to your argument) as driving a car through a schoolyard? Your analogy is false at the very least, and a complete miscarriage of language if you intended it as anything other than a joke. First off, there is nothing in DVD licensing that dictates that certain hardware/software combos are "illegal" for use in watching DVDs. The only concern of licensing is the Region encoding which is handled in the DVD-ROM drive itself. A more appropriate analogy for the linux user wanting to watch DVDs on his computer is a person using a blender in his living room instead of his kitchen. Is there any logical reason to say that a person should only use his or her blender in his or her kitchen? Is the blender going to behave erratically or in a manner unintended by the manufacturer if it is operated from the comfort of one's favorite chair or sofa? Implying that all Linux users are inherently "hackers" reveals a Luddite mentality. Would you rather simply smash all computers using the Linux operating system so we can live in a Windows-only world? The fact is both Linux and Windows are, somewhere in their history, derived from general UNIX. Linux is not a tool of crackers (which is what you should say when you say "hackers"); Linux is an excellent open-source alternative to MacOS and Windows that is in most respects more stable and more secure than either of the aforementioned OSes. The failure of the Motion Picture industry to support Linux or UNIX with their CSS licensing reveals their staunch refusal to adapt along with the constantly evolving technology they employ. Something tells me the MPAA was less than thrilled with the notion of watching DVDs on computers as a whole, much less watching them on an OS they are too lazy to offer support for. Calling someone "ignorant" for bringing forth a valid criticism of the CSS standard only serves to reveal your own ignorance about technology and intellectual property laws. The fact is, if enough consumers raise hell about the lack of Linux support under CSS, the MPAA will support it. Marginalizing Linux and the people who work diligently to make it better will not make it go away. Would we be up in arms if Windows "stole" pieces of Linux and incorporated it? Nah. Like I said, Windows and Linux ultimately share the same lineage, and besides, whether or not Microsoft steals open-source code has no bearing on this argument. The DVD copyright owners don't want us "to play them on Windows machines," because the operating system is an irrelavant issue. They're just pissed that someone found a way around they're protection scheme. Instead of blaming the people that took that knowledge and started ripping copies of movies, they blamed the people that figured it out in the first place, despite that copyright law at the time dictated that, as licensees of the data contained on the DVD, they were within their rights to watch that data. Circumventing encryption was the only way they could view the data they had a purchased a license to view. If I buy the hardware necessary to watch a DVD, I fully expect to be able to watch it, regardless of whatever Operating System is running the hardware. This OS restriction is purely arbitrary. The MPAA might as well have said that they don't support silver DVD players and brought suit against anyone who watched a movie in a silver player instead of a black one. By the way, "gcc" is a set of compilers. I'm not sure if you understand that.


 
Umm, no. (2.75 / 4) (#182)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:20:25 PM PST
You agree with elenchos because you're an idiot.

bastard offspring of an operating system? What do YOU run? Win95? 98? ME? You probably couldn't figure out how to troubleshoot your comp without a technician.

Put it this way: There are people who are content to merely drive cars, and there are people who build and repair cars. If you've a tiny bit of intellect, you'd figure out how to fix your computer whatever goes wrong.

I've done everything from soldering replacement surface mounted components to my motherboard to tearing apart my win2k registry to find out why I can't seem to set up a mail server. All without technical training or experience. The only thing that let me perform duties like this is the shared knowledge, experience and CODE provided on the internet, primarily by the open-source community.

Without others like myself who like to dig into the internet and find out how it works, the internet would slowly fall apart. Or, at the worst, stagnate.


 
huh?!? (none / 0) (#385)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:58:18 PM PST
<<If you aren't willing to code for Uncle Sam, then don't code at all."

Huh?

Bacwards engineering is not like hacking into say Pioneers datacenter and stealing the source code for a driver, which wasn't done. It beasically means that it was written by people who know how to write drivers and know how to effectively write them to communicate with said device.

Note: Do not confuse this with the backwards engineering of CP/M to create QDOS which later was bought by MS and renamed MSDOS. The kernel itself was stolen. The shell and much of the rest of the OS was backwards engineered. Gary Kildall sued MS based upon the fact that the KERNEL was down right stolen.


 
What? (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 05:54:21 PM PST
Is this serious, i can't even tell.

Would this ban on amature programming include html, and perl scripts, if it does take your site down.


ahem (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Starship Trooper on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:24:30 PM PST
HTML is not a programming language. You can't "program HTML". Pearl is more line noise than language as far as I can tell, so I wouldn't call it programming either. You may wish to pick better examples next time you try to make an argument.
---
A seasoned witch could call you from the depths of your disgrace, and rearrange your liver to the solid mental grace

Morons (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:30:27 PM PST
Ummm.... I beg to differ, HTML is a programming language.. hence the "Hypertext Markup LANGUAGE"

When you write raw HTML code are you not "programming" in a language? But then again, being as uneducated as you are, you probably struggle with a drag and drop interface and fail to understand why someone would write raw HTML.

As far as PERL - not PEARL you moron - goes.... hmm..ah why bother, you wouldn't understand.

One thing though, I'm oh-so-curious... what would you consider a good example of a programming language oh wise one?


Spoken like a true outsider (4.00 / 3) (#19)
by sdem on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:57:36 PM PST
When you write raw HTML code are you not "programming" in a language?

Obviously, you are no programmer, as any professional who heard HTML referred to as a programming language would be laughing too hard to form a coherent rebuttal.

you probably struggle with a drag and drop interface and fail to understand why someone would write raw HTML.

You're right of course. There are still masochists out there, but I think we would all prefer that you confined your activities to your bedroom and Geocities pages.

And honestly, I don't understand why people fanatically defend languages like Pearl. It has to be one of the ugliest languages that I have ever seen, not to mention that it is slow and memory intensive. It has also probably created some of the most horrible, sloppy programmers in existance, largely because of its wide availability and irrationally fanatical following, which is, in my eyes, its greatest offense.

Why don't you get a real language, like elisp?


Exactly! (3.40 / 5) (#20)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:23:52 PM PST
A quick comparison:

elisp supports multiple polymorphic addressable objects. Perl does not support objects at all.

elisp lists are heterogenous collections. Perl lists are not.

elisp is a cross-platform language. Perl is a linux only language.

elisp is XML ready. Perl lacks a properly implemented XML parser.

elisp supports pointer arithmetic. Perl does not.

elisp compilers optimise code. Perl compilers do not.

elisp is designed for rapid application development. Perl is not.

elisp is easy to learn, yet powerful. Perl is complex, and limited in applicability.

elisp is turing complete. Perl is not.




misinformation (4.00 / 3) (#78)
by cylab on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 04:47:12 AM PST
i dont know elisp, so i wont comment your claims about it, but some statements made about perl are simply untrue:

1. perl does support objects (at least since perl5)
2. perl is not a linux only language. it has its roots in unix and is available for all flavours of it (aix, bsd, solaris, linux, sco unix, etc.) and is even available for windows (try google: activeperl)
3. perl has various xml-parser implementations to choose. if they are properly implemented is not to be judged by you, but by the w3c.
4. perl compilers might optimise code.. depending on their implementation. same is true for any compiled or precompiled language. you cant tell that this is a language feature, it is a vendor-feature instead.
5. perl is powerful, but like every language it is limited in applicability. same is true for elisp. there is no such thing like an universal applicable language.
6. i dont understand your last point. i have no grade in computer science. i might be an amateur, so please explain your point.

as i said, i dont have a grade in computer science. i _only_ have a grade in electrical engineering, but work as software engineer...


 
Elithp (4.00 / 3) (#112)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:05:33 AM PST
elisp supports multiple polymorphic addressable objects. Perl does not support objects at all.

Nonsense. Perl has been object oriented since the early '90s.

elisp lists are heterogenous collections. Perl lists are not.

More nonsense. Perl supports heterogenous lists just fine.

elisp is a cross-platform language. Perl is a linux only language.

Perl runs on many more platforms then elisp. In fact, perl runs on many more platforms than Java does.

elisp is XML ready. Perl lacks a properly implemented XML parser.

There a number of parser libraries availalbe for perl, including the ubiquitous expat library.

elisp supports pointer arithmetic. Perl does not.

Not without difficulty. But, why would you want to?

elisp compilers optimise code. Perl compilers do not.

There are some breathtaking optimisations in the perl compiler.

elisp is designed for rapid application development. Perl is not.

Now, we're getting silly. I suppose then, that elisp is the preferred language of RAD web development.

elisp is easy to learn, yet powerful. Perl is complex, and limited in applicability.

More nonesense.

elisp is turing complete. Perl is not.

Being able to run the equivalent of Eliza does not make a language Turing complete. It just means that Eliza has been written in that language.


 
A Good Thing (none / 0) (#378)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:04:35 AM PST
<em>elisp supports pointer arithmetic. Perl does not.</em>

In most cases, this would be considered A Good Thing. Same could be said for a number of your other points.

Cheers,

anon



 
You are an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by otak on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:22:49 AM PST
HTML is a programming language.. hence the "Hypertext Markup LANGUAGE"

Yeah, and the language that we're discussing this in is called "the english LANGUAGE", which must mean that it's a programming language.

what would you consider a good example of a programming language

C. Sweet sweet C.


 
Kids are funny. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
by TheReverand on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:42:22 AM PST
Practical Extraction And Report Language.

They changed the name with the 1.0 release.

Some of us remember things correctly.

Those of us who were there anyway. Go back to history class, come back when you know something about computers.


You tell me... (3.00 / 3) (#135)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:06:56 PM PST
..which one is the programming language:

Perl
or
Pearl

Also, you can refer to dictionary.com if you need further clarification. Yes, Practical Extraction and Report Language is one of the meaning of the Perl (some say it also means Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister (it's a joke)). But notice the 'a' in 'and' is not part of the acronym. It's comparable to the United States of America. Yes, the word 'of' is part of the name, but the 'o' is not included in the acronym (USA).

To those of you arguing Perl is a worthless language, all I can do is laugh. Go ahead and check out the SourceForge page for Scoop. If you didn't already notice, the script that runs this site is written in Perl.

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -



A message to Craig McPherson (3.50 / 2) (#171)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:55:23 PM PST
Why do you insist on modding my posts down to 1? Is there something wrong with the above post? Is the information incorrect? Are you just unhappy that I provided a rebuttal to a adequacy.org regular? You actions really don't make sense to me.

If you think my posts are worthy of a 1 rating, I ask that you take the time to post a comment explaining why. Call me crazy, but I figure that that is the whole point of running a discussion based site such as adequacy.org. Your constant patrol and modding down of comments with an alternative viewpoint seems incredibly childish to me.

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -



Your allegations are completely wrong. (3.00 / 2) (#181)
by Craig McPherson on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:17:45 PM PST
I gave your post above a "2", which completely throws your theory out the window. I rate posts based solely on the factual integrity and literary quality of each one on a post-by-post basis. To accuse me of bias or favoratism shocks and alarms me. Me feelings are hurt beyond belief. I'm going to be up all night crying.

Might I remind you that all posts with a rating of "1" or above are visible to all users, so post ratings are pretty meaningless. If I wanted to censor your oh-so-wise words, I'd use 0's instead of 1's. I don't think I've given you any zeros. I use a fairly consistent system: trolls get 0, Linix geeks and posts with no sound logic get 1, 2's go to wankers who happen to make one or two good points (or to bring zero-rated posts back up to 1 if I don't think they should've been zero-rated), and 5's go to insightful, logical people with their fingers of the pulse of America, society, and the world.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

You, sir (5.00 / 1) (#218)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 08:18:01 AM PST
Deserve a '5' for every post you make, if they are all as insightful and delectable as that.


 
Bleh... (5.00 / 1) (#231)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 11:49:18 AM PST
I gave your post above a "2", which completely throws your theory out the window.
Actually, it doesn't "completely" discredit it. When I made the comment, every comment of mine you had rated was given a 1. On top of that, I never stated that I thought you gave my posts a 1 rating without consideration. I was just asking you why you were doing it.

Linix geeks and posts with no sound logic get 1
Ok, here's an answer to my question. Let me ask you another. What in my above post showed unsound logic? TheReverand made an untrue claim and I corrected him and provided proof for my correction. Unless I'm missing something, there's nothing unsound with that. In the case that I am missing something here, please inform me of the error of my logic and justify the 1 rating you gave my post.

But wait, there's another possibility here. It sems that I am just a "linux geek". Even though my post had nothing to do with Linux, you discriminate anyway. Long live the open and intelligent discourse of adequacy.org.

While we're at it...

2's go to wankers who happen to make one or two good points
So, in my one post you rated a 2, I moved up to "wanker" status because I made a good point or two (remember, you only "rate posts based solely on the factual integrity and literary quality of each one"). But then you proceed to try to argue against what you saw as my "good points". My original point still stands, your actions really don't make sense to me.

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -



 
Interesting proof (none / 0) (#214)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:27:05 AM PST
Since the fact that this website was built using a legacy language proves that this lagnuage is not obsolete, I guess the overwhelming number of websites based on ASP prove that the most important computer language in the world today is, as we all suspected, visual basic.


What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#243)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 05:09:55 PM PST
Since the fact that this website was built using a legacy language proves that this lagnuage is not obsolete
I never said anyting of the sort. I said, "For those of you arguing Perl is a worthless language..." I was just implying that Perl is not a worthless language, especially to adequacy.org and other Scoop users since it provides the framework the sites are run on.

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -


Recipe for stagnation (none / 0) (#249)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:32:48 PM PST
I imagine you would also rail against people who ciriticised horses and carts in the sixteenth century, since they were using them to get around. This sort of argument would have completely forestalled the development of all of modern industry. Criticise the status quo? Heaven forfend!


 
hmm (2.00 / 1) (#203)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:39:24 PM PST
'and' is not usually included in an acronym.

besides, I've never seen a perl interpreter calling itself pearl.

so, maybe your stupid. I can understand. poor you. the stupid ones want a ban on programming to protect them from the 1337 hax0rz. how terrible.


"so, maybe your stupid. " (none / 0) (#349)
by TheReverand on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 09:59:25 AM PST
Need I say more?


 
Credible Studies (3.00 / 1) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:36:24 PM PST
One more thing... what are these studies you are referring to? If they are so credible, why don't you let us all know where we can access them...

I'd certainly like to know who or what organisation claims that I'd be more productive if I was hand writing the many documents, letters, reports and spreadsheets that I do in a day rather than using a computer.


 
How about... (none / 0) (#68)
by Smuttley on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:50:18 AM PST
Ok, html isn't a programming language, but php, perl, javascript and java are. Not many websites are produced solely in html anymore.


 
Pearl?? (1.00 / 1) (#201)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:36:19 PM PST
1: it's Perl, doof.
2: it's quite a structured language, designed to be very flexible, if cryptic.
3: if you can't understand Perl, read the docs. If you still can't, try putting your barin back in. I know you don't USUALLY need it, but Perl is a bit of a special occasion, mkay?


 
Of course. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:26:43 PM PST
A ban on explosives is not just a ban on TNT, dynamite and nitroglycerin. A ban on explosives means a ban on everything that blows up. Maybe you want to play lawyer and wheedle some exception to that, or equivocate about what "explosive" means, but normal folks aren't going to be fooled.

So yes, obviously, if it can be used as a cyber-weapon, it should not be in the hands of teenagers and unemployed pot-heads. Anything productive to be done with this technology will be done by real engineers.

What has the public lost anyway? If you want to make a web page, use Front Page or Adobe Page Maker. Future versions of this software will have to deny users access to the source code of course, and be certified that they can't be modified for use as offensive weapons, but that is feasable.


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


Why the self-hate? (2.50 / 2) (#27)
by tkatchev on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:10:50 PM PST
So yes, obviously, if it can be used as a cyber-weapon, it should not be in the hands of teenagers and unemployed pot-heads.

So I guess you're out of luck, then.


--
Peace and much love...




 
ummmmmm (none / 0) (#133)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:45:23 AM PST
Fertilizer and diesel fuel blows up, why aren't those banned?? Gasoline/kerosene/et al. when in vapor explode quite readily, why aren't those banned. Baking flour or artificial creamer, when dispersed in a mist can explode (grain silos have and still do explode).

And one more thing, what makes you thing that banning programming will stop people from doing it?? If "hackers" are doing malicious things, they can already be punished under existing laws, so I fail to see how "banning" it will help the situation

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

yuo mak3 no since!! (5.00 / 1) (#143)
by venalcolony on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:06:14 PM PST
And one more thing, what makes you thing that banning programming will stop people from doing it??

Because an automatic jail term without junk food or porn sites amounts to a very compelling deterrent in the mind of your average social misfit.

If "hackers" are doing malicious things, they can already be punished under existing laws,

Yes, but hacking isnt currently illegal. If it were, elenchos wouldnt have written this article, would have he? Sigh. The trouble with deigning to talk down to g**ks is that one must spell out every step in an argument in order to get their exclusively literal minded CPU to grok any of it.
if (programmer) {
    if (!employed)
       jail();
}
salary(TWO_HOOKERS_PER_YEAR);
adulation(LINUX ? 0 : 1);
beard(JIHAD_LENGTH);
junkfood((unsigned long)-1);
deodorant(0);
politics(LIBERTARIAN);
chix0rs(0);



---
The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

hehe (0.00 / 2) (#226)
by Fordi on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:29:37 AM PST
if ($asshole) {
for ($i=0; $i=0; ) {
$asshole->getbeat();
}
}else{
echo "Wow. Shut up, dick.";
}


 
hmmm (none / 0) (#200)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:32:53 PM PST
they'd probably have to stop including notepad with Windows. Oh, and Debug. What about edit? Oh, and then there's edlin. and the copy command (copy con temp.fil allows you to type directly to a file). What about WordPad. And Word. Works. Can't have that pesky telnet running about. Nor hyperterm. or ping. or cmd(command.com for you 9x/ME users). can't have Front page; it allows for source viewing/editing. Nope, cut out Outlook express, too.. IE? no chance.

And that's just Microsoft products. Face it. You're obviously quite computer illiterate, and should never have written an article on a topic you have no experience, not even a slight idea of the truth about.


Now you're catching on. (none / 0) (#207)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 12:22:07 AM PST
Of couse I mean that all of that should be banned, or modified to prevent any programming. There are lots of ways to prevent software from being put to unintended uses.

You might note that I mention in the original article that "text editors" are a hacker's tool. I mean it. Normal people create documents with Word. Text editors and such things are not needed, except to do things you weren't intented to do.

I'm planning a couple follow-up articles on implementation. On the hardware end, for example, all computers sold in the future will have to be much like iMacs, except with a welded-shut steel case, and probably a big capacitor that discharges into the motherboard if any any tampering is detected. Then you could hard-wire all machines so that they would only run execuables that are certified as coming from an institution or company with clearance.

In software, perhaps the entire protocol of the net should be changed, to make everything in the future incompatible with older hardware and the tools that run on it. That way you wouldn't have to make such an effort to confiscate every compiler or every copy of telnet. Older machines would just become obsolete and fall into disuse and decay.

Compared with the billions in damage that hacking costs, the whole thing will be a bargain too good to pass up.


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


sources please (none / 0) (#208)
by frosty on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 02:20:01 AM PST
Compared with the billions in damage that hacking costs, the whole thing will be a bargain too good to pass up.

Do you have any research that backs up this "billions in damage" claim you are making?? Where is the cost of "hacking" measured?? How does any of this hardware implimentation prevent people who are intent on hacking?? Remember, people were modifying hardware long before software ever existed.

Personally, I think you are afraid of something you don't seem to understand. And you have been grossly mis-informed about what programming is used for in most cases.

Please do not burden the rest of the population with your narrow minded bigotry

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

The hide of you people! (none / 0) (#215)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:39:38 AM PST
Has it ever occured to you that it is, in fact, incredibly impolite to call someone a liar without providing evidence? You think he's inventing facts? Fine. Prove him wrong, don't demand that he prove himself right. That sort of misbehaviour marks you as a lazy arguer and a thug.


Proving him wrong (none / 0) (#225)
by Fordi on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:25:25 AM PST
I would like to see a DoS attack actually cost anyone 'billions' of dollars (as has been claimed by corporations out for 'hacker' blood)

Even the worst standard hacker attack can only shut down a system for a few hours at best. Sure that costs money on an e-commerce site, but only maybe a couple of hundered.

Then there's things like the code red worm. Which makes money.

Let me explain. Microsoft reveals that there's a worm about, and that everyone should go and get their security fix for it. Microsoft rakes in billions in advertising from every person that hops on their site to get the patch.


Nice double standard (none / 0) (#244)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 05:13:12 PM PST
He makes claims about the cost of hacking, you demand evidence. You make your claims about the cost of hacking based purely on your own speculation, and feel no need to provide evidence. Thanks for the hypocrisy.


 
The thug grabs his clue stick (none / 0) (#245)
by frosty on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 05:28:50 PM PST
I appologize for my apparent "thuggish" tone, however I stand by my accusation. Being someone having a great deal of exposure to general technical buzz, I am always suspicious of people that make unsupported claims, especialy when dollar estimates run into the "billions" (plural). This Article mentions the general tendancy to inflate "damage" estimates by large amounts. So any estimates I see come under immediate suspicion unless they provide links and methodologies.

Besides, I believe the burden of proof if on the original poster who is making the claims. I am asking for evidence to validate his claim, and that is a completely valid request. I post the above link as validation for the scepticism I expressed earlier. I would ask elenchos to post similar factual basis for his claims.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

Burden of proof? (none / 0) (#247)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:13:30 PM PST
Are we in court? Is this a debate, all of a sudden? I was under the impression that this was a discussion -- a conversation of sorts. It is most impolite to accuse someone of lying without the evidence to back up your claim. The onus is on you to support your allegations. People are innocent until proven guilty, since you are trying to turn this discussion into a trial. So far you have provided some fairly dubious evidence, which looks more like speculation than proof. Pretty weak, compared the the demands you were making of the original poster.


you want numbers???? (none / 0) (#253)
by frosty on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 08:48:21 PM PST
Here first half of 2001 estimated at 377.8Million. 2000 estimated at 265.6Million, 1999 was 120 million. So, the totals for the last 2 1/2 years are ~763.4 million. Now even if these figures are correct they are hadrly the "billions" (plural) claimed by the author.

There, hard data. Actual numbers with references attached. Where is your annonymous coward's response to that?

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

You have lost. (none / 0) (#254)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 09:15:52 PM PST
Over three years? He didn't mention a time frame, let alone one so narrow. How about over five? That would probably be close to a billion. Over ten? Definitely over a billion. Looks to me like you just lost. Next time be sure of your facts before you call someone a liar.


Let's go over this again.... (none / 0) (#298)
by frosty on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 11:08:03 AM PST
If you examine the general trend in the numbers, you would notice that they increase sharply as time goes on, or decrease sharply as you go backwards. The totals of 1999 and 2000 are less than 10M greater than the estimate for the first half of 2001. So, if we work backwards, the estimates should continue to fall accordingly. This assumption being based on the coorelation between the growth of the internet and and the increase of "hacker" (as you call it) activity. First, lets examine the "worst case cenario". Assume that damages remained constant from 1999 back to 1970. Even then damages would only have exceeded 2 billion dollars if you went back 15 years, to 1986. The assumtion that losses remain contstant however is laughable, so lets assume that hacking losses increased by 50% each year from the founding of the internet. that would give us the following approximate values:
1998: 80M
1997: 55M
1996: 40M
1995: 25M
1994: 15M
1993: 10M
1992: 7M
1991: 5M

With these figures, the magical billion mark is not reached until you go back to 1991, and the value would never get much higher than 1.1billion
if you went back to the dawn of time.

So, yes, the number may be over 1 billion dollars( but I think present estimates are grossly inflated as it is), but the claim I am contesting is that damages are "Billions (two or more) of dollars" which is demonstratively false, and is either an unintention un-truth or a deliberate falsehood used to prop up an argument.

Please do not try to argue that my projections are off. Even if losses remained constant from 1999 back, you wouldn't break 2 billion until ~1986. And there is no possibly way that 120 million dollars were being stolen when the only people with internet access were the gov't and large (very large) universities.

There, I believe my point has been proven. If you care to reply, please log in
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

Please. (none / 0) (#300)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 12:55:08 PM PST
That study only counted reported losses from companies that volunteered to give an exact dollar value of their losses. It does not include those who chose not to share this informaion with the F.B.I. We all know how reluctant companies are to admit how much they have lost to hacking, or even that they have been hacked at all. Nor do your numbers include any even minimal estimates from those companies who could not provide an exact dollar value. We know this number is greater than zero.

But most of all, this study you are discussing only examines direct security breaches. That is limited to when a hacker targets that company and breaks in and causes damage. It is an extremely limited study. It completely ignores losses to piracy, for example. It does not count at all the increased daily costs due to having to guard against hacks and viruses.

And the biggest thing of all is left out compeletely from that one study: VIRUSES and WORMS! Code Red alone caused billions in losses. And then there is Code Red II. And I Love You. And Mellissa. And more. And what about Unix viruses?

No one has a precise estimate of the damage, but we know that it does add up to more than a billion for all the viruses together. And you yourself have proven that the minimum low-ball estimate for direct break-ins is one billion dollars. So add that to the cost of viruses, and the cost of IP theft, and the cost of security against the horde of hackers on the loose, and you easily come up with more than two billion dollars. I would confidently say it is TEN billion.

And in any event, it is much more than the cost of banning hobbyist hacking. Be honest for once.


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


Piracy losses overestimated (none / 0) (#400)
by Pinocchio Poppins on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 02:10:20 PM PST
It completely ignores losses to piracy, for example.

Software publishers grossly overestimate losses due to piracy. Most of the time, if somebody pirates a program, she would not have bought it anyway; that instance of piracy thus reduces a publisher's sales by $0.00 and may in fact produce a slight profit, as the publisher does not have to spend money manufacturing the CD and printing the manual and box.

Another piracy overestimate occurs when Adobe reports pirated copies of Photoshop products as the loss of a Photoshop Full Version sale ($600) instead of the loss of a Photoshop Elements sale ($100). Adobe markets PS Elements to home users who for the most part do not need the full version's prepress capabilities. (Most of the $500 difference goes to Pantone for color-matching royalties.) Most business users that need prepress have the resources and the professionalism to license the full version of Photoshop.

--
Pinocchio

 
Did you just fail statistics? (none / 0) (#304)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 04:22:25 PM PST
First rule of statistics: never extrapolate. Your estimates are almost certain to be way off the mark, particularly since you are working from an incredibly tiny sample group.

So you have demonstrated yourself to be a complete klutz with statistics, and you have lost again.


 
hard to believe this isnt a hoax... (none / 0) (#210)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 04:09:37 AM PST
but anyway, most of the 'anti-hacking' arguement here is nothing more than simplistic linguistic sophistry. you define a 'hacker' as someone who is of necessity an uneducated, malicious, lazy fool, in opposition to the way that most of the online community uses the term (note for instance the need for the qualifier in the term 'malicious hacker), and then argue that hacking is 'bad'. well, by your definition, of course that is true, but the reasoning is tautologous and meaningless as presented.

where do you suppose that the big corporations and the governments and universities got the people they have working for them? if there were no 'hobbyists', there would be far fewer people eventually becoming skilled, trained, productive employees/students; 'tinkering' and personal exploration is how they discover that they enjoy coding enough to make a career out of it, in many cases. it is of course natural that someone who enjoys coding or whatnot will attempt to make his living in a related field.

your circular reasoning shows up again when you say that the worthy products are all owned by companies etc. naturally, if a 'hacker' comes up with a good idea, in many cases he would like to see some money for it, and so sells it to a large company. in other cases, the 'hackers' may form their own company, which i suppose 'legitimizes' them in your eyes, especially when they become a huge corporation (hewlett-packard, for instance). by your logic, someone is a hacker unless they eventually use their skills in some way that is considered useful to mainstream society, at which point they are no longer (and by some rhetorical slight-of-hand, apparantly never were) a hacker at all. so you say that anybody who does anything useful is not a hacker, and then say hackers do nothing useful.

this is the sort of thinking by which one might say, to defend use of the word "nigger", "well, if a black person is intelligent, or not a crack smoker, then by definition he isn't a nigger, so there's no reason for non crack-smoking, non-theiving, educated black people to take any offense by my saying that all niggers are stupid, thieving crack-whores."

not very convincing.


Chris Rock on black people and niggers (none / 0) (#399)
by Pinocchio Poppins on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 01:59:56 PM PST
this is the sort of thinking by which one might say, to defend use of the word "nigger", "well, if a black person is intelligent, or not a crack smoker, then by definition he isn't a nigger"

Are you a Chris Rock fan too? "We wish you a merry welfare and a happy food stamp!"

--
Pinocchio

 
hehe, you're funny (none / 0) (#223)
by Fordi on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:19:32 AM PST
not intended to do?

I suppose on my old DOS machine, I wasn't SUPPOSED to be able to modify the configuration. I suppose .ini files are not to be tampered with. Do you have any idea how an operating system operates?? I suppose not.


At one time cocaine was over-the-counter. (5.00 / 1) (#232)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 11:50:58 AM PST
Tapeworm eggs were sold as diet pills. People ate from dishes made of lead.

So what? That is the dismal past. We are talking about the present and the future. What may have been necessary on some obsolete computer is of no consequence. Computers today have no need for text editors and command-lines interfaces, except for "hacking".

Computers in the future can easily be made to have no capability whatosever to for programming, yet still allow legitimate users to create Word documents, send email, and shop on the Web. And they will be safe from "hackers" while the do it.


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


Master of the software world (none / 0) (#241)
by frosty on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 04:43:39 PM PST
And what if people want to do other things? Make their own web-pages using real HTML, Java, PHP, PERL, etc. Or Make a macro for their Excel files to make thier (personal, non-professional) life easier. Or what if they were statisticans and wanted to write some PERL scripts to help them deal with large data sets?

I can go on and on with legitimate examples of non-professionals and even recreational uses of programming and these so-called "hacker tools" that are completely safe, and even help people do things more efficiently.

Just because you have no use for personal programming doesn't mean it is useless, and just because you only make word documents, send email, and shop on the web, doesn't mean that there are myriad other uses for personal computers.

please do not continue your crusade to burden society with your distorted view of the digital reality

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

Nothing I propose would prevent... (none / 0) (#250)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:49:46 PM PST
...a legitimate researcher from getting the clearance to write programs for statistical purposes. Anyone doing so would be part of a company or university anyway, and thus not a "hacker".

As far as the more generic possibilty that a user discovers some feature that his spreadsheet or whatever lacks, well, then naturally he would want to hire a professional programmer to handle it for him, if the application didn't have any other way of doing it. This is no different than someone in business who discovers a need for a legal contract to cover some new situation. What to do? Get your 14-year old kid to write it, or hire a real lawyer?

Yeah, sure it is cute when you think you have a clever amateur who could do it, but let's not kid ourselves. If you are playing for real money, you get a real lawyer.

There is no digital reality. There is just reality, which normal people understand perfectly well. Who cares if "hackers" inhabit some fantasy world? My views are not a distortion at all of normal, healthy reality. If anything, this proposal is tediously commonplace and obvious.

Anyway, in answer to your request that I stop: no.


