how-to block ads
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12 | reply to Daniel
Re: A Hacker Is A Criminal
Why would someone want to hang onto a word anyway? We change, our language changes with us.
--
Get hpHOSTS!
| |
PuterJunkie
join:2002-10-03
Powell, TN
|  Somewhere along the line hacking went from trying to get in to another system for the challenge of it, to a way of exploiting the users data and resources for financial gain. So instead of hacking for the challenge and to learn something, it became hacking for criminal intent. The makers of viruses that were just trying to wreak chaos and havoc, decided to try to profit from the ignorance and the hard work of others. So that is what makes them criminals.
The government can write a million laws against spyware, identity theft, and spam but in the end laws are written for criminals, not the law abiding.
With that said the war is between the criminals and the computer-security challenged. The greatest weapon in the war is knowledge and education. So it is Forums like this one and Tech Support Guy that give us a chance to win the war. So three cheers for this forum and the users that give up their time to help us when we need it!
Ok, I will put away my soap box now.  | |
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| reply to hpguru
said by hpguru  :Why would someone want to hang onto a word anyway? We change, our language changes with us. Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized.
Imagine the definition of freedom changing: Freedom: a state of involuntary servitude; slavery; indentured servitude to one's government.
Now with the above new definition of freedom, we can dismantle the power of the Constitution. Think about it.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
My Kurzweil Music at: '»www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.basspig.com Bass Pig's Lair
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com Stereo Feed! | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
1 edit | said by 91439306 :Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized. No, I don't think they do: words are merely conventions for concepts, and all that matters is that everybody knows what you're talking about when you say the word. The key factor is not an absolute meaning, but an agreed-upon meaning.Imagine the definition of freedom changing: Freedom: a state of involuntary servitude; slavery; indentured servitude to one's government. You picked an excellent word upon which equivocation is rampant, and it's been appropriated heavily by those opposed to liberty. It's usually spoken of in vague, non-definitions such as "real freedom" instead of the iron-clad "freedom from coercion".
But unlike "hacker", which is a lost cause, "freedom" is still clung to by lovers of liberty.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12 | reply to 91439306
What ^^he^^ said.  | |
Daniel
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-26
Pleasanton, CA
clubs: 
| reply to 91439306
said by 91439306 :said by hpguru :Why would someone want to hang onto a word anyway? We change, our language changes with us. Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized. Well, that's just it -- words don't have an absolute meaning. They have currently used meanings, and generally accepted meanings. Those are what you find in the dictionary.
If what you are saying were correct, the meaning of words would not change over time. But they do. They do simply because people start using them differently, and when it comes time to write a new dictionary, the way the word is being used by the majority goes into the book, not the way it's used "properly".
--
dmiessler.com -- grep understanding knowledge | |
Jwobot
join:2002-08-14
Sterling Heights, MI | Breaking into a house shouldt be a crime either! | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to 91439306
said by 91439306 :Because words must have absolute meaning, if we as a society are to remain stable and civilized. Oh, nonsense.
What do you mean when you say "computer"?
I sincerely hope you mean a person, usually a woman, who is employed to perform routine arithmetical calculations.
If you try and change the meaning of the word like some misguided fools, for example applying it to electromechanical or electronic calculating engines, then I fear for the stability of civilization. | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to 91439306
said by 91439306 :Imagine the definition of freedom changing: Freedom: a state of involuntary servitude; slavery; indentured servitude to one's government. Now with the above new definition of freedom, we can dismantle the power of the Constitution. Think about it. You are, I think, factually correct here.
But the flaw in your thinking is this: before the "definition of freedom" as written in a dictionary can change, we must already be using the word in this new and different way. That is, the dictionary will not allow us to be enslaved; the dictionary will merely report that we are already enslaved.
Your thesis isn't so far from that of '1984', by the time that the transition to Newspeak is completed, the old concept of freedom would be quite literally unthinkable: freedom would be freedom to love IngSoc and the Psrty.
But the work is done in minds, not dictionaries. And it's quite different to what we're talking about here. Obviously, we have not lost the concept implied in the original meaning of 'hacker'. | |
91439306
15,000 Watts of Bass Power
join:2002-10-16
New Milford, CT
| The problem with the 'in use' change of meaning is that it invalidates the entire body of literary works that come before that change.
For example, we are already having problems with the definition of 'militia' with regard to the 2nd Amendment. The Constitution, and thousands of other works of literature, would have to be rewritten so that the meaning of 'new speak' would convey the same result--if that were even possible.
