This raises another question: how long are we going to fight the losing battle of reclaiming the word "hacker" from its current shady connotation? After reading news like this, I would be really ashamed to call myself a "hacker".
Note that I am making a purely linguistic point here. The popular culture has pretty well defined the word already .... think about explaining to your non-technical friend that you were reading about the epilepsy episode in Hacker News!
This reminds me of another word, "liberal", which in America means someone who advocates what would be classically considered illiberal economics (government intervention in the economy, protectionism and so on). The Economist still refuses to accept the American hijacking of a fine word, but somehow I don't believe a Ron Paul would ever want to be called a "liberal", which he actually is in the classical sense.
As a counter-example, J.K. Rowling seems to have bestowed a different meaning to the word "witch", equating it with "wizard". And then I realize PG was originally a Brit, so may be the Brits can "take English back" :-)
The fact you will not use the word due to shame makes me think of Gresham's law which states: "Money overvalued by the State will drive money undervalued by the State out of circulation.",(from Wikipedia). In this case the bad association the word brings pushes its use beyond the comfort zone of those whose intentions are good.
Also, the positive image of good hackers is no doubt appealing to the more nefarious computer users and so only increases there desire to use the label. Combine these pressures with the fact that the negative version has already captured the popular mind and it would seem you might be right that the battle is lost.
There is a standard gadget, the Harding FPA Machine, to check television adverts for likelihood of triggering epilepsy. Apparently, it wasn't used to check London 2012 Olympic publicity material ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/06/05/2012... ).
Having read Paul's treatise yesterday on the importance of improving our on-line dialectic, this story also reminds me that it may also be acceptable, if not appropriate, to occasionally refer to people as simply 'assholes'. A much better word in this case than 'hackers'.
these people aren't merely assholes. They are terrorists (I do not throw this term around lightly). I generally abhor black hat's (grey hats and security researcher's breaking the law to prove a point aside) but this is beyond attacking a network, cracking a web site or even stealing someones Identity. This is as bad as taking an old womans walker and proceeding to beat her with it.
Yea, me too. I mean, while I'm not part of the hacker culture, I always understood the point of it was more for recognition than actually hurting anyone. This very much goes against that.
>1. having the quality or power of creating.
>2. resulting from originality of thought, expression, etc.; imaginative: creative writing.
>3. originative; productive (usually fol. by of).
Adding blinking gifs to a homepage does not create anything, it does not result from any originality of thought nor is is productive so I would argue that it is not hacking.
The word "hacking" has, in the media, taken on a meaning which is different from the meaning that it had originally - and the meaning that you'll most often find around here. Sadly, though, the use is so common that arguing against it is pretty much hopeless. It seems that outside of the hacker community (proper sense of the word), you probably shouldn't call yourself a hacker, since the first thing that will come to people's minds is this.
This isn't hacking. This is 'cracking' - and a more disgusting form of it than usual, a form meant to physically harm people.
Actually the earliest recorded references to hacking (in the documents of the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club which is generally acknowledged as the origin of the term) all have the term used in the mallicious (if mischevious) sense such as phone phreaking.
Note that I am making a purely linguistic point here. The popular culture has pretty well defined the word already .... think about explaining to your non-technical friend that you were reading about the epilepsy episode in Hacker News!
This reminds me of another word, "liberal", which in America means someone who advocates what would be classically considered illiberal economics (government intervention in the economy, protectionism and so on). The Economist still refuses to accept the American hijacking of a fine word, but somehow I don't believe a Ron Paul would ever want to be called a "liberal", which he actually is in the classical sense.
As a counter-example, J.K. Rowling seems to have bestowed a different meaning to the word "witch", equating it with "wizard". And then I realize PG was originally a Brit, so may be the Brits can "take English back" :-)