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


so where is the accountability (none / 0) (#299)
by frosty on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 11:43:23 AM PST
This whole scheme only works as long as the ones with ALL the power are not corrupt. However, we have seen time and time again that massive corporations, and massive gov't institutions are rarely fair and virtuous, and are, as a general rule, bent on their own importance and self-preservation. What you advocate is essentially state-run, or corporate-run technology controls. When they have the power over all the information, and more importantly, the power to control how we store, view, and process that data, there is no longer the capacity for the populace to verify facts for themselves. corporate control of our lifes, is a Bad Thing(TM). And those that propose to give more unnessisary control (or any more control for that matter) of people's lives to corporations or governments for any reason, especially this "only maliscious hackers are amateur programmers" tripe, should be shouted down as the freedom-destroying status quo loving conformist that they are.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

 
Perl not PERL (none / 0) (#251)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 07:06:58 PM PST
I'm surprised that the Perl zealots who flood this site don't know that.


 
Adequacy.org is run by professionals. (5.00 / 2) (#134)
by em on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:06:43 PM PST
Would this ban on amature programming include html, and perl scripts, if it does take your site down.

No, because our site is run by properly trained computer professionals, not by 13-year old "hackers".
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


Professionals (none / 0) (#371)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 03:16:42 AM PST
Do you not relase that the lions share of open source development is done by computing professionals, either at work on in their own time?

Does this then give it legitimacy in your eyes?


 
Orwell and RMS predicted this would happen. (1.00 / 2) (#14)
by Donna Meyer on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 06:59:09 PM PST
Sometimes, fiction is written solely for entertainment: for the joy of creating an enjoyable narrative or telling a fun story. Sometimes, though, fiction is written to make a point: to describe how the world is through fictional allegory, or to describe how the world could be if certain factors existed.

Science Fiction, a mainstay of the world's intellectual elite, is usually written to make a point of how the world could be in the future if certain factors in the course of cultural or technological development goes certain ways. One of the most famous future-forecasting science fiction works, which has proven to be oddly prophetic, is George Orwell's 1984. It was written to warn against the evils of large, oppressive governments and described a distopian world in which the oppressive government ruled with an iron fist the citizenry through societal mind control, control over the media, and brainwashing.

1984, though fictional, proved to be eerily prophetic. In the nearly two decades since 1984 was written, much of it has come true exactly as Orwell predicted. Not a day goes by without friend of Liberty decrying some new government program as "Orwellian," and "Big Brother" has become a household term every time the government tries to erode more and more of our Liberties.

This theft of Freedom has hit record levels in the wake of the terrorist attacks, and shows no signs of sloping off. 1984 has come to 2001.

Another philosopher whose works have been proven eerily prophetic in the wake of recent events is Richard M Stallman of the Free Software Foundation.. In his prophetic and allegorical story The Right To Read, he describes a world in which big corporations and people like the author of this article have taken away our rights. The corporations have done exactly what the author of this article suggested: programming has been made illegal, free libraries have been shut down, and book are now pay-per-view.

Read this with an open mind as see exactly what the world would be like if Elenchos had his way.

The Right to Read Richard Stallman, 1996

(Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.)

For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college--when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.

This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her--but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong--something that only pirates would do.

And there wasn't much chance that the SPA--the Software Protection Authority--would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment--for not taking pains to prevent the crime.

Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research papers he read. (10% of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.)

Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.

There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers--you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Dan concluded that he couldn't simply lend Lissa his computer. But he couldn't refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak with her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for help, that could mean she loved him too.

Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable--he lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a crime, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him.

Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless of what she had used it for. School policy was that any interference with their means of monitoring students' computer use was grounds for disciplinary action. It didn't matter whether you did anything harmful--the offense was making it hard for the administrators to check on you. They assumed this meant you were doing something else forbidden, and they did not need to know what it was.

Students were not usually expelled for this--not directly. Instead they were banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail all their classes.

Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only in the 1980s, when university students in large numbers began using computers. Previously, universities maintained a different approach to student discipline; they punished activities that were harmful, not those that merely raised suspicion.

Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims.

The right to read is a battle being fought today. Although it may take 50 years for our present way of life to fade into obscurity, most of the specific laws and practices described above have already been proposed--either by the Clinton Administration or by publishers.

There is one exception: the idea that the FBI and Microsoft will keep the root passwords for personal computers. This is an extrapolation from the Clipper chip and similar Clinton Administration key-escrow proposals, together with a long-term trend: computer systems are increasingly set up to give absentee operators control over the people actually using the computer system.

The SPA, which actually stands for Software Publisher's Association, is not today an official police force. Unofficially, it acts like one. It invites people to inform on their coworkers and friends; like the Clinton Administration, it advocates a policy of collective responsibility whereby computer owners must actively enforce copyright or be punished.

The SPA is currently threatening small Internet service providers, demanding they permit the SPA to monitor all users. Most ISPs surrender when threatened, because they cannot afford to fight back in court. (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 1 Oct 96, D3.) At least one ISP, Community ConneXion in Oakland CA, refused the demand and was actually <!-- <a href="https://www.c2.net/ispdc/"> -->sued. The SPA is said to have dropped this suit recently, but they are sure to continue the campaign in various other ways.

The university security policies described above are not imaginary. For example, a computer at one Chicago-area university prints this message when you log in (quotation marks are in the original):
"This system is for the use of authorized users only. Individuals using this computer system without authority or in the excess of their authority are subject to having all their activities on this system monitored and recorded by system personnel. In the course of monitoring individuals improperly using this system or in the course of system maintenance, the activities of authorized user may also be monitored. Anyone using this system expressly consents to such monitoring and is advised that if such monitoring reveals possible evidence of illegal activity or violation of University regulations system personnel may provide the evidence of such monitoring to University authorities and/or law enforcement officials."


This is an interesting approach to the Fourth Amendment: pressure most everyone to agree, in advance, to waive their rights under it.
I get goose pimples every time I read this story, because I see this "fictional" story becoming more and more real every day. Something to think about!


News from the intellectual elite: we read Joyce. (none / 0) (#16)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:31:24 PM PST
Sci-fi is for teenage wankers.

And we don't copy and paste amateur sci-fi written by computer guys. We link to it, if we must refer to it at all.

Aside from all that, what does the freedom to read or write books them have to do with computer programming? Code is just instructions that make a machine do things, not speech of any kind. So you are using the red-herring of banning books to criticize the reasonable security measure of limiting computer programming to those who can be trusted.

So. Do you have anything that is on-topic to post? And please just link to any sci-fi stories you want to use.


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


Can you read? Or no? (none / 0) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 08:39:28 PM PST
"Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises."


Yes, I got that part. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:04:03 PM PST
The question is, how does this have anything to do with free speech? It is a slippery slope argument. First they ban the the means to grow anthrax at home, next they will be taking away your typewriter. First they say you can't have your own missile launcher, and next thing you know they have cameras spying on every bedroom.

It is a very, very weak defense of "hacking". The reason for grasping at straws like this -- sci-fi scenarios and slippery slope fallacies -- is that there is so little too shore up the the only possible foundation for justifying hacking. There is nothing of general benefit and utility coming from "hackers", so you can't say we will lose anything important without them. Nor is there any essential liberty so intertwined with "hacking" that we will be less free without it. We will be the same, only safer.

"Hacking" is a threat to public safety, and to justify "hacking" you have to give a good reason to put up with that threat.


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


 
Joyce?!! (none / 0) (#26)
by tkatchev on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:07:22 PM PST
WTF, how can you put the words "intellectual" and "Joyce" in one sentence? That's utterly disgusting; please stop it.

I'd suggest you read some serious literature. (And no, Joyce doesn't qualify. Joyce is for pretentious pseudointellectual wankers.)


--
Peace and much love...




Oh please. (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:14:17 PM PST
While I have nothing against anti-intellectualism, this really turns my stomach. Most people at least have the courage to be openly anti-intellectual, rather than claiming to be an intellectual, while cravenly applying the label "pseudo-intellectual" to all real intellectuals.


 
What do you think it means to be the... (none / 0) (#31)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:26:17 PM PST
...intellectual elite? Writing Cowboy Poetry? Creating Hollywood summer blockbusters? Tom Clancy?

Think about it. I n t e l l e c t u a l   e l i t e ! It means not accessable. Not associated with the common people. It means there is an us and there is a them and we are without a doubt better than them.

Given that how can you possibly object to Joyce? I was thinking of mentioning Proust instead, or perhaps Nabokov. I don't think you even are a real intellectual, and certainly not an elite one.

Naturally you get nowhere with Joyce.


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


OK. (none / 0) (#42)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:12:08 AM PST
Dump Proust. Nabokov is OK, though. (Jesus Christ, get some literary taste, OK?)


--
Peace and much love...




typical tkatchev post (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:12:03 AM PST
It's so like you to denigrate a homosexual author in favor of a heterosexual, even if that heterosexual is a well known pedophile.


Yay, let's play the pedophile game! (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:35:18 AM PST
Why not mention that Lewis Carrol and William Shakespeare were pedophiles, while you're at it? I'm not condoning pedophiles, but let's have a bit of evidence before calling someone names.


--
Peace and much love...




Yeah, I agree (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:48:20 AM PST
I consider you a philistine for your tasteless denunciations of Joyce (that's James, not Carol Oates, just to make sure we're on the same page), but this sexual mudslinging is beneath contempt. Perhaps if the classy gent who buys books based on his perception of the author's morality had bothered to read the book, he might be able to come up with some more compelling invective to launch at poor old misunderstood Vladimir.


 
if I may be serious for a moment (none / 0) (#340)
by nathan on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 07:44:40 PM PST
You are apparently unaware that, in Nabokov's opinion, Ulysses, Proust, and Kafka's The Metamorphosis were the greatest novels of the XXth century.[1]

[1] Source: Nabokov, Strong Opinions

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

 
Even though I think my taste in books is better (none / 0) (#116)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:32:33 AM PST
than most people's, i don't think I'm better than anyone. Besides, you probably like Sylvia Plath.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

You probably like Neal Stephenson! (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:02:34 PM PST
Eat that, g**kball!


yes, i do (none / 0) (#329)
by THC 1138 on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 08:32:45 AM PST
I also like Shakespear, Banks, Murakami, Tom Robbins, Camus, etc..., books on Quantum Physics, Anthroplogy, Art History, Linguistics, Latin, Religion, et al. non-fiction. So I guess I am a geek since I tend to read almost everything I can get my hands on. I've even read the whole Bible (because I wanted to, not cause anyone told me too).


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

"de gustibus non est disputandum," but e (none / 0) (#341)
by nathan on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 07:57:52 PM PST
Promiscuity in one's reading habits proves nothing other than an ability to shovel back words. Many stupid people can read quickly with little retention or critical analysis.

Shakespeare is such a cultural hero that everyone has "read" him a little. If you want to claim more credibly to be intelligent (rather than just able,) your credential-generating reading list might include but not be limited to the works of the following authors:

Fichte, Husserl, Hegel, Spinoza, Descartes, Leibniz, Voltaire, Rousseau, Abelard, Villon, Conrad, Gogol, Terrence, Hume, Cicero, Thucydides, Plato, Cao Xueqin, Li Bao, Lady Murasaki, the foul Tanazaki, Locke, and (I'd say) the Church Fathers and some ecclesiastical history, for a start.

Frankly, a great-books shout-out from high school does not impress me very much. It's tediously typical g**k thinking - "people who don't study natural sciences don't really study anything of substance, so I can dabble in their fields and be much better at it." These are the same people who think computer science is a natural science.

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

banks, murakami, and robbins are (none / 0) (#346)
by THC 1138 on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 08:30:10 AM PST
not high shool reading. But half of those authors you mentioned I first read in middle and high school. I can mention Umberto Eco, Hawking, Darwin, Ceaser, Vergil, Petronius, Cicero (I've translated all four of those from the original Latin, i.e the Gallic Wars, the Aeneid, Cicero's Orations, among others), Sun Tzu (kinda trite), Confucius, The Bhagavad Gita, Sartre, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, etc...
And I have yet to meet a stupid person who can read quickly, that's an oxymoron. However, I've met some smart ones who are quick to put their foot in their mouth.
And actually, my B.S. is in Computer Science, and I'm still waiting for my white jacket and clipboard.

btw: I think this thread originally started with me bemoaning the elitist attitude of psuedo-intellectuals. However I can't win. I either get Frasier Crane breathing down my back for enjoying plebian authors as Robbins, or Stephensen, instead of just reading Suetonius. But then Joe Bob says that I'm being too "sophisticated" for reading books that aren't brain candy. My final point to this thread is, I like to read, everything and anything (and I retain it). Whereas I think I am improving myself by reading as much as possible, I'm not going to have an elitist attitude towards people who only read Mary Higgins Clark, or to the people who think you have to read the classics to be a productive member of the intelligencia. In the end an asshole is an asshole, and a friend is a friend.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

this changes things a little (none / 0) (#351)
by nathan on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 11:46:15 AM PST
The texts you mention now go rather beyond your earlier Shakespear, Banks, Murakami, Tom Robbins, Camus. As well, you were capitalizing everything in sight, and you emphasized that you didn't have to be told to read the Bible (implying that this was a feat.) I should have picked up on your Vergil, though. Sorry.

I'm still baffled that you claim to enjoy Stephenson. I've only read Snow Crash, but it struck me as being the sort of pseudo-intellectual bong-hit science crap that Kurobots and wankers revel in. The protagonist has a cheap joke name, a contrived and preposterous moral superiority through an improbable mixed ancestry, inimitable (and inexplicable) proficiency in weapons, and just happens to be the world's 1337est h4x0r. The only justification I can even imagine for that book is that Stephenson wanted to introduce the comic-book crowd to new theories of the brain or something.

I'm a classical musician. Most of the greats in my field, like my heroes Nikisch or Heifetz, were not primarily men of letters. There are lots of other things you can do that are important. What offends me is when geeks decide that the ability to hack Perl proves they're intellectuals.

This isn't what you claimed, so I humbly beg your pardon.

Yours,

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

 
one more thing. (none / 0) (#342)
by nathan on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 08:00:08 PM PST
Tom Robbins, along Shakespeare? You, sir, are a babbling idiot.

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

I see all that great reading you've been doing (none / 0) (#348)
by THC 1138 on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 09:39:49 AM PST
has done wonders for your ability to eloquently dis someone, and put in a totally random hyperlink.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

random hyperlink (none / 0) (#350)
by nathan on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 11:18:29 AM PST
Ah, what you don't realize is that the 'babbling idiot' is a well-known monster from Moria. Nathan
--
Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

i stand corrected (none / 0) (#352)
by THC 1138 on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 01:58:13 PM PST


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
Yes I like Sylvia Plath. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:44:20 PM PST
I read Sylvial Plath, which is one of the things that makes me an intellectual. Liking her, and most importantly, understanding her, is evidence that I am an elite intellectual. This means that I am (to be concise) better than those who do not have these intellectual and elite characteristics.

Maybe being part of the world's intellectual elite is of no importance to you, and you don't have any respect for us who are. Maybe you even scoff at our status as guardians of high culture and artistic sophisitication, and think we are in fact pompous, self-important blowhards who only pretend to understand and appreciate Plath and Joyce because we are nothing but snobs. Fine. Whatever. We expect the untutored mob to think that about us. We would not have it any other way, if truth be told.

But the original post attempted to use the argument to authority fallacy to try to claim that, one, a snippet of speculative sci-fi could be used to tell us what we should and should not ban here and now, and two, that we should believe this fictional speculation because such trash is read by the "world's intellectual elite". I was showing how this is all wrong in several different ways.

By the way, on Orwell: 1984 is studied in the eighth grade in nearly every junior high school in the US. While Orwell is a fine author, this example of required reading in the public schools hardly has a thing to do with either being an intellectual or being elite. Requried reading is about as common as you can get.


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


yeah yeah yeah, (none / 0) (#167)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:33:53 PM PST
go read some Iain M. Banks or Murakami (Ryu or Haruki).
And just because I was in the gifted program, and got a full scholarship to UF for being a Nat'l Merit Finalist, and I enjoyed Crime and Punishment, etc..., doesn't make me any better than any other person. You may be intellectual, but eith your "elite" attitude, you're not very wise. And besides, in a free society, why should anything be banned?

and I
b
e
t
that you l
. .......i
. ........k
. .........eec
. .......... ummings


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

Yes, you are no better than anyone else. (5.00 / 1) (#172)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:05:29 PM PST
I can see that quite clearly.

In a free society, things that endanger the health, safety, and welfare of the society as a whole, or even a portion of society, should be banned unless it can be demonstrated that such social menaces have enough redeeming value to counterbalance the harm they cause. What is so difficult about that?

E. E. Cummings has some importance within his period, and those of us with a solid understanding of modern poetry naturally wish to be familiar with his work. I like it that I know that.


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


don't get me wrong, i love to read (none / 0) (#176)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:39:36 PM PST
and to learn as much as possible. However, I don't think I'm better than others just because I've read more than them. I do think that I hold a more enlightened view than people who like to pre-judge other people.
Today's trash is tomorrow's treasures. Dickens wrote a lot of his books as serials - the Victorian version of Saop Opera crossed with the Nat'l Enquirer.
How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
FALSE (none / 0) (#199)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:26:29 PM PST
This is completely, well, ah, no.

Look. You do NOT ban things. A FREE society is designed to be SELF REGULATING. Dangerous things, sure, tax them, discourage their use, make them hard to get, but for fuck's sake DO NOT BAN THEM. The only thing that results from bans is that criminals are the ONLY ones to have access to the banned item.

What, exactly, do you think would happen if cigarrettes were banned? Or guns?

Evidence: Prohibition, the Drug Trade. Have you seen RC6 yet? yup. since you can't export strong encryption over 128 bits, someone overseas wrote strong encryption that uses 384 -- and it's NOT LEGAL FOR USE IN THE US! (dll runtime available for download at www.bo2k.com)

So, I am a criminal for using RC6 in my private transmissions.

I am also a criminal for providing that link, as it's illegal to inform others where to get illegal software.




Oh sure. Put a high tax on plutonium. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 12:00:05 AM PST
That will keep us all safe. Don't tell anyone not to carry a gun on an airplane. Just charge them extra. Want to set up shop to do brain surgery in your back yard? No problem, but there's a big fee for that.

There are essential freedoms, and there are trivial "freedoms". Merely "discouraging" behavior that is a direct threat to society as a whole isn't enough. Otherwise, why have any law at all?

Or do you really think anarchy is better? You mean like they have in some third-world disaster area where the government has collapsed? Sure, I bet it would be great to live there. You first.


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


America has done pretty well (none / 0) (#268)
by THC 1138 on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:16:17 AM PST
so far without having to ban everything that offends or scares anyone. I think we'll continue to do fine, despite the elitist thinking of some misguided, but possibly well-meaning, people.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

We have also done well banning some things. (none / 0) (#277)
by elenchos on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 11:22:23 AM PST
That is just a slippery slope fallacy that you are using. I propose banning some computer technology for the general benefit, in the same way that we ban some other technologies, like machine guns or nuclear missiles. Yet hardly anyone misses these things, because the really useful technology is still legal.


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


 
Faith and egalitarianism (5.00 / 1) (#213)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:16:33 AM PST
I'd like to see you demonstrate to me how being a person of refined taste and culture doesn't make me better than the substrata of humanity who not only resist broadening their horizons, but actually consider it a flaw if someone else does.

This idea that all people are equal, regardless of intelligence and personal achievement is a most unsuppotable claim, expecially coming from someone who preaches the doctrine of individuality with the same breath. What is the point in improving yourself as an individual if we are all equal, no matter what we do?

It seems to me that this blind faith in egalitarian ideals is an overapplication of the concept of equality before the law. No person has more basic rights than any other. Beyond that, equality is an illusion.


Just because a person is well educated (none / 0) (#274)
by THC 1138 on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 10:06:46 AM PST
doesn't mean they're not an asshole. So I prefer to base my judgements on people by their personality, and not such trite things like whether or not they can write a critique on "The Scarlet" letter. I tend to dislike people who are idiots in the way they view the world or treat other people.

Call me crazy, but I tend not to prejudge someone until I've gotten to personally know him or her.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

I hope you don't vote based on personality (none / 0) (#279)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:43:18 PM PST
Because it sounds like you're what's wrong with the US political system.


I'm what's wrong with the us political system (none / 0) (#296)
by THC 1138 on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 07:48:17 AM PST
because I don't incorporate personal attacks into my "arguments"?


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

Oh, don't you? (none / 0) (#303)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 04:18:12 PM PST
http://www.adequacy.org/?op=comments;sid=2001/10/10/18186/236;cid=268#268

http://www.adequacy.org/?op=comments;sid=2001/10/12/14247/119;cid=63#63

For someone who repeatedly accuses others of
argument ad hominem, you seem to be a little to quick to use it yourself. So now you're a liar, too.

My post above was not ad hominem. It was an attempt to demonstrate that you cannot go about making decisions about people based purely on personality. Here's an ad hominem: You are a liar, therefore you are wrong.


I have a differing viewpoint, thus I am wrong. (none / 0) (#330)
by THC 1138 on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 09:14:28 AM PST
In that first URL you list, I mention the elitist thinking of people. The person I was referencing had clearly stated many times he was elitist, if you had read the parent threads. I didn't call the person an asshole, or say he sucks. I merely repeated what he had already said about himself, that people who read a lot and try to broaden their intellectual horizons are automatically better, i.e. elitism. I didn't say that his arguments are wrong because he is elitist, I said that elitism is wrong.
As for the second URL, I guess I did use Argument Ad Backstreet Boys.

And if you are going to use a a fallacious argument to make a point, you should declare it in your post, and not in a later point. That way it doesn't seem like you are trying to cover your ass.
And as for politics, which was brought up as a total non sequitur to the whole argument, no, I wouldn't vote just on personality. If the argument had involved politics, I would have mentioned that I choose a candidate based on his record, his views, and his policies, and how they affect me, and not on just his personality, although that is a small factor in my choice, be it a very small factor, though. However, when dealing with people on a one on one basis, I give everyone the opportunity to prove to me they are or aren't worthy of my attention, innocent til proven guilty, so to speak. I have plenty of great friends who are dumb as a rock, but are still better people than some intellectuals I know. And the reverse is true. Whereas, I think the drive to constantly learn and improve yourself is great, it's not a prerequisite to be a good human being.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

personality, politics, friends (none / 0) (#335)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 04:30:30 PM PST
The post was not fallacious. The point was obvious. It's also, as you admit yourself, correct. You can't vote based on personality.

You also can't judge people purely on personality. Whether you they are your friends or not, some people are just worse than others. The claim that you don't need to be intelligent to be a great human being is just guidance counselor wishy-washiness. Intelligent people are better than stupid people. That's why "stupid" is an insult, and "intelligent" is a compliment.


 
Plath, Joyce, etc. (none / 0) (#198)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:15:55 PM PST
Reading and liking are two different things. I've read both Joyce and Plath, as well as a many varied types of other books in my self-education.

However, I find Joyce to be pretty damned lame. Excellent writer, but full of ideals and paranioas that should never be thought of as possible in the real world.


 
my beloved Joyce (none / 0) (#339)
by nathan on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 07:38:06 PM PST
You scoundrel, if it weren't for my beloved Joyce, I'd never have learned the Russian I use to read my beloved Vladimir Nabokov. Your calumnius attack on my beloved Joyce will earn you nothing but but contempt from right-thinking citizens all over the world.

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

 
RMS and false assumptions (none / 0) (#18)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 07:48:48 PM PST
Actually, that is exactly what the world is like TODAY. Reading the copyright page of most books reveals that you are not entitled to lend your books to anyone. Indeed, libraries pay a small stipend to the author every time a book is lent. You are not in danger of losing the right to lend books, because you never had that right in the first place.

This highlights one of the root causes the g**k intellectual property violations. You simply never understood the rights you do and do not have, and inevitably decided that you had the right to do whatever you wanted, regardless of the cost to the people who create the things you steal.


Example please? (none / 0) (#309)
by frosty on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 05:47:23 PM PST
Could you furnish an example of a copyright page in a book, that prohibits the actions I may take with the book itself (loaning, selling, burning, and the like. NOT copying, scanning, reprinting, etc.)

The only restrictions I can see from any books I have on hand at the moment, (not many, I'm at work right now) I can only see limitations of copying of the material. There is no mention of loaning/selling/leasing etc.

I could however be wrong, so if you can furnish an adequate example of these restrictions that are put on "most books" please do.


"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

here ya go (none / 0) (#310)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 06:05:34 PM PST
...this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent...

From the copyright page of Don DeLillo's Libra. If you'd like me to start naming the rest of the books I have lying around that have the exact same statement, I can.


 
Food for thought - from a hacker (4.00 / 1) (#23)
by wubo on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:02:33 PM PST
Since I am a member of the people that stands accused, I would like to say a few things. I have never had any formal education in programming. I am, by my own definition, a hacker. I have a God-given desire to learn and to understand the world around me, not to mearly accept it. I am not a malicious hacker, in fact there are very few in relation to those who merely want to learn. By and large the hacker community actually shuns these people as second rate, or script-kiddies. There are bad hackers, just like there are bad Arabs and bad Americans. I am not condoning malicious programming, it should be stopped, and there are harsh laws prohibiting it. But to outlaw hacking would be to outlaw an entire lifestyle and method of education, this is not an acceptable response. This brings to mind a familiar example, "Outlaw the gun, and only the outlaws will have them.", the same is true of hacking. Outlaw it and you outlaw the future programmers that have made an industry great. The only ones remaining will be the ones you sought to destroy. If what you suggest would have been in effect 30 years ago, the software industry would be a very different place. There would be no Apple Computer, which was started by a hardware hacker. No Lotus 1-2-3, the first commercial spreadsheet, written by a hermit hacker. And no Microsoft. (Bill Gates was a hacker) Something you may find interesting is that the businesses that have shaped the computer into the tool it is today, were largly started by self-proclaimed hackers. Just some food for thought... (fyi, scoop - the engine that powers this forum, was also written by a hacker)

(if you'd like to comment on what I said, please direct them toward the message board on http://wubo.dyndns.org - this topic is of great interest to me)



hardware hacker? (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:24:16 AM PST
Actually there were companies in the past that sold KITS that allowed people to build there own computer. They are not called hackers. The "Apple Guy" were both engineering students at the University of California at Berkeley.


freedom to innovate (none / 0) (#85)
by wubo on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:43:07 AM PST
but these people pushed the limits of these kits, making changes and additions, much like "hackers" today push the limits of dvd and the tivo.


Please don't do this. (1.00 / 1) (#94)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:16:16 AM PST
Saying "kit" makes you sound like a British wanker with severe sexual complexes. It is well known that British public school education leads to homosexuality, but don't advertise it so blatantly, OK?


--
Peace and much love...




Poppyc*ck (5.00 / 2) (#140)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:36:48 PM PST
It is well known that British public school education leads to homosexuality, but don't advertise it so blatantly, OK?

That's simply not true. Stephen Fry, Michael Barrymore and ELton John were all educated in public schools, and they are clearly paragons of red-blooded heterosexuality.

Perhaps you are bitter because Ruskies make inferior lovers, hence the large volume of Russian mail-order brides for sale in the back of Private Eye.


 
"Apple Guys" (none / 0) (#184)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:45:21 PM PST
The Apple Guys, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak are self proclaimed hackers. Not only that, but the predecessor of the first Apple Computer built by these two was what is known as a "Blue Box".

This was a "phreaker" device ("Phreak" means phone hacker, and was that day's equivalent of today's hardcore hackers), that would emit certain tones known at that time to have the ability to circumvent the international call billing system (completely simplified, but basically the point).

There are your "Apple Guys"; Students AND hackers. You can be both.


 
Scoop written by a hacker? Really? (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:41:58 AM PST
I don't think I've ever heard Rusty call himself a hacker. You just made that up.


unauthorized (none / 0) (#83)
by wubo on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:38:01 AM PST
but it wasn't written by a software company, that's kinda the idea i was going for here.


 
a no (0.00 / 2) (#102)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:12:21 AM PST
this is bs are you f#&* with me


 
The car analogy (4.66 / 3) (#117)
by Adam Rightmann on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:44:23 AM PST
At one time, all cars were built by hackers, people skilled with a lathe, file and saw, who made their vehicle by hand, and came up with odd things that drove about 15 miles per hour.

But the automobile industry matured. Laws and regulations came into being to ensure safety for drivers, passengers and pedestrians. Today, you can no more hand build a car and drive it on the expressway than you can hang a shingle and treat people as a doctor. It's not safe.

As the computer industry matures, more and more regulations will be needed. As more and more things are controlled by computers, greater strides must be made to ensure that hackers do not destory things, either maliciously or through youthful experimentation. I only hope this happens before a hacker crashed an airplane, or destroys a nuclear power plant in the name of experimentation.


A. Rightmann

Car Analogy (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:40:20 AM PST
An excellent analogy, but there are some inconsistancies. Yes, commercially sold vehicles are now strictly regulated by the government, and they should be for the safety of their passengers. But this article suggests that we actually pass laws regarding the tools, such as outlawing the lathe because it can be used to build a dangerous vehicle. You outlaw the dangerous vehicle, much as you outlaw the virus or the D.O.S. script. One more thing, hackers don't crash airplanes, terrorists do, this is an important distinction. I don't expect to change anyones mind, I just want to present a different point of view to aid in an educated opinion.


 
The car analogy (none / 0) (#266)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:03:15 AM PST
quick question: how many people are killed in car accidents every year?<br>
i hardly think driving a car is safe. you can blame the driver (much like blaming a malicious "hacker"), but if you couldnt drive your car faster than 20 km/h, then there would be far less deaths. who is at fault? hard to sell a $100,000 porche if it only goes 20 km/h.


 
Awe-struck (2.50 / 2) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:23:56 PM PST
Let me state that I am astounded by the hidebound attitudes stated within this thread. Not only does the very thought of banning programming make me want to change my pants quickly, it seems to me that you (for the banning of programming) are only programmers trying to insure you will have a job in 4 years before the next batch of technophiles graduates from college.

Has it occured to you defenders of the light that the best programmers started as children? It has often been claimed that children learn languages far more quickly than adults. Does this only apply to spoken languages? I think not.

Programming is an art form. And before you jump to say I am a hacker/geek, lay off it. I have never used any of the programs stated within this threat (Back Orifice, or even Linux), but I have programmed with a few of the more well known languages. I do not know Elips or XML.

Jeez, you people are sorry. Your ideals are far to backward to even suggest you can program. I feel sorry for you. I feel infinite sorrow at your God-awful pretentions.


What a startling parallel (2.50 / 2) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 11:11:55 PM PST
The best hackers begin learning as children. The best terrorists begin learning as children. Coincidence? I think not. Hacking and terrorism share a destructive nature that appeals to morally undeveloped childish minds. The culture of hacking, like the culture of terrorism, has a stultifying on the moral development of young minds.

I would recommend that all parents take steps to prevent their children from learning about computers, beyond the most basic level needed to use the devices. Ideally, children should be restricted to safe platforms, such as playstation 2, where hacking is impossible. Also, internet filters should blacklist pages describing computer technology.

It's for the good of society.


Let the children learn (none / 0) (#74)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:55:39 AM PST
This kind of thinking sickens me, it really does. You must not have a strong understanding of computers, computer programming, hacking, or child development. Children should be encouraged to learn as much as they can, from whatever sources are available, especially about the technology that is all around them.

Children becoming hackers or terrorists have little to do with what technology they encounter in their life, but rather how they are taught to use and interact with that technology. Are children in the inner city joining gangs because there are guns around? No. They are joining gangs and engaging in other illegal and destructive behavior because they have not been raised with a proper appreciation for the rule of law and the importance of ethical behavior.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

 
another startling parallel (none / 0) (#106)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:30:18 AM PST
Did you know, the best ballerinas began learning as children. Same with the violinists and cellists. So I don't know about you, but, in light of these new "facts", I think Barishnakov and Yo-Yo Ma are the masterminds behind Osama Bin-Laden, who is nothing but a puppet of the arts world.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
if (elenchos==hypocrite) { read; } (3.00 / 1) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 09:47:08 PM PST
go view the source of http://www.sleater-kinney.org (elenchos' homepage). it was not created by frontpage or pagemaker or the like, it looks pretty hand written to me.


