Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an unofficial 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 It is no longer maintained.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 or the footnote if you have questions.
 On criminal language and the word `hacker'

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Mar 26, 2002
 Comments:
Computer criminals are reknowned for their insistence on claiming that everybody else apart them fails to catch the meaning of the word `hacker'. According to them this word, which plainly means `computer criminal' by any lexicographical criterion, doesn't have that meaning at all; the word for that is `cracker'. A hacker, we are told, is not an evil person who trespasses into computers and not only causes untold damage, but in these tense times places America at risk; rather, a hacker is said to be a noble person motivated solely by the quest for knowledge, member of a grand tradition.
internet_idiocy

More stories about Internet Idiocy
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
The Online Social World: Internet Dating
Wil Wheaton Moves Beyond Wesley To Internet Stardom
Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?
Internet Licenses: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?
Writing Satire For A Technical Audience
Death Threats on Groups.Google.Com
Adequacy.Org Presents the Commonsense Crossword
Google Needs a Winston Smith
Avatars and the Telecommunications Revolution
Keeping the terrorists off the net
The Internet, Pornography, and Masturbation are destroying college students

More stories by
em

Yumi bai spikim Tok Pisin nau!
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Garlic
The Adequacy.org Guide to Cheap Legal Highs: Capsaicin
German, the language of the Nazis
Women responsible for society's ills
Chile to bomb the U.S.A.
Review: Fred Fortin, 'Le Plancher des Vaches'
The Adequacy.org Guide to Airplane Hijacking in the Post-WTC Era
Hijacked plane crash destroys Canary Wharf; Shocked Americans ask, `What's Canary Wharf?'
Review: Willie Col?n, `Lo Mato'
Starving Afghanis Flock to Bombing Targets for Free Food
Genetic Warfare and Matrilineal Cultures
Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory
Classic rerelases: Caf? Tacuba, Les Cowboys Fringants
The sky: a revisionist examination
The Adequacy.org Guide to the Cuisines of the World: Poutine
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, terrorism, and decolonisation
An instance of Western cultural chauvinism
On why Pearl is not like natural language (Part I)
World Music Review: Ozomatli, `Embrace the Chaos'
However, this story is just a facade. The whole issue around the word `hacker' is completely transparent to anybody who has adequate knowledge of the linguistics of marginalized social groups-- criminals, the insane, prostitutes, communities founded by runaway slaves, fringe religious cults, and the likes.

The language of a marginalized group is intentionally shaped by its members to have a particularly rich inventory of slang words and phrases (and sometimes other grammatical devices) not found in the speech of the social mainstream. In the simplest cases, for which the archetype is prison slangs, it's just a collection of words added on top of the mainstream language. In the most complex cases, the mainstream language is "relexified", i.e. nearly its whole vocabular is replaced; this is the case in, for instance, communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, where the men speak a secret language identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words.

Marginal languages serve at least these three functions:

  1. They identify and rank members of the group. They serve as a badge; not only using criminal slang identifies you as a member of the criminal subculture, but also your relative skill at it is an indicator of your seniority therein.
  2. They serve in the construction of identity as a criminal, thus promote group cohesion. They are part of a shared lore which is valued by its users and contributes to their self-image and adherence to the group.
  3. They make their speech incomprehensible to outsiders, thus allowing them to conceal their messages.
Now, let's consider the words `hacker' and `cracker'. These are clearly part of the shared lore of a marginalized group in our society. The word `hacker' dates a few decades, to the earliest day of the subculture that identifies with it. The term `cracker', according to the official `hacker' sources, was "coined ca. 1985 by hackers in defense against journalistic misuse of hacker".

However, here is a key piece of the puzzle which Mr. Raymond leaves out, and his constituency for obvious reasons of self-interest doesn't bother to call him on. A search on the Lexis-Nexis journalistic database dates the first usage of the term `computer hacker' to April 13, 1983, in the `Information Bank Abstracts' section of the Wall Street Journal. The abstract, by Erik Larson, reads as follows:

Article on computer `hackers', originally one who knew computers inside out, now used to describe fiddlers who electronically invade other people's computers, usually just for challenge.
One thing is plainly evident from this quote. By the time the media started using the word `hacker', it already meant "computer criminal". Contrary to what Mr. Raymonds and his countless sheep-like followers want us to believe, the media did not misapply the word `hacker'. In the usage of hackers, the word already meant "computer criminal" when the media picked it up.

Why all the outrage from the hacker community? This is simple. Recall the functions of criminal language, as stated above. When `hacker' was not a mainstream word, it had a particular power: it signaled `computer criminal' only to those in the know about computer crime. However, as soon as the media desciphers the criminal code, the word loses that power. Now, when the criminal describes himself as a `hacker', anybody can tell that he has just confessed a crime (or at least the intent to commit one).

Thus the predictable reaction from the `hacker' community: public denial of the true meaning of the word, along with the coinage of `cracker'. The computer criminals are not the `hackers', but rather those other people, the `crackers'. The upstanding, nonhacker citizen takes their word for it, and starts looking for `crackers'. None to be found; who calls themselves a `cracker', anyway? The criminals still refer to their activity as `hacking', which they have convinced the outside world is a respectable activity.

We should not fall prey to this duplicity. Resist attempts by hackers to bleach the criminal content of their activity away from their self-selected name.

(To be continued...)


