RE: Common means the truth?
>>MatuX, I don't know what kind of fantasy world
>>you're living in, but Hackers are, by common
>>definition, people who "hack" (break) into
>>computer systems. They are not "Crackered
>>Hackers" or whatever crazy definition you claim
>>to place on them, they are hackers, HACKERS.
>
>Man... Common definition can be something,
>slang is another thing.
>In Spain coger is to "pick
>up"
>In Latin-america coger is to "fuck"
>
>
>But the real meaning of coger
>is to "pick up", and
>the slang used in Latin-america
>is "fuck".
And your point is?
>Well, with hackers is the same.
>I believe that I'm a
>hacker, but, because the humanity
>(NON-HACKER HUMANITY) wanted to change
>the term, I'm not a
>hacker anymore.
>
>Is that fair?
It doesn't matter if it is fair. Is it fair that a very powerful and once-good symbol like the swastika was corrupted by the Nazis? No, of course not, but times change.
>>And quite frankly I don't really care.
>>Definitions of words can change, and the
>>definition of "hacker" for the greater majority
>>is a person who breaks into computers. I don't
>>care if the media bloats the meaning, it doesn't
>>matter, what matters is that it is common
>>definition NOW.
>
>You don't care?
>Why you don't care?
>Because it hasn't affected you.
>
>If the media says your mother
>is a fucking bitch you
>are gonna defend it because
>you know that isn't true.
We are describing definitions of words, not if the media suddenly decides to insult someone.
>Well, here the same...
>
>But well..... Nobody is interested...
>And what can I do against
>that? I only have the
>knowledge, if you were a
>(real) hacker, your opinion would
>be similiar to mine.
No, I'd probably just figure there are two meanings of the word. Words have different meanings under different contexts. Yeah, you're a code hacker when you're coding Linux apps, but when you're breaking into a system, you're a hacker (computer breaker).
>Understand that, the way I am,
>I can't accept everything that
>is imposed.
>Thanks to nature, I have the
>capacity to think in my
>own, and not because someone
>says that.
And as unique and special as you think you are, you are STILL affected and shaped by society. No man is an island.
>Hackers were less than 0.1% of
>the world poblation, how they
>can defend the degradation of
>the word? It's impossible.
You can fight whatever imaginary battles you want. The fact still remains: "Hacker" has two different definitions.
>>Ignorance IS accepted and you are not being
>>ignorant on this DEFINING fact we're arguing on.
>>You are willingly denying FACT, and that is
>>STUPID.
>
>Yes yes, the fact was that
>it was impossible to reach
>the moon by 99.999999999999% of
>the humanity.
>You are a very kind of
>common human, you accept everything,
>but these things that affects
>your personal (or maybe your
>friends) life, you don't care
>what the humanity thinks about.
And you're trying to put across what point?
>>That is a crazy illusion you are holding. Wake
>>up and see the real world for what it IS.
>
>And what is the real world?
>The world that is made
>by "human gods" (aka media,
>government, microsoft, etc.) or the
>world that tries to don't
>allow them to change us?
The real world is society. Society consists of our environment and everything created by mankind including the people themselves.
>>"dinosaur", "monster", "monitor"
>
>These aren't concepts, these are objects
>living or not. I will
>explain you in a easy
>way what is concept.
>A concept is something that CAN'T
>be illustrated with images.
And why does that matter? It does not matter whether "hacker" is a person, and ethic, or a concept, it is still a WORD, and a word can have MANY meanings.
>>Think about the word "bad." It can me something
>>is cool or neat, or it can mean something is
>>terrible.
>
>It's a joke? If you think
>that bad can be cool
>or neat you have some
>problems... Don't know what is
>a dictionary? (don't talk me
>about slangs because it makes
>non-sense in this *globalized* topic)
"Hacker" is also considered slang. It was coined by computer guys in the 1960s to describe themselves. "Hacker" was considered a person who cut up wood before that time. It is only a so-called "globalized" term since the information era starting in the early eighties.
>"Gay" is often associated with homosexuality
>nowadays, but that meaning never
>was attached to "gay" until
>around the 1960s. Does that
>make the latter definition incorrect?