That's not *my* goddamn home page! (none / 0) (#34)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:00:46 PM PST
Why do people keep thinking that? I just like the site, and so I link to it. Am I the only person who does that? Sheesh!

My home page has pictures of my dogs, ok?

If you know Sleater-Kinney, by the way, or know anyone who does, let me know (gawd@revelation.minister.net). I'd really like to meet them. A lot.


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


You should probably take it as a compliment (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:27:25 PM PST
People think you're a rock star. Feel good.


Oh. (none / 0) (#38)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:44:02 PM PST
Well then maybe I should link to a bigger band than Sleater-Kinney.

HA!

There is NO BAND IN THE UNIVERSE BIGGER THAN SLEATER-KINNEY!!!!!

Actually, it is pretty cool if people think I'm the guy S-K got to make their page for them. Although it isn't even their official page, exactly. Also, this would be a good time to remind everyone that Real Americans BUY their Sleater-Kinney music with MONEY and never download illegal pirated MP3s that steal the bread from the mouths of gifted musicians and lend aid and comfort to TERRORISTS. Thank you.


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


Amen (none / 0) (#39)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:52:02 PM PST
Especially since Sleater-Kinney have been gracious enough to provide some selections of their work on the site in mp3 and realaudio, so interested people don't have to steal to find out what they sound like. There is no excuse for theft.


that's just the drugs talking (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:30:54 AM PST
It's an occupational hazzard for rock stars to make decisions under the influence. However, I cannot fail but notice the g**k's absent morality when taking advantage of various such human frailties while in puruit of stolen property. How can you live with yourselves? (I mean apart from the fact that nobody will volunteer to live with criminals.)


 
Fallacy (none / 0) (#192)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:43:17 PM PST
Most often, MP3's steal money from the mouths of corporations, who have plenty of it.

Bands tend to make their money on concerts, t-shirts, buttons, etc. MP3s just promote the band. Especially those who are new and adopt reality, vice your prehistoric fantasies.


Well, then tell them that. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:37:46 PM PST
If they believe you, they'll give you permission to copy their music. Until they do, don't just help yourself to it. That would be theft.


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


 
Please don't encourage hacking. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:01:52 PM PST
The author of the article clearly requested that people who disagree with his views, please control their anger and respond sensibly, rather than going on a hacking rampage. It is no wonder people are calling for a ban of programmers when there are people like you who illegally hack into the source code of other people's sites on the least provocation, and encourage others to do so. Hacking isn't cool. Please just stop, OK?


No way! (none / 0) (#55)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:20:44 AM PST
<<It is no wonder people are calling for a ban of programmers when there are people like you who illegally hack into the source code of other people's sites on the least provocation, and encourage others to do so.>>

Oh My God! It's so difficult and illegal to hit View>>Source in 'Microsoft' Internet Explorer. HTML is OPEN SOURCE retard. It's available to everyone. Anyone can view or even cut and paste code.


Hacking is still a crime (1.00 / 1) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:35:14 AM PST
Just because it is easy to steal intellectual property through hacking, doesn't make it OK. If I leave my house unlocked, it's easy for you to steal things from it, but I can still take you to court and have you put in gaol.


?huh? (1.00 / 2) (#70)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:43:51 AM PST
Are you paranoid or just mis-informed??<br><BR>The previous comment was just remarking that a site's HTML did not look like something generated by Frontpage, etc. This is a very easy judgment call to make by simply looking at the HTML source files, which are readily available by using the "view source" option. There is no hacking going on here. If you invited everyone in the world to come inside and look at your house would you accuse people of stealing things when they came for a look around???<BR><BR>I guess I just don't see anything either illegal or unethical going on here<BR>
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

 
?huh? (none / 0) (#71)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:44:05 AM PST
Are you paranoid or just mis-informed??

The previous comment was just remarking that a site's HTML did not look like something generated by Frontpage, etc. This is a very easy judgment call to make by simply looking at the HTML source files, which are readily available by using the "view source" option. There is no hacking going on here. If you invited everyone in the world to come inside and look at your house would you accuse people of stealing things when they came for a look around???

I guess I just don't see anything either illegal or unethical going on here

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

None so blind... (none / 0) (#152)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:35:45 PM PST
And I don't see his invitation saying 'hack my site!'


Wow, you're ignorant. (none / 0) (#191)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:40:26 PM PST
Look, ther's no hacking going on. The results you see on your screen are just the browser's interpretation of the source code. It is transmitted as plaintext to a file on your hard drive. Viewing the source is no more hacking than viewing the page. In fact it's less. If you were going to steal something by viewing the page without looking at the source, you'd actually have to THINK about what you're doing.

The unlocked house analogy is idiotic. If I choose to take a snapshot of a billboard, That's perfectly legal, right?

No, man. Just, no.


 
here's the URl to my crappy old (none / 0) (#100)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:05:47 AM PST
web page I made 3 years ago. www.cise.ufl.edu/~thelm. However, just because it's easy to access, doesn't mean it's legal for you to go to it. Just because I put it on a publicly accessed server means nothing.
(and yes, i know the web page sucks)

How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

who what where? (none / 0) (#278)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 12:04:38 PM PST
<<Just because I put it on a publicly accessed server means nothing.>>

Yes it does. If you publish it on a public domain it can be accessed by ANYONE who comes across it. Even a 5 year old.


that is exactly the point i'm (none / 0) (#331)
by THC 1138 on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 09:17:31 AM PST
making


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
Don't want anyone reading your HTML? (none / 0) (#82)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:21:03 AM PST
Than don't put your HTML in a place where it can be read. Obviously, someone who allows their web server software to actually serve up HTML is someone who needs to learn a thing or two about computer security. If you're really serious about computer security, you wouldn't allow your web server to make your HTML available to the public.




your argument is falacious (3.00 / 2) (#129)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:09:39 AM PST
so if someone forgets to lock the door on thier house then you would break in? Or if they didn't have bars on the window you would climb in?

Try explaining that to the cops when they arrest you.

Perhaps hacking, IP theft and morality means nothing to you... Your lack of ethical standards is hardly suprising considerring that you are a hacker but is there no end? Even Hitler had some standards...




I see! This is the truth of the matter. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:14:46 PM PST
So indeed I was correct -- this "commercial software" talk is just a smokescreen for the true sinister purpose: a National Socialist takeover of the U.S. people. Like any fascist regime, you start small (for you it's fighting piracy, for Hitler it was making the trains run on time) and you gradually encroach on the people's freedom. You even have your own Reichstag fire (WTC catastrophe) and your own untermensch. ("Arbas", even though people living in Afghanistan are anything but Arab.)

Whatever. Fascism in any form is doomed to fail. I just feel genuine regret that so many innocent Americans are going to die for the sake of your insane "world domination" plans.


--
Peace and much love...




 
And you are impractical (none / 0) (#353)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 05:16:46 PM PST
Try explaining that to the cops when they arrest you.

Try explaining to the insurance company that your claim should be honored after you tell them that you left the fucking door unlocked. They'll just tell you you're an idiot and to go away.

So, yeah. You're right. It is unethical to break into an unlocked house. But, who cares? The important thing here is: who gets the goods and who lost the goods. You can be as ethical as you want to be, but if you leave your door unlocked, and you are ripped off, and you (ethically) tell the insurance company that you left the door unlocked, they will invalidate your claim, and you will get nothing.

You take the loss, and the thief gets the gain. Get it? That's the important part.

Should have kept your door locked.


No, you can still go to jail for that. (none / 0) (#356)
by elenchos on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 05:51:53 PM PST
For example, around here the cops like to leave a $2,000 bicycle unlocked in front of a busy grocery store in a poor neighborhood. They then arrest whoever is dumb enought to grab the bike. Sometimes police work is easy, and effective. After all, they might grab 50 of those morons in a day of hunting, that's 50 of the dumbest bike thieves off the streets for at least a little while.

After skimming off the dumb ones (low hanging fruit if you like metaphors) they stick a lock on the bike and catch the next level of bike thief. Repeat as necessary.

Whether or not your insurance company will pay for your loss is of no concern to the law.


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


No concern to the law... (none / 0) (#357)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 18th, 2001 at 12:30:19 PM PST
Whether or not your insurance company will pay for your loss is of no concern to the law.

If that is the case, then the law is of no use whatsoever. The law should be preventing the theft in the first place. Once the theft has already occured, I couldn't give a damn whether or not they catch the criminal. It's too late -- the law has already not done its job. I'm interested in somehow recouping my losses.

When you've already lost something valuable to theft, it's too late for the law. This is why we keep our doors locked and keep our computer security up to snuff -- and take out insurance policies. The law may get the criminals and put them in jail, but who cares? At that point, the damage has already been done, and that's what we seek to avoid.

Justice is just a big, wet, satisfying fart. It doesn't make up for losing valuable property.


Let's not be too hasty (none / 0) (#358)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 12:41:53 AM PST
Why does the police department employ detectives in the divisions of burglary and larceny, then?


For When It's Too Late (none / 0) (#360)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 07:02:43 AM PST
Why does the police department employ detectives in the divisions of burglary and larceny, then?

Presumably to catch theives and criminals after they've commited their crimes (i.e. when it's too late), when they should concentrate on preventing the crimes in the first place -- which is their job.


 
HAHAHAHAHA! (none / 0) (#224)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:24:00 AM PST
That's funny becuase I can go to ANY website even...

WWW.MICROSOFT.COM and click View >> Source using THEIR web browser (IE) and view the source code!


MS in charge (none / 0) (#229)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:57:02 AM PST
<<WWW.MICROSOFT.COM and click View >> Source using THEIR web browser (IE) and view the source code!>>

And these are the guys you want in charge of standards and licensing?


 
huh??? (none / 0) (#228)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:53:42 AM PST
*****Than don't put your HTML in a place where it can be read. Obviously, someone who allows their web server software to actually serve up HTML is someone who needs to learn a thing or two about computer security. If you're really serious about computer security, you wouldn't allow your web server to make your HTML available to the public.
*******

So in other words when a type in a web address the HTML should not be served up? How the hell should I view the web page? Voodoo? Black Magic? Crystal Balls?

Whe you view a web page and choose to view the source it's not like you are pulling the source from another location. The result of HTML is sitting their staring you in the face. Even as you view THIS!


uh.... (none / 0) (#240)
by frosty on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 04:22:58 PM PST
The parent comment was so smothered in sarcasm I think some dripped on my shoes.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

 
WHAT?! (none / 0) (#190)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:34:38 PM PST
You've got to be kidding. I suppose you're going to call MS IE or Netscape Navigator a hacker program, as with either you may right-click and hit 'View Source'

Jeebus. If you're going to consider you HTML code to be private property, you shouldn't make it public. Or just place your head neatly between your buttocks where it came from.


Many others have posted the same canard. (none / 0) (#233)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 11:59:55 AM PST
We all know that current Micro-Soft products include many "hacking" tools, such as Notepad, the command prompt, telnet, or the "View Source" feature. So what?

While Micro-Soft should be lauded for steadily deprecating these features and including fewer and fewer in each new iteration of their products, my proposal does not depend on Micro-Soft for deciding what is the right thing.

Obviously, future versions of these products would have all of the "hacking" capability completely expunged. Any statment about what Micro-Soft products are capable of now proves nothing about what is legal use and what is "hacking", nor does it tell us what should be allowed in the future.

Please, if you are going to make so many posts, try to stick to the topic at hand. If you want to change the subject, perhaps a diary entry or a story submission of your own is in order.


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


still there (none / 0) (#235)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 02:37:24 PM PST
<<We all know that current Micro-Soft products include many "hacking" tools, such as Notepad, the command prompt, telnet, or the "View Source" feature. So what?

While Micro-Soft should be lauded for steadily deprecating these features and including fewer and fewer in each new iteration of their products, my proposal does not depend on Micro-Soft for deciding what is the right thing.

Obviously, future versions of these products would have all of the "hacking" capability completely expunged. Any statment about what Micro-Soft products are capable of now proves nothing about what is legal use and what is "hacking", nor does it tell us what should be allowed in the future. >>

Then please tell me why all those are still in Windows 200 and XP? and IE 6.

The command prompt is necessary. There are just some things that cannot be done with a point-and-click interface. Try running IPCONFIG (to check to a determine why your system may not be able to connect to the network, or PING to test connectivity to specific hosts on your network) without the command prompt.

View >> Source ISN'T a hacker tool. It's perfectly legitament.

Oh and just so nobody goes off and says "XP isn't out yet, blah blah blah", XP is available on pre-built system from IBM, Gateway, Dell and many other vendors.


Sorry, I guess I went too fast for you. (none / 0) (#237)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 03:39:42 PM PST
When I said "future versions will be..." I was expressing confidence that my proposals will be adopted and implemented in the forseeable future. This is not an especially radical rhetorical device, especially when all I am proposing is to encode into law what is just ordinary common sense for virtually every sane adult. The size of the "hacker" minority is so small that it is perfectly excusable to neglect their point of view in general conversation.

Yeah, I know, it stings to hear that, but it is a fact. When was the last time Congress took the "hacker" perspective into account in legislation (DMCA, etc.)? Nobody ever lost an elected office by losing the "hacker" vote.

As far as your statement that viewing source code is legitimate, please go back and re-read the original article from the beginning. I am arguing that it is not legitimate. That is the very crux of the discussion! So when you say "it is so", my complementary reply is "is not, is not!!!"

Ad infinitum. Unless you actually have a counter-argument, rather than simply contradicting me.


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


not gonna hapen (1.00 / 2) (#257)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 11:52:05 PM PST
<<When I said "future versions will be..." I was expressing confidence that my proposals will be adopted and implemented in the forseeable future. This is not an especially radical rhetorical device, especially when all I am proposing is to encode into law what is just ordinary common sense for virtually every sane adult.>>

Yes, let us remove the TOOLS that Network Administrators, PC Techs, Network Analysts use EVERY friggin day. Just because you do not use something (because you are ignorant and wouldn't know how anyway) doesn't mean that everyone should have to suffer for your ignorance.

Go and tell your idea to a network administrator that he can no longer telnet in and diagnose a problem with the network off campus. That he must drive, and be sitting at the server EVERYTIME there is a problem. Even at 3am. Maybe you should tell Microsoft to no longer allow corporations to set up a RAS (Remote Acces Server) using the Microsoft Server OSes.

And how the HELL is View >> Source a hacking tool? There's no HACKING involved. Viewing the source code for a web site is PERFECTLY LEGAL. If you don't want someone looking at the source code (for say the web pages used on the companies INTRANET) then don't publish them on public domains. That;s what a DOMAIN CONTROLLER does. It sets up DOMAINS. Some people have access others DON'T. Even within the company.

I have a web server. And much of it is LINKED or Publish on the public domain. The rest such as the SQL database is NOT. And it is protected from someone simply typing a URL.
Your response to a post PROVING you are an IDOT makes you seem even more like an IDIOT.

Maybe I'll start a campaign that all stupid people who argue points they know NOTHING about should be SHOT!


 
scary (none / 0) (#271)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:46:03 AM PST
"I was expressing confidence that my proposals will be adopted and implemented in the forseeable future."
since you and dubya have the same limited mental capacity, i am sure you will soon be one of his "special" advisors.
never have i been happier not to be amurican


Typical'hacker' Anti-Americanism. (none / 0) (#276)
by elenchos on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 11:14:49 AM PST
This is why we have so much to fear from "hackers" both domestic and abroad. USian "hackers" are as disloyal to their country as they are to the idea of respecting other people's property. Foreign "hackers" are just as criminal, and they hate freedom, democracy, justice, and everything else that USia stands for the same reasons.

What is to stop "hackers" from going to work fo al Queda and the rest of the evil forces of the world? Nothing. They'd sell out the US for five bucks, or for nothing if they thought it would be entertaining.

But we have caught on. No more will we give away the tools and methods that you attack us with! You will be left with nothing but the primitive stones and petrol bombs of your own invention, bereft of the power of American technology!

Ha!


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


propose it to MS (none / 0) (#284)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 08:25:28 PM PST
Why don't you send a copy of this proposal to Bill Gates? You can get his email address from his offical homepage.

I would love to see them kick your ass and throw you out a 10 story Window. Your proposal means lost profits. Many PROFESSIONALS use these tools for legitimate purposes EVERYDAY. If you limit them and keep them from being able to do their JOB with Windows they'll look elsewhere.

As I have said before, EVERY networking tool (even in Windows) could potentially be used for "hacking" a network. However, removing NECESSARY LEGITIMATE tools is utterly stupid.

Why don't you develope your OWN OS with out all the "HACKER" tools. See how functional it is. And see how many average users even consider it.


Freud would have had a field day with you people. (none / 0) (#285)
by elenchos on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 08:52:09 PM PST
Micro-Soft seems to be some kind of a daddy figure in the minds of "hackers". On the one hand you rebel from this powerful disciplinarian establishment figure, while on the other you are utterly cowed by him. You look to Micro-Soft to model legitimacy and normality for you.

This is why you are so inclined to send me to Micro-Soft with my ideas, because you hope that they will reject them, and hence de-legitimize them. But Micro-Soft is neither your good daddy nor your bad daddy. Micro-Soft is just some big company, nothing more.

So while you "hackers" with you infantile complexes play out your rebellion-submission cycle with this father totem of Micro-Soft, the rest of us normal, healthy adults simply look at them as a company that sometimes does things right, and sometimes not. And ultimately, even Micro-Soft has to obey the law. They are not the all-powerful father-archetype of your fetid sub-conscious.

As far as the technical necessity of these tools for end-users, simply glance at any Mac-Intosh computer. The Mac-Intosh has always gotten along fine without all that low-level stuff. If something goes wrong, it can be repaired by an authorized professional with appropriate tools, but there is no need at all for them to be available to the end-user.

Anyway, your psychological neurosis vis a vis Micro-Soft has given me an idea for another Adequacy article, so thanks for that. Have you considered therapy?


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


different computers (none / 0) (#287)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 10:49:10 PM PST
<< As far as the technical necessity of these tools for end-users, simply glance at any Mac-Intosh computer. The Mac-Intosh has always gotten along fine without all that low-level stuff.>>

Let's first look at the Mac. The Mac is a completely different OS and communicates very differently with hardware than an OS on a PC. Hell, the PC has STILL yet to move away from the floppy drive and Plug and Pray is still not on par with that of the Mac. And what's amazing about that is the Mac has been a P&P OS long before Windows.

<<If something goes wrong, it can be repaired by an authorized professional with appropriate tools, but there is no need at all for them to be available to the end-user>>

I guess all those tech support guys should just pack up their bags then. End users don't need their help. Remember that next time you have to call tech support. You're probably one of those guys that ANYTIME ANYTHING goes wrong with Windows you reinstall it.

I don't look at Microsoft (not Micro-Soft) as any form of parent figure. I do not program. I do not write code. Therefore, how do I fit into YOUR classification of a hacker? I am a Network Administrator. I use those tools everyday for legal legitimate purposes. I have used those tool for YEARS even before I was an Admin.

The problem [I] have with MS is that they have made it SO hip and trendy and SO easy for anyone to get on the Internet with everything from their PC to their microwave. Then if I come along and use any tool that you don't use or don't understand for WHATEVER purposes (including fixing your PC) I am automatically doing something I am not supposed to and I shouldn't be aloud to do my job.

Your proposal would ultimately limit me and other professionals not just end users.

Tech 1: "the server won't boot"
Tech 2: "well I could fix it using the command prompt"
Tech 1: "YOU CAN'T DO THAT IT'S ILLEGAL and MS took it out anyway"
Tech 2: "Well I guess we'll just have to take down a large segment of our enterprise-wide network and take a few days to reinstall Windows and all the components and services"
Tech 1: "Not too mention the company will lose a bunch of money in potention revenue because no one will be able to access the server in order to do any work"


You need to go back and read it again. (none / 0) (#288)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 12:58:43 AM PST
If you are a certified, authorized professional, doing legitimate work, I never suggested that you be denied access to the tools you need. You are attacking a straw-man.

Clearly, you perceive Micro-Soft as the central authority figure in your life, with all the ambiguities and tensions that implies. Whether you are a progammer or Net-Work Administrator is not at issue. What is at issue is that you talk about this in terms of Micro-Soft choosing to take things away. It doesn't work that way.

We in our democracy come to a consensus on how we want our society to work, and then instruct our legislators to carry out our will. Micro-Soft's role is to obey when our laws tell them what they may and may not include in their products. "Hackers" too, must sooner or later reckon with our law, and if they cannot obey it, they will suffer all the consequences that result from the life of the outlaw.

I think you need to examine the subconscious drives that seem to make it impossible for you to escape this Micro-Soft as authoritarian father-oppressor, who gives and takes away the boons of your existence. Perhaps this points to something that was missing in your own upbringing -- you have substituted Micro-Soft for the power-nexus that is absent from you childhood.

Can you share any information about your (real) father?


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


WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! NOT! (none / 0) (#294)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 06:53:19 AM PST
<<"Hackers" too, must sooner or later reckon with our law, and if they cannot obey it, they will suffer all the consequences that result from the life of the outlaw.>>

If you some how believe that your proposal will some day become law you are SADLY mistaken

<<I think you need to examine the subconscious drives that seem to make it impossible for you to escape this Micro-Soft as authoritarian father-oppressor, who gives and takes away the boons of your existence. Perhaps this points to something that was missing in your own upbringing -- you have substituted Micro-Soft for the power-nexus that is absent from you childhood.

Can you share any information about your (real) father?>>

First my personal life is none of your fucking business. My father (if you must know) was the greatest part of my life. He worked his ass off to send me to school. I respect him above all others. I therefore am missing nothing.

Second, we do not run MS prducts anywhere on ANY of our mission critical system. And I think you need to examine your own posts as well as your original story. You contradict yourself in so many ways. Wehn you are proven to be utter ignorant about the things you discuss you (like the other adequacy.org morons) simply avoid the real issues and either result in "your anti-American", you're a homosexual hacker", or most of the time choose to not even answer the question at hand.

Let me pose this question to YOU. What exactly is telnet? What is the purpose of the command prompt? And definitions like "it's a hacker tool blah blah blah..." you prove you are any idiot. You calling View >> source a hacker already makes you one, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe if you were to actually look up the informtation you would find that these are tools that should not necessarily be limited to the MS friendly.

And if you so are looking for an multimedia point-and-click OS without the command prompt and all the supposed "hacker tools" I suggest simply foregoing Windows and install BeOS 5 Professional.

You know it amazes me that we never see a story about other OSes. Why because the adequacy.org family knows nothing about computers and uses this site simply as a way to attack geeks (like myself, they're not just programmers, and geek is no longer an insult and hasn't been for year, wake up it's the 21st century) and Linux with misinformation and idiocy. I mean have you ever even USED a Linux distro? If so prove it. How are the drive labeled in Linux?


This is progress. (none / 0) (#311)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 06:18:16 PM PST
Just to get your little obsession out of the way first, I would point out that you might want to try some smarter questions if you want to perform some kind of Lunix Shibboleth test. Anyone who does a simple Google search and follows the first few links at most can easily "pass" as a Lunix expert.

If you really want to pick out the REAL Lunix junkies, ask them what you do when you spill Mountain Dew in your beard.

Lunix answer: nothing.

Or ask how out of date your hardware has to be if you want to find drivers for you audio and video cards.

Lunix answer: six months to one year.

What if you want drivers that actually work?

Lunix answer: two and a half years.

Anyway, I want to address your angry and obscenity-laden response to my questions about your background. Someday you will look back on your post and feel ashamed, but I want to say now that your anger is a good sign. It shows that we are getting close to an important breakthrough, and that is progress.

Now. You protest rather much that you respect your father and have reason to be grateful for his sacrifices for your benefit. Yet still you have this unreasoning binary reaction where everything is either pro-Micro-Soft or anti-Micro-Soft. Why?

Guilt, number one. Obviously you have repressed your feelings of resentment for the way your father has carried you along and made life so easy for you. You know you are obliged to be grateful, but it sticks in your craw. Without a way of processing these feelings, you re-direct them at an outward symbol of your father: Micro-Soft. Like your father, you respect Micro-Soft, and look to them as the touchstone of legitimacy. Yet you resent them too, and have a knee-jerk reation to confront their power.

Are you afraid to discuss this openly with your real father? Let's examine that fear. What do you think would happen if you told him the truth about your feelings?

I wonder, too, if I had done this or this and simply copied and pasted whatever I found, would you have been impressed?

Thank you for not DoSing the Adequacy.


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


ok DOC (none / 0) (#319)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 09:54:34 PM PST
<< Guilt, number one. Obviously you have repressed your feelings of resentment for the way your father has carried you along and made life so easy for you. You know you are obliged to be grateful, but it sticks in your craw. Without a way of processing these feelings, you re-direct them at an outward symbol of your father: Micro-Soft. Like your father, you respect Micro-Soft, and look to them as the touchstone of legitimacy. Yet you resent them too, and have a knee-jerk reation to confront their power.

Are you afraid to discuss this openly with your real father? Let's examine that fear. What do you think would happen if you told him the truth about your feelings? >>

You attempt at psychology is SHIT. You have taken bits and pieces and formed an assumption about my life's history that is utterly INCORRECT.

I would talk to my father if he were still alive dipshit. He's been dead for the last 12 years.

Stop avoiding the questions with a vain attempt out psychology. Just like you adequacy.org morons to avoid the question.

"you use linux becuase you have issues with your mother/father/ 2nd cousin's wife's brother's nephew's best firends"

For that kind of mentality you should be shot.


Mother lode! (none / 0) (#322)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 10:29:24 PM PST
I knew it. Didn't I say there was a missing father in your life? You tried to deny it, and claim you had no father power-vacuum to fill.

"Shit?" Really? I would say I hit the nail right on the proverbial head, my sick, neurotic, suffering friend. I knew it had to be something like an absent father because a normal, healthy non-hacker just doesn't go around piling all those expectations and accusations about some software company, even a big one like Micro-Soft. That would be like believeing that General Motors ran your life or something. It is just not normal, and when you see it, you know there is something big wrong.

Now is a good time to take a step back and asses what we have uncovered. Someone suggests regulating some of the more egegious abuses in the computer field, and apropos of nothing, you and the other neurotic g**ks suddenly begin attacking Micro-Soft. And then turn and start holding up Micro-Soft as the paragon of righteousness. Even dragging Micro-Soft into the discussion is surprising, and then the conflicting admiration-fear reaction is a big red flag.

This naturally suggestd problems with the patriarchal role, and sure enough, we have guilt, anger, unprocessed baggage repressed for 12 years ( ! ), and thus a huge emotional void in your life.

Give some thought to this, and then give me an idea where you would like to go next. I have to say, this is all very encouraging.


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


you are an idiot (none / 0) (#333)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 11:11:47 AM PST
<< This naturally suggestd problems with the patriarchal role, and sure enough, we have guilt, anger, unprocessed baggage repressed for 12 years ( ! ), and thus a huge emotional void in your life.

Give some thought to this, and then give me an idea where you would like to go next. I have to say, this is all very encouraging.>>

NOOOOOOOO, I had nothing but respect for my father and I constant follow the advice and the examples he set when raising my own children. By the way my son has a PhD in psychology from Yale and he agrees you psychological assesment is WRONG.

He feels that you have unresolved issues and problems with avoidance. This simple matter that you stray from the REAL subject and questions at hand delves into possible issues of avoidance rather than confrontation. Rather than dealing with your own problem you simply create them for other people and dump them into their lap. You also have trouble admitting when you are wrong yet continue to argue point no matter how ignorant you may be percieved by others.

I have worked in this industry longer than MS has been around. So I know the truth about Microshaft's history. It has nothing to do with a superior product. It's superior MARKETING.

Here's an example:

Sun Microsystems has already developed a cost efficient way to secure IIS. Monopolsoft is PLANNING to make it more secure sometime through future Service Packs are OSes. Yet the idiot end-users, such as yourself, continue to praise MS.


I got tired of talking about that. (none / 0) (#336)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 05:46:06 PM PST
I wrote some 1,500 words on that crap, and have spent the last five or six days posting 50 or more comments in reply to the (lame) criticisms of my argument. I'm done. I don't even care any more.

So yes, I'm avoiding the issue. I brought it up, took on all comers, and defeated them in style. Why beat a dead horse? Why rest on my laurels? Time to move on. You'll notice Adequacy has put up several fine stories above this one, because the topic is simply done to death.

Now, about you. Who ever asserted that Micro-Soft made superior products? Why would anyone have even mentioned Micro-Soft at all in this discussion? How anyone feels about the quality of Micro-Soft's products, or about their business practices has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of banning amateur programming. You'll remember that the merits of Open Source are beside the point as well. You could ban amateur programming and keep Open Source.

Yet you and dozens of other obviously compulsive individuals in a sheep-like fashion reacted to the threat posed by my ideas by mechanically trotting out your usual attacks against Micro-Soft and your timeworn defenses of Open Source.

Why? Doesn't it bother you? Why are "hackers" so predictable? What drives them to react like a riled-up beehive or ant-nest? Why the insect-like pre-programmed behavior? Something is obviously wrong. Anyone could see that.

Isn't it clear that it is an issue of power and control? Doesn't the way that you and others suggest that I "propose it to Micro-Soft" as a way of denegrating my ideas show that while on the one hand you hate them, on the other you cower before their dominant role in your life. Just like... what? Like a father-figure, that's what.

And why would anyone cast a dumb soft-ware company in the role of his father? How sick is that? Well, they might if they had some kind of an absent father complex. Like you, missing your father for the last 12 years and needing to deal with your guilt and resentment over the way he set you up in life in spite of your limited qualifications. You should be grateful, and you say you are, but it makes it too hard for you to take pride in yourself, because you know that your dead, absent father is the one who really deserves all the credit.

Quite a load of baggage. No wonder you have such a bizzare reaction to a dull, simple discussion of computer security, and run off attacking the Micro-Soft paper-tiger and having uncalled-for tanturms of obscene language and vile threats of violence.

I think it is a postitive sign that you can discuss this kind of thing with your own son. Do you feel ready to talk about your jealousy of his success? Who really deserves the credit here? And remember, don't blame Micro-Soft for the conflicts between you and your son! It's time to get past that, isn't it?


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


Wow are YOU a fucking idiot (none / 0) (#343)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 09:43:00 PM PST
"You could ban amateur programming and keep Open Source."

Not gonna happen. OPEN SOURCE = AVAILABLE TO E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y.

<< This episode alone demonstrates that if there is anything good to come out of Open Source methodology, it will only be helped along by the removal of dilettantes from the picture. Indeed, once the "hackers" have been outlawed, Open Source will very likely reach new heights of utility and quality, and perhaps even fulfill the promise of greatness that Open Source advocates have been making for years.>>

So I guess that means that we shoudl fire the KERNEL HACKERS employed at Microsoft. Not only that but it's not like someone changes something in the kernel then the community says "hey new version!" Hell no. It reviewed thoroughly by quite a few people and Linus (notice the S not an X) Torvalds with his Masters Degree in Computer Science, who holds the trademark on the the name Linux has the final say.

SOMEONE said that MS should be a standards setting organization when it comes to programming. There are standards setting organizations around the world that MS must answer to. How does this affect this? This new protocol, is it compatible with this one? Could THAT be the reason for someone saying submit it to MS? Gee uhhh duhhh?

Also it's LINUX not Lunix, retard.