It's a transatlatic relativism thing. (none / 0) (#1)
by because it isnt on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:22:40 AM PST
I believe I summarised the issue in this old comment: Hacker (n.): One who makes furniture with an axe.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

 
Yet another hacker article... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Yossarian on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:35:31 AM PST
One the first page of the site search, I count no fewer than 6 articles relating to computer crime. Surely this is a disproportionate amount of space to devote to such a subject. Especially since most adequacy readers are protected from hackers and other Internet malcontents by the finest security money can buy.

Am I being na�ve here, or is all this "hacker" hype merely scaremongering by the vested interests in the computer security industry? They are being made redundant by rapid advances in firewalls and content ratings technology. Their legal attempts to suppress this technology have failed. Now their only hope is to make the public buy their software out of fear.


I agree (none / 0) (#40)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 12:53:03 AM PST
There have been too many posts about the term "hacker". Its boring.

However I dont understand your blind support of an operating system which has been tried and tested to be insecure, easy to hack and contain hundreds of bugs.

Seeing as its been out only 6 months its hard to see how it can be considered more secure than its predecessors.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I assure you... (none / 0) (#49)
by Yossarian on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 02:59:43 AM PST
...that my support of Windows XP is not blind. Before I upgraded from my previous operating system, I performed a rigorous TCO analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the new software. The praise for the operating system has been universal.

In fact, the only criticisms of Windows XP I could find were from "Open" source types, complaining that Windows XP's new security features impeded their ability to pirate software and launch DoS attacks.


quite funny (none / 0) (#67)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 11:45:21 AM PST
That one of the <A HREF=http://www.cnet.com/software/0-806340-1204-6534881.html>links you posted</A> has a user opinion vote which gives the statistic of 48% of users giving it the thumbs down.

<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
10 BEAT $HORSE; 20 IF $HORSE="dead" THEN (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 03:14:34 AM PST
EM, you're a smart guy and all, but you might want to try writing something that someone might actually give a shit about. 'Hacker' vs. 'cracker' is only an issue that teenaged Lunix hax0r wannbes and marijuana-addicted communists care about and they're not going to change popular language no matter how dogmatic they get. The rest of us simply don't care about this non-issue.


Perhaps you should start reading a different site (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 03:50:15 AM PST
There are plenty of internet sites that specialize in discussions of a non-technocriminal focussed nature. You're quite welcome to find the topics you seek there. Adequacy as a website has traditionally addressed itself to three primary goals:
  1. Unflinching, persistent and above all, unbiased critical commentary on the nerd sub-cultures that threaten our children
  2. Controversy
  3. Caffienated mints that taste good and don't cause you to die of toxic shock


You will find that no matter where you go on the internet, you will be preceded by the subtle influence of the nerd mindset. Only at adequacy.org is the nerd problem laid bare. We do this to provide a sort of conceptual "black hole" which attracts nerd discussion, leaving other articles uncontaminated and free for analysis of more agreeable topics, such as religion and diction.


Internet full of nerds? (none / 0) (#11)
by DePumpo on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 10:08:59 AM PST
Since the internet was built by people with the knowledge to build it (nerds as you call 'em), I guess there is subtle influence. Anyhow, the story brings to light a problem: bad people hiding behind good names. Think about it for a bit. I don't think I should say more on this subject.


 
Unbiased? (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 12:09:45 PM PST
You, of all people on this site, have no right to go on about being unbiased. After reading some of your articles and posts, all I see is a biased fool that has little to no clue as to what he's talking about.


 
Why do you bother? (none / 0) (#46)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 01:41:07 AM PST
1. everyone knows that probably isnt your real name

2. everyone knows you are laughing as you type

3. everyone reads you posts laughing with you

4. we dont laugh or pity the fools who take your posts literally...we just know they will understand in time.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Why I bother (none / 0) (#47)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 01:48:24 AM PST
Mostly because my spelling and grammer is atroshus. It's good to be among people who value good spelling and diction, not to mention style. It gives me something to aim for, y'know?


 
Well (4.00 / 1) (#5)
by Right Hand Man on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 06:09:58 AM PST
As I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, there is universal agreement that both hackers and crackers break in to computers that do not belong to them. The difference is that the hackers just poke around and maybe fix something while the crackers try to destroy the computer or enslave it in some fashion.

I see this as no different from my home. Last week my kitchen sink leaked slightly. Had I arrived home one day and found an uninvited plumber repairing my sink I would have killed him immediately. Despite the good faith of these hackers I pray that I do not find one infiltrating my home computer.


-------------------------
"Keep your bible open and your powder dry."

A couple of suggestions. (1.00 / 1) (#6)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 08:21:29 AM PST
Despite the good faith of these hackers I pray that I do not find one infiltrating my home computer.

a) Run a firewall. Preferably OpenBSD one.
b) Run as few services open to the Net in as barebones configuration as possible. Complexity invites danger.
c) Keep the exposed parts patched and up-to-date.
d) Employ a sort of perimeter monitoring. Snort is my personal favourite.
e) Read the logs regularly.
f) Keep low profile. Look unimportant.

a-c protects you against script kids.
d-e tells you someone is messing around.
f is here to avoid bringing attention of high-class adversaries. They are the most dangerous, but there is very few of them.

This 6-point program should boost your security in orders of magnitude.

Oh - I forgot point g) - BACKUPS! As we know, shit happens...