Language must be stable throughout all time. Were we to keep changing definitions of existing words, the opportunity for confusion would proliferate in unfathomable multiplicity.
Back in the '30s & 40s, it was okay to eclaim that one feels 'gay'. Today, it would be an admission of homosexuality. There are already too many examples of language being twisted by cultural changes. For goodness sake, add NEW words--don't change the existing words.
--
Take care,
Mark & Mary Ann Weiss
My Kurzweil Music at: '»www.dv-clips.com/theater.htm
'»www.basspig.com Bass Pig's Lair
'»www.mwcomms.com
'»www.adventuresinanimemusic.com Stereo Feed! | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by 91439306 : For goodness sake, add NEW words--don't change the existing words. This is a naïve and unwinnable battle, one which flies in the face of thousands of years of language evolution. No central body determines the meanings of words - it's the collective contributions of everybody casting an unwitting "vote", and it's less under conscious control than fashion.
Likewise with pronunciation: I'm deeply disappointed that the moron-esque "newkular" is becoming acceptable in polite society, and it's going to be a valid pronunciation sooner or later. And all I can do to stop it is use it correctly when I have the chance: that's just the way it goes. Things change whether I like it or not.
To oppose semantic evolution in the general case is like opposing the weather: it's silly to take a position on a force of nature.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
oh hello
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Carrollton, TX
·Verizon FIOS
| The word "hack" is used all the time in a non-negative way. Registry hacks, anyone?
quote:
said by 91439306 :
it's silly to take a position on a force of nature.
If language changing is a force of nature, then everything humans do can be viewed as a force of nature. And if that's the case, it's silly to take a position on anything. I guess there's nothing wrong with thinking that way. That is - until you're not consistent. | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by oh hello : If language changing is a force of nature, then everything humans do can be viewed as a force of nature. No: language change is not volitional, but other things humans do is. That's a big difference.
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to 91439306
said by 91439306 :The problem with the 'in use' change of meaning is that it invalidates the entire body of literary works that come before that change. Nonsense. Can you understand Shakespeare? And yet he uses words that have changed their meaning between Elizabethan times and Elizabeth-II-an times.
Language must be stable throughout all time. There is no 'must' about it, and the reason for this is blindingly obvious: there is no such stability. There are plenty of counterexamples, where words change meaning.
Here's one: 'nice'. | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by dave :Here's one: 'nice'. The word "silly" used to mean "blessed", but it now refers to some of the points made in this thread
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
yazdzik
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
 ·New York Connect
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to dave
said by dave :Here's one: 'nice'. Dear Friends,
Whilst Dave makes a nice distinction among prescriptive, descriptive, and cognitive use of syntax, perhaps I have missed something in popular culture.
Since my exposure to computers is limited to a rather inept use of e-mail, the occasional skype, and lengthy inarticulate rants to the unix forum here, it never occurred to me that hacker was anything but an informal synonym for programmer, with the emphasis or connotative shading of someone dealing in the more pragmatic aspects of userland.
Until the post, supra, I presumed describing Dave or Steve as hackers was the correct use of language.
The point being that, while I am hardly illiterate, there is a cultural use of words which those who live in the more everyday world of that culture appreciate, and those outside of it do not.
A few days ago, I gave my daughter my most beloved edition of the short OED, beautiful leather bound, 1933 edition. It was, until dict became so easy, my usual reference, on my desk next to the port and cigars, as a symbol of times and manners long since dead. I suppose few will ever mourn the passing of rational humanism, as our world metamorphoses into either a feudal society once again, or even a democratic theocracy. I, for one, realise that a certain amount of strict construction, contract based society, and civil libertarianism depend precisely upon the fact that we impose stable meanings upon words whose usage belies the very instabilty of definition, syntax, grammar, and context.
This began in the courts in the late nineteenth century. "No" in the Bill of Rights cannot mean no, because "no" has to be quantified, qualified, re-defined in order for people to accept it. "No" means to Holmes, "within the confines of community standard". Not to some jackass, but to Holmes. Be this the case, the idea that we can establish contract with words being as flexible as they are creates the current social malaise.
Is Microsoft Corporation a monopoly? Yes, of course, but, since without such a monopoly, we cannot really create a higher standard of living, it is a necessary monopoly, so we are told.