<<It is time to ban all unlicensed computer programming, and take steps to ensure that no one outside of government, select universities, and state-sanctioned private-sector corporate software engineering facilities is given the knowledge, skills, or means to write or compile computer code of any kind. Amateur or hobbyist computer programming has grown from a minor annoyance to a major social disease, and it simply can no longer be tolerated.>>

Gary Kindell, a hobbyist wrote CP/M, the first OS for micro-computers, that was available to the general public, which paved the way for modern day PCs. Without people like him there never would have been a market for computers for everyday folks. Remember that the next time you sit at your PC.

<<The first cry in defense of hobbyists toying with this dangerous technology is that hackers have already proven their worth by producing a valuable piece of software -- namely, the Apache web server. Others would even claim that more than one useful program has been written in the garages and and lonely bedrooms of hobbyists. There are two delusions at work here.>>

See above response. And oh, yeah I guess Gary Kindell being married was a lie. And yes OSes like FreeBSD and others received ideas from amteurs. It's a very useful OS. Might be why MS used code from FreeBSD in their TCP/IP stack.

<<One of these delusions is that any of the Open Source applications that have found some utility in business and industry were written by amateurs.>>

Linux is used on a numerous mission critical and non mission critical systems around the world. Linus Torvalds wrote the original Linux kernel BEFORE receiving his Masters Degree at age 21. Can Bill Gates who wrote BASIC claim that? No he dropped out of MIT. OH MY GOSH! HE DIDN'T FINISH!!! Oh whoppee, he's got an HONORARY DEGREE.


You seem quite angry. (none / 0) (#344)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 10:41:55 PM PST
Why? And why the return again and again to Micro-Soft?

This is what interests me. Silly legends about some obscure hobbyist who wants to steal credit for the PC revolution from IBM and Apple don't interest me. We all know "hackers" steal anything that isn't nailed down, especially credit. It's boring to hear the same hyperbole ad nausaeum.

But why obsess over Micro-Soft? Why not address the broader issues at hand? I'm suggesting re-examining the basic assumptions about computers in our society, and you go into spasms with the shift key held down so you can fire off invective against who...? Micro-Soft. Again, and again, it always comes back to Micro-Soft.

Everything this one company does is all that matters to you. It's like some kind of weird religion: this paranoid Micro-Soft cult, with Micro-Soft as the jealous, vengeful god who is both feared and adored at the same time. For a while I thought your anger would lead us to something productive, but it seems you have become locked in a repetitive loop, and can't escape. In your mind is only firey rage and Micro-Soft and I don't see how you can make any progress stuck in that state.

Calm down a little, and mabye we can try some more later.


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


Legends??? (none / 0) (#345)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 08:00:36 AM PST
<<This is what interests me. Silly legends about some obscure hobbyist who wants to steal credit for the PC revolution from IBM and Apple don't interest me. We all know "hackers" steal anything that isn't nailed down, especially credit. It's boring to hear the same hyperbole ad nausaeum.>>

Man are you a stupid ass or what? Gary Kindell worte CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers) using PL/M (Programming Language for Microcomputers). Intel bought PL/M from him you retard. He later started his own company called Digital Research which Novell bought (after his death). DR-DOS, ever heard of it? The DR stands for Digital Research.

Seattle Computer Company backwards engineers CP/M taking ideas from CP/M-86 to develop QDOS which MS bought for $50,000. Gary Kindell later sued MS. MS and Kindell settled out of court.

If it wasn't for pioneers like him geeks like Gary Kindell markets for Personal Computers like the Altair (which MS wrote BASIC for) and hobbyist kits which led to the first Apple would never have existed. Do some reseasrch ya fuckin idiot before you go and shoot your mouth off.


Anyone can see. (none / 0) (#347)
by elenchos on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 08:52:55 AM PST
If these self-promoting bunglers were of any real importance in putting P.C.s on our desk tops, we'd have heard of them. Information does travel outside the insular world of the computer-trivia compulsive, you know.

And as far as research, anyone with genunine academic research skills, as opposed to the play-acting that "hacker" dilettantes perform, knows that the personal computer was invetned at Xerox P.A.R.C., along with the mouse and the G.U.I. Yet these "pioneering" inventions led to nothing, same as this deservedly forgottn C.P.M. "operating system" that you think means anything.

You argue "without X, Y wouln't have happened". In truth, there were many such X's -- proto-perosnal-computers like the Al-Tair -- and any one of them could have been the seed that all other personal computers grew from. Or none of them. In truth, such hobbyist tinkering means nothing until a legitimate company like IBM comes along to make it happen for real. And competent engineers hardly need diddlers like this Gerry Kindall to get them started. Notice he didn't win his lawsuit. Why?

Lunix answer: "It's a vast conspiracy!"

Sane answer: He had no case.

I want you to write down how we have revealed yet again that you have paranoid delusions. Soon, you will have an entire notebook filled with evidence of your paranoia. and we can use it to convince yourself to let go of the fantasies and re-introduce yourself to healthy reality.


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


let me think (none / 0) (#355)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 17th, 2001 at 05:48:43 PM PST
<<If these self-promoting bunglers were of any real importance in putting P.C.s on our desk tops, we'd have heard of them. Information does travel outside the insular world of the computer-trivia compulsive, you know.>>

This coming from supposed PC experts like dmg who call Linus Torvalds Linux Torvalds. Maybe the same morons that say Lunix instead of Linux.

Oh and just for the guy writing about the creator of CP/M obviously that was from an article by someone like you guys who can't spell. It's likely he remembers CP/M just not it's creator. His name is spelled Gary Kildall. If you want info about him I suggest reading (on the internet), The History of the PC or The History of MS-DOS. Or you can read The Perfect Architecture in the Sept 2001 issue of PC Magazine. You can find programs for CP/M and computers running CP/M all over e-Bay. And just because you don't know who he is you shouldn't assume someone else doesn't remember him.

<<And as far as research, anyone with genunine academic research skills, as opposed to the play-acting that "hacker" dilettantes perform, knows that the personal computer was invetned at Xerox P.A.R.C., along with the mouse and the G.U.I. Yet these "pioneering" inventions led to nothing, same as this deservedly forgottn C.P.M. "operating system" that you think means anything.>>

Actually the inventor of the GUI was Douglas Englebart. Xerox only perfected the GUI (the look) for WORKSTATIONS not PCs. He showcased it back in December of 1968. Engelbart's mouse was about the size of an adult hand. It didn't go over well with some people. Engelbart laid the foundations not Xerox.

<<You argue "without X, Y wouln't have happened". In truth, there were many such X's -- proto-perosnal-computers like the Al-Tair -- and any one of them could have been the seed that all other personal computers grew from. Or none of them. In truth, such hobbyist tinkering means nothing until a legitimate company like IBM comes along to make it happen for real. And competent engineers hardly need diddlers like this Gerry Kindall to get them started. Notice he didn't win his lawsuit. Why?>>

IBM tinkered as well. You think they went into business and just made a great computer? Hell, took them years to release a decent PC, the PC-XT in 83. Oh and Kildall DID WIN. MS paid him quite a chunk of change. That's what settling out of court means. It's means MS admitted the QDOS and MS-DOS kernels were nothing but the CP/M kernel compiled to run on Intel's 8086 processor. They just didn't want it to show up in official court documents. But Kildall made sure people knew. Apple mass produced quite a few models before IBMs success.

<<I want you to write down how we have revealed yet again that you have paranoid delusions. Soon, you will have an entire notebook filled with evidence of your paranoia. and we can use it to convince yourself to let go of the fantasies and re-introduce yourself to healthy reality.>>

If I did anything, it was proving you're a fucking idiot who knows absolutely NOTHING about computers and their history.


 
stop the insanity (none / 0) (#297)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 09:40:16 AM PST
elenchos
maybe you wanna add DNS, WINS, DHCP to the list of hacker tools :)


maybe these too (none / 0) (#302)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 04:15:25 PM PST
GUI, Remote Access Services, RAID, IPv4, IPv6, terminal emulation, ATM,, SMNP, SMTP, POP, Dfs, NDS, UDP, UDF, UNC, NTLM, ZAW, network binding, IRQs, Layer 2 Tunneling Protocolcapture buffer, network binding, Open Datlink Interface, Point-to-Point Tunneling Protocol, RADIUS, Remote Installation Services, Routing Information Protocol, Run as, Sequence Packet Exchange, SYSVOL

Go ahead, pick one


I pick RADIUS (none / 0) (#305)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 04:32:28 PM PST
Now what do we do? Is it your turn to pick? What?


actually it was for elenchos but... (none / 0) (#320)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 09:54:53 PM PST
Can you pick which is the hacker tool?


 
it's... (none / 0) (#323)
by Frithiof on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 10:56:37 PM PST
Remote Installation Services...

what do I win?


-Frith

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#332)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 10:53:20 AM PST
Remote Installation Services >>>

Services installed on a Windows 2000 Server that enable you to remotely install Windows 2000 Professional on one or more client computers.


 
try this (none / 0) (#306)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 04:36:24 PM PST
Rather than MS remove things that some people use everyday (even average end users) I suggest another solution.

For years I have used telnet and the command prompt to get things done. Was I always a professional? No. Did I use these before then? YES. Because I knew what the hell I was doing.

If you are so damned worried about someone gaining access to you account then simply tell your netork administrator to disable the items in question so that you (and anyone using your account) cannot access them.

EXAMPLES of things you can disable:
command prompt
telnet
Start >> Run
program installation
Control Panel
and a WHOLE LOT MORE

Oh and the title of your article is stupid. Programmers and hacking? Network Administrators (and even your beloved MCSEs) know more about hacking that a vast majority of programmers.

Most programmers don't know what tracert, or ping does (both used everyday by the "good guys") or what packet sniffers are. Hell most programmers don't even know what a packet IS. It's usually the Networking guys that point out the security holes in things like Microshaft's IIS. Hell most of this stuff is taught in the beginning of most networking classes.


 
Lost your cover eh? (none / 0) (#401)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 9th, 2001 at 11:32:48 PM PST
Well I'l be damned, at first it seemed like you actually had something to say, totally moronic but anyway. But now it seems like your just one of those patriotic-idiotic Americans, nationalism like the one in Germany in the 1930:s.


 
Down with the command prompt (none / 0) (#275)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 10:39:15 AM PST
Let me no when Windows won't load correctly. What will you do? You cannot hope to fix it because you cannot boot to a command prompt. You could boot to safe mode but what if you can't?

You couldn't possibly take Windows back to a state directly after installation while saving your data through a process called System 1st (done bu copying the system.1st file from the windows directory over the system.dat file in C:\). Why? Because you can't access the command prompt.

Maybe you have installed W2K or XP using FAT32 but have decided you want to convert the file system to NTFS5 instead. You need the command prompt.

Don't even get me started on TELNET but NotePad!?! Yes the only thing it is good for is hacking. WROOOOOONG! It's great for viewing txt (text) files rather quickly. But you'd rather wait for your Office Suite to load instead.

MAYBE if more if you used something older than Windows 9x you would have worked with DOS (or any pre-DOS OS like CP/M or UNIX). Then maybe you wouldn't be so ignorant.



 
What in the hell are you talking about? (4.00 / 2) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 10:40:52 PM PST
Hehe :) I assume your article is mainly for play. Kind of a joke, right? You just want responses and attention to this debate. Fine. You seem to have some sense of what the "mysterious" hackers of our world are capable of, but what you talk about is merely scratching the surface. Hackers have compromised government databases, corporate lists of credit card numbers, credit companies, etc etc. Nothing is secure if it connects to the internet. Yes, you probably already know that. But an important point that you fail to mention is that most hacks are unknown. When a hacker comes along and is successful, he doesn't "make his mark" all the time. He doesn't deface a website or delete vital company information. Leave that to the kiddies.

You and your social planners are incapable of determining what people will or will not learn. These new laws that you wish to enact will have to be extremely invasive on the personal freedoms of the citizens of the United States. Do you really think that the government can control what people read? Do you really think there will be no violent revolt if the Federal government were to try put in place such laws? People cannot be controlled to that extent (yes I know thats what they probably said about television), but this is different. This would require not only apathy about current events, this would require complete ignorance of the constitution and the bill of rights by every respectable person inside the US. Do you really think the feds can pull that kind of mind control off? I don't.

You wrote this article because you were controlled by a SubSeven or something, right? You're pissed because some little script kiddie was able to take control of you computer or something, right?

I'm having trouble understanding your motivation for writing such inanities!

But you talked about denial of service. I personally have never met a computer connected to the internet that couldn't be crashed with a single packet of one configuration or another. Will the government take control over all internet traffic under your plan? Will we ban all subversive content too? Anything that doesn't go along with "faith-based" government will have to be punished, right? Send a certain packet, go to jail. Hey, its the law!

You cannot control what people know, and you cannot control what people learn. If you try to do such a thing, you will be violently murdered.

Its just basic history.


 
I agree. (4.00 / 3) (#41)
by Observer on Thu Oct 11th, 2001 at 11:13:13 PM PST
However, this should be ramped up to examine both the maximum and minimum extremes. Calibrate yourself with maximum and minimum by associating the maximum with licensing individual existence or life and minimum with complete lack of any form of licensing.

In the scenario based on the minimum possibility, modernized nations would never be able to maintain unity. Instead of corporations, which congeal individual human talent to create a handful of visible entities for a government to observe and guide, extreme numbers of cabals would be warring amongst themselves. In comparison to corporations, the possibility that a few of the tiny groups using technological advances with no moral integrity for purposes which would be catastrophic in effect to the rest of the population is increased greatly. Angst-ridden people whom have not matured to a point of respect for others and solidarity of the infrastructure could easily cause irreparable damage. Can you imagine the government trying to investigate a hundred thousand companies for fraud or dangerous activities?

As for the maximum scenario, there becomes a focal point for everything. With this comes safety. With safety comes progress and productivity. If people are afraid to leave a shelter because of ominous threats ensuing during anarchy, nothing will be done. Little to no manufacturing, schooling, governing, etc... A dark age, if you will.

Starting from either the minimum or maximum societies, they will both progress toward an equilibrium between the two. Licensing everything moves toward licensing most things. Breathing is no longer a federally regulated activity. On the other hand, licensing nothing becomes a semi-organized and regulated collective. As opposed to everything forming a lake, we now have a crafted mountain which focuses creative energies. At the risk of sounding blasphemous, essentially creating something from nothing.

Having been extemely general allows for an easier comprehension of the capacities of the two camps, as well as the tradeoffs inherent in each. Increasing the granularity to examine individual fields of study, we can find very similar scenarios playing out. Within chemistry, for example, licensing is required to obtain certain key components of dangerous or illegal products. This would be an example of relatively heavy licensing restrictions, somewhat on par with the overall capacity for negative in the nature of the field, combined with the average tendencies of human nature to abuse and misuse knowledge.

Light licensing can be found in the ability to write. Pen and paper are not difficult to acquire at all. As long as the monetary compensation is provided, anyone can use the materials. This is in the best interest of the majority, as most are not likely to remember entire volumes of documents. Therefore, the pen and paper are very valuable as tools and highly unlikely to be abused or misused. That can be debated, depending on the context in which the abuse or misuse is taken.

When appeasing the majority, it is difficult to observe the fringes. For every person categorized as a genius by any given society, there are likely several or perhaps a great many within the same society whom are as intelligent, if not moreso. Yet even though they are of such grandiose capacity, they are suffocated by their own inconsistencies within the society. While not being in the majority, they end up outcast and look back with confusion and revulsion. Some are happy in this position, whereas some will attack the status quo.

Licensing, which would allow a document to reward an individual with recognition as an expert, can be exceedingly difficult to even attempt obtaining. For the individuals mentioned above, it seems that the society and world at large are proliferated by corruption and injustice when they are not noticed because their situation is not evaluated thoroughly. Every time they attempt to start scaling the mountainous path to the status of an educated expert, they find the mountain to be covered in loose gravel such that they cannot get any footing. It is more than an uphill battle. It becomes a struggle to survive, which squanders much of the potential. Oftentimes, it becomes such that the individual is embittered. Much like an intelligent child being held back in school, many in this society find it difficult to be noticed enough to excell at their interest, or even discover their primary field of aptitude. There are numerous attempts to expose what social placing a person would find rewarding, but there is only so much that written exams and interviews can uncover.

When the aforementioned individuals cannot give themselves peace of mind through a particular intellectual persuit using standard methods, some seek out the information through other means. Some turn to substances, others force themselves into other fields of study and there are even those who fill themselves with despair to the point of ending their own lives. If the person is not interested in intellectual persuit, there are many social outlets and other paths for that person to follow. Again, even that path is not enough at times for those mostly content with it. It would be an injustice to those who fall through the cracks to not examine every possibility.

Coming back to the proposition for banning programming, I did offer the stance that I agree. In light of a more extensive analysis by examining more than the computer industry, I must say that I only agree in the short term. Banning the practice, while producing a sense of safety, would only alienate an entire subculture which is critical to the infrastructure of modern nations. It would also be a predominantly false sense of security, as any nation which places severe restrictions on cutting edge activities pays the price when other nations allow interested individuals to continue exploration of the subject in question, of their own accord. As time progresses, more effective dealings with the activity of programming will be discovered and set in place. However, this progress will be partially stagnated by the prerequisite of a funded education. If anyone who has ever invested in the technology sector and benefited while maintaining the stance of licensing software creation, I would have to deem him a hypocrit.

There is a need for technology sector workers which is largely unfulfilled. People with an interest most often make the best workers for the appropriate field. A mention on the elimination of computers caught my attention. This would be an appealing thought, if only society could survive without them. Currently, things will collapse in on themselves with the removal of what has become such an integral thread of modern infrastructure. The future holds promise, but even greater peril. Not everyone wants to experience the unknown. The future is a form of the unknown which has proven inevitable, while some still are afraid of making headway toward it. I did not choose to realize the horrifying threat of biological weapons, but I appreciate the benefits of studies within the realm of chemistry which have afforded, among other things, efficient manufacturing methods and greater understanding of the world around us. Granted, computers can be miserably burdensome, but what of the maintenance of power stations? They serve a critical function, and as such require attention so as to remain functional. Should an individual change during the course of his lifetime, he might require a career change as well. Would it be better for this person to be able to do some research on the subject first, or simply sink his savings into something which may quickly turn out to be a nightmare in disguise? At this point, conjecture is counter-productive and too specific, so I digress. Dams have had their share of disasters. Experimentation and exploration need to occur in order for safety and stability to be achieved. The industry surrounding the information infrastructure is at a similar stage, and as such requires observation as opposed to blundering interference. Telling a child that he is supposed to be seen and not heard is a good way to risk wedging the child into a harshly self-imposed introversion. That child may then be maladjusted to society in general. Therefore, the key is balance.

What do you, as the original poster of this view, perceive as something which should be left alone? I'm reasonably sure that anything can be attacked with the same fervor and ignorance so as to be presented as a dangerous or evil action. For demagogues who persist in enforcing their own desires upon others, the only requirement for blinding and confusing many is an understanding of semantics. The omission of an alternate stance is the antithesis of democracy, which most here seem to exalt, yet it still seems that a comprehensive analysis is so often forgotten in the fervor of zealotry.

It is no small feat to reorganize an entire subculture around a geographically localized point. By this fact, laws would likely be more effective were they made more flexible instead of oppressive.

This all comes back to social underpinnings which have brought about a proliferation of opinions and ideas, but still promotes a lack of flexibility in regard to the passionate guarding of one's favorite ideas. I've said it before and I'll say it again; money will be lost, governments will fall and people will die - change takes time and some individuals never will. The only thing to do is keep plodding on. If we stop, then change will not happen and things will not get better.

During the course of time that it took me to get through all the interruptions to finally commit this, all of the major points have probably already been discussed. Nonetheless, here goes! Let the nitpicking begin.


 
what's this, duhhhhhh (2.00 / 3) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:51:04 AM PST
<<The reason that hobbyists work so feverishly hard on creating this kind of tool is precisely because they are locked out of the world of the normal, decent software engineer, where professional-grade IDEs, debuggers, and similar tools are abundant.
>>

Do you even know what IDE IS!?!

I'll give you a hint. Plug the IDE cable into the hard and the other end to the mother.

Can you say STUPID SHIT?


Take your oedipal syndrome elsewhere (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:56:48 AM PST
Adequacy is not the place for cryptic references to sick, incestuous porno. If you want to talk about plugging cables into your mother, I'm sure there is an internet site that caters to your fetish. I suggest you find it, rather than parading your degenerate fantasies on this controversial but family oriented website.


Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:15:36 AM PST
It's quite possible the poster is drunk, tired or just perverted. Look at the time of the post. Not everyone stays up that late on a Thursday.


 
IDE (5.00 / 1) (#113)
by Hammurabi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:06:33 AM PST
Integrated Development Environment. Such as Visual Studio or, if you prefer, KDevelop.

I think it says a great deal about their education level and ability to function as programmers that these hackers don't even know more than one expansion of common computer-related acronyms.


Only the most dangerous and hardened of criminals attempts to blame the law when he is the one who broke it.

Rational Anarchy (none / 0) (#194)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:01:28 PM PST
A quote from "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", by Robert Heinlien

"I am a rational Anarchist .. A Rational Anarchist is someone who follows the laws that are convenient for him, and breaks the laws that are not. But the rational anarchist IS rational, and realizes the personal consequences for his actions, and agrees by his actions to accept them."

I believe wholeheartedly in this. If I'm doing something in everyday life (ie: say, being a Linux user, and using DeCSS to watch a DVD), I ignore the appropriate law. If someone catches me (bloody unlikely), I accept arrest. This does NOT mean I don't fight the law (literal, not symbolic of the police officers doing their job) that has placed me under arrest, I merely don't fight the immediate consequence. I would appeal to the supreme court (if necessesary) that I was only excersising my rights under the license of the DVD, and I believe that I would win.

Heh. Why do you think no one's prosecuting users?

You prosecute the coders, you prosecute possible criminal intent. If you prosecute the users, you prosecute their rights to use their property legally.


I knew you would start telling sci-fi stories. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 12:06:53 AM PST
Does it ever bug you that you are getting your belief system from data collected in places that don't exist anywhere but in some author's imagination? Doesn't that sort of chip away at the old foundation? At all?


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


quiet, you (0.00 / 1) (#221)
by Fordi on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:02:54 AM PST
Read: bible.

Beliefs system handed down directly from those who have hallucinations about God.

Heinlein at least makes sense.


Makes sense? (none / 0) (#289)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 01:53:03 AM PST
Even when he's encouraging incest? Does incest make sense all of a sudden?


 
you obviously know nothing (2.00 / 1) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:55:39 AM PST
******The reason that hobbyists work so feverishly hard on creating this kind of tool is precisely because they are locked out of the world of the normal, decent software engineer, where professional-grade IDEs, debuggers, and similar tools are abundant.******

Man are you retarded

IDE
Abbreviation of either Intelligent Drive Electronics or Integrated Drive Electronics, depending on who you ask. An IDE interface is an interface for mass storage devices, in which the controller is integrated into the disk or CD-ROM drive.

Although it really refers to a general technology, most people use the term to refer the ATA specification, which uses this technology.


Does this mean hard drives are hacker tools???


Ignoramus, troll or ignorant troll? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Observer on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:14:55 AM PST
It might be wise to stick to what you know. That would apparently be computer hardware. Keep in mind the possibility that an acronym may be shared by multiple industries.

In the computer software world, IDE stands for Integrated Development Environment. An IDE has several components. First, it contains a source editor which usually has syntax highlighting for easier reading. Next, a compiler or interpreter is included, depending on the language. Finally, a debugger to facilitate rapid bug fixing. There are other optional parts, but these three normally form the core.


author's an idiot (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:32:40 AM PST
reading the various article by so-called experts like DMG who claim to work at multi-billion dollar compose as "someone who works on computer" (hey moron it's called a PC Technician) I would lean more toward Intelligent Drive Electronics.

IDE
A programming environment integrated into an application. For example, Microsoft Office applications support various versions of the BASIC programming language. You can develop a WordBasic application while running Microsoft Word.

Yet the author claims this is a "Lunix" (author's spelling) hacker tool. Yes this devilish tool should be banned.



 
Sorry, but you're a hardware guy, aren't you? (none / 0) (#193)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:52:49 PM PST
IDE, in programming, means Integrated Development Environment. It's a method of integrating different compiler-backends and system constructs into a single programming application.

IE: Metrowerks Codewarrior provides an excellent IDE, where you can program in Pascal, C, C++, Java (etc), and compile for virtually any platform (Linux, Win32, BeOS; Hell I even have a copy of the IDE extensions for SNES and the Playstation 2)


 
Communist: Linux or elenchos? (3.00 / 1) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:58:34 AM PST
Yes we need to censor education. Let the governement decide who learns what and what they do with their skills.

Seems kinda similar to this idea under Communist Russia:

"You want to be metal worker?"
"Yes"
"Then you need no education beyond third grade?"


Exactly. (none / 0) (#65)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:42:40 AM PST
This has been rehashed to death in another thread. You are exactly correct in your assesment -- the totalitarian policies that the U.S. government is implementing in the software industry basically amount to communism. This is why the American software market is rapidly failing, by the way -- communism has been proven to be a failure in the real world.

Besides, if multinational software giants are threatened by kids who are to stupid to pass "Spelling 101" in their local community college, then I would definitely say that the software industry is shit out of luck. Good riddance. If they cannot compete with kiddies without Big Brother's help, then they deserve to disappear off the face of the earth.


--
Peace and much love...




communism failed? (1.00 / 2) (#124)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:30:05 AM PST
communism has been proven to be a failure in the real world.

Is that why Russia compares to the former Soviet Union the way Pakistan compares to the United States, why China has a lower mortality rate than India, why China is the largest, fastest growing economy in the world, why there is no popular dissent in Cuba, and why the poorest nations on Earth are capitalist, not communist?

Bah! Stalin was the man with a plan. They should clone him back into existence; he's Mankind's last chance to survive.


wow (4.00 / 2) (#137)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:51:15 PM PST
all this, and no civil liberties. I'm sold


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

you must be a g**k (1.00 / 2) (#141)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:47:36 PM PST
If you perform a search for the Soviet, Chinese, Cuban or any other nation's Constitution, you will find that USians have the least number of civil liberties on the planet Earth. However, I will admit the freedom to remain stupid and ignorant is a very compelling freedom indeed if you havent any choice in the matter.


yes, i am a geek: (1.00 / 1) (#166)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:16:23 PM PST
I bite the heads off of chickens. I also resort to name calling to prove my points.


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
Richest countries (5.00 / 1) (#146)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:42:51 PM PST
And which countrys control nearly all the wealth and produce most of the goods in the world?

GDP data from 1999:
USA - 9.1 Trillion
Japan - 4.3
Germany - 2.1
UK - 1.4
France 1.4
Italy 1.1
Total world GDP - 30.8
Percentage controlled by top 6 countries - ~65%

And where are the socialist utopias??
China - .9

The Per-capita numbers are quite similar, so don't go there

It could be that the poorest countries are capitalist because developing economies could not possbly function with the bloat of a communist oversight, and witot the motivation of economic profits.

Communism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and it will fail in Cuba as soon as Castro dies. Capitalism is an unrivaled success throught te world. And democratic countries have much greater civil liberties than any comunist regime anywhere.


"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

dumbest posters (1.00 / 1) (#165)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:51:11 PM PST
It could be that the poorest countries are capitalist because developing economies could not possbly function with the bloat of a communist oversight, and witot the motivation of economic profits.

Er, China is a developing country. The reason the poorest countries are capitalist is precisely because the richest countries are capitalist. Capital has a direction, after all, and that direction isnt the rich get poorer.

And where are the socialist utopias??

There are none. What reason do you have for thinking Utopias are possible or that China will not in the future challenge the quality of life Americans enjoy in the present? Do you think wealthy societies just drop effortlessly from the sky without regard to time or historical context? How well do you think the US would cope if several billion people showed up overnight?

I see I'm arguing with a religionist. No doubt you also think Capitalism is a force of nature.


Only an ignorant swine... (none / 0) (#212)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 05:57:06 AM PST
...would look at a three thousand year old culture and call it a "developing nation."


economic development, you git (none / 0) (#238)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 03:51:14 PM PST
political society is perfectly capable of absorbing and coopting culture, but the political and economic history of communism in China isnt 3000 years old, is it? Do you also call the Italy the Roman Empire?


Ignorant buffoon (none / 0) (#242)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 04:55:35 PM PST
Of course I wouldn't call say that Italy is still the Roman Empire. Most of the original Roman people have been supplanted by invaders and their genetic legacy watered down by intermarriage. The culture of Rome is dead. The culture of China has survived for 3000 years. China is one of the world's most developed nations. They have sizeable industries and plenty of infrastructure. What do they lack in development? Would you call Canada a developing nation? Chinese industry is larger than Canada's. In fact, China has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Hardly economically undeveloped.


oh, you're too smart for me! (3.00 / 1) (#256)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 11:15:18 PM PST
The culture of Rome is dead.

Of course it most emphatically is not. The West would appear very different if it were.

China is one of the world's most developed nations.

Of course it most emphatically is not. Where did you get that idea from -- Afghans?

Would you call Canada a developing nation?

Of course not.

Chinese industry is larger than Canada's.

So is Indian industry.

China has the 6th largest GDP in the world. Hardly economically undeveloped.

This is a dumb thing to say. The Earth has the largest GDP in the world, but most people on Earth are destitute. GDP is a factor in a nation's development index, but it is not the measure of development by any means. Are you not intelligent enough to realize that 1.2 billion people must share the value of all final goods and services produced in China, vs. 30 million in the case of Canada?

Where do you get off calling anyone ignorant?


Roman culture not dead? (none / 0) (#258)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 01:54:19 AM PST
Care to tell me who the current emperor is?

Is for your insistence that China is a developing nation, perhaps had you actually visited the nation, you might know better. China is culturally more advanced than the west, and industrially equal to any western nation. Next you'll be telling me that the US is a first world country.


 
how can you believe this guy? (2.50 / 2) (#164)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:41:36 PM PST
ok... this site is pushing the limits, and reaching new grounds in misinformation... mostly thanks to elenchos who knows little to nothing about anything involving computers and technology. First off, your little cruisade to put an end to software development won't work, and it can't work. There is no way to control the development of software, and if you outlaw it, you will push it to the underground where you won't want it to be. trust me. Then you will only have malicious users writing open software, and won't have the good guys (the current majority) to balance out the equation. Might as well throw the internet out the window.

"One of these delusions is that any of the Open Source applications that have found some utility in business and industry were written by amateurs."

Not true... nobody is telling you that... Most open source developers are very experienced and good at what they do...

"The truth is that Apache began it's life as the work of professional coders employed by Amazon.com, and as any software engineer you want to ask can tell you, nothing of value was added by anyone but professionals. In truth, the work of the gainfully employed programmers on this project was often interrupted and even sabotaged by the ham-fisted meddling of the teenage wanna-be's and self-styled "gurus" who have accumulated around professional Open Source projects like so many leeches and barnacles. This episode alone demonstrates that if there is anything good to come out of Open Source
methodology, it will only be helped along by the removal of dilettantes from the picture. Indeed, once the "hackers" have been outlawed, Open Source will very likely reach new heights of utility and quality, and perhaps even fulfill the promise of greatness that Open Source advocates have been making for
years."