A better solution (none / 0) (#7)
by gNinja on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 08:29:53 AM PST
is to just run Mac OS X.

Apple computers have traditionally been without any security problems and OS X is based Linux which makes it even MORE secure.

Of course, you could do all that other stuff if you don't have any social life. But I expect most people have girl friends to date and concerts to attend and don't want to spend all their time hunched over some computer.




Oh the hilarity. (none / 0) (#8)
by because it isnt on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 09:06:01 AM PST
CEO OF CITIBANK: What do you mean that Russian Mafia hackers stole all our money? It's your job to look after computer security!

PIMPLY FACED YOUTH: Sorry, but I have girl friends to date and concerts to attend and don't want to spend all my time hunched over some computer.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Pimples (none / 0) (#39)
by gNinja on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 11:58:06 PM PST
In my experience, it is the people who spend their days in front of a PC who have the worst acne.

The question is what causes this corrolation? Do PCs cause pimples, or do pimples cause people to use PCs?

People who don't use computers or who use Apple computers are generally more physically attrative than PC users. These non-geeks seem to instinctively understand that a good complection is important if you want to go on dates.




The answer you seek is here.... (none / 0) (#41)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 12:59:05 AM PST
Its lack of ventilation.

Many a time have I been to a LAN party and ALL the windows were shut! Its hot, humid and very uncomfortable. But your average computer obsessive doesnt get much exercise and therefore doesnt have the circulation to keep them warm naturally.

Still I cant live like that, I mutter a few incenities (loud enuf for them to hear) and open as many windows as I find.

At home I always have a few windows open.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

So Macintosh Apples don't need all that air? (none / 0) (#42)
by elenchos on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 01:12:31 AM PST
I suppose it makes sense, if they don't need fans, why do they need ventilation? But what is it about PCs that so contaminates the air that you have to keep the windows open? Is it because of the RISC processors? Or not having a floppy drive?

Whatever it is, you have to be willing to at least suspect that switching to a Macintosh Apple will make you healthier and more attractive.

Either that or it is that ugly people just like PCs more, and really ugly people like PCs running Lunix more. But why? One eyed man thing?


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


The fans of Apple (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by because it isnt on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:47:46 AM PST
I suppose it makes sense, if they don't need fans, why do they need ventilation?

I think the lovely Macs do need fans (except for the beautiful Cube), but they do not need the industrial fans used in Formula One cars like the PCs do.

It's because ugly PC CPU designers are dirty creationist godthinkers, who believe that Newtons laws of thermodynamics do not apply to them or their hideous machine monstrosities. If they knuckled down under the rule of Science, they would stop trying to make nuclear reactors out of silicon, and would adopt Motorola's cool, clean CPU designs.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Its because we want cheap, fixable machines (none / 0) (#70)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 11:54:49 AM PST
Lol imagine trying to fix a Mac.


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

I'm trying (none / 0) (#79)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 03:53:22 PM PST
The fact is, that even during the dark days, Apple hardware has always been extremely reliable. I have an 8 year old Mac that has had absolutely no hardware problems whatsoever (save for a flat clock battery).

Maybe if you weren't using L.I.N.U.X. you wouldn't have so many problems?


hmm (none / 0) (#80)
by budlite on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 04:35:22 PM PST
I wouldn't have thought so. Aside from the CPU and motherboard, Mac hardware is the same as PC hardware. At least nowadays, anyway. Dunno about older Macs.


 
During the dark days... (none / 0) (#81)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 04:46:56 PM PST
...the hardware used to be reliable.

I have an ancient ST4097 disk that was put out of 5+ years of nonstop service only about an year and half ago (and only because of being noisy and that I had better use for the ISA slot occupied by its MFM controller) - compare it with today's disks.

I have an old 386 that for years served as a basic scheduling machine (running a simple DOS program I wrote for it), de facto an alarm clock with an 80x25 ASCII display when a monitor is switched to it, where jobs were controlled through putting files with commands to a shared network drive (as I hadn't knew about remote calls back then and the network was an ancient version of NoWell Netware Lite from FSES (Friendship Software Exchange Service)). I decommissioned it some time ago and kept it in service as it was serving as 12V power supply for some applications - I was quite surprised that the system was still working, despite that the board and most of the cards was discarded junk even years ago when I put it together. Today's boards aren't as reliable...

Hey - even my old C64 is still functional!!!

The hardware reliability rates go down steadily last years. A friend is a manager of a large hardware shop. I route the purchases of our company through him as he doesn't tend to squeeze me for every buck of profit, and gives me access to data that I as just-a-customer shouldn't have (ie, their real purchase prices, the return rates of various hardware vs how much they sell - which is a good reliability indicator, and couple more goodies). The reliability data don't talk well about the modern technology. But on the other hand, each device that fails a month after warranty expires is another sale, another profit, another boost for the GNP and the Holy Economical Growth - so manufacture of shitty hardware is probably a sort of manufacturers' patriotic duty. *spit* *spit* *spit*

Maybe if you weren't using L.I.N.U.X. you wouldn't have so many problems?

I got confirmed that some of the most nondeterministic occassional crashes and freezes of Linux are caused by shitty hardware - after exchanging of the motherboard for another - identical - one the problems typically vanish (these problems are hard to test and are unobservable on Windows because of their "native" crash rate). The technology is pushed to its edge, in the mad chase for another megahertz for the cost of heat, and for another cent saved on expenses, for the cost of reliability. Rushed to market to be there first - for the cost of unfinished testing; FDIV bug, anyone? *spit*

Where is the engineering pride? Sold for $0.02 saved on each board???