>
>
>Of course not, it was invented
>to be a way to
>name homosexuals. Gay never was
>another thing.
Actually it wasn't. It meant "happy" long before it was connotated with homosexuality. I'm sure people didn't like "gay" changed into such a negative connotation but THEY GOT OVER IT.
>>I'm telling you that you are trying to put forth
>>a definition that only exists within a limited
>>circle. You are refuting knowledge that is
>>accepted by 99.9999999% of the computer-literate
>>population.
>
>>It's like representing the government of Taiwan
>>as the government of China instead of the
>>communist government which has the real control
>>(as the USA did for a while). It is simply not>
>>there.
>
>You didn't answer my question.
>
>>GNU MAKES ME BELIEVE
>>something that existed before computers
>>were created and you are
>>telling me that what the
>>newspapers says and some crackers
>>put in his web sites
>>has the truth???!?
>
>Try it now...
"Something that existed before computers were created" does not make sense. "Hacker" in your terms, was created during the computer era.
No, a newspaper and a web-site doesn't change the definition of a word, but SOCIETY CAN, and society HAS changed the meaning of "hacker." No matter what you may believe, society IS a defining part of your life.
>>Get with the times. You're seeing something that
>>isn't there and NEVER WILL BE THERE.
>
>You can't understand it, right? Think
>as a real hacker, not
>as a common human.
Oh, and now you're placing "hackers" in a tier of their own now? I CAN think as a real hacker, and quite frankly I have BETTER things to do than try to defend a definition that is still true under certain contexts.
Try claiming that "gay" only means "happy."
>>The computer-literate population.
>
>And who is the computer-literate population?
"Computer-literate" pretty much says it all huh? People who know how to use computer.
>>I should say the same to you. You are refuting
>>FACT. Open your eyes to the REAL WORLD. Nobody,
>>except for a select few even attach "hacker" to
>>a person who hacks code. In fact, probably GNU
>>people even use that definition anymore. It is
>>ARCHAIC and is practically OBSOLETE.
>
>I'm not refuting facts, I'm just
>trying to say that when
>media named hackers to crackers,
>it was a purely market
>strategy.
>Got it?
Marketting strategy? This is just sad. You're creating your own illusions. What kind of "market" strategy could anyone achieve by labling computer breakers as "hackers?"
>But, of course, you don't care.
I personally don't see it as a good use of my time. I don't care about stuff that really doesn't matter. You're blowing this whole thing out of preportion.
>>Personally, if God himself told me I were gay
>>I'd believe him, after all, he's GOD
>
>Even if you aren't gay? Are
>you sure you would start
>kissing boys?
If I were in front of an omnipotent being that has all the power of the universe and he told me to kiss boys, I probably would.
>>we have just evolved beyond that
>
>We? Ha.. are you a *hacker*?
>Is humanity a *hacker*??
>I'm gonna start to believe it
>was because envy, but it's
>too much stupidity...
Oh, and so you're claiming an evolved human is a "hacker?" No, I'm saying that we've evolved past the point of believing that words are set in stone and are not influenced by society.
I really don't know where you got that last rant.
>>I'm not being ignorant, I'm being CORRECT.
>>You are acting stupid about this whole thing.
>>Get with the times.
>
>I prefer being a stupid and
>not that companies can manipulate
>me.
Again, you're creating another illusion. As cool as you think you are by "rejecting society" you are only being influenced by another part of it.
>>This is a FUNDAMENTAL law of language and words.
>And we can't have control of
>that law. Only people with
>lots of money.
More illusions. Has society done you wrong?
>>Humans change words and that is a fact. We are
>>humans, humans created the words in the first
>>place. Words are not defined by nature, they can
>>change, and they change with society and
>>language. If we lived by archaic definitions we
>>wouldn't have many of the words we have today,
>>if not all of them.
>
>How old are you?
>What are your dreams? You have?
>
>Do you like to control? Do
>you like to be controlled?
>
>Do you think only by yourself,
>or you care what other
>peoples believes?
>Do you believe in parapsychology?
>Do you believe in God? In
>Jesus?
And this has something to do with the topic in what way...?
>What is to be intelligent?
To be useful.
>Do you think what you speak,
>or do you speak what
>you think?
Try to stick to the topic.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