Come on... you are making it too easy for me. Do you just make this stuff up, or are you actually reading these "facts" somewhere? EVERYONE... go to apache.org and see how much mention of amazon.com there is. Apache was around for years before Amazon.com was, and I think you are confusing apache with something else (one click shopping maybe?). Infact, I used apache for my websites before amazon did, and I was like 15. hehe

You don't give many examples of opensource software that people might know about... Let me start with say, the website that you are posting this message to. It is some way came from slashcode (or one of the php or python knockoffs). This actual website was developed from none other than opensource software. If the web admin tells you that the idea was all his own, he is lying. Just visit slashcode.org and take a look at that opensource project. Apache is a great example, you just don't have a clue about it. Could you please point me in the direction of some documents that state apache came from amazon? I need a good laugh (especially since losing two friends in the WTC attack), and I am sure any of the developers from amazon would join me. If you would like a nice complete list of opensource software go to freshmeat.net, but I will continue to add a few others. How about Mozilla? It is an excellent web browser that a lot of you may or may not have heard of. Netscape is the production version of Mozilla. Um... Sendmail ring a bell? Not that I even really like sendmail, but it is the most popular mail server out there. Almost any e-mail you read passes through atleast one sendmail box. You are also leaving out Linux, but I know how much you love that. Many companies use linux for production servers. I am not going to continue to go on anymore, like I said check out freshmeat for a complete list.

Who cares about emacs, I don't use it much but thousands do... I prefer Vi. Both are opensource, and very respected pieces of software. Yeah, so a lot of emacs development was done at MIT... a lot of opensource software is created at Universities... What's your point?

"There are dozens, even hundreds of these types of destructive programs in circulation, such as those mentioned, as well as the notorious "Back Orifice", or the hacker operating system, "Lunix". While a "hacker" could disingenuously and spuriously argue that each one of these various illegal programs has some redeeming social value, it is clear that taken as a whole, such "warez" do not in fact benefit anyone except "hackers" and other criminals."

I wouldn't call Linux a hacker OS, but you don't even know what hacking is. You confuse malicious users with hackers. They aren't one and the same.
Putting Linux (or Lunix as you put it) and Back Orifice in the same sentence is wack. First off Back Orifice has nothing to do with Linux and infact it is distributed as a Windows binary from what I recall... I haven't used it myself, because I am a Linux "Junkie" as you like to put it. You don't take a look at these things long enough to make proper judgement on them. Linux is a operating system just like windows... neither one is more dangerous than the other. If everyon ran linux, there would be less hacks and less attacks, because it just isn't as easy to write a virus for linux... That is why there are zero viruses for linux ZERO! You think that these people that write viruses actually write them on linux? Maybe a few, but not many... I am sure pleanty of them haven't even touched linux before.

"Is there a right to "hack"? Well, of course there most certainly is not."

That isn't true... I do have every right to hack if I want... If I add a few lines of code to the Apache server project, that is hacking, but it isn't illegal. All code is, is just code... letters, numbers, and symbols written out on an electronic piece of paper like artwork or a novel. It is the act of transfering an idea to paper basically, and I have the right to do that. Even if I write a piece of code that can be used to take down an unpached dns server it is still legal. It would be illegal for me to take that code and execute it on a yahoo!'s dns server to bring it down without their permission.

"Absolutely. There is no better time than now. As we have seen by the recent mass murders by terrorists, computer technology is a mainstay of criminals, and they rely most on such "free" tools as text editors and military-grade encryption programs that "hackers" use simply because they think it is cute to play
with such power. But the rest of society has lost patience with this childish diddling, and the civilized world has said unequivocally that we want strong legal safeguards enacted to put an end to "hacking" and terrorism. We most especially have no qualms about banning activities like playing with explosives or
creating software when these so-called "hobbies" are restricted to a tiny fringe element who for whatever reason gets no pleasure from healthy pastimes like fly fishing or drinking alcohol at gentlemen's clubs."

Again, I must ask, "are you kidding me?" How does the world trade center attack show us that "computer technology is a mainstay of criminals?" Do you know something that FBI and I don't know? Where did you read that the terrorists used linux and/or free software? As far as I can tell they used planes, but I may be wrong... Maybe they ping flooded the WTC down. Hmmm... They didn't use text editors... hehe There is speculation that they may have used some encryption to transfer data, but that means nothing. I mean the encryption algorithms hardly have anything to do with the actual attack. From what I have read, Bin Laden actually tried to stay away from as much technology as possible, because they know how easy it is to intercept.

"Put simply, normal folks are not going to let themselves get blown up because a tiny minority of freaks like to "hack". If you aren't willing to code for Uncle Sam, then don't code at all."

Put simply, "Witch Hunt!" What happened to life , liberty, and the persuit of happiness? I use coding as my livelyhood, and it is how I persue these things... It is my right. I don't break the law with my code... not in the least.

Who are you anyway? Why don't you ask the corporations of america (even those that get attacked regularly) what they would prefer. I guarentee you that they understand (unlike you) that opensource has made it possible for them to do business, period. You really don't understand how widespread it is. I have been on that side, the side being attacked, and I wouldn't for a second blame it on open source. Why? Because I understand what is going on, and you don't. It is that simple. So take a step back and think for a second before you start this witch hunt. You don't understand what you are writing about and are doing serious damage. I don't for a second think that your freedom of speech should be taken away because you use it to do harm rather than spread truth. Why don't you give me that same chance with my code?

Like I have said in the past, you are afraid and now I feel you are weak. Since you fear what I know and you don't know, you want to destroy things that I enjoy. I am a good person. I donate money, blood, and time for the good of the world. I stand up against injustices and I am standing up against you. I am vegetarian for the good of the world, and I am a hacker for the good of the world... I am not afraid of you, because you cause has no steam, it especially pales in comparison to the drive of the open source MOVEMENT. I want to deliver information for free to those that can't afford it, and there is nothing wrong with that... no matter what you say.

peace,

daniel j. wharton

s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p (www.secretmedia.org)
spam@burnit.net <--- flames go here please

p.s. how can anybody trust a guy that gets so many facts wrong. infact, he didn't have one true fact to back up anything he said. Therefore everything he says is false.


Nice defense of Open Source. So what? (3.00 / 2) (#168)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:46:43 PM PST
This is not about getting rid of Open Source. What I am pointing out is that any success that Open Source can claim is due to the work real professionals, not bush-leaguers. So all that long-winded storytelling about big companies using Open Source only underscores how the useful work is done by real software engineers. Whether they share the source code with other software engineers is interesting, but not pertinent to this discussion.

I'm saying they shouldn't share it with dabblers and wanna-be's.

This whole ad homeniem attack with regard to the origin of Apache is yet another distraction from the issue. You claim that nothing I say is true because you think you've found a mistake in some historical fact. This is like saying that no one should believe anything I say because you discovered that I misspelled a word. Big deal.

And so what if there was some prototype Apache code out there before it was put into actual productive use at Amazon.com? Where did it originate then? In the basement of a self-taught "hacker" with a ratty beard? Sorry, no. It began at the NCSA. And what does NCSA stand for? It is the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, which is at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. How much more establishment can you get? It is an official, government-funded, industry-allied research center. It is about as much a "hacker" outfit as the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

So. Mozilla? Sorry. NCSA almuni all the way. Smelly "hackers"? Where? Who? Another case of "hackers" stealing credit for things done by professionals.

It all comes down to free speech. One, code is not speech. Speech is done in human language, not in instructions to machines. The courts have made this clear. And two, even if it were speech, is it harmful speech? Why yes, it is.

For example, if PGP is so useless, then let's outlaw it. Obviously, if as you claim, it is of no use to terrorists, because it is so easily intercepted, then no one will miss it. Or else perhaps it is useful to terrorists, in which case it is harmful. Ban it either way.

I fail to understand how "hackers" can so easily dismiss the billions of dollars lost to things like the Code Red Worm. If it was you getting laid off because your company's profits had sunk too low in this virus and worm filled environment, perhaps you would care. Maybe it is because "hackers" don't have real jobs in the tech sector anyway, so they never feel it.

And then what about the future? What about when someone breaks into a nuclear plant's computers, or shuts down air traffic control computers, or kills the power grid, or a hospital's computers? What about "hackers" hired to attack military computers in the middle of a battle? It is all more than possible, it is inevitable. And you would risk all that to let hobbyists have their fun playing programmer on the weekends?

What will you say when the worst happens? "Oh, we don't call them 'hackers'. The people who did this terrible deed are called 'crackers'." As if that is any consolation.


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


they are all hackers! (2.50 / 2) (#177)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:48:33 PM PST
"This is not about getting rid of Open Source. What I am pointing out is that any success that Open Source can claim is due to the work real professionals, not bush-leaguers. So all that long-winded storytelling about big companies using Open Source only underscores how the useful work is done by real software engineers. Whether they share the source code with other software engineers is interesting, but not pertinent to this discussion."

but you call for a ban on programming... the companies that use it aren't the ones that write it. It gets written by people at home! I am serious. Some things get added to it at universities and companies, but much of it is developed in peoples spare time. Opensource programmers are often not on the clock. The people that develop software weren't always pro's. A lot of them get there start by creating open source software. The fact that BIG companies USE opensource software (NOT WRITE it) proves my point. People are doing a lot of work for these companies in their own time without getting paid.

"And so what if there was some prototype Apache code out there before it was put into actual productive use at Amazon.com? Where did it originate then? In the basement of a self-taught "hacker" with a ratty beard? Sorry, no. It began at the NCSA. And what does NCSA stand for? It is the National Center for Supercomputing Applications, which is at the U of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. How much more establishment can you get? It is an official, government-funded, industry-allied research center. It is about as much a "hacker" outfit as the Los Alamos National Laboratory. "

They are a hacker outfit... If you ask all of the coders that worked on any of those projects at those places if they considered themselves hackers, I bet well over 50% would say, "sure." My point is you don't know what a hacker is, so how can you say that? It is just a stupid word I know, but I am sick of everyone getting a bad rap for the 1% of the people that do stupid bad things.

there was much more than some prototype Apache code.. It was DONE before Amazon.com even existed... It isn't like Amazon had anything to do with it. There have been many features and fixes added, but it was a fully functional server with most of the features it has today before Amazon existed. Where did you get this idea in your head that Amazon has somethign to do with Apache? I asked you to post proof, but I don't see any.

"So. Mozilla? Sorry. NCSA almuni all the way. Smelly "hackers"? Where? Who? Another case of "hackers" stealing credit for things done by professionals."

Ok let me explain to this in terms you may be able to understand. The few that I listed are older, more mature projects. Yes, most of them were started at universities and companies at one point, but since then people all over the world have been adding code to them from home. Most of the real breakthroughs have happened since the projects have become more puplic. There are some projects that were started at home like the gimp and enlightenment and gnome, and debian linux for example that will in time mature and become as well known as the projects you speak of. You just have to give it time. These pieces of software are big parts of my computer, but maybe not yours. That doesn't mean that they are any less genious.

"For example, if PGP is so useless, then let's outlaw it. Obviously, if as you claim, it is of no use to terrorists, because it is so easily intercepted, then no one will miss it. Or else perhaps it is useful to terrorists, in which case it is harmful. Ban it either way."

I didn't say it was useless... I said that there is no proof that they used any such thing. PGP is very useful, and I am sure that terrorists could find is useful as well as the president himself. Many things are useful to terrorists. Take planes for instance... They actually used planes to fly into the WTC do you think that we should get rid of planes? No, why? because planes are so useful to you.

"I fail to understand how "hackers" can so easily dismiss the billions of dollars lost to things like the Code Red Worm. If it was you getting laid off because your company's profits had sunk too low in this virus and worm filled environment, perhaps you would care. Maybe it is because "hackers" don't have real jobs in the tech sector anyway, so they never feel it."

Code Red Worm is a MS thing, so it wouldn't affect any of my systems. It was written for a closed sourced system on a closed source system with a closed source language. Any companies I worked for have systems that wouldn't be affected by Code Red Worm... That is why I am good to have around... That is also why I didn't get layed off.

It is why I am 22 and chillin' with my girlfriend in the new house we just bought in hawaii. That is why I can afford to travel to my home town New York next month and hang with my friends there. That is why I can then continue on to Amsterdam in December, and then to my ex boss's 14 million dollar mansion in West Hollywood for a kickin' party. Awww... then poor me has to come back to hawaii and start working on his new project. I am a hacker, and companies have had good luck with me. Why? because I am a hacker and can protect them from people that want to do them harm.

"And then what about the future? What about when someone breaks into a nuclear plant's computers, or shuts down air traffic control computers, or kills the power grid, or a hospital's computers? What about "hackers" hired to attack military computers in the middle of a battle? It is all more than possible, it is inevitable. And you would risk all that to let hobbyists have their fun playing programmer on the weekends?"

Those are bad people and they should be punished. If people want to do that, then they will have to work hard to get there. If they are that driven to do something then they will find some way to do it. You problem is that you underestimate these malicious people, thinking they are dumb druggies with long beards. You are doing the same thing we did with terrorists... They are all around you, blending in, being normal. Your run of them mill, lazy, drunk/druggie script kiddie is nothing to worry about. They can do little more than causing sites to run slow and the like... The people to look out for are the smart and driven but evil people. See, because of my computer knowledge, I can do all sorts of evil things to you, but I don't and won't, because it isn't right to abuse this power I have worked hard to obtain.

"What will you say when the worst happens? "Oh, we don't call them 'hackers'. The people who did this terrible deed are called 'crackers'." As if that is any consolation."

I wouldn't say that. I would say, wow, these people are horrible. I can't believe they made all those planes crash. We should find these people, punish them, and show other malicious computer hackers that we won't tollerate this kind of behavior.

I just have a question for you though. You say that all this software like Apache and Emacs... is created by professionals at companies and universities. What makes you think that viruses don't come from the same place?

The problem with making coding illegal is that you will upset the delicate balance on the net between good and evil hackers. Most of the good guys will probably stop hacking because the don't want to go to jail. That will only leave the bad guys to run wild and not be challanged by smart people on the other side.

Do you see what I am saying? I can see you calling for stronger punishment for computer crimes. I wouldn't object to that, but to just say that people can't do it without going to a university or working for a big company/government organization is wrong. I wouldn't have gotten where I am today or even close if I wasn't allowed to tinker with linux back when I was in high school. I would have done what every other kid around me was doing (drugs). I understand you may have grown up as part of the upper class and everything was polo and golf, but I was poor for a big chunk of my childhood. I have used technology to provide myself a good life. All I want to do is give back to technology by coding... What is wrong with that?

peace,

daniel
s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p


where does code come from? (1.00 / 1) (#197)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:11:05 PM PST
<<Yes, most of them were started at universities and companies at one point, but since then people all over the world have been adding code to them from home>>

Kinda like how Bill Gates and Paul Allen started Traf-O-Data (which became Micro-Soft which later became Microsoft) out of their college dorm room. Oh sorry, most of the adequacy.org family probably has never used anything prior to Windows 9x. They wrote BASIC (a programming language). Maybe I should talk about how they ran their business out of a hotel for almost a year.

If this ban would have been enacted back then you would not even know who Bill Gates was. Hell you'd likely be running CP/M-86 right now since QDOS (MS bought this for $50,000 and called it DOS) was a backwards engineered CP/M. Hell you wouldn't even be using that because it along with PL/M was written as a HOBBY by Gary Kindell.

CP/M: Control Program for Microcomputers
PL/M: Programming Language for Microcomputers

Linus (notice it's an S not an X) Torvalds wrote the first itteration of the Linux kernel from his home before he finish school. He later recieved his Masters Degree in Computer Science at age 21.

Also not all programmers and kernel hackers, or bad-guy hackers/crackers are nerds with no life, no job, that wear glasses and still live with their parents and are drug addicts. There are quite a few that look like they belong on the cover of a magazine that are highly paid (or work in their spare time as a hobby) as programmers.


 
We know for a fact... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:48:47 PM PST
...that every usable Open Source application you can name was worked on by credible, professional programmers. We know this because they had university degrees and worked in established research institutions. That a small portion of them want to be labeled "hackers" are like Harvard freshmen in phat baggy pants who want to be called "G". They are just play-acting because it embarrases them to be part of the system.

But you suppose that some amateurs made a contribution too. You're just sure of it, yet where is the evidence? All you have is some Open Source projects that seem to be progressing, and some code that you don't know for certain that it came from a pro. So you just assume, based on nothing, that it must have been written by a hobbyist. Why assume that? Only becuase it is a part of the romantic "hacker" myth of the underdog who comes out of nowhere and saves the day.

Yet every time we can look a the provenance of a useful piece of code, we discover that it did come from a real programmer. All the hard data we have says real software engineers are the ones who make Open Source work. The only way to give any credit to the tinkerers is to either lie (a popular choice) or to just give them the benefit of the doubt when there is no proof either way.

Who is capable of believeing such flimsy reasoning? Only "hackers". Only a "hacker" would start making up fairy tales about professionals writing viruses. Only a "hacker" would dream that somewhere out there are some mythical "white hats" keeping the evil ones at bay. So now your justification for letting bungling fools play with dangerous technology is a pure fantasy and speculation?

Nice try. But as an argument, it carries little more weight than Richard Stallman's sci-fi stories.


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


you THINK you know for a fact... (3.00 / 2) (#255)
by dotKAMbot on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:34:43 PM PST
ok... I am slowly seeing your arguement cruble, and move farther and farther away from your original post. Like you ask, I will give you proof that lots of opensource development is done as a hobby by hobbyist.

I NEVER said that AMATEURS made a BIG contribution. I think amateurs start out by making small contributions, and eventually work their way into makeing BIG contributions when them become more experienced, and often start their own projects.

Let me start with an e-mail from Linus Torvalds himself talking about the first steps of his hobby.

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: What would you like to see most in minix?
Summary: small poll for my new operating system
Message-ID: <1991Aug25.205708.9541@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 25 Aug 91 20:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

Hello everybody out there using minix -
I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing
since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons among other things).
I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them :-)
Linus (torvalds@kruuna.helsinki.fi)
PS. Yes - it's free of any minix code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never
will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have :-(.

notice how he says just a hobby? Just like 80%-90% of the other opensource people out there.

you can read more @ http://www.li.org/linuxhistory.php

Now, I am not in any way claiming that Linus is still an amateur, but this quote is from when he was nothing more than a nerdy hacker (even hobbyist). Linux was obviously STARTED as a hobby.

------

"Yet every time we can look a the provenance of a useful piece of code, we discover that it did come from a real programmer. All the hard data we have says real software engineers are the ones who make Open Source work."

I never said they didn't come from real programmers! Ofcourse, a "fake" programmer can't write real code. I have a problem with you saying that the only good that has come from opensource was done under the watchful eye of some university or large corporation. The truth is, a lot of "real" programmers program in their spare time as a hobby.

Now, to clear up the whole hacker BS, lets consult the "pros", GNU the people that pretty much started it all.

these are all quotes from the GNU site, and proper links are attached.

GNU PROJECT

Responsible for many KEY features on ALL UNIX systems today.

"(1) The use of "hacker" to mean "security breaker" is a confusion on the part of the mass media. We hackers refuse to recognize that meaning, and continue using the word to mean, "Someone who loves to program and enjoys being clever about it.""

I urge you to educate yourself on what hackers are by reading http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

It also gives you a little info on what it was like before free software was popular, and why they needed to do what they do... they needed to hack. If they didn't, we would be nowhere near where we are today. Sure, some of them may have jobs and some go to school, but they are just people, and they hack in their free time.

"The idea that the proprietary software social system--the system that says you are not allowed to share or change software--is antisocial, that it is unethical, that it is simply wrong, may come as a surprise to some readers. But what else could we say about a system based on dividing the public and keeping users helpless? Readers who find the idea surprising may have taken proprietary social system as given, or judged it on the terms suggested by proprietary software businesses. Software publishers have worked long and hard to convince people that there is only one way to look at the issue."

"What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.

Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.

And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is ``piracy'', they pollute our society's civic spirit.

This is why we say that free software is a matter of freedom, not price."

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html

---

Ok, ever hear of apple computers? Steve Jobs? Lets take a look at how he got started... The first apple computers, a hobby? hmmm...

APPLE COMPUTERS

Steven Wozniak and Steven Jobs had been friends in high school. They had both been interested in electronics, and both had been perceived as outsiders. They kept in touch after graduation, and both ended up dropping out of school and getting jobs working for companies in Silicon Valley. (Woz for Hewlett-Packard, Jobs for Atari)

Wozniak had been dabbling in computer-design for some time when, in 1976, he designed what would become the Apple I. Jobs, who had an eye for the future, insisted that he and Wozniak try to sell the machine, and on April 1, 1976, Apple Computer was born.

Hobbyists did not take the Apple I very seriously, and Apple did not begin to take off until 1977, when the Apple II debuted at a local computer trade show. The first personal computer to come in a plastic case and include color graphics, the Apple II was an impressive machine. Orders for Apple machines were multiplied by several times after its introduction. And with the introduction in early '78 of the Apple Disk II, the most inexpensive, easy to use floppy drive ever (at the time), Apple sales further increased.

continued at http://www.apple-history.com/history.html

---

Let's take a look at some of the current mozilla developers! NCSA developers as you say? Funny there was no mention of the NCSA on their site. Could you please post where you got info on the ties to the NCSA?

MOZILLA (www.mozilla.org)

The Mozilla community includes all those who contribute to Mozilla: writing code, testing software, writing documentation, developing web pages and applications, advocating on behalf of Mozilla, or doing any of the multitude of other things that help make Mozilla useful and successful. SOME PARTICIPATE AS INDIVIDUAL VOLUNTEERS, some through their educational institution, and others work at commercial companies.

These actions ultimately determine the direction of the Mozilla project, through the contributions made and through participation in the Mozilla discussion groups and mailing lists where the day-to-day activity takes place.


Chris Blizzard (blizzard@mozilla.org)
Chris hacks on various parts of Mozilla. The straight Xlib port of Mozilla is mostly his fault. He also hacks on the gtk port when it really needs help and people ask really nicely. He dreams of things like adding Web DAV support and other fun network features. He also dreams about the directions the mozilla project could take and what we can accomplish.

Chris has been using Linux and open software since the 0.99 days. Starting as a user he self taught himself programming and now hacks on various projects when he has time. He's been working with Mozilla code since the source was released. In the past he's played roles as a sysadmin, web jockey, database programmer and project manager.

clearly a hacker with no motivation from a corp or an edu.

Mike Shaver (shaver@mozilla.org)
shaver is the token Canadian. By day he hangs out with the Mozilla development community, listening to what people are using Mozilla code for, what they're working on, what works and what doesn't. By night, he hacks the code and occasionally fixes things. Mostly, he focuses on giving out guidance and T-shirts, in approximately equal quantities.

Mike is a veteran of the free software (especially Linux) scene, and was a loud and persistent champion of free software within Netscape. Before Netscape, Mike played CTO for a little Canadian consulting company called Ingenia (now a part of Software Kinetics).
   
---

XFREE86

XFree86 is basically the windows part of UNIX/Linux. There are a few non-free competetors, but Xfree86 is the most widespread version of X-Windows, and it is completely open source. It was started in 1992 by a group of 4 people. David Dawes is the "president" of XFree86 and is currently unemployed... his last job was working at VA Linux... basically he is just a hacker too

here is a piece of an interview where he talks about how he got started:

"Q: how did you get started with xfree86?

Back in 1991 before Linux was around I was running System V Release 3 and later 4 for PC - this was the only unix you could get. Thomas Roell, who got everything started, he wrote an X server for these operating systems, and when X11R5 came out he included his code in that release. It was the first time an X release had code for PCs.

There were a lot of variations between the different vendors, so X didn't really run very well on the machine I was using. I wanted to make it work so I started getting into it and fixing stuff up.

Then there were a couple of other guys (Glenn Lai, Jim Tsillas) who started improving the perfomance of it, independently, and a fourth guy (David Wexelblat) who was interested in getting stuff working. He got all of us together, to co-ordinate what we were doing, and that's where it all started.

We just started by releasing patches for the other code."

As you can see, they didn't do it for school or work, but to make it function well on their machines, like so many other open source developers. Little of this could have been done without the free tools from GNU written by hackers.

"Q: how many copies of X are there out there now?

No idea.

Q: there must be millions?

That would be my guess. How many copies of linux are there out there?"

millions... that is a lot people running the software those few people started in the privacy of their own home. I would say that these few hackers have made a big difference in the UNIX/Linux world. This is actually a project I can say I have participated in by offering bug fixes and device drivers I made in my spare time.

---

ENLIGHTENMENT PROJECT

Enlightenment is stunning window manager for UNIX/Linux. It was written completely from scratch by two hackers (raster and mandrake or Carsten Haitzler an dGeoff Harrison). They are just hobbists, and now that people see how amazing it is, they have had many more join in. You can see a long list at enlightenment developers... some work, some go to school, and some just hack.

www.enlightenment.org

---

Like I have been trying to express to you, I myself am proof that hobbyists and pros go hand and hand. I am both a professional and a hobbyiest. I got my start like so many other opensource developers... from being a hobbyist.

Let's talk a little about one of the more successful companies I worked with, and one I was REALLY involved with.

NETCREATIONS (www.netcreations.com)

Let's talk about my old company for a second. They had a huge impact on the internet, especially in opt-in e-mail marketing. The company was started by a journalists and a college drop out video game programmer. My friend (the video game programmer and CTO/cofounder of NetCreations) started the system himself, and then eventually hired a few other people (including me). Two years ago, DoubleClick offered 191 million dollars for the system and the software. We were the biggest double opt in e-mailer in the world. Guess who set up the 100 linux boxes the system ran on? My friend and I.

---

I hope these few examples can help you see the light. OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT IS THE WORK OF HOBBYIESTS, PROFESSIONALS, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. If you take the hobbyiests out of the equations, you will end up with less professionals, and less software. It isn't like you just wake up one day and are a professional programmer. You have to work your way up there. Going to a fancy University isn't the only way. Hacking away at open source code is an equally effective (more effective according to many) method for learning the ropes.

I have pointed you many times in the direction of freshmeat.net, so you can see that there are thousands of projects just like these, and I would guess that well over 50% of those projects were started as hobbies. Why don't you take a peek?

For the record, most viruses are found to be written by college students... Lots of people get their start with them. I personally think that viruses are dumb. Some viruses are so well written, that they are obviously done by VERY good programmers... infact lots of viruses make useful applications and code look like a game. As we speak, they are starting up another Linux virus contest. Lots of professionals and college students and researchers have already participated in the contest. With 10,000 up for grabs, why not? btw nobody has been able to claim the prize for the last 2 years.

http://www.silicon.com/bin/bladerunner?30REQEVENT=&REQAUTH=21046&14001REQSUB=REQINT1=48211

You have asked enough of me, and I have answered everytime with good examples and facts.. You claim what you say is fact, but that isn't true.. You consistantly avoid the strong points of my argument as if they aren't you. Let me ask you a few questions:

1) Show me the proof that Amazon.com had ANYTHING to do with Apache development

2) Give me a solid example of how linux is MORE dangerous than any flavor of windows.

3) Give me a solid example of how the terrorists used open source software or encryption to take down the WTC.

4) Explain the connection between viruses and open source or linux... ANY connection.

5) Explain how you would go about "banning all unlicensed computer programming, and take steps to ensure that no one outside of government, select universities, and state-sanctioned private-sector corporate software engineering facilities is given the knowledge, skills, or means to write or compile computer code of any kind."

   a) I want you to prove that you have some idea of how the open source community actually works.

   b) Why do you think that banning this kind of development would help the problems of viruses and malicious denial of service attacks?

   c) How do you plan to rid the world of all current open source software.

   d) How would one go about obtaining a propper license to develop software

6) What is a hacker?


---

The thing that I like best about all these posts is that I know you are wrong. Not only do I know you are wrong, but I know you can't win. The way things are going proprietary software is on the decline, and open source is picking up the slack. Not only is your call for a ban on open programming not going to happen, but we will see quite the opposite emerge. thank you and have a nice day.

peace,




daniel j. wharton
s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p
www.secretmedia.org

It's progress until there is nothing left to gain.

 
Popular Dissent (none / 0) (#189)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:19:00 PM PST
Whould you dissent if it meant your life?

Popular dissent is a GOOD thing. In a properly designed government, it brings about change, but in a slow, steady, controlled manner. The populous regulate each others' responses by merely canceling each other out, until the correct, or at least, most desired answer is found.




 
the dead source code! (1.00 / 3) (#49)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:00:26 AM PST
<<If you style yourself a "hacker" and you really want to play around with dangerous toys, be it source code,....>>

You mean Windows doesn't start as SOURCE CODE before it is compiled and sold as overprice crap?


 
You're article (2.50 / 4) (#72)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:44:58 AM PST
If it was'nt for hackers and enthusiastic ametures
then you would have no internet, no web, mail, or DNS servers and no operating systems at all!.

If you restrict the creation of software to a privilaged few then all's you end up with is un-inovative, un-original software writen by drones in an office.

The logic of you're article is seriously flawed!

Ps.

Hackers are actualy PROGRAMMERS. CRACKERS are the ones that reak havoc on the net.

Don't put the rest of us down for the actions of a few missguided individuals

PhoeNIX


Tar with a brush (none / 0) (#153)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:37:54 PM PST
So you're saying I can't class you as ignorant because you have as much command over the English language as a 'nice guy' over his crush? WRONG!


 
I think every programmer (4.20 / 5) (#75)
by nobbystyles on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:58:21 AM PST
Who wants to work in the industry should be licensed by the appropriate authority. Being a liberterian, I don't want the state involved in this at all.

So I suggest programmers should be licensed by the most sucessful software company in history and therefore according to market economics must be the best: Microsoft.They already have well regarded certification for programmers namely the Microsoft Certified Solution Developer. All programmers therefore must have this qualification by law to certify that they are definitely not hackers...


Good idea. (3.00 / 1) (#79)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 04:53:13 AM PST
This will give a great advantage to offshore programmers to rake in big buck$ while Microsoft with the Government are building their own private little communism in the U.S. software industry. I say go for it. As an offshore programmer myself, this would benefit me tremendously.


--
Peace and much love...




Wrong! (none / 0) (#86)
by nobbystyles on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:50:26 AM PST
With Hailstorm, you won't be able to run non-microsoft approved software on the .NET (internet). So you will be forced to go to your local Microsoft training centre in Stalingrad and sit the MCSD exam before you can program on this platform...


Right. (none / 0) (#92)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:11:00 AM PST
The Internet isn't really global. Unless the central routers and internet services here in Moscow decide to switch to .NET "approved" software, (which will never happen, don't kid yourself) I'll continue to use whatever I like. Don't overestime yourself.


--
Peace and much love...




".NET" does not mean "Internet" (3.00 / 2) (#114)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:09:20 AM PST
If "central routers and internet services here in Moscow" don't switch to ".NET approved software", the Internet will continue to work. However, .NET will be broken.

No big loss, really.


 
That's so nice of them (none / 0) (#125)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:35:32 AM PST
You mean that us russians not only get to pirate the shit out of Microsoft software (everybody knows that the Russian population consists of >90% software pirates), but Microsoft will also train us to use our pirated software? What a nice company...


 
.net; don't make me laugh.. (none / 0) (#180)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:05:43 PM PST
Do you really think that the thousands of servers that have smoothly running software under asp, shtml, php, bml, perl, etc. are really going to migrate to .NET anytime soon? You're fooling yourself. Microsoft is the smallest player on the global programming map, my friend. Even moreso on web platforms. Hell, I run an IIS server, but all my code is in php. It's just BETTER than ASP. That's why vbscript was a failure. BASIC of any flavor is too slow and too limited to be of any use.