Bad Hardware . . . (none / 0) (#94)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 12:16:16 PM PST
A surprisingly large number of PC's have disks with bad sectors, or memory with bad spots.

Typically, the first thing I do with any new piece of hardware is give it a very good, long burn followed by extensive testing.

I almost never have any hardware problems.


 
Whats this liberal myth all about? (none / 0) (#71)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 11:56:17 AM PST
Who said that Mac users werent ugly? they're as butt-ugly as us PC users any day.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
incenities (none / 0) (#78)
by gNinja on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 02:50:47 PM PST
Incenity is not a word. I believe you mean "insanities."

hth


 
Which sadly can't be universally applied. (none / 0) (#9)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 09:11:05 AM PST
Apple computers have traditionally been without any security problems and OS X is based Linux which makes it even MORE secure.

OS X is based on BSD - which is better. But as both Linux and BSD are members of the unixoid family and most of the code can be ported from one to another easily, the difference isn't really big.

Macs hadn't security problems because they never had high-enough market share. BSD has its holes as well, just smaller and more scarce and not as gaping as the Microsoft® SecurityHole®™ Technology.

One special gripe I have with Apple is that their designers apparently forgot what the right angle is. 90 degrees, or pi/2, is apparently not hip enough. Bah. And their color selection - where is the elegant silver-black combination? What about the dark, deep, sapphire blue?

Of course, you could do all that other stuff if you don't have any social life. But I expect most people have girl friends to date and concerts to attend and don't want to spend all their time hunched over some computer.

Nothing is free. So you have to 1) either do it yourself, or 2) contract someone to do it for you, or 3) take the risk. It's on you and your constraints and priorities what you will pick. Hint: the option 3 is the most tempting and the worst one and it is only a matter of time until you will be sorry about choosing it.

Either you will adhere to the basic guidelines, or you have no right to complain about anyone other than yourself. The world is harsh place and everything is a tradeoff.


and you call yourself a hacker (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 10:16:42 AM PST
OS X is based on BSD

OS X is based on Mach. As an developer expedient and sop to openly saucy lunatix, Apple has integrated userland s/w and its man pages from FreeBSD, but you can install that stuff on Windows, and if you did, I doubt it would magically become Unix, would it? Try this: type vipw on both NT and OS X. Spot the difference? Me neither.

This has to be said: the nattering lunatix fringe on adequacy buzzes around like a swarm of annoying mosquitoes without ever actually demonstrating a useful knowledge of computers in their comments. I get the sense you lunatix are masters of the same sort of trivial details which made TSR programmers masters of the universe a few years ago. Knowning command line switches to gnu tools is like knowing how to run protected mode games in MS-DOS. Sorry, I didnt mean to reveal your future.


Are you listening, T. Reginald Gibbons? (n/t) (none / 0) (#13)
by budlite on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 11:31:20 AM PST



 
Yep. (none / 0) (#16)
by The Mad Scientist on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 01:45:05 PM PST
OS X is based on BSD


OS X is based on Mach.


According to Apple, quoting,
A Mach 3.0 kernel with support for symmetric multiprocessing.
Based on 4.4BSD with networking from FreeBSD 3.2.


So we're technically right both.

Apple has integrated userland s/w and its man pages from FreeBSD, but you can install that stuff on Windows

Yes? How? Directly, or through some sort of emulation?

and if you did, I doubt it would magically become Unix, would it?

I don't understand what you mean?

If it's a unix port of Windows program, or Windows port of an unix program, or a DOS program running in Linux in DOS emulator, does it matter? What matters is that it runs on the system we need it to run on.

Try this: type vipw on both NT and OS X. Spot the difference? Me neither.

So Bill borrowed what was good on unixes. NT networking is BSD-based too.

This has to be said: the nattering lunatix fringe on adequacy buzzes around like a swarm of annoying mosquitoes without ever actually demonstrating a useful knowledge of computers in their comments.

Hmmm... Anyone here with spare time to refute this claim with some links?

I get the sense you lunatix are masters of the same sort of trivial details which made TSR programmers masters of the universe a few years ago.

And which makes us the masters of the universe today. Wondering what sort of trivial details will be required to master the universe in few more years...

Knowning command line switches to gnu tools is like knowing how to run protected mode games in MS-DOS.

Ever tried to write a script with graphical-interface tools to call? Commandline options are essential. GUI is just an eye-candy.

Good old times of good games. Actually, good old times of 8-bit computers and games that were based on a good idea, instead of on fast 3D graphics...

Sorry, I didnt mean to reveal your future.

Actually, you could be right. I hadn't played TFX for ages and I quite miss it; wondering what it will do on a modern computer... Together with GameWizard that offers nearly unlimited cannon ammo, and a custom mission with as much of MiGs as possible (I think 25) on the smallest possible area, it offers the right mix of an arcade and a simulator. Screw the missiles, they're for cowards. Screw the waypoints - give me a cannon, a pair of jet engines, and whatever moves becomes a primary target.

Scramble!


myths (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:15:23 PM PST
NT networking is BSD-based too.