Anyone here old enough to remember the teaching of US history recalling Roosevelt being the trust buster and Harriman, Rockefeller, et al, being "robber barons". Since corporations pay the taxes that elect politicians, as well as fund our state schools, the phrase itself sounds archaic, quaint, a remnant of a simpler time when even a wiretap was consider so egregious an offence against our freedom that a curial order was needed, and granted only with real resistance to the very concept of governmental nannying, however necessary to protect life and property.
There is indeed a nice variance between a word used in conversation and a word used to bind men to their word. Shakespeare is comprehensible precisely because we read, we search the meaning of our lives, the nature of our souls with the tools of our disciplines, language, music, plastic arts, and even athletic contests. To argue that descriptive meaning alone can determine the bases of contracts would create chaos, to argue that prescription will order men's thoughts, tyranny.
To note, however, that those skilled in rhetoric can still make language mean what they wish it so to mean, rather than be forced to accept the dictum about knowing the audience, is cause for both wonder at our own perceptiveness and alarm at the possibility of "no" being taken to mean "no, unless the bible, torah, or koran say otherwise, or unless it offend the state and her servants".
I should be more careful before admitting to only one usage being determinant of my own actions, to say nothing of my private thoughts and communications. To allow a word to change without the permission of the speaker, because the mob would have it so is disingenuous.
No one presumes when I state that I am no hacker that I observe statute, rather, that I cannot write in programming languages to effectuate movement of electrons here or there, at my volitional behest. Which, come to think of, describes a lot of professional programmers, as well as some open source friends.
All good wishes,
Yazdzik
--
chi troppo vuole nulla stringe | |
oh hello
Premium
join:2001-01-29
Carrollton, TX | reply to Steve
Counterargument: language is volitional, just like other things humans do. no difference. | |
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by oh hello :Counterargument: language is volitional, just like other things humans do. no difference. Well I think it's largely not. Individual stupid things that people say may be, but broad directions of language over time are less so. It's not a conscious choice, but a collective movement, and I consider that in the nonvolitional category. Perhaps you don't.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site | |
dave
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
·Verizon Online DSL
·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | reply to yazdzik
Until the post, supra, I presumed describing Dave or Steve as hackers was the correct use of language. And it still is. 'Hacker' still means that over-enthusiastic progammer thing.
However, it also means 'one who breaks into computer systems', and it is this other meaning that people seem to object to.
I suggest that the objectors ought to get used to the notion that, in English, one word can have more than one meaning. Even opposite meanings. With that in mind, isn't it about time we tabled this discussion?
To argue that descriptive meaning alone can determine the bases of contracts would create chaos, to argue that prescription will order men's thoughts, tyranny. OK, I concede your point. But I view that kind of writing as highly technical in nature, and it is a feature of technical communication that words do not have the same looseness around the edges that they have in normal use.
Take 'theory' for a topical example. To those with even a smattering of science education, this means a systematic explanation that is amongst the best there is; a theory accounts for the known facts, and allows useful predictions to be made.
In everyday speech, 'theory' is much less certain, and gets used for any half-baked idea.
We can live comfortably with the difference, and only the half-baked confuse the two. | |
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
1 edit | reply to dave
said by dave :said by 91439306 :The problem with the 'in use' change of meaning is that it invalidates the entire body of literary works that come before that change. Nonsense. Can you understand Shakespeare? And yet he uses words that have changed their meaning between Elizabethan times and Elizabeth-II-an times. Language must be stable throughout all time. There is no 'must' about it, and the reason for this is blindingly obvious: there is no such stability. There are plenty of counterexamples, where words change meaning. Here's one: 'nice'. "Nor do I think it a matter of little moment whether the language of a people be vitiated or refined, whether the popular idiom be erroneous or correct....It is the opinion of Plato, that changes in the dress and habits of the citizens portend great changes and commotions in the state; and I am inclined to believe that when the language in common use in any country becomes irregular and depraved, it is followed by their ruin or their degredation. For what do terms used without skill or meaning, which are at once corrupt and misapplied, denote but a people listless, supine, and ripe for servitude? On the contrary, we have never hear of any people or state which has not flourished in some degree of prosperity as long as their language has retained its elegance and purity."
John Milton to Benedetto Bonomatthai September 10, 1638
edited to fix typos
--
"If you want to do DRM on a PC then you need to treat the user as the enemy." Ross Anderson in "`Trusted Computing' Frequently Asked Questions"
»www.ie7.com/ | |
|