 
Ban Programming?????????????????? (2.00 / 2) (#99)
by havoc on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:02:30 AM PST
Why in the hell would u want to ban programming. Programming is a form of free speach and intelictual property. Besides there are to sides to being a "Hacker". There are "crakers" who are the ones that write viruses and break into computers wiith the intent to do a malicious act. Then there is a "Hacker" defined in the cyber generation as someone with an overwhelming want for knowledge, it is someone who might hack in to your computer but has no intent to do anything malicious or steal anything. Besides you can ban programming but that isn't going to stop anyone from from doing it anyways. It is kinda of like software piracy, it is illegal but it is still being done and not being stopped. If anyone would like to send me a comment on this post plz feel free to email me @ drury65301@yahoo.com


Not banning (3.66 / 3) (#101)
by nobbystyles on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:11:14 AM PST
But licencesing from the appropriate authority which in this case is Microsoft. Unless you have the MCSD qualification then you obviously do not have the knowlege base to programme responsibly using authorised tools like MS Studio .NET.


Re: Not banning (none / 0) (#286)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 09:16:33 PM PST
And you obviously know very little about programming.

If every programmer required MCSD certification, then would we have to ban all programs being used that were developed by non-MCSD certified developers?

MCSD is crap. I'd trust someone who had a PhD in CS before someone who passed the MCSD test.

Giving a corporation the power to regulate the entire software industry...yeah, that's smart too.


MCSD, ha! (none / 0) (#368)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 08:01:40 PM PST
Personally, I'd trust someone that had read the back of a Captain Crunch box before someone who passed the MCSD test!


 
What about non-windows platforms (1.00 / 1) (#130)
by frosty on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:12:41 AM PST
Contrary to popular belief there are manby platforms and languages that an MCSD would not be competent in. First of all, there are Operating systems other than Windows/95/98/2k/NT: for example HP-UX, True64, Solaris, S/390, NetBSD, MacOS X, and the list goes on. There are also languages that nearly any MCSD has never even seen let alone programmed in: lisp, scheme, Forth, Perl, etc.

So, who certifies programmers for these platforms/languages???

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

Obvious solution (5.00 / 1) (#155)
by FifthVandal on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 04:30:07 PM PST
First of all, there are Operating systems other than Windows/95/98/2k/NT: for example HP-UX, True64, Solaris, S/390, NetBSD, MacOS X,(snip)So, who certifies programmers for these platforms/languages???

All of the above are the intellectual property of respectable corporate entities: for example S/390 is IBM, MacOSX is Apple (and therefore partly Microsoft by proxy), and NetBSD is a creation of the University of California.

Therefore, it would seem self-evident to those of us who don't intersperse words with numbers where letters ought to be that the respective corporate entity should be responsible for licensing practicioners on its property.
--- I was the fifth vandal on the grassy knoll!

who owns what? (none / 0) (#173)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:24:37 PM PST
<<All of the above are the intellectual property of respectable corporate entities: for example S/390 is IBM, MacOSX is Apple (and therefore partly Microsoft by proxy), and NetBSD is a creation of the University of California. >>

Nope sorry. NetBSD is not own by the University of California. It was start by a group of software engineers based off of BSD/OS 4.4 which is based off of Unix. The reason it is called NetBSD, FreeBSD, or OpenBSD is because they all use the BSD licensing scheme and have their roots in BSD 4.4


 
who own this one (none / 0) (#174)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:31:50 PM PST
So every OS is "owned" by someone?

So who OWNS AtheOS? FreeDOS? AllOS (AllianceOS)? ReactOS?

Microsoft doesn't own DOS. They own a VERSION of DOS which they had a contract with IBM which allowed them to be the sole vendor for so many years. PC-DOS is very similar to MS-DOS. DR (Digital Research) DOS which is owned by Caldera (they bought it from Novell who bought it from Digital Research) is CP/M which is what DOS (QDOS, MSDOS, PCDOS) was based off of (actually it was stolen).




 
Oh GOD! (0.50 / 2) (#154)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:48:18 PM PST
What an idiot!!! GO OFFLINE! you aren't allowed online. The internet is for non-naive, non-ignorant, non-idiotic people. Got it?

//Me


 
Ban hacking? That'll put Microsoft out of business (1.33 / 3) (#80)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 05:06:38 AM PST
Ban amateur programming? Ban hacking?

Sure!! That means we'll have to outlaw Microsoft, which, as we all know, is the leading producer of dangerous, amateur, hacked-up software.





Typical hacker attitude (3.66 / 3) (#91)
by Hammurabi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:10:03 AM PST
Hackers dislike Microsoft software because it's difficult to use as a hacking tool. Now you're trying to confuse the subject by describing Microsoft's software as hacked. Attempting to equate the reputable software of an excellent software company with their own shoddy work won't get you very far. News Flash, hacker: Microsoft's software is the best in the universe, and is designed with legality in mind. Unlike Linux, to hack with Microsoft software, you actually have to do something unsupported. With Linux, much of the software, such as wget, is configured to hack by default. Now, this was reasonable for the professional academics who made Linux, but it seems obvious that any use of any OS besides Windows by a non-academic should be strictly banned. Microsoft is professional, not one of your hacking tools, and your argument doesn't make any sense at all.


Only the most dangerous and hardened of criminals attempts to blame the law when he is the one who broke it.

FIghtin' words (2.00 / 2) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:17:52 AM PST
Microsoft's software is the best in the universe, and is designed with legality in mind.

Oxymoronic. Or, at best, auto-contradictory. Lawers are not programmers. Software is designed by programmers, not laywers.

FWIW, wget runs just fine on Windows platforms. All you have to do is compile it.

OS besides Windows by a non-academic should be strictly banned.

Windows turns a computer into a lowly appliance. I prefer to use a computer.

Whether or not using computers (as opposed to appliances) is a legal right, if you try to prevent me from using a computer (as opposed to an appliance), I will fight you.


Please take your violent threats elsewhere (5.00 / 2) (#111)
by Hammurabi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:00:10 AM PST
Oxymoronic. Or, at best, auto-contradictory. Lawers are not programmers. Software is designed by programmers, not laywers.

But in Microsoft's case, it's designed by socially concious programmers who are motivated to make useful software, as oppose to hack and destroy.

FWIW, wget runs just fine on Windows platforms. All you have to do is compile it.

There is little that Microsoft can do to prevent hackers from modifying hacking tools so that they can run on their platform. That is why we need more stringent laws against it.

Whether or not using computers (as opposed to appliances) is a legal right, if you try to prevent me from using a computer (as opposed to an appliance), I will fight you.

You threaten physical violence against those who enforce the law? And your people wonder why everyone thinks of them as criminals? My God.


Only the most dangerous and hardened of criminals attempts to blame the law when he is the one who broke it.

Assumption is dangerous. (5.00 / 1) (#142)
by Observer on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:51:00 PM PST
... designed by socially concious programmers who are motivated to make useful software ...

If you mean that they adhere to legal constraints which are totalitarianist in nature and designed quite blatantly to force vertical thinking as opposed to lateral, then yes. If you mean useful software by the creation of business tools for the use of document creation and not much else, then yes. However, useful software is not limited to the business world. To my knowledge, Microsoft makes no high-end research or mathematical software. Nor do they make any cutting edge design software. Visio is the only product which comes close to design software, and that was simply bought out. Social awareness is a secondary consideration, while financial gain is the primary. Can you dispute this? Do you have firsthand experience? How much time have you spent examining the business practices of the company and the psychological profiles of developers within the company? Where are your statistics? What companies have performed truly independent studies on Microsoft, as opposed to being surreptitiously funded by the giant? Why did the government simply turn a blind eye to Microsoft's monopolistic practices? Was it because the moral standing of the developers was so strong that they didn't have to play smoke and mirrors with the anti-trust case? Can you answer any of these questions honestly?

Many of the full-time programmers working at Microsoft are quite arrogant and just not nice people. I've met a few dozen of them, and it is a rarity for any of them to be decent. At a computer store, I was privy to the following conversation (not quite verbatim):

Some guy: "I'm looking for an AGP video card."
Sales employee: "We have nVidia and Matrox cards."
Some guy: "Do they work in a Mac G3?"
MS programmer: "Fucking Mac bigot."
Some guy: "Excuse me?"
MS programmer: "Mac bigot."
Some guy: "I happen to have several different types of computers."

The MS programmer was identified by his Microsoft badge and my overhearing his rude discourse with one of the employees, which was something to the effect of him being a programmer and knowing more than they did, so he didn't need to be told what was worthwhile. This was the worst instance of arrogance on the part of any Microsoft employee I've ever experience, but I've met a few dozen others and the theme is rarely very different, just subdued by comparison.

After experience the deception that Microsoft practices with companies firsthand, I am through giving the behemoth the benefit of the doubt. You can only kick a dog so long before it stops coming back. Microsoft is a truly evil child which has yet to realize that being a bully is only fun for a while. Then again, maybe it has realized this, because the latest round of injustices incurred by the company seem to indicate that it doesn't view itself as having a lot of time left. The pervading appearance seems to be grab all you can and make a run for it. It must be nice to have a social conscience consisting of every man for himself.

There is little that Microsoft can do to prevent hackers from modifying hacking tools so that they can run on their platform.

I need only point out one utility to slap you in the face. Microsoft provides what you deem hacking utilities of their own accord. Access to the command prompt is still in place in every version of Windows, so all that is needed is to open a DOS session and use the command ping. This will allow any user with virtually any Microsoft operating system which supports a connection to the internet to perform a denial of service attack upon any other computer with a connection point to the internet. If you need another utility, then what about tracert, the bastardized version of the standard traceroute utility. It is used to find out the exact path which a piece of information (packet) has taken to arrive at your computer. Using this utility, you can easily discover a server that an end user or company may not necessarily want you to know about.

Moving right along, we have the built-in telnet utility. This allows those evil Windows based H@X0RZ to connect to a remote computer and start H@XI|\|G!! Goodness, Microsoft really shouldn't have included that in there. It's the worst utility of them all.

You threaten physical violence against those who enforce the law?

Physical violence is an assumption you make. From the context of the sentence that you were replying to, I perceived the fighting to mean intellectual and legal dispute. Remember, assumption is dangerous. It is better to save accusations for moments of clarity.

As a society, we are already dead. We drown ourselves in the drivel of the mundane and allow our lives to become paragons of complacency amidst the mediocre. Who are we to say that we are any better than a bird, which cannot likely distinguish one day from the next any easier than a corporate employee can when the weeks begin to run one into the next. This is the hell we have allowed to be created, and there is no longer any escape. The masses cannot be rallied, for they are too diverse. There is no salvation from without, only from within. Even then, it is an uphill battle, for self discovery is an art practically lost to the modern world. I pity you who cannot formulate your own opinions, but rather choose to absorb those presented and label them as your own.

Good day.


 
hehe (none / 0) (#196)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:05:13 PM PST
best hacker tool I've ever used is microsoft telnet. It's given me a WORLD of knowledge of protocols, etc. *I* don't like microsoft products because they crash whenever you blink the wrong way.


 
IP theft and programming. (3.00 / 2) (#88)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:02:54 AM PST
First, the earlier blanket statement that "nothing" good ever came from "hacker" programming is an ingorant statment at best, if not a lie to promote a hollow argument. If you look through Windows you will find references to FreeBSD, a "hacker" OS that Microsoft has used code from. You can also open up I.E. and find references to Mosaic, a free web browser created by "hackers". Not all free software is for "stealing".
I will agree with the idea that lots of bored 15-year-old kids with a "I want to be NEO" mentality are running a bit too rampant with the virus creation, but what that has to do with this is beyond me.
There are ALREADY MANY, MANY, MANY laws to combat piracy and IP theft. Thus the shutdown of Napster. So the idea that we need more laws to accomplish what already exists is also false.
Not only all of this, but the sheer folly of the notion that scholars, governments, and corporations should decide what's best for everyone is so utterly shamefull that I can hardly belive you would WILLINGLY SUBJUGATE yourself to the will of some "higher" power. Have you nothing to offer the world? are you so vapid and hollow as to only be able to do what you are told? A world of mindless lemmings marching to the beat of the pre-determined, focus-grouped, marketed, and packaged future that most benifits one of these "elites" is a slave state.
Your proposal also forgets to take into account all of the small development houses that create most of the commercial software you use. almost ALL software companies are, or started out as small 2-4 employee companies. even Microsoft began it's life with only a few "hackers" as its base. None of them had these proposed special statuses.
Your proposal limits the content available to all users when you limit the access to create. What will be your next suggestion, reduce access to paint, and film? keep pens and paper from the uneducated?
The power to create is the driving force of all mankind, and your silly, mis-guided notion of locking that right into the hands of a few is foolish beyond reason.


Finally! (2.50 / 2) (#157)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 04:38:42 PM PST
Someone intelligent took a stand!

YAY! ;)

Regards.


 
BSD was not made by hobbyists. (1.00 / 1) (#163)
by elenchos on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:06:10 PM PST
If you are working at a university or other major research institution, or at a suitably cleared company, you are a memeber of the professional software engineerig community. You are not a real "hacker". Yes, many who do their duty to the establishment have some pathetic liberal guilt about it, and so they call themselves "hackers", just because it makes them feel cool, or sexy or something. But that is just pretend.

Real "hackers" are the irresponsible, intellectually limited and often drug-addicted and lazy drop-outs who can't get into an university, can't get even secret security clearance, and can't get a real computer engineering job. They get telephone support jobs at best, or work the support desk at CompUSA (if their beard isn't too matted and smelly).

These bungling "hackers" contributed nothing of value to FreeBSD, Apache or anything else. Their greatest triumph was Code Red II. Thanks you guys. Good work.


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


Wow again (none / 0) (#188)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:12:42 PM PST
Amazing how ignorant you are. real hackers don't call themselves hackers because it makes them feel cool. REAL hackers call themselves hackers because they HACK. And I don't mean writing shitty viruses. I mean doing things like figuring out the SMTP protocol. Or reverse engineering the NetBIOS system so a Linux or Macintosh computer can communicate with an older Microsoft box. I mean recompiling your kernel to make it stronger, faster, better. I mean reverse engineering the IBM PC BIOS to create the first Compaq. I mean reverse engineering the XEROX parc1 to create the MAC/OS. I mean poking and prodding around any major computer problem to find a solution.

There's a term for it in the outside world. It's called 'inventor'. it's called 'tinkerer'. it's called 'home scientist'.

What you in your article propose is to limit the amount of knowledge, the degree of control over a computer, and the degree of autonomy a person has from those who write the code for them.

You are attempting to limit freedom in order to provide some security.

I believe Ben Franklin said, "Anyone who sacrifices a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security deserves neither."


 
your stereotypes (none / 0) (#252)
by frosty on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 07:19:20 PM PST
where is the basis in fact for your stereotyping of "hackers" as you like to call them?? Do you have any research to suppot you claim that "hackers" are "irresponsible, intellectually limited and often drug-addicted and lazy drop-outs who can't get into an university, can't get even secret security clearance, and can't get a real computer engineering job."

And what realy constitutes hacking exactly. Are "hackers" bad because they do illegal things, or because they could if they wanted to??


"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

 
a few things.... (0.50 / 2) (#269)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:21:33 AM PST
what did some "drug-addicted" hacker steal your girlfriend or something?
are you a failed "hacker" yourself? you were gonna be l33t, but couldnt get red hat installed on your machine, so gave up?
i quote from this site:
"Trolling is not tolerated here. Any comment may be deleted by a site admin, and all trolls will be deleted. This is your fair warning."
this articlce (if it can be called that) is one big troll. i think the admin should delete it.

btw. if m$ had more hackers and less certified software engineers (lol) there wouldnt be so many gapping seurity holes for the script kiddies to take advantage of.



 
As someone who (5.00 / 1) (#97)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:52:12 AM PST
has an annoying habit of falling in love with/marrying C++ programmers, I wholeheartedly support your battle cry! If programming were banned, this curse would be lifted and maybe I'd have a real shot at marital bliss.

I think you just became my personal hero!


woah... (3.00 / 2) (#123)
by Frithiof on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:06:57 AM PST
chicks actually dig programmers?

I think I've found my new career :)


-Frith

Some of us, yes. (none / 0) (#128)
by chloedancer on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:07:15 AM PST
But generally it isn't limited only to programmers, really -- I suspect that code junkies are just my own personal karma to deal with in this lifetime (my gods are known for having a twisted sense of humor). Go check your own diary for more details/caveats.

Any profession where the desire to go on a work-related "binge" supercedes such typical human desires/responsibilities as eating, personal hygiene, sleeping and sexual expression should be banned/shunned/devalued. Do you really want to hook into something that could be viewed as an ironic example of "evolution in action"? The truly evolved men in the IT industry, in my humble opinion, don't get caught in this trap and do something other than programming for their livelihood. I just have an utterly insane Achille's heel when it comes to any species rushing towards extinction, I guess. Or maybe it's my gods' way of endorsing my chosen status as a hetero non-breeder female, who knows?

Besides, the fact is that programmers used to be far more interesting/human/amusing/adventurous -- in years long past, they even displayed characteristics one could easily associate with men like Galileo, Oppenheimer or even fictional characters like Indiana Jones. Now they're all just company-owned drones who've bought into a stereotype that sublimates their natural desire for pleasure into the company's corporate profits. I'd re-think embracing this occupational objective if getting chicks to dig you is your goal, all things considered -- most programmers just aren't capable of being that sexy anymore.


other professions.... (none / 0) (#234)
by nathan on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 12:57:51 PM PST
Classical musicians. We've been known to break into buildings in order to practice late. The great Willy Burmester (violin) practiced fifteen hours a day for nine months for his Berlin debut, going through one of the pieces over 4700 times.

Habits like these tend to leave you pasty, malnourished, and nerdy, too.

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

 
hehe (none / 0) (#246)
by Fordi on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 05:32:50 PM PST
You've been dating the wrong programmers. Open-source guys tend to be a little closer to the more enthusiastic, self-motivated, and eccentric sorts of people you're probably more used to. This article's concept is to make ALL of them into the boring, corporate types.

Corporations breed zealots for the company. Open-source breeds zealots for efficiency and optimized code, as we as for having everyone understand. Ok, ok, sure I bore people to death when I'm on about programming. I also try not to go on about programming in any kind of technical detail around laypeople.

Basically, you talk shop around those who can talk shop. You shoot shit with those who don't. I've met some corp guys. They tend not to be terribly personable types.

Also, last remark on this article before I finally forget the URL:

Elenchos, you are very, very misinformed about the properties of programmers as those who shape your world. Innovation does not come from corporations, unlike what you've seen in IBM commercials. Innovation comes from people, wherever they happen to be employed. The decision to use knowledge for either proper or malicious purposes lay in the hands of those who have the knowledge, not those who make the laws. Also, enforcement of what you propose would be flat-out impossible. The open-source community controls the platforms upon which the internet develops, and the open-source community 1) cannot be legislated, and 2) will not stand for any attempts to do so.

Thanks. Fordi, out.


Open-source guys vs. corporate drones (none / 0) (#295)
by chloedancer on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 07:29:15 AM PST
My observation is that y'all still live for the times when the need to binge strikes, often to the detriment of what RL has to offer as an alternative. Been there, done that, and a third time won't be the charm.


What RL has to offer. (none / 0) (#301)
by crulx on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 01:47:32 PM PST
I'm sorry that you feel this way. I could never date you even though you seem to share a passion for programming like I do. I need to be with a person who is passionate about what they do and yet in touch with their inner essence so I can connect to them. Passionate people often hold both views quite well. I have a great relationship that merges both time together enjoying eachother's company (which is the far greater majority) along with time apart working on our passions. We also are able to collaberate on projects using both of our talents (Design for her, Hacking for me) to create some of my favorite applications.

There are people out there who are both passionate about RL and Coding. Or passionate about RL and something else. Be passionate about these things yourself and you will find what you need. But you seem to be in a dicomity of RL vs Programming. Until you connect with youself, you will never resolve this situation within yourself and you will never attract a partner that can appreciate you for you.

Good Luck.

---
crulx


 
Ban Programming???????????? (1.66 / 3) (#98)
by havoc on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 06:52:43 AM PST
Why in the hell would u want to ban programming. Programming is a form of free speach and intelictual property. Besides there are to sides to being a "Hacker". There are "crakers" who are the ones that write viruses and break into computers wiith the intent to do a malicious act. Then there is a "Hacker" defined in the cyber generation as someone with an overwhelming want for knowledge, it is someone who might hack in to your computer but has no intent to do anything malicious or steal anything. Besides you can ban programming but that isn't going to stop anyone from from doing it anyways. It is kinda of like software piracy, it is illegal but it is still being done and not being stopped. If anyone would like to send me a comment on this post plz feel free to email me @ drury65301@yahoo.com


 
maybe we can get a hacker to make (0.00 / 1) (#108)
by THC 1138 on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:40:24 AM PST
Adequacy.org list the correct time with our posts.
10:40 a.m. EST


How does it feel? Well it feels f**king blind. - b. k.

 
Great Idea! (1.75 / 4) (#110)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:55:27 AM PST
And I guess we should also ban software piracy while we're at it......oh wait! Software piracy is ALREADY banned! (and illegal) bummer eh?

In fact why don't we also ban masturbating too, that's bat also isn't it? Well let's see, we'll probably have to install a video camera in every public or private bathroom or place and arrest anyone "caught in the act".

In fact the Internet is bad too, as well as TV, technology, people, energy (causes pollution) terrorism, cops, sugar, meat....wow the list is endless!

Why hell, let's just BAN EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I think masturbation *is* illegal... (none / 0) (#170)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 07:54:41 PM PST
as well as oral, anal, and non-missionary style sex in some states. creepy, huh?


UCMJ (none / 0) (#195)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:03:36 PM PST
Yeah, the UCMJ says it's illegal to perform anal and oral sex. icky!


 
You couldn't be more wrong! (1.00 / 1) (#118)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:18:22 AM PST
You got it all wrong. If you want to stop the computer terrorists, don't refer to hackers. Computer terrorism is done by terrorists who use hacking as their tool. If I am a pilot after 3 or even 30 years of training and smash a plane into a building, I may be a good pilot but most definetly with bad intentions. You have to go and change this terrorist's attitutde.

And why would you say that Hackers drug abusers who are too stupid to attend universities. I am a university student enrolled in computer science and started hacking in my first year. I am smart enough to work for Uncle Sam and do work for Uncle Sam and yet I am a hacker... hmmmmmmm.

ps. You remind me of O'Brien from 1984 (By George Orwell).


 
Joy! (2.50 / 2) (#121)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:51:47 AM PST
If all hackers, as descripted by the original starter of this long and funny, in its way, post, aren't going to University anyhow... then I better stop going cause I could call myself a hacker and I'm a Univeristy student. Even if I stopped any hacking-related stuffs a couple of years ago, I could go back at it anytime, after a bit of search and reading to get myself back into it. Do I really want to, no thanks, got other things in my life I rather take interest in then hacking. Want to TRY banning programming, go for it, it's your right to and I won't be one to stop you, but damn would I be laughing mad at you to even think of trying. Think you can succeed, that's even funnier, but funny people can do good things, maybe you will, maybe not, best way to know is by trying. I liked the book reference someone made (sorry for the lazyness I have, don't wanna go back and read the name, sorry, but you still get credits for it =)), but it seems some people don't beleive in the power of words, but try to use that same power in here... nice try. Sci-Fi is as good as any other litterature, even if you don't admit it or not, you're just closing your mind to something. I don't like Opera, but I won't say it is a mindless piece of junk, I don't like hip hop music, but some songs there passed message that are worth listening to. Now, let's get to it.

"Hackers" hate Microsoft applications, why? Simply because it's filled, yes FILLED, with bugs and bad programming and it is way too long to go into Microsoft's code to fix those bugs(which shouldn't be there at the first place anyways). Might hate them cause you can't actually change them fast enough too, but that's not my point here. Don't believe me? Ever saw the nice blue screen (blue screen of death as it is called) ever on your PC running Windows? That's simply Windows, most of the time, trying to put something in memory where something else is and running. They aren't all that, for sure, but some are, just a exemple. Not bad programming you will say, yes, cause they haven't take the time to check carefully what the hell they doing with your memory on your PC, making a bunch of security holes in the process. "Hackers" shouldn't try to find those holes you will say? Fine, have Microsoft programs have no holes at all. Can you do that? Even I would like to see a program without bugs, it's almost impossible, so no you can't, so you can't stop people to search for them and, either try to make the program better, or use them with bad intentions. Sad, but that's the truth.

If every programmer must be "Microsoft accepted", nice, let's have buggy apps and filled with security holes, if that is what you want. I'm a QA tester and saw many crashes caused by Microsoft poor programming(individually, all part of Microsoft might work fine, but together it makes a bunch of well working pieces into a filled with bugs beast). Talking from experience, I'm a tester, my job is to make applications crash in any ways possible.

Now, lot lot lot lot lot of the actual programmers passed by a hacking time (I know bunch of them being in the industry, so don't think I talking without knowing), would it be 1 month or couple of years, even just 1 day they wanted to see if some application was secure and "hacked" them to see if it was. Made a patch, hummm crack maybe, to have one of their game run without the CD just cause they want not to have the CD in while playing but rather have their favorite music CD in? Saw and will still be seeing that. Illegal? Propably, but they still buyed the game legally. I don't mind any hacking that stay personnal use, but yes, it's rare, really rare, but exists.

Anyways, good luck on your crusade of banning programming... just keep in mind you wouldn't be posting on this kinda board, with this kinda of technology if hackers never existed, whatever you think it's true or not, or that you don't want it to be true, it is. Yes some hackers, someone called them crackers, don't have good intention while "hacking", but don't put them all together for some individual bad behavior(admitting their might be too much of those). Like it or not, they aren't all as you described them.

Dranon, adding a long 0.02$ post.

P.S.: Sorry if there's a couple of easy to spot errors in my post, English isn't my native language and I always wanted to type faster then my fingers could handle.


wooohoooo (none / 0) (#131)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 11:16:58 AM PST
Did I forget to check that I, a Canadian, wasn't allowed to, while surfing the net, fall upon this newsgroup and post on it... what a shame it is, not allowing specific people in here but putting this on the internet where millions of people can just access it in a click of a mouse. I have bookmarked your site, better place I have saw to have a good laugh at pathetic fools =).

Dranon, "I'm a frog, you're a frog..."


 
Microsoft? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
by tkatchev on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 01:25:45 PM PST
Before you start making jabs at "buggy" or "poorly written" code, I suggest you take a look at the Linux kernel, or Apache. I mean, I don't know what kind of code Microsoft puts out, but there is no way in hell it could be worse than the code in Linux or Apache. I don't think it's physically possible to write code that's worse than code in Linux or Apache. I'm telling you this as a professional programmer. (As opposed to perl monkey.)

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux and I use it exclusively, but code-wise it is shit. "Sucks" would be too mild a word for the massive suckage of the code quality in these projects.

Moreover, in some areas Linux cannot even come close to Microsoft -- for example, I18N support. The I18N support in Linux isn't just sad -- I would classify it as an act of international terrorism. Whenever I see the I18N mess created in Linux, I cannot help but think that it was created American right-wing fanatics for the single purpose of offending foreigners.


--
Peace and much love...




 
...when they pry them out of my cold, dead hands. (5.00 / 3) (#122)
by Duke Machesne on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 10:01:59 AM PST
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -US Contitution, Ammendment II

During the 1788 convention to ratify the Constitution, the great George Mason asked of his esteemed revolutionary colleagues, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Likewise, the loved and honored James Madison clarified, "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

In keeping with the spirit and the letter of the law laid forth by our founding fathers, I hold that the advancement of technology serves only to increase the breadth of this fundamental right. For example, if the Constitution had been written before the invention of firearms, the very letter of the second ammendment, which specifies no particular type of arms, implies that as firearms were developed, so would develop the right of the people to keep and bear them. In my mind and in the minds of such greats as Thomas Jefferson, who states in no uncertain terms that "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms," the advancement of technology beyond simple firearms must be extended to every new form of weaponry until such a time as our great flag is replaced by some abomination with a hammer & sickle.

Furthermore, I hold that, as Richard Henry Lee told us back in 1788, "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms," which means very simply that it is not only every citizen's right, but every citizen's duty to always possess the most completely up-to-date weapons that exist on this earth. This includes not only guns as well as bombs (conventional as well as nuclear), but also chemical and biological weapons and computers with the power and the proper tools to destroy anything in need of being destroyed as an impediment to any of our God-given personal freedoms. In other words, it is every American's fundamental, inalienable right to possess a computer so long as that computer is specifically configured to act as a technological weapon.

If you'd like to know what's on the freedom-hating pinko agenda, you need look no further than our pansy ex-president William Jefferson Clinton, an Illuminist "elected" by a deluded public and a convoluted electorate, who told us his agenda back in 1993: "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the Rights of ordinary Americans."

In conclusion, while you're installing Linux and emacs on your powerful personal laptop computer with your freshly oiled gun in its holster and your suitcase nukes on order from renegade Ruskies along with your mail-order bride, please remember the wise words of Mr. Benjamin Franklin: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Let Freedom Ring!


__________________________________________________
once you've remembered, you'll never forget

 
No money = Linux??? (3.33 / 3) (#136)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 12:08:30 PM PST
Yes if you have no money you must use Linux? Well What about the people and organizations that do?

NSA (realeased their own Linux distro by the way)
NASA
The Naval Oceanographic Office (currently looking at Open Source Software)
Pixar
Indutrial Light and Magic
IBM
LucasArts
Citizen (you know the watch guys)
Intel
Texas Instruments
and on and on and on

These corporations are obviously run by teens who never finished college and have no money. Oh, and they are just hackers who want to bring down the Internet.



Now let's examine every company that uses MS (3.66 / 3) (#150)
by Craig McPherson on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:30:55 PM PST
I decided to sit down and make a list of every company that used Microsoft software:

1. Every company that's on your list.
2. Every company in the world that's not on your list.

Wow, your list of Linix users was over 10 items long, but my list of Microsoft users was only 2 items long -- you're right, Linix MUST be more popular.

I'm sure you can find more than a few CEOs in the world who snort coke from time to time, but that doesn't prove that cocaine helps a business to be profitable and productive.


--
If you want to know why Lunix is so screwed up, just take a look at the people who use it. Idiocy.

on and on and on (2.50 / 2) (#178)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:49:47 PM PST
The point is not to start a popularity contest. Notice also the list is NOT 10 items long. It is just 10 of the companies with the last line reading "on and on and...."

Here's a couple more by the way:

Hewlett-Packard
Dell
Oracle
Fujitsu
Siemens
SGI
Compaq
API Networks
Arkeia
Hummingbird
Software AG
Prgressive Systems
ICS
Informix
IG Networks
Metrowerks
ATIPA: Linux Solutions
EST
VMWare
Quadratec
PolyServe
Enhydra
Lutris
Sun Microsystems
Egenera
Pioneer
Hitachi
Iomega
Novell
TripWire
StarFire Technology
Digi
Mainsoft Corp
Unify Corp
Redcreek

Name any major corporation and they are probably involved with Linux in some way.


microsoft (5.00 / 1) (#316)
by error27 on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 08:06:37 PM PST
I always say, "If it isn't good enough for Microsoft, it isn't good enough for me."

Microsoft has written most of the software we use today and buying their stock is a fantastic way to become wealthy.




 
Amazing Grace (3.66 / 3) (#144)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 02:13:50 PM PST
Listen friends to one who has experienced directly the cess-pit of so called 'open source'. Yes, that's right, I'm ashamed to say I used to be a slave to 'linux'. I was the last person anyone thought would get involved in that sort of stuff - in fact, at school I was voted 'least likely to be a dirty, stinking hacker'. I used to be a clean cut kid, short hair, regular church-goer, decent complexion, pretty good sportsman and I had a lovely girlfriend (although of course I respected her too much to do any more than hold hands until we got married). But then I went to college, and at a party some guy had this CD that he had got off another guy and everyone was daring him to put it in the PC. I tried to tell them that open source was bad, but they put it in anyway.