No, it is not based on the BSD. The original Windows TCP stack was bought from an australian company who's name eludes me but which sounds vaguely like Wollowang. This was during the days of Trumpet Winsock, when the internet caught MS off guard. Anyway, that stack did have had a BSD pedigree but it doesnt matter because MS soon got their priorities in gear and wrote an original MS stack, the same stack you find today in NT. The current Windows TCP stack has less BSD heritage than the Lunix stack. Much less. None at all, in fact.

The only vestige of BSD code in MS TCP is in the command line ftp client no one uses.

In future, know this: MS has a standing policy forbidding their employees from even reading Open Sauce code lest it infect MS code. It is no accident MS code runs so much better than Lunix.

See, here's a guy like me who just doesnt give a shit about this stuff, yet I manage to know more about it than the lunix dunderheads who have committed their abject lives to living it large.


Hahahaha! (none / 0) (#20)
by budlite on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:37:50 PM PST
It is no accident MS code runs so much better than Lunix.

Thou Microdroids really cracketh me up!


does lunix come with a calculator? (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 04:17:49 PM PST
if so, add up the bugs and insecurities in Microsoft's stack and compare that number to bugs and insecurities in Lunix networking. There's a reason why Lunix the OS sucks compared to Windows, the OS, you know, and that reason has nothing to do with promiscuous scripting in the MSIE application.


Let's see here (1.00 / 1) (#25)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 05:17:11 PM PST
>>>>>>>>There's a reason why Lunix the OS sucks compared to Windows, the OS, you know, and that reason has nothing to do with promiscuous scripting in the MSIE application.</b>

Let's see I can go after this a couple of ways. Personally I have never used LUnix. I have no need from Little Unix for the Commodore 64/128 machines. Therefore I wouldn't know if it comes with a calculator.

Now maybe you mean Linux. Linux is a kernel. No it does not come with a calculator. Hell, niether does the Windows, and DOS kernels. However, the Windows OS and most Linux distros designed for workstations, servers, desktop and such do. I hope that's simple enought for you.

Also Linux is not an OS. It's a kernel. It combined with various utilities, apps, etc make it an OS. However, it's not necessary to use linux to make an OS. So there goes that argument.

Now, do you really want me to start listing bugs that are not part of Internet Explorer? Since Linux based OSes can be design for workstations and server we would need to compare it with a similar Windows product. Since there is no server version of XP (not without a registry hack) we'll compare Windows 2000. I'll skip the obvious Outlook Express (it's not IE), MSN Meesenger, Media Player, and UPnP. Here we go:

1. Remote Storage Oplocks Failures Cause
2. Reduction in System Performance
3. Slow DirectX Performance in Windows 2000
4. Memory Leak When Deleting File Control Blocks
5. Error Message Configuring Optional Components in Windows 2000
6. Error Message Copying Large Amounts of Data from an Offline Drive
7. Stop 0x00000027 RDR_FILE_SYSTEM" Error Message During Shutdown
8. Computer May Hang on Restart After LUNs are Increased to 160+
9. STOP 0x50 in Usbhub.sys with Surprise Removal of Plug and Play USB Hub
10. Error Message: The Internal Database Maintained by the Dfs Service Is Corrupt
11. Stop 0x0000001E" Error Message After Changing Color Depth
12. Disk Defragmenter on FAT32 Volume Hangs with Long Path Names
13. DirectInput Programs Lose Critical Mouse Events
14. Cannot Back Up Registry or Event Logs on Dynamic Volumes
15. Interactive Logon Allows Unauthorized Actions in Desktop Process
16. Application May Not Open Handle to Plug and Play Device Connected to a USB Hub
17. Command Processor May Not Parse Excessive Arguments Properly
18. Ntbackup Buffer for Esebcli2.dll Annotation Is Too Small
19. Stop 0xA" Trying to Reuse a Freed File Handle
20. Processes Running Under Services.exe Blocking
21. Resolved Vulnerability in the SMAPI Port
22. Screen Saver Policy May Not Be Applied
23. Clusdisk Hides Disks Without Signatures
24. PC Card Driver Updated to Allow Interrupt Sharing
25. Possible Data Loss in the Locally Cached File
26. Memory.dmp File Is Missing or Contains Corrupted Data
27. Clear Text Password May Not Be Recognized
28. Bandwidth Leak with IEEE 1394 Video Capture
29. Operating System Not Found" Running Setup with Compaq Smart Array Controllers
30. Drwtsn32 Does Not Work If User Does Not Have Write Rights to Registry Key
31. FileReplicaConn Counter Objects Do Not Log Values in System Monitor
32. Eject Request May Cause "Stop 0xA" Error Message

Damn! Hell, and that's far from even half of the Base Operating System BUGS. Let's see there's also Directory Services bugs, and Internet Information Services and COM+ bugs.


no, i'm sorry, you missed the point of the exercis (none / 0) (#27)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 05:55:43 PM PST
you have to compare the number of bugs in the windows kernel with the roach motel known as the Lunix kernel. Understand? I'm not interested in evidence that software has bugs, I want you Lunix morons to learn once and for all serious bugs in Lunix are the rule, not the exception. It's a piddling, underperforming, underwhelming, technologically obsolete, amateurly written bug fest.

It's literally the worst OS in the marketplace.