I knew that I should have left then, but I didn't. After a few of the others had 'compiled', they started ragging me to try it, saying that if the cops came now they would arrest us all anyway. So I did.

Dear reader, that was the beginning of the end. Soon I was 'doing' Linux regularly. I used to hang out at kernel.org waiting for a new fix, but sometimes it could be days between 'releases'. I was recompiling my kernel up to twenty times a day, but I wasn't getting the buzz any more - I was in hacker hell.

My hair grew long, a pathetically straggly 'beard' poked out of my increasingly acnied face. My girlfriend stood by me at first and tried to help, but in the end (and I cannot blame her) she had to leave me to wallow in the stinking sewer of my 'hacker' lifestyle. My body-odour became so bad that my friends (if I had had any, which, as I was now a 'geek', I didn't) never came round.

But then a miracle happened. As I was trying to 'phreak' a phoneline so I could hack into the pentagon missile command and send off some nukes (and also change their home page to read 'h4 h4, u R 0wNed by 31337 H4x0R') I accidently cut through my modem power cable. As the current ran through me I saw my sad, pathetic life pass in front of my eyes. And then the Lord appeared to me. Yes friends, Bill himself (with Steve sitting at his right hand) appeared to me.

I expected him to strike me dead where I stood. As a miserable sinner, it was no more than I deserved. But he just smiled his beautiful smile and said 'my son, go and sin no more'. The vision faded, but for the first time in a long time I felt at peace.

It's been hard, one day at a time, but I have never, ever, touched open souce since then. The acne has almost gone, and women don't burst out giggling to each other if they see me. I am even thinking of becoming a MSCE so that I can help spread the good word and make the world a better place for everybody.

Glory!



WHAT!? (1.33 / 3) (#175)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 08:35:55 PM PST
<< I knew that I should have left then, but I didn't. After a few of the others had 'compiled', they started ragging me to try it, saying that if the cops came now they would arrest us all anyway. So I did. >>

The cops were going to arrest you for using open source software which is perfectly legal? Or for compiling it which is also legal?

Your story sux ass. But it made me laugh.


 
Not Far Enough (1.00 / 1) (#149)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 03:13:20 PM PST
Ah, I have found in elenchos a fellow thinker.

However, his suggestions don't go nearly far enough. More insidious by far than the hobby computer programmers are the free speech activists.

Look how often they ally themselves with the "hackers"

See how they opposse the recent measures taken for the defense of our Homeland.

The encryption the terrorists used on their emails would have done NO GOOD if merely sending a coded message within the United States was a crime.

Down with unliscened programming! Down with unpatriotic, unregulated speech! Forward the Homeland!

Hail!


 
Wow (5.00 / 1) (#179)
by Fordi on Fri Oct 12th, 2001 at 09:00:56 PM PST
You guys are VERY ingnorant.

How do you think most programmers BECOME professionals?

Sure, they go to school. After spending years of their childhood and adolecence experimenting and 'hacking'. If you could call it that.

And how DARE you refer to gcc as a 'hacker tool'. GCC and DjGPP are the backbones of open-source Linux (not Lunix, you poor, misinformaed chatterboxes) and Win32 development.

And 'Respectable IDE'? This is the most disgusting. You think Bill Gates wrote BASIC using an IDE?

Look, I've programmed in every language from x86 assembler to pascal to basic to ASP and PHP. All without any formal training. I bet I know what you're saying; he's a hacker too.

Bull. I never wrote a 'hacking' program. The closest I ever wrote was a crippled PHP port to DiG (the BSD Domain Information Groper. I use it to find mail exchangers so I don't have to use my server's SMTP server, which requires a POP login before forwarding anything).

Other than that, my many hours of volunteer hobbyist coding involved the creation of an internet 'zine' engine, called UZE, a couple of screensavers, and a very useful Win32 utility for speeding up your video card.

Ok, granted, I'm all about pushing the limits of what a language can do. But that's the only way to advance it.

Besides, Bill Gates was a 'hacker', by your definition. So was Steve Jobs. 'Microsoft' and 'Apple Computers' came from them.

Ever heard of 'Livejournal'? That was programmed entirely by college students.

Being this corporate and socialist minded can't be accidental. I certainly hope you're kidding.

On another note, I've seen the MCSD. They want you to learn poor programming practices (in my mind), and are heartily against the one thing that keeps Linux and UNIX so far ahead of Microsoft that Gates' head is still spinning. It's called KISS, or Keep it Simple, Stupid.

Do you realize that Linux/UNIX boxes run MOST of the internet? Do you realize that, while Apache started corporately, it's now Open-source, and improved by hobbyists? Can you even comprehend that you have to crawl at the hobby level before you can walk at the professional level?

Lastly, I'd like to pose a question about enforcement. How do you keep people from learning to program in their homes when such tools as PHP, Perl, GCC, Metrowerks CodeWarrior, MS Visual Studio, Turbo Pascal, MS IIS (for experimenting with server-side scripting languages; it comes with most every flavor of Win2k/NT), etc are readily available? You think anyone's going to shut down all those sites?

I'm sure you're all for Win XP activation, as well. Don't want to allow 'hackers' to copy it.


How dare you?! (none / 0) (#217)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 08:16:26 AM PST
'GCC and DjGPP are the backbones of open-source Linux'
I thought you were saying they weren't hacker tools?

'Linux/UNIX boxes run MOST of the internet'
And most of the Internet is crap. Aside from a few respectable sites like Adequacy, most of the 'net is either g**k wanking ('Slashdot') or hard-core porn ('kuro5hin').


mkay (none / 0) (#219)
by Fordi on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 09:30:09 AM PST
Right, so if YOU don't go to a site, it has no value?

Wrong. OOP!! you fools neglect to recognize that adequacy.org is at the very least running on an *nix system, most likely Linux, running Sendmail as its mail-exchanger, and Apache as its webserver.

And just so you know, this was not a hack. This is all information that is readily transmitted to my computer whenever I connect to adequacy for ANYTHING.


An analogy (none / 0) (#220)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 09:59:47 AM PST
If I sent some money throught the mail to your neighbor, but you received it instead, would you have the right to open it?


wrong (none / 0) (#227)
by Fordi on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 10:41:43 AM PST
That would be a more apropriate analogy for packet sniffing, the act of listening on the network for packets that aren't yours.

a better anaolgy, on the otherhand, would be my taking a piece of my mail, and looking very carefully at it, trying to find out exactly what it's made of.

This is standard fare. There are people who want to know everything about the world around them (these are called open minded intellectuals), and there are those who would rather just stick their heads in the sand and keep farting out the same things they heard in school and on talk radio.


 
Another Analogy (none / 0) (#388)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 05:41:31 AM PST
If you send me a letter (no white powder thankyouverymuch) am I allowed to look at the watermark on the paper?


 
YHBT (0.00 / 3) (#282)
by egg troll on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 05:49:03 PM PST
YHL. HAND.


Posting for the love of the baby Jesus....

 
sorry if this is double posted... (5.00 / 1) (#211)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 04:35:34 AM PST
if the following is a double post, it is unintentionally so.

but anyway, most of the 'anti-hacking' argument here is nothing more than simplistic linguistic sophistry. you define a 'hacker' as someone who is of necessity an uneducated, malicious, lazy fool, in opposition to the way that most of the online community uses the term (note for instance the need for the qualifier in the term 'malicious hacker'), and then argue that hacking is 'bad'. well, by your definition, of course that is true, but the reasoning is tautologous and meaningless as presented.

where do you suppose that the big corporations and the governments and universities got the people they have working for them? if there were no 'hobbyists', there would be far fewer people eventually becoming skilled, trained, productive employees/students; 'tinkering' and personal exploration is how they discover that they enjoy coding enough to make a career out of it, in many cases. it is of course natural that someone who enjoys coding or whatnot will attempt to make his living in a related field.

your circular reasoning shows up again when you say that the worthy products are all owned by companies etc. naturally, if a 'hacker' comes up with a good idea, in many cases he would like to see some money for it, and so sells it to a large company. in other cases, the 'hackers' may form their own company, which i suppose 'legitimizes' them in your eyes, especially when they become a huge corporation (hewlett-packard, for instance). by your logic, someone is a hacker unless they eventually use their skills in some way that is considered useful to mainstream society, at which point they are no longer (and by some rhetorical slight-of-hand, apparantly never were) a hacker at all. so you say that anybody who does anything useful is not a hacker, and then say hackers do nothing useful.

this is the sort of thinking by which one might say, to defend use of the word "nigger", "well, if a black person is intelligent, or not a crack smoker, then by definition he isn't a nigger, so there's no reason for non crack-smoking, non-theiving, educated black people to take any offense by my saying that all niggers are stupid, thieving crack-whores."

not very convincing.


Fucking idiot (2.33 / 3) (#265)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 06:52:59 AM PST
Look at their poll ->


Worst result of hobbyist programming:

Pirated copies of Microsoft Windows and Office.
-- Does that has to do anything with programming ?

The Code Red Worm.
-- What with it, getting or making ? +has nothing to do with programming when you get one

Lunix.
-- Freak can't even spell ... it's Linux, in other case UNIX based. And yes it's an operating system.

Back Orifice.
-- Wow does that actually work ?

The DoS attack on Adequacy.org.
-- Where did I write the phone of my ex-neighbor Mafiaboy.

MP3s and Napster.
-- How did this end here ?


---------
For the idiot who wrote this article I wish him catch anthrax which is being circulated around lately.


 
o_O (0.00 / 2) (#230)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 11:28:47 AM PST
Where did you say you were from? Salem?

FOOSBAL IS THE DEVIL!!


 
This is a joke, right? (5.00 / 1) (#236)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 03:15:29 PM PST
Nearly all people who learn a trade are originally exposed to it as an amateur. Do you think the certified mechanic who works on your car never saw an engine until he enrolled in a technical school somewhere? Where exactly do you draw the line between amateur and professional? This is the most absurd thing I have read in a long time. I get paid to write software for a living. I also write software that I don't get paid for. I guess I must have a split personality.




A profession is not a trade. (3.00 / 2) (#239)
by elenchos on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 04:05:55 PM PST
Therein lies the problem.

The reason we have this problem with rampant "hacking" terrorism is that we treat what should be a profession as if it were a mere trade.

Professionals, that is attorneys, physicians, architechts or clergy, do not "hack" in their field prior to their university training. It is illegal to tinker as medical doctor or lawyer, except in carefully prescribed (and rather questionable) ways, like paralegal or "herbalist". You can't be a heart surgeon as a hobby.

Moreover, kids who do aspire to enter the professions cannot waste their youth "hacking" and fraternizing with nefarious "hackers", because they are too busy with fundamental academic studies: literature, the sciences, mathematics, languages and the arts. This is the foundation for a productive career in computer science, software engineering or electronics engineering. Toying with Pearl or other G.N.U. contraband programs is as useful to a future professional as time spent with Lauren Craft and Super Mario Man on the Play-Station.


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


"professional" (5.00 / 1) (#272)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 08:11:38 AM PST
you seem very hung-up on certification and professionalism. you've never heard of a crooked lawyer (or doctor, or architect, etc)? what difference does it make?
you also seem confused about your terms. i think you mean script kiddie, not hacker.
personally i think you are being intentionally obtuse, just to piss people off. i hope so, anyway.
btw, have you heard of john carmack? not university degree for him, yet his one of the most respected coders in the world.


 
wait a minute (none / 0) (#312)
by frosty on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 06:56:56 PM PST
Professionals, that is attorneys, physicians, architechts or clergy, do not "hack" in their field prior to their university training. It is illegal to tinker as medical doctor or lawyer, except in carefully prescribed (and rather questionable) ways, like paralegal or "herbalist". You can't be a heart surgeon as a hobby.

Just hold on a darn minute. I can go to the public library, local community college bookstore, amazon.com etc. and purchase books that explain in detail with color diagrams and the like exactly how to be an attourney, physician, architecht, or clergyman. I can represent myself in court, dress my own wounds, build my own garage, even my own house, and have church meeting there every sunday and give sermons, commission missionaries and baptize all I want.

The point is you can legally do, at least to some extent the same things that "licenced professionals" can do. People can learn everything that the professionals know, and can obtain most if not all of the equipment required to do their jobs.

Now you are saying that programming should be a profession, and should be treated as such. OK, and how should we regulate it?

your answer:
"It is time to ban all unlicensed computer programming, and take steps to ensure that no one outside of government, select universities, and state-sanctioned private-sector corporate software engineering facilities is given the knowledge, skills, or means to write or compile computer code of any kind."

Now I ask you, is this treatment consistent with a precident set by any of the professions you listed. Is there any other profession you can name that restricts access to the details or fundamentals of it's workings? You may still believe that this treatment is the right thing to do, but if this is the case, programming is nothing like any of these professions listed, and you understate even your own position on the nature of programming.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

Hey! Amazing difference! (none / 0) (#321)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 10:13:24 PM PST
You can read law books or anatomy books without practicing the profession of lawyer or doctor. I suppose one could read computer books in an equally harmless fashion, to a point. Someone preparing for a future career in computer science might benefit from basic theory books such as The Art Of Computer-Programming by Donald Bluth, because that kind of book is entirely free of any information that could be used to create an actual computer program on a real computer.

So long as there is no harm there, I would say it is a good place to draw the line. Obviously specific technical details such as we find in Windows Unleashed! is of no use to anyone but professionals doing their jobs and "hackers" doing evil. The difference is as obvious as the difference between a physics textbook and a manual on constructiong a nuclear bomb.

Anyway, "hackers" most need to be prevented from writing and executing any computer software on a real computer, regardless of how much theory they are allowed to read at the library. All you are doing is quibbling over trivial details.

On the subject of your shocking new sig, I would suggest you change it before an editor sees it. You may think you are "eleet" and we are "lame" but in fact, the professionals at Adequacy are conversant in "hacker" code words like "wizard". They know a threat when they see it, and if you have taken any time at all to review the Meta page, the FAQ and the Terms of Service, you are well aware that this site is not a platform for you to post threats of a "hacker" nature or otherwise.

You also must realize that this site has, as long as I've been reading it (since the early 1980's), maintained a certain standard of taste. Is this Tolkien person up to that standard? One glance at The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is enough to tell us the answer to that: no he is not. Not even close.

I'd not push it if I were you. YMMV.


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


CS Lewis and J.R.R.Tolkien and other things (none / 0) (#325)
by frosty on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 12:26:40 AM PST
CS Lewis was an english theologian, teacher and fiction writer. His most famous works are probably "The Chronicles of Narnia" The most famous of those books being "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"

J.R.R. Tolkien was a friend of Lewis's who also lived near Oxford England, where Lewis taught. Tolkien's work includes "The Hobbit", "The lord of the Rings" (a three book trilogy) and "The Silmarillion". He was a fantasy writer who invented a world he called middle earth.

I have liked that quote since the first time I read the trilogy at the age of 11. I was reminded of it when I read the trilogy again this summer, and have used it used it different places now and again because I like it.

I'm sorry that you seem to view me as the bringer of some great evil. Personally, and I may be wrong, I think you do not correctly understand the geek culture. I am a geek. If you asked most people who knew me, they would probably agree. Do I own pirated software? No. Do I own pirated music/movies/etc? No. Am I a threat to the digital community? No. Do I wish any harm on you, adequacy.org, mankind, etc.? No.

You paint with a very broad brush, and have cultivated some very distorted stereotypes which are a great stumbling block when you attempt to talk to people who call themselves geeks and hackers. If you could be a little less confrontational with your language, and try not to threaten innocent people at the smallest provacation, I think a much more civilized, interesting, and productive dialogue could be achieved.

I appologize if my sig makes you jumpy, I had not intended to make any statement with it, but I guess I could see your concern. Even so, I like the quote, and will keep it until I find something else I like even more.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger" -J.R.R. Tolkien

 
Surely you don't mean Knuth... (none / 0) (#364)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 01:52:59 PM PST
...Although I admit, calling The Art of Computer Programming a "basic theory book" is possibly even funnier than your original article.

What's not funny is the countless hours that have been wasted by persons writing detailed, well reasoned refutations to your comedically ignorant "professional" commentary.


Yes I mean Bluth. (none / 0) (#365)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 02:52:07 PM PST
Simply follow the link if you aren't sure what I mean. That is why I gave a link, after all.

As far as what you call my "ignorance", do you really think anyone other than a knowledgeable computer professional could have written this article? If so, point me to an amateur who has written anything on the subject half as effective at revealing the sad truth.

And the commetns are indeed quite funny. Far funnier than anything I could ever write.


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


professional commentary or not? (none / 0) (#367)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 07:53:01 PM PST
Look carefully, elenchos, and you'll see that the only thing anybody claimed was funny was <i>your own</i> writing. This is tricky, but if you go real slow and sound out each word, I think you can get it.

By the way, most knowledgeable computer professionals can spell "Linux" and "Knuth" correctly. If you misspell them deliberately, as I am sure you will claim to do, than the only reasonable conclusion is that you care more for pre-pubescent name calling in your work than credibility.




By 'anybody' you mean... (none / 0) (#369)
by elenchos on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 08:15:22 PM PST
...the cult of obsessive Lunix fanatics who don't think anything that calls their delusions into question is funny.

What can we say about the credibility of somone who looks at a discussion with some 300 comments complaining about the spelling of "Lunix," and then decides to post a 301st comment saying exactly the same thing? To me it looks like 301 failed attempts to make a meaningful criticism, and 301 pathetic retreats into quibbling over spelling. The dozens of threats of violence against me, and "hack attacks", both threatened and real, against Adequacy.org, don't do anything for the credibility of "hackers" either. These are "hackers" who suppose themselves to be different from "crackers" and "script kiddies". The only real difference is in the twisted minds of "hackers" themselves -- the rest of the world can see them for what them are.

Thus, my case is made for me. By the way, turn on HTML formatting if you want to use HTML tags, my professional friend. HTH.


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


 
I see... (none / 0) (#366)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 22nd, 2001 at 04:27:42 PM PST
You know that if hobbyists never programmed, computers would still weigh 20 tons and be 3 rooms large. Hobbyists made programs usable to the general populace, which kicked off a positive cycle. Remember the M$ monopoly? The GNU/Linux programmers are working to fix that. A Linux computer could cost $150 less than a M$ computer, as M$ software is typically very costly, and GNU/Linux software is typically free.


 
Dude there is another one for you! (none / 0) (#318)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 09:22:56 PM PST
This is the most absurd article you have read? try their 'review' on the release of Mandrake 8.1. That will surely make you reconsider your assumptions...

Besides, I only come here because their type of journalism makes me laugh till I turn blue or gnash my teeth. Sometimes its both...

Long live Adeaquacy.org! its the news for GROW-UP!!!!

keep these absurd articles coming, it makes The Twilight Zone seem like disneyland!

ramfree


 
Sigh (none / 0) (#248)
by h on Sat Oct 13th, 2001 at 06:26:36 PM PST
"It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves."

You seem to be under the impression that, among other things:

- Computer scientists and professional programmers were overcome with the desire to program upon finishing school and selecting a university degree, having no experience with programming beforehand.
- Computer code is not speech.
- You are intellectually and morally superior to hackers.
- The damages to the economy created by viruses and the like, which have been reported by anti-virus companies of all people, are unquestionable.
- The USA promoting such a restraint on the actions of programmers will be repeated throughout the rest of the world

There is a term that describes the premises you ascribe to, and it is "gross ignorance." You are scared of something you don't understand, and it is becoming depressingly common to see the self-proclaimed "elite" exhibit such behaviour.

I group you with the accident victims who want to outlaw cars, religious groups who want to outlaw the writings of Thomas Paine, political correctness groups who want to ban words such as "seminal," and Bonaparte worshippers who believe liberty is something that "normal" people don't care about.

By the way. Adequacy.org is powered by Scoop. Where do you think Scoop comes from? Register your discontent with hackers by ceasing to support it or purchasing a replacement from a government-licensed programming institute.

-h


Ignorance? (1.00 / 1) (#259)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 02:00:22 AM PST
Considering that the supreme court has repeatedly found that code is not speech, I would say it is you who is ignorant.

As for intellectual and moral superiority, let's stick to the facts and examine the evidence, shall we?

G**ks watch star trek. Intellectuals don't

G**ks read Neal Stephenson, Iain M. Banks and ISaac Asimov. Intellectuals don't

G**ks steal anything they can. Intellectuals understand the basis for intellectual property.

G**ks close their posts with arguments ad hominem. Intellectuals don't.


Mmhmm (none / 0) (#260)
by h on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 02:47:59 AM PST
Never mind that some of your own judges disagree with you.

Your method of gauging intellectual and moral superiority is quite interesting. Your idea of an intellectual appears to be someone ignorant of scientific morality, the natural rights granted by the constitution (i.e. limited copyright terms for the good of the public domain, or what you call "stealing") and a general detachment from the reality that art is subjective.

But don't let me or anyone else interrupt your ego trips. Unfortunately for those of us who were enjoying the comedic value therein, you seem intent on forcing your brand of aristocracy onto the rest of us.

-h


Bite my elitist ass (none / 0) (#262)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 03:39:31 AM PST
Natural rights granted by the constitution? Interesting how this view is supported widely by people who don't like to pay for things, but completely and unequivocally disregarded by people who spend their lives deciding what the laws of the United States mean. I do not believe that any part of the US constitution grants you the right to steal the work of others, simply because it is easy for you to do so.

As for "scientific morality", if you are referring to the doctrine that science is neutral, I must point out that you views were not shared by one J. Robert Oppenheimer, nor were they shared by Albert Einstein, nor any person who has addressed the problem of morality with a more noble intention than merely rationalising his own desires, whilst demonising his opponents.

Finally, "art is subjective". Apparently you consider all artistic criticism to be misguided and based on false assumptions. By your reasoning, it is impossible to decide if one book is better than another. This is a little hard to bear. Let me explain why star trek is considered an intellectual black hole: NOBODY WITH A SMIDGEON OF TASTE OR SOPHISTICATION WATCHES THE SHOW! No matter how much relativism you apply to the world of art, you cannot overcome the fact that star trek is not watched by intellectuals, therefore it is not intellectually significant.


and again (none / 0) (#263)
by h on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 05:07:51 AM PST
The section of the constitution that grants us the right to "steal" the work of others is the adjective "limited." See, all works must enter the public domain eventually. Whether or not content has been deliberately made difficult to copy has nothing to do with it - we are within our rights to ensure that the works granted an unnatural monopoly by our government can eventually be freely reproduced. But of course you think that since that period is so far in the future (thanks to retrospective legislation which would be laughed out of most senates around the world), anyone who partakes in studying ways to allow such copying is a common criminal. Newsflash, we already have laws against reproduction and distribution of copyrighted works, and that's the illegal part - redistribution. That's the historical justification out of the way anyway.

As for the much more pertinent argument for the copying of intellectual property, I take it you haven't heard of, or bluntly ignore, the concept of "fair use." And since you'll ignore this concept that has been upheld by your courts, there's not much point in me explaining it.

My passing reference to scientific morality was the continual debate in science fiction circles about the moral unpreparedness of society for radical scientific change, which is of course not neutral. You're free to ignore Asimov in this department, just as atheists are free to ignore Nietzsche.

As for your last point - "star trek is not intellectual because my definition of an intellectual does not watch star trek" - it's smashing to see someone who hasn't caught on to the lessons of dadaism still out in the wild. I commend you on your semantic self-glorifying. As for how you know the viewing habits of every intellectual in the world, or what your definition of an intellectual actually is, I couldn't even hazard a guess.

-h


Nicely put (none / 0) (#264)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 05:24:40 AM PST
But still wrong. Evidently you and I have very different ideas of the meaning of the words "limited" and "senates around the world". Seeing as limited doesn't mean "ignore at will" and senates around the world find themselves in agreement with american law, I'll ignore the rest of your first paragraph. You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Fair use doesn't mean copying over the internet. Paragraph 2 was a waste of my time.

Ah, so you think there is a form of morality determined by science fiction authors that is more relevant to the way we see ourselves than over three thousand years of moral discourse by many of the finest men in history, many of whom weren't cranks, unlike science fiction authors, who are universally cranky. No amount of science will make stealing OK. Society figured that one out pretty fast.

Are you saying that there are an overwhelming number, perhaps even a majority, of intellectuals who watch star trek in secret? Since intellectuals usually take a dim view of television at it's best, it's hard to see why we should assume they enjoy it at it's worst. I think you need to deal with this problem of denial you have, and learn to accept that you have common tastes.


misinterpreted (none / 0) (#281)
by h on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 05:43:43 PM PST
I'm not sure. The constitution says copyrights should be limited, and from that you have extrapolated that "anyone who writes code to allow personal copying in accordance with legally guaranteed fair use (upheld even by the DMCA) is a criminal." There's some awesome deductive logic at work there, I just can't wrap my head around it.

Where in god's name did I say anything about copying over the internet? Did I ever say I find that legally acceptable (where the authors have not given permission)? Well, no I did not. Huh. What I DID say is that, it's our right to have the ability to copy works, both for the eventual benefit of the public domain and our own right to fair use. But you have ignored that argument and instead insisted on pursuing imaginary points which I don't support. But it's so much easier to argue when you set up straw men at every opportunity.

Every science fiction author is a crank eh. I see. And men throughout history (whose philosophical meandering about imaginary societies, the origins of consciousness and the structure of the universe and its influence on humanity seem strangely similar to science fiction, which is universally NOT just about lasers and robots as you seem to grasp it) who lived in vastly different times, have more relevant views than today's authors.

As much as I respect the musings of Epicurus, the Sophists (the only school of Greek philosophy to question slavery) and company, I have little respect for their grasp of artificial intelligence, the social consequences of universally cheap energy production and the ethics of nanotechnology manufacturing. I wonder why. Oh I see the solution, I'll just ignore anything they write about, call them cranks, and seek to ban anything that could contribute to their scenarios, like say programming or inventing. What a glorious society we could create! Then we'd be free to focus on the writings of long-dead men, content in the knowledge that nothing new will appear that we have to think about, and can instead mock the commoners because they don't know anything about who the economic powers of asia were in the 12th century, and other important intellectual subjects we regurgitate from "smart people" books.

I don't personally watch star trek regularly, I just took issue with your definition of intellectualism as being mutually exclusive with someone who watches star trek. The number of intellectuals you ascribe to who enjoyed equally vacuous "entertainment" in the form of operas and symphonies which I find banal, shallow and unimportant is probably quite high. But guess what. We're human. As opposed to you, who seems content with the opinion that the more intellectual one is, the narrower the scope of work you're allowed to chuckle at becomes, I don't deride people who listen to Gershwin or believe in God because they enjoy doing so. I deride them when they seek to impose their version of reality onto me with the force of law behind them.

-h


I FINALLY GET IT! (none / 0) (#290)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 02:14:37 AM PST
"G**ks steal anything they can. Intellectuals understand the basis for intellectual property."

That's what I said. In response you told me that people have a right to copy things for personal use only. You also seem to be implying that the existance of AI gives us the right to steal.

The first is a staw man with which you have been wasting my time for the last three posts or so. The second makes no sense, and is irrelevant, since we don't actually have universally cheap energy, nanotechnology or manufacturing. When these things actually exist, people will no doubt continue to ignore sci-fi authors, since these brilliant moral thinkers are the same people who clamoured for the atom bomb and SDI.

Finally, according to you, there is no yardstick by which a person may be judged tasteful or intelligent. Apparently, we are just as intellectual whether we are giggling at Jay and Silent Bob, or reading Thomas Mann.


ok (none / 0) (#291)
by h on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 03:33:58 AM PST
You also said "I do not believe that any part of the US constitution grants you the right to steal the work of others, simply because it is easy for you to do so" and "Fair use doesn't mean copying over the internet," which is what I have been responding to in attempting to clarify your straw men, however much you ignore it.

All I've seen from you so far is a series of outlandish generalisations, none of which are backed up. "All geeks rampantly violate intellectual property laws at every possible opportunity." Mmhmm. Not averse to sensationalism are we? "I am the sole judge of intellectualism." OK. "We shouldn't think about things that don't exist yet." I see. "All science fiction authors are equally inept and nonsensical, as I have critiqued all their works over the years and can make such a statement." ..

If you are sick of me "wasting your time," feel free to stop replying. It's obvious that neither of us can reconcile the reason of the other, and have nothing to gain from this exercise. Hopefully someone else out there finds these posts amusing, that's certainly all that keeps me going.

My definition of an intellectual is someone capable of meaningful philosophical pursuits. I don't discriminate by any failings they happen to have in addition, such as religion, superiority complexes, prohibition fantasies, cultural bias or political indifference.

Get over yourself. However immense a task that is.

-h


Straw men? (none / 0) (#292)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 03:55:19 AM PST
So fair use and the constitution give you the right to steal music via the internet? It's truly a wonder that the courts keep finding against napster, isn't it?

G**ks are known for their disdain for other people's intellectual property rights. From bootleg video and pirated software to mp3s, electronic theft is the hallmark of a g**k. You can't deny it.

Finally, star trek is not a meaningful philosophical pursuit, and not all intellectuals are philosophers. There is a simple test to find out if someone is an intellectual: Do they do intellectual things? If all they do is watch sci-fi and manga, or play computer games with the other teenagers-for-life, then it's a fair bet that they aren't intellectual, wouldn't you say?


This isn't real. (none / 0) (#307)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 05:03:39 PM PST
You must not actually read the posts you are responding to.

So fair use and the constitution give you the right to steal music via the internet?
He already gave you a clear answer to this question you repeatedly pose. If you need to see it again, he said:

Where in god's name did I say anything about copying over the internet? Did I ever say I find that legally acceptable (where the authors have not given permission)? Well, no I did not.

G**ks are known for their disdain for other people's intellectual property rights. From bootleg video and pirated software to mp3s, electronic theft is the hallmark of a g**k. You can't deny it.
If you define a geek as "someone who pirates software or otherwise violates IP rights", then no, you can't deny it. But that's taking a very narrow definition of geek. That's like defining the term car to only apply to 1996 Hondas. There are other types of geeks out there and you're just misusing the term. All you're doing is using a blatent stereotype to further your arguments.

If all they do is watch sci-fi and manga...
What if that isn't "all" they do? What if a person watches sci-fi in addition to other more "intellectual" pusuits?

- chuckx - Charles K. Lee II -
- chuckx@cold-sun.com -
- http://www.cold-sun.com -



Evidently you don't read mine (none / 0) (#308)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 05:29:26 PM PST
I stated that g**ks steal IP. He replied with a straw man about copying for personal use. It is his straw man, not mine, that has been causing problems.

For a demonstration of how much disdain g**ks have for the intellectual property rights of others, visit slashdot, or look on your own hard disk for the mp3s you have no doubt stolen over the internet.

Finally, it would be possible for a g**k to be intellectual if he did things other than watch star trek, but g**ks don't so they aren't intellectuals. Your argument is a red herring. It's like saying, "If fish made nests, they would be birds, so fish can be birds."


hmph (none / 0) (#314)
by h on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 07:10:36 PM PST
Something I refuted by demonstrating the passion many geeks hold for "fair use." Or is a geek who is against IP violations (say, for upholding the GPL for example) no longer a geek?

I'm confused by your definition of what a geek is, and it's leading to some obvious difficulties.

It seems to be someone who watches nothing but manga and star trek, plays computer games continuously, and devotes any time left over to rampant IP violations. They have no intellectual pursuits whatsoever, and exist in a cultural bubble from the outside world. If they have any intellectual pursuits, they are not intellectual, not because of the subject matter but because it's geeks who are performing said pursuit.

Am I getting closer? It's just that your definition seems to be targetting an extreme minority of the population, and getting smaller..

-h


It seems you understand perfectly clearly (none / 0) (#315)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 07:56:21 PM PST
So why are you arguing with me? Furthermore, why did you, in response to the allegation that g**ks are renowned for theft, introduce the fact that the law permits activities which are not theft? Why can you not see that this is irrelevent? Think carefully:

ME: G**ks are thieving scum.
YOU: The law allows us to copy things for our own personal use. This proves that g**ks aren't thieves.
ME: That isn't theft, therefore it isn't relevant. It is a straw man argument.
YOU: I have refuted your statement.

Finally, I think it is you who lives in an isolationist bubble. Most g**ks think Heinlein is a perfectly rational moral commentator. Most g**ks think the Lord of the Rings is the greatest book of the twentieth century. Eric S. Raymond supports my statements in his Jargon file entry, stating that g**ks are obsessed with popular culture.

Indeed, there are many g**ks with intellectual pretensions. There are also many normal people with the same pretensions. That doesn't make every g**k with a copy of Leviathon an intellectual.


more (none / 0) (#317)
by h on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 08:09:36 PM PST
I introduced the fair use argument, because you seem to equate such geekly technologies as DeCSS and MP3 utilities as "theft." Which I refuted.

Your definition of theft includes things which I class as fair use. I.e creating (or "hacking") utilities such as DeCSS. Thus the debate you're participating in. Get it? Or are you FOR DeCSS, Exact Audio Copy, DivX4, LAME, Ogg Vorbis, etc., in which case I am woefully mistaken?

Finally, I've noticed you're using "most" or "many" as opposed to "all" now. Thankyou.

Perhaps you'll even admit that such a beast as an "intellectual geek" could exist? Maybe that's stretching your stereotype a bit far.

-h


Where did I even mention DeCSS? (none / 0) (#324)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 11:22:02 PM PST
DeCSS is a violation of the license agreement of anyone using a DVD, or DVD hardware. It is illegal in the united states. That's all that needs to be said about yet another red herring argument from you. As for codecs, none of which I mentioned as theft tools (straw man once again), no I don't consider them theft tools. That is why they aren't being made illegal. I notice that you haven't mentioned napster. I wonder why not?

You still don't quite get it. G**ks are incapable of being intellectuals, for the simple reason that, in order to be a g**k, you must lack taste.

Can you please try to respond without offering straw men and red herrings? If we both agree that mp3 codecs do not constitute theft, then they are irrelevent. It was clear from my posts that by theft I was referring to pirated software, bootleg movies and mp3s stolen over the internet.


hm? (none / 0) (#337)
by h on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 05:48:06 PM PST
Well there's your crowning achievement - intellectuals are people with taste, and taste is defined by intellectuals. Guess I see why you're posting anonymously.

And which license agreement are you referring to? None of the DVDs I have at home state such. I don't remember signing a contract stating anything like that either. Nor am I in the United States. For that matter, United States law is not universal or irreversible, however convenient it would be for your argument.

MP3 codecs are actually quite interesting - if you use them in a country that recognises software patents (i.e. the USA), they're illegal unless you pay licensing fees to Fraunhofer, which instead of owning an implementation, have been assigned ownership of an idea. In a country with sane patent law, tools such as LAME are fully legal.

If our ideas of what constitutes theft were in line with each other, then yes, this would be pointless. But I am still at a loss as to your respect for fair use when it conflicts with the demands of IP holders.

-h


Licensing (none / 0) (#338)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 06:33:10 PM PST
mp3 codecs are usually licensed by the vendor, not the user. Just like gifs. Most open source codecs are probably illegal (open source theft again). Commercial vendors usually pay their fees. Another proof of g**k theft.


 
Where in the agreement? (none / 0) (#391)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:34:58 PM PST
Where do it say that I must use this to do this with a DVD?


 
Geek != g**k (none / 0) (#398)
by Pinocchio Poppins on Wed Nov 28th, 2001 at 01:52:38 PM PST
DeCSS is a violation of the license agreement of anyone using a DVD, or DVD hardware.

I never once saw such a license agreement on the outside of a DVD player box or of a DVD box. This kills the "contract law" side of the argument.

It is illegal in the united states.

For one thing, the United States is not the world. Even then, the only things that are illegal in the US are the things that Article 6.2 of the US Constitution as amended says are illegal, and 6.2 in combination with Amendments 9 and 10 exclude unconstitutional laws from enforcement. Most people outside the entertainment industry who have an opinion on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the law in question) believe that the district court's interpretation of the DMCA violates Amendment 1 of the Constitution by not providing enough protection for fair use as defined by 17 USC 107.

G**ks are incapable of being intellectuals, for the simple reason that, in order to be a g**k, you must lack taste.

That may be true of a g**k, but I'm a geek, and I have taste. In other words, "geek" and "g**k" refer to two different stereotypes, "g**k" having the more extreme qualities. G**ks steal IP; geeks try not to. Geeks simply do not recognize statutes (acts of Congess) that do not agree with higher-priority laws (the Constitution).

--
Pinocchio

 
ad nauseum (none / 0) (#313)
by h on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 06:59:53 PM PST
I don't support unauthorised distribution of copyrighted materials, internet or not. I also do not support outlawing tools which allow us to engage in fair use of copyrighted materials. It's quite simple really. Piracy == bad. Fair use == good. Please stop misrepresenting my reading of law.

Your impression of geeks as wantonly flaunting IP laws results in an astonishing percentage of the population entering geekdom. Who would've thought all the people using napster, grokster, morpheus, audiogalaxy, their friend's cd collection, a vcr or a photocopier were geeks. I don't think you realise just how common IP violations are. Maybe it's just a case of isolationism.

You said "Intellectuals don't watch star trek," implying the two as mutually exclusive. Good to see you back down to "Star trek isn't an intellectual pursuit," which at least allows a conjunction. If all someone does is watch tv and play games, then no, they're not an intellectual. But honestly, how many people do you know like that? I remember discussing Ingersoll and Hume inbetween Kurosawa screenings with my com-sci friends, and have had similar dealings with a great number of geekly folks. Your generalisations are frankly embarrassing, but at least they've been toned down lately.

-h


 
I do legal mp3. (none / 0) (#293)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 15th, 2001 at 05:08:02 AM PST
Fair use, is for example, the right, for me to take my CD I have legally buy, and then transform then in mp3, to let them been play by my computer.

Why do i do this ? Because, with this i can listen to music for hours and hours without having to change my CD in the CD player.

Fair use is (i believe) also the right to make copy of my CD such that :
- if I accidentally break one, I still have a copy
- Those copy may stay in my car, such that nobody may steel the original in it
- ...

Do you want to forbid car because someone may use it for illegal use ? No, so why forbid programation ?


 
Strawman (3.00 / 2) (#280)
by em on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 04:54:14 PM PST
By the way. Adequacy.org is powered by Scoop. Where do you think Scoop comes from? Register your discontent with hackers by ceasing to support it or purchasing a replacement from a government-licensed programming institute.

Point us towards a "government-licensed programming institute", then.

In any case, we selected our web board software carefully, and what decided us on Scoop was the fact that the people who program it are competent computer professionals, and not hackers.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


damn those hackers (5.00 / 1) (#283)
by h on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:34:48 PM PST
> Point us towards a "government-licensed programming institute", then.

That was the point.

Have you asked the Scoop development team how they feel about banning amateur programming? Well no, since they might disagree with you.

Oh well.

Funny how most of the professional programmers I work with laughed out loud at the proposal when I asked them about it. The rest were frankly amazed that anyone would seriously consider it.

-h


Strawman again. (none / 0) (#362)
by em on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 03:46:55 PM PST
Have you asked the Scoop development team how they feel about banning amateur programming? Well no, since they might disagree with you.

What does it matter what they believe? They are competent computer professionals regardless of what they may believe. Sure, they may call themselves "hackers", dress in cheap ugly clothes instead of a proper business suit, but that doesn't make them incompetent "hackers".

We certainly wish they would identify with a more positive role model, and that they would dress up better (it is somewhat embarrassing when they show up for tech support at our locations, the workers in the other offices in our floor give us very disapproving glares), but well, we made our choice and we suffer this for *your* browsing experience. You should cut us some slack. Hell, you should be *thankful*.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


thankful for what? (none / 0) (#363)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Oct 20th, 2001 at 10:14:00 PM PST
Putting more idiocy on the Internet? I am think of submitting the Computer related stories to COMPUTER STUPIDITIES along with some of the threads and responses posted by the adequacy.org loyalist who believe anything you post.

Sample comment by some adequacy.org idiot:
"The Earth is flat. The geeks and Linux Torvalds and all the other HACKERS will have you believe otherwise."

Response:
"We here at adequacy.org strive to bring you a level of intelligence that you just can't fund on the rest of the geek controlled porn filled internet. I agree with [insert moron's name here] because he's [insert over-glorifying comment here]."


 
worst result of programming (5.00 / 1) (#267)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Oct 14th, 2001 at 07:05:15 AM PST
scoop, which has resulted in adequacy.org


 
'Hackers' and 'Ignorance' (none / 0) (#326)
by Loki on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 05:55:37 AM PST
'Hacking' as you call is a term perpetuated by ignorance and over-the-top movies likes Hackers. The term 'Hacking' means to write code - not break into systems. 'Cracking' is what you want to be saying about a thousand times, in quotes, in your misinformed and unbelievable article.
Hey, let's just burn all the computers. We'll toss in the books, too.


 
Authors of this page (none / 0) (#328)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 16th, 2001 at 07:56:22 AM PST
Authors/maintainers of this page must be either Microsoft employees or total morons, but are probably both!



 
Incompetence (none / 0) (#359)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 03:19:18 AM PST
Amazing how a person so extremely incompetent and unknowledgeable (that elenchos thing) has the guts to express opinions about professionality.

You could just say to yourself -- so what, just a complete morron. But then -- you think -- there are millions of them everywhere in <strong>influential</strong> organizations, and this can really make one furious.



Incompetence abounds. (none / 0) (#361)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 19th, 2001 at 01:43:43 PM PST
"You could just say to yourself -- so what, just a complete morron. But then -- you think -- there are millions of them everywhere in <strong>influential</strong> organizations, and this can really make one furious."

That is SO true. There ARE a lot of stupid people in the world. In fact, I hear that some of them are SO stupid that they can't even figure out how to properly use HTML in their posts.


 
IMHO (none / 0) (#370)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 12:58:42 AM PST
In my humble opinion, this is one of the stupidest articles I ever read.

Tomislav Sajdl
"Mihajlo Pupin" Institute
Belgrade, Yugoslavia


Hey - We warned you... (none / 0) (#387)
by dmg on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 03:50:45 AM PST
Not for nothing is Adequacy.org known as 'the most controversial site on the Internet'. You should bear this in mind whenever you visit here. You will almost certainly find articles which challenge your viewpoint and go against the media orthodoxy of the day.

The thing to do when you see something controversial is not to just say 'this is stupid' and walk away. Nobody learns anything that way. You need to give a reasoned, well thought out arguement which explains why you are correct and the story is wrong.

Otherwise you are simply a whinger who cannot handle the controversy...

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

 
So many things to comment on... (none / 0) (#372)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 06:42:21 AM PST
Now, where to begin. OK, hackers. I think you might have got your terms a bit mixed up here. Hacking is a term used to describe the act of fiddling around with, fixing or improving something. For example, I could be hacking the fuel system on my car to get it to run better. Surely you arent thinking of banning maintaining your own car? No? Good, OK, what if Im hacking my cars electrical system, am I allowed to do that, bearing in mind that most cars are now full of computers? Where are you defining the boundary of what I can do? Define your terms better.
I suspect you are only refering to hacking as in computer programming. Does that also apply to HTML web page source? Excel spreadsheet macros? Programming your VCR?
Of course, some hackers do bad things. They deface websites, write virii, initiate DOS attacks. Just like some teenagers putting graffitti on walls, drinking underage, using drugs. Surely you wouldnt advocate banning all teenagers?
Hackers and terrorism. Of course some hackers work for terrorists. But they dont do it because they are hackers, they do it because they believe in whatever the terrorists ideals are. The same as the soldiers, lawyers and politicians who work for terrorist groups over the world.
Hacking is a dangerous technology? I do so hope you arent one of the millions of Americans who own a gun while you say that?
As for apache being written at Amazon, thats just a downright lie. Have a read of http://httpd.apache.org/ABOUT_APACHE.html for its history. Adequacy itself runs on Apache 1.3.20 on unix. So ironic that you decry open source developed software on a site running open source software.
Emacs is the worst known example of feature creep and bloat? Havent you used Microsoft Office recently? Must admit, Im a vi fan myself :)
So you want hacking banned right now because you think hackers produce tools such as encryption which terrorists will use. I see, so you pass all these laws. And you think terrorists will heed your laws and stop using encryption just because you created a law?

"If you aren't willing to code for Uncle Sam, then don't code at all." That really doesnt mean much to me, over here in Europe.

Overall, Elenchos, you have produced an incredible, inaccurate and very blinkered article. I commend you, it must have taken much effort to reach such heights of ignorance.

As for the poll:
Unbreakable encryption for terrorists. - It wasnt made for terrorist, it was made for everyone. Like guns are.

Pirated copies of Microsoft Windows and Office. - Anyone that pirates this buggy software gets all they deserve.

The Code Red Worm - That was slightly annoying. Didnt cause me any problems though as I use unix systems.

Emacs. - Emacs? Its a text editor for goodness sake! Do you hate typewriters as well?

Lunix - FreeBSD, NetBSD, all the other open source unix versions, keeping the web, ISPs and small, medium and large businesses running. IBM support linux now.

Back Orifice - a useful tool for demonstrating the security weaknesses of microsoft operating systems.

The DoS attack on Adequacy.org - A bad thing, probably carried out by a bunch of children who didnt even write their own code.

MP3s and Napster - Whats wrong with MP3? Its an encoding format. I dont hear you complaining about the CDA encoding format used on your CDs. Napster got all it deserved.











Good one (none / 0) (#383)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:51:18 PM PST
""If you aren't willing to code for Uncle Sam, then don't code at all." That really doesnt mean much to me, over here in Europe."

I fucking love it!!!


Once we stop giving away the secrets... (none / 0) (#386)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 11:00:40 PM PST
...there won't be any European software industry to speak of. Of course, the EU knows this, and will waste no time in passing laws that conform to US policy.

It's cute when small, unimportant countries act like they can thumb their noses at superpowers, but that's just pretend, isn't it?


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


Great comment (none / 0) (#396)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 07:17:04 PM PST
Just don't let the British posters read that.


 
It's spelled "LI-nucks" (none / 0) (#373)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 09:42:51 AM PST
You spelled "Linux" wrong.


What? (none / 0) (#380)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:11:25 AM PST
No one else has mentioned any spelling errors. Could you point out where I spelled Lunix wrong, please?


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


Right there dipshit (none / 0) (#382)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:49:35 PM PST
It's l-I-n-u-x not LUNIX


Lunix is spelled L-U-N-I-X. (none / 0) (#384)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:56:55 PM PST
What the hell are YOU trying to spell?


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


WTF (none / 0) (#390)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:24:10 PM PST
You know what he's right. Dumbshit isn't talking about Linus Torvalds' creation, Linux. He's obviouisly talking about LUnix (Little Unix) an experimental operating system for the Commodore64/128 without additional hardware. (The Commodore64 was one of the first home computers. It had around 64kB RAM and a 8Bit CPU running at 1MHz. If you're looking for a operating system for your PC take a look at linux) The features of LUnix are: UNIX-like environment and command shell, multitasking, multisession. LUnix is free software!

But just a question. Why the fuck elenchos are you discussing an OS that really hasn't even been written yet?


A heap of nonsense jargon isn't fooling anyone. (none / 0) (#392)
by elenchos on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 10:40:10 PM PST
I'm talking about Lunix, the hacker operating system. Why? Because I'm taking a critical look at hobbyist programming. I'm asking questions that typical g**ks are afraid to think about.

And the response I'm getting is off-topic attacks on Micro-Soft, off-topic defenses of Free Software, personal insults, profanity, and threats to launch DoS attacks against Adequacy.org, the most controversial site on the Web.

What are YOU talking about?


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


huh? (none / 0) (#393)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 12:01:49 PM PST
Now you've got me confused.

<<I'm talking about Lunix, the hacker operating system.>>

So in you're little mind Linux Torvalds didn't create LINUX. He created LUnix?


Well sure. (none / 0) (#394)
by elenchos on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 01:57:15 PM PST
Does this matter so much to you?

The issue at hand is the proposal to make all programming-related knowledge classified, and confiscate and permanently ban all software and hardware that could be used to make a computer do anything it wasn't specifically designed to do. This would include interpreters, compilers, anything that can edit or view plain text (source code), and a host of related hacker's tools, like telnet. Only authorized personnel would have access to these dangerous tools.

Got it? Why do you care about spelling so much?


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


who decides? (none / 0) (#395)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 05:31:56 PM PST
<<The issue at hand is the proposal to make all programming-related knowledge classified, and confiscate and permanently ban all software and hardware that could be used to make a computer do anything it wasn't specifically designed to do. This would include interpreters, compilers, anything that can edit or view plain text (source code), and a host of related hacker's tools, like telnet. Only authorized personnel would have access to these dangerous tools.>>

What a computer is designed to do? A computer isn't designed to do anything. It needs SOFTWARE to do ANYTHING. Whether it's instructions stored on a CD, floppy, or hard drive or whether on a chip (firmaware) computers won't work without it.

So therefore if software is designed to hack that's just what it will do. Now you are calling for a BAN on editors and compilers? There goes the next Windows since they won't be able to compile the source code. Oh wait only professionals. Well there goes the next start up company that windows up revolutionizing network security because that can't gain access to the necessary tools. Not to mention that this would ultimately kill comptetition since no one would be bothering writin software or creating anything NEW out of fear that it is among the banned or could be used for hacking.

What the hell do you think that people will just decide "gee I wanna program"? No they gain experience and go to college. Many do most of their hacking in college. And what's to stop someone once they are certified from doing bad things? What are you gonna let someone scan their hard drive to make sure? Oh their goes intellectual property out the window. A company writting software cannot guarentee their source code is safe from prying eyes.

Ok, I get licensed and work for say Microsoft, or Symmantec. I decide "gee I wonder if I can..." It's not like hackers leave their business card with their real name and address. Therefore who would know it was me?

Like I said many of the hackers out there are university students and professionals. This belief that they are all teenage boys who couldn't get into a University is bullshit.

Here's an excerpt from an Article in Smart Computing that includes quotes from Vincent Weafer from Symmantec (you know the Norton Anti-Virus guys who are known for saving Microsoft's ass so many times). It proves that you and the rest of the supposed intellectuals have been living in a cave for the last 15 years:

Once upon a time, it was a popular belief that hackers and virus writer fit a certain profile. They were thought to be males aged 14 to 25, with stunted social habits and attitude, who wanted to show the world and their friends what they could do.

But that profile has become dated, suggests Vincent Weafer, senior director of Symmantec's AntiVirus Research Center (http://www.sarc.com). "We once considered that hackers and virus writters were two entirely different groups; now they are often the same." Weafer says. "The writers are both younger and older and the list includes males and females."


I have read your other posts and find that you are obviously NOT a professioanl or else you wouldn't call for a ban on things like the COMMAND PROMPT, because you think it's nothing but a hacker tool. I'd seriously like to see you repair a Windows installation without it.

You want to ban things? Then call for a petition that these things be removed from your own version or from home version entirely. The rest of us will be using professioanl version of the software and growing smarter and richer. Why because of your inability to do ANYTHING beyond point-and-click.

You prposal doen't just limit programmers. Removing such tools doesn't just affect programmers. It affects tech support and network administrators, and engineers. And if you wanna call for a ban on hardware tell that to your neighbor who in high school with a home LAN used for gaming with all his buddies, that he can no longer use his hubs, switches, and routers.

I do not expect a response from you since you are already drowning yourself in your own stupidity.


 
This site exists because of hackers. (none / 0) (#374)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 09:46:13 AM PST
Of course, most of the software that this very site runs on was invented by "hacking".

Hacking is the fundamental spirit of coding. Whether you agree with all uses of coding is irrelevant. Do you agree will all uses ("professional" or otherwise) of cars? of guns? of books?

You are entitled to your opinion.

You are still wrong, however.

jdv


So why are you asking me questions? (none / 0) (#379)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:09:52 AM PST
If my being merely "entitled" to my opinion doesn't change your final judgement that my opinion is wrong, then what is your purpose behind asking me more questions? You can expect that my answers will be yet more of my opinions, which you apparently don't have much respect for.

So, you confuse me. You are posting questions as if you were interested in exploring the issue, yet without seeming to hold out the possiblity of your mind being changed. Why bother then?

You might want to read some of the posts by the 300-some "hackers" that came before you here. It would surprise you to learn that not a few of them attempted to make exactly the same points as you.


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


Whatever (0.00 / 1) (#389)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 24th, 2001 at 02:54:34 PM PST
To attempt to answer YOUR question, why should I read the postings? This article is obviously just a big troll. I kicked in my two cents, before I realized that you aren't really serious. If you are serious, then you are seriously loopy.

With such a flawed article, I assumed rightly that the postings feel easily into two camps: those who calmly and seriously pointed out how bogus your entire argument is, and those who just responded on an emotional level. Both with varying degrees of clarity. Typical /. stuff.

Perhaps you are the one who should read the posts a little clearer.

You might need to check some facts about Apache, as well.

Whatever. Your argument is devoid of enough intelligence to sustain further dialog.

I might come back here for a laugh, but don't count on it. Yet another website dedicated to the validation of the argument that most people suck.

jdv




 
I agree completely (none / 0) (#376)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 09:57:56 AM PST
I agree with your sentiments completely. It's time we started treating computer programming knowledge, and the use of powerful desktops the same way we treat firearms. In the hands of the wrong person they can be _deadly_.

However, I don't think you've gone far enough. Large companies like Microsoft and IBM routinely hire _university students_ right out of school. These new hires are rarely, if ever, screened or interviewed on any criteria other than technical ability! Talk about a danger to society! Universities are known to be hotbeds of political malcontents and terrorists.

I think we should create a huge, government-sponsered clearing house of code for private and public use. Programmers would be hired to work on only small parts of an application, without knowledge of the whole thing, or even what the application does.

Only then can we be safe from un-American hackers possibly lurking behind every application.

--
jed


Right on! (none / 0) (#377)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:01:35 AM PST
Fuck yeah! If it wasnt for hackers, we wouldn't be overrun by lefties and terorists!! Why can't they be happy using the programs there computers came with?!

I'll never understood why the dweebs in my school piss around in the computer lab for hours. Fuckinbg losers.

...


 
I do so go that far. (none / 0) (#381)
by elenchos on Tue Oct 23rd, 2001 at 10:17:35 AM PST
I don't think anyone should be allowed to begin any universtity computer training until they have been proven stable and trustworthy. Universities are indeed full of Leftivists and that is all the more reason why there should be background checks before any of these powerful tools are put in anyone's hands.


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


 
Re: Ban programming? Ban the INTERNET! (none / 0) (#397)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:11:34 AM PST
You muddled headed liberals are always trying to find the mushy middle ground! It's obvious that this Internet nonsense is the REAL problem. Spreading porn and perversion to undermine true American society. A REAL American would know that we have to ban the Internet! Nothing but a cesspool of bestiality and kidde porn, left wing radicals and terrorists! Stop trying to distract from the real issue by rattling on about "programming" and all that rot. Stop the Internet NOW!


bah you know jack and shit (2.50 / 2) (#402)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 04:12:08 PM PST
You know what I have to say to people like you. I say this, "Fuck you!". Then I kick your ass and pimp you out on the street as a crackwhore.

America is the land of the free. Where I can choose to program and surf all the porn I want. I have the right to be a picky consumer, and to say wether or not I agree with what the bloke in the media's "Guest Speaker" show said.

People like you think that banning eveything is the solution to the problem. Thank god for the supreme court and killing laws that violate my constitutional rights.


 
Ludicrous (none / 0) (#403)
by budlite on Sun Dec 16th, 2001 at 07:35:16 PM PST
** Apologies for a very long meandering post **

Okay

I know that this thread has been left alone for a fair while, but I'veonly just stumbled across it and I want to throw my own arguments into the ring.

I agree with what most of the people arguing the case to allow programming have said. I am a programmer. I own computers. But guess what? I don't work for any large companies. I'm 18 years old (by someone's definition a "teenage wannabe"). I'm a hobbyist who knows his way round Windows, is experimenting with Linux and other Unix variants, and can program to a reasonable level.

Does this make me dangerous? No. Have I written any software with malicious and/or hidden payloads purely for the sake of it? No. Have I done the last thing for a REASON? No. Even a fair number of people who have created malicious viruses or broken into the computer systems don't actually have malicious intent - they are trying to highlight where there are weaknesses and loopholes in systems, and a significant proportion of malicious viruses that can be picked up by modern virus scanners never made it into the wild - they were simply sent straight to the antivirus companies and served to demonstrate where there were weaknesses in the systems at which the payloads were targeted.

The fact is, the explosion of the software industry was kickstarted by hobbyists. Hobbyists are the people who originally built the first computers hundreds of years ago. Hobbyists are people who started the large corporations churning out the software we use. If we are to apply what the writer of the original article is saying then by definition Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and a shedload of other people should have been imprisoned decades ago. Bill Gates originally wrote the Windows software as a hobbyist. And you know what? Windows NT contains code ripped from BSD Unix, a "hacker" operating system.

The argument that people should have absolutely no programming experience until they are licensed to do so, or enter programming education also does not stand up. What will happen is that as no-one is allowed programming experience, very very few will know whether they enjoy it and want to take it up as a career, so only a tiny number of people will enter education, graduate and be licensed and enter work. Also, some may decide that programming is not for them and drop out. So what then? The few who do graduate and enter work programming will not be enough to keep the software industry working at any rapid pace, so innovations will be few and far between, computers will fall from grace and who knows what the result of that will be? The writer also fails to realise that there will still almost definitely be an underground programming movement. Look at the examples around us. A significant number of drugs are illegal, but the "industry", if legal would be worth billions of dollars. Or the music industry. New ways of protecting the artists are constantly being introduced but they almost always fall flat on their face - there is always someone who manages to break the protection.

If you take the argument (ban programming) to another level, then the statement that is making is verging on the ludicrous - a program is a series of instructions to be executed in a specific order, and if that does not happen then the the output is incorrect. If you take this literally then saying "ban programming" could also mean "ban algebra" - programming at its most basic IS algebra - there are set ways to solve any algebraic expression. The first computers were created to perform mathematical calculations.

Basically, what I am trying to say with this long meandering post is that banning hobbyist programming is a recipe for disaster - without it we wouldn't be where we are today, and the writer of the original argument is making very large generalisations and very woolly statements. I agree that not all programmers are honest, some are simply "teenage wannabes", but I know that I am not - I take a great interest in computers in general, and programming is part of making a computer do what you want it to do, so to ban it would make a very great deal of people very unhappy.

Just think before making generalisations like "Unix users are hackers" or "Programmers might possibly write viruses so they are all a threat to us good honest non-programming computer users".


 
yo (none / 0) (#404)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jan 9th, 2002 at 04:54:25 PM PST
programming made the server you posted this article on


 
I can't believe this (none / 0) (#405)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 12th, 2002 at 10:56:28 AM PST
This article is simply absurd. This is even worst than the article saying how to recognize if your son is a hacker. People who want to learn programming have to start somewhere. These people are "amateur hackers". I, myself, learning programming find this offensive. With out these "hackers" many programs would have never been created. This website incorporates CGI, and possible Perl and PHP. These were started by "hackers". Hacking is a bit like Elvis in the 70s. All the parents condemned him, and said that he should be outlawed. All of the teens however, loved him. Hackers aren't going to get the "normal folks" "blown up". Comparing terrorist to hacking is unthinkable. Stop hijacking patriotism to ban programming. This article is a load of trash. If you really want to help your country, just donate your talent at propoganda to convince Muslims to help us.


 
Am I evil? (none / 0) (#406)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 04:50:06 PM PST
Alright, something doesn't click here. I just graduated from a computer programming school. It is a school that teaches these "ultra-specialized, half-mad obsessive-compulsives" to use computers? And, if programming is the problem with our country, then WHY THE FUCK IS THE GOVERNMENT PAYING FOR MY SCHOOL!!?!?!?! Jesus Christ you need to get a fucking education.


Just because... (none / 0) (#407)
by elenchos on Tue Feb 19th, 2002 at 06:14:36 PM PST
...you read a book saying it would be cool to ride around on magic flying dragons (to use something I bet you're familiar with) that doesn't mean that magic flying dragons actually exist.

What school did you go to? It sounds like one that has abandoned liberal education in place of mere vocational training, leaving you with very poor English comprehension skills.

Read this slowly, out lound: This article is a proposal for the future. That means that the present state of the law is unsatisfactory, and so I am arguing that we should change the law. Get it? If programming were already banned, why would I need to shout "Ban Programming"? There would be no point.

You need to get a fucking education, my foul-mouthed friend. I suggest a Jesuit university, where the essentials (English 101 for example) are still respected.


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


 
Dumbass (none / 0) (#408)
by scriptX on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 02:49:30 PM PST
Hey retard, all hackers aren't malicious hackers. In fact, some hackers actually use their knowledge for good. For example, the many hacker groups that report and/or hack child pornography websites.


The Mafia tries that line too. (none / 0) (#409)
by elenchos on Mon Apr 29th, 2002 at 05:50:02 PM PST
That's like saying "Many thieves use their stolen money for good causes." And I suppose we shall soon hear the police thanking the hackers of the world for their valuable services? That would be a laugh.

So sure, you may hack and steal, vandalizing you way across the Internet, and tell yourself that you are associated with these mythical "White Hats" that no one has ever seen in the flesh. But everyone knows hackers by their handiwork, not by their phoney words. Who do you think you're fooling?


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


 
Read this and learn something (none / 0) (#410)
by gennixx1 on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 12:25:15 PM PST
Hey everybody!! I just got my Compac computer machine and my aol account. I think the first thing I will do is open an email or download a program from someone I do not know. Oh no, now I have a virus because I am an idiot, I think I will blame hackers.

News flash!! Anti virus programs will stop 98% a viruses.

News flash!! Hackers made the first anti virus program.

News flash!! Without amatuer programmers Microsoft and Apple would not exist.

Hackers have done more good than you could possibly know. You know why the government is so open with us about it's war a terrorism? Because if they were not hackers would tell us. Freedom of information and knowage should be important to all Americans.




What news? (none / 0) (#411)
by elenchos on Tue May 28th, 2002 at 12:38:23 PM PST
Didn't you read any of the other comments? Your bald, usupported assertions that you label "news" have already been posted several times. Always without any supporting evidence, of course. That is the way with invented propaganda. Why don't you dig up some proof, or else admit I'm right, eh?


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


 
Ha Ha (none / 0) (#412)
by linuxyhacker on Thu Aug 8th, 2002 at 01:35:50 AM PST
This is funny. Because i just hacked youre computer! Yeah ive seen youve been cheating on youre wife. Im gonna tell her too!

Windows XP product activation is stupid. Hackers come up with cd key gens and when you get the right key hat is unactivated you activate it then someone who buys xp ends up not being able to activate it and calls microsoft and they cant figure out whats going on. GO MICROSOFT! YOU MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE!


 

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.