So.... (none / 0) (#29)
by budlite on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 06:08:12 PM PST
Why don't YOU give proof then?


idiot (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 06:14:46 PM PST
visit a security site or audit security lists. The windows kernel is remarkably bug free compared to any version of unix, and Lunix is the most bug ridden of all unicies. The problem with you Lunix morons is that you know nothing about NT internals. Honestly, Lunatix are the most unsophisticated computer geeks I've ever come across on the internet. You're all just shrill morons.


ok AR (none / 0) (#31)
by DG on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 06:37:10 PM PST
ya know it would help your case if you could come up with some real evidence that the linux kernel is buggier than the nt kernel, instead of attacking linux users, people like you make me sick, come on get some examples for the question or shut up and stop wasting all our time with your mindless bitching, you make the signal to noise worse
� 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

sorry, i dont work for criminals (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 07:23:45 PM PST
perhaps if you took a moment away from stealing mp3s and dos-ing the internet you could invest that moment where I refuse to invest it for you: "visit a security site or audit security lists."

you make the signal to noise worse

This is true. I really should ignore you Marxist-Lenixists. Everyone should.


Nasty little bugger (none / 0) (#33)
by Fanged on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 08:21:15 PM PST
I've been reading adequacy for a while now and it astounds me that the number of people (i'm assuming your all people) who post articles, specifically the flamers, that have such little to no knowledge of their chosen subject.

Now, in regards to you misinformed and completely arrogant post AR, try doing some _REAL_ research.
Make sure you know the difference between LUnix and Linux, and for God's sake and everyone elses, don't get your info from T. Reginald Gibbons.

Just how do you know what happens in an NT config?
Do you work for Microsoft coding W2K?

Perhaps you sould listen to the FREE advice being given by people who KNOW what they are talking about. Most of the poeple on adequacy, who you term hackers, are trying to enlighten you on how the world actually works. If they were the malicious type that you so despise, you wouldn't see them here!

End Flames
Fanged



<=X=>

hackers are enlightening? (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 10:42:42 PM PST
That's a novel criminal defense.

Most of the poeple on adequacy, who you term hackers, are trying to enlighten you on how the world actually works.

Actually, I already knew Lunix had 0.24% marketshare in the real world. Has it gone down already? I guess market decline is the fastest thing about Lunix.


Just goes to show that... (none / 0) (#44)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 01:35:40 AM PST
100 - 0.24 = 99.76% of people cant use computers to their full potential.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
Hmmm (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 09:11:21 PM PST
You know, AR sounds a lot like DMG does... Maybe with a bit of T. Reginold Gibbons thrown in for good measure. Perhaps their secret dirty love child? *SHUDDER*


 
i get so sick of your type.. (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by DG on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 09:13:50 PM PST
why would i DoS any servers?, they don't work very well as it is.. fine with me if you spend your life filled with paranoid delusions that everything and everyone is out to get you, but on the case of all your comments i do look at securty sites and news groups and such..would be something if you really did becuse you put forth no real proof of anything you claim.. so basicly you have nothing to say so as i said before sit-down and shut up unless you have something useful to say
� 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

i'd prefer to talk to your lawyer, actually (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 10:53:36 PM PST
Just to keep it civil and not unduly prejudice your case.

so as i said before sit-down and shut up unless you have something useful to say

I think a statement of Window's superiority over Lunix is useful if not a little too obvious. You know Lunix sucks, you know Lunix apps are worthless knockoffs of real american ingenuity. I know you know all this deep down somewhere in your corrupted common sense, but I cannot fanthom why you persist in deluding yourself when the only reward for thinning fat finns with unapologetic worship is prison "friendships" in your immediate future. Are you secretly homosexual?


ahh (none / 0) (#45)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 01:39:06 AM PST
all i saw when reading your post was:

*blah* *blah* *blah*
*moan moan moan*
*bitch* *bitch* *bitch*

why do you bother? How many people are in the world? and how many of those do you think actually care?
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

your answer, kind potato sir (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:55:27 AM PST
how many of those do you think actually care?

0.24% and falling.


yea (none / 0) (#72)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 12:00:04 PM PST
your losing your linux audience then ;) I suspect the increasing numbers of them are heading elsewhere


<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

 
The best lawyer... (none / 0) (#53)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:14:41 AM PST
...for your case would be AK47.

Or, if we'd want to keep American tradition, let's call Smith & Wesson.

Seems that the gene pool needs a little of chlorine.


ehhhhh (none / 0) (#55)
by budlite on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:27:47 AM PST
Could we make is something just as potent, but something I'm not physically allergic to?


 
in for a penny, in for a pound (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:41:50 AM PST
the best lawyer... for your case would be AK47.

I suppose if you're going to hack you may as well utter illegal death threats, too; it's the congenital criminal in you, isnt it?

Seems that the gene pool needs a little of chlorine.

Yes, congenital criminals usually begin life getting picked on by the other kids for pissing in the water, dropping fly balls, skating on their ankles, etc. Your freudian slip is showing.


 
Fine whatever (none / 0) (#62)
by DG on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:15:42 AM PST
You seem to be unable to have a constructive discussion about anything related to computers.. so just stop trying to sound like you know something about them, till you can prove anything i think this discussion is at an end, you have proven nothing, nothing at all. I was looking for someone who could look beyond thier narrow-minded view of the world, oh well i guess it's no skin off my nose, by the way you are more pitiful for resorting to questioning my sexuality, it's petty and weak-minded, grow-up, act your age, I try to at least act as an adult, and all I get is sophmoric insults.
� 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

curiouser and curiouser (none / 0) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:36:26 AM PST
you are more pitiful for resorting to questioning my sexuality, it's petty and weak-minded, grow-up, act your age, I try to at least act as an adult, and all I get is sophmoric insults.

Is it just you or do all hackers instantiate[1] homosexuality as an insult to mankind? If so, you should know that hacking is punishable by ad hoc internatinal tribunals for crimes against humanity. You know, this homophobe talk wont go over very well with your prison buddies. It's best you drop that nasty habit right now.

[1] From the big words explained to small minds department. Instantiation is similiar to using a Class. Instantiating an object is what allows you to actually use objects in your program. You can write hundreds and hundreds of class declarations, but none of that code will be used until you create an instance of an object. A class declaration is merely a template for what an object should look like. When you instantiate an object, C++ follows the class declaration as if it were a blueprint for how to create an instance of that object.


Like i said (none / 0) (#98)
by DG on Fri Mar 29th, 2002 at 12:21:32 PM PST
You know nothing about anything, you have yet to prove anything, and all you can do is resort to ad hominem attacks. quit putting words in my mouth or can you think of anything on-topic or useful to say.. till you do i think i'll quit posting on this topic it bores me, and is a waste of time
� 2002, DG. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

 
Windows kernel IS buggy (none / 0) (#43)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 01:32:12 AM PST
Ive only been at uni for half a year and this january I had to reformat my harddrive and reinstall windows 2000 cuz it fucked up. My friends have the same problem. One friend also had to reformat his hard drive cuz of win 2000.

Another friend was running WinME and she had been experiencing the dreaded "explorer.exe has caused an illegal operation" followed by system crash for over 4 months. However she had been suffering in silence simply because she didnt know what reformatting was or how to reinstall windows. We checked her computer out and it was virus free - sure it was full of junk programs but isnt windows supposed to handle programs? Anyway the cause of the crashes was usually after clicking on My Computer. In the end there was nothing we could do so we reinstalled the OS for her.
Now she tells us afterwards that her computer was actually good compared to some of her friends. We couldnt honestly believe that people could have a more fucked up computer than she'd had. Let alone that these people are living with it. I expect to have to reinstall WinME again for her in the future..give it a few months.

ANOTHER friend - again female was running Windows 95. After installing a Network card (correctly), Windows 95 froze at the splash screen. We tried all sorts of things but it wouldnt work. After we removed the Network card again it worked fine. Isnt windows supposed to handle hardware gracefully? What sort of shitty coding causes it to crash? I dont care whether the network card was faulty or not - it shouldnt crash windows.

Thats all the flatmates I have who run Windows - all of them have had their computer fucked up. The other one has an IMac - she suffered a hardware problem (the fuse in the power supply blew).

Anyway thats my moan. Ive yet to find one Windows box which doesnt crash or need reinstallations every 6 months.

Actually Windows 3.1 has to be the exception here..I never had trouble with that.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

Windows 3.1... (none / 0) (#54)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:24:46 AM PST
...were less problematic because they were just a GUI over DOS, not a heap of spaghetti code of a GUI over DOS that is trying to make an impression of ebing a full-scale operation system.

What was ever wrong with *.ini files???

What was ever wrong with the chance to reinstall Windows without reinstalling all the apps???

Why do we have to cope with that abysmal idiocy called Registry?

On a side note... is there a non-proprietary solution for remote install of Windows from a file server? Something similar to saving a disk image? Or if I will attempt to do so, Windoze will choke and die, like they (W2k) done after replacing a motherboard for an identical one?


 
your evidence is overwhelming (none / 0) (#58)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:49:10 AM PST
My friend saw a UFO! Yep, he was minding his business, feeding chiclets to the dog, and he saw one in the sky behind the gazebo. The proof is how the dog cocked its head in that funny way dogs have when their minds are somewhere between confused and pleading.


Seen it too. (none / 0) (#61)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 06:29:16 AM PST
My friend saw a UFO!

I seen couple of them too. UFO stands for Unidentified Flying Object - anything hanging or moving in the air that you can't say what it is. However, vast majority - and all the ones I ever seen - after identification turns out to be nice and weird atmospheric phenomenons.

If it has to be called an UFO, it has to be unidentified. If it gets identified - regardless if it turns out to be a cloud, a light reflection, reentry of a stage of a rocket engine, or a genuine alien spaceship - it isn't UFO anymore.


explain the dog's reaction, wise guy (none / 0) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 07:40:58 AM PST
On closer inspection, you didnt have a dog to confirm your worst fears, did you? No, you did not. Ergo, Lunix is better than Windows 2000. Heh, I'm quick study to you Lunix whiz kids. Oh well, off to download slackerware.


 
Yea well (none / 0) (#69)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 11:50:28 AM PST
I know it because everything I said was truth. You probably know it too but honestly I dont care if you dont believe me - it changes nothing.

At the moment I have another Windows problem. On startup it announces that it cant find msnp32.dll and therefore windows networking wont work. So how do I fix that one? Honestly if you know please tell me. Please dont say I have to reformat and reinstall again.

(and no I cant just copy the file over from the windows CD because Microsofts wonderful anti-piracy methods mean that it wont work)
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

delete networking devices (none / 0) (#73)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 12:02:24 PM PST
reboot. Follow the instructions when they ask you to insert your Windows CD. When networking comes back up, brag about how l33t you are in an instant message to your hacker buddies. Alternatively, stick to Lunix. You deserve each other.

Honestly, I despair.


It shouldn't be normal... (none / 0) (#74)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 12:43:04 PM PST
...for something that calls itself a Finished Product to forget its settings or lose files (pseudo)randomly. It's good that by removing the damaged part it (when you are lucky) gets installed back, but wouldn't it be much better if it wouldn't fail at first?

Linux can be sometimes a bitch to set up (if you want something that the default installers don't do themselves), but once it is set up it holds in shape. Windows tended to do the most bizzare things to me. From when I moved the mission-critical systems of my company from NT to Linux, the outages we had were reduced to the ones caused by electricity or our ISP. (Or when disk space ran out, and it will not repeat as it is guarded automatically now and limits on problematic processes were imposed. I was a greenhorn back then.) Due to simple server-based email screening we also had not a single email worm related problem. Contrary to this, our Windows machines need to get their asses wiped nearly every day, incidence of problems per machine is much higher. It's also a bit nontrivial to save a Windows machine configuration and restore it back after tinkering - apparently there was something wrong on textfile-based configurations so they had to go. After all, it isn't 1970 anymore, so the satisfying, decades-proved approach had to go to make place for something new and oh so very beta...


you radiate intelligence! (none / 0) (#76)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 02:33:22 PM PST
it shouldnt be normal for something that calls itself a Finished Product to forget its settings or lose files (pseudo)randomly

After you petition MS to remove the deleteRandomFile() system call, find another occupation.


You're naive. (none / 0) (#82)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 04:58:04 PM PST
After you petition MS to remove the deleteRandomFile() system call, find another occupation.

Like you wouldn't know the response.

"It will be corrected in the next version."

I wonder if they still think anyone believes it anymore.


a big fat clue for you (none / 0) (#83)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:12:39 PM PST
windows doesnt randomly delete files. Now be a clever scientist and admit the impish magic pixies under the hood are actually a combination of operator error and ignorance.


Big, fat, buggy - like Windows (none / 0) (#84)
by The Mad Scientist on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:28:20 PM PST
windows doesnt randomly delete files. Now be a clever scientist and admit the impish magic pixies under the hood are actually a combination of operator error and ignorance.

Or a nearly-well working hardware autodetect code (that works well in 98% of cases and in the rest it screws the machine up), and installation/deinstallation programs that are trying to be clever and in their zeal overwrite or erase something they shouldn't - and you can't figure out what is happening unless you become a criminal and decompile the install package and read its scripts (there are utilities for ie. Installshield that can open the exefile like a can opener).

Everytimes I see a crawling progress bar I long for the messy text outputs of "make install". /lib and /usr/lib are messy too, but still less obscure than \windows\system. Also, try to find why a program in your pet system is crashing; I at least have gdb and strace.


 
ta thanks (none / 0) (#75)
by PotatoError on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 12:46:46 PM PST
But I cant do that cuz I dont have the network card drivers on hand (the disk is lost in heaps of stuff lol..but ill find it).

Also ive got a 56k modem but im getting pings of over 600ms. Its not my ISP cuz on the other computer its normal at about 200ms. I dont know what could be causing this - ive reinstalled the modem and the dial up adapter. Sorry to be using you as a technical support lol.
<<JUMP! POGO POGO POGO BOUNCE! POGO POGO POGO>>

my suggestion (none / 0) (#77)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 02:45:20 PM PST
You're a clever hacker, write your own driver. I can assure you that Windows compiles and runs code every bit as deterministically as Lunix, and it's quite obvious that you have no other recourse, that the situation with your box is so borked a fucking secretary working weekends at the SPCA to buy butter biscuits for her great, great grandchildren can solve it. Sadly, she'd probably defer to the resident office Lunix geek who will yell at her for being such a lamer and using Windows instead of compiling her own kernel after staying up all night learning to code drivers in shell script.

Get busy hacker -- if you dont have any pressing illegal activity to commit, of course.


 
funny what gets reported as a bug (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 06:07:55 PM PST
3. Slow DirectX Performance in Windows 2000

You know, Lunix "developers" could learn a thing about that list of bugs. Namely, develop software under CVS so that a fucking list can actually exist instead of pretending lusers have gremlins in their CPU or are too stupid to RTFM. I nominate the following entry: "1. Performs poorly once electricity is applied to computer."


No (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by jvance on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 08:59:15 PM PST
CVS is an Open Sores "product." You must mean Microsoft Visual SourceSafe.
--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

Wrong (none / 0) (#51)
by because it isnt on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 03:34:19 AM PST
CVS is an Open Sores "product."

I thought CVS was a pharmacy.
adequacy.org -- because it isn't

That's what Leonin Torvaldski thinks too! (n/t) (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:51:43 AM PST
Small world.


 
Wrong (none / 0) (#10)
by jvance on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 09:43:38 AM PST
First, it's spelled L.U.N.I.X, not Linux. Get it right. Of course, after reading this article I now understand why you hackers insist on obfuscating the truth with this intentional misspelling.

Second, since OS X is based on L.U.N.I.X, it is therefore an illegal hacker operating system. I'll bet you and your little criminal buddies would just love it if we backdoored our Compaqs and Dells with your hackerware. Now run along, and "upload" some "pron" off the Inter - Net. The adults have weighty matters to discuss.




--
Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

No...No...Your wrong (1.00 / 1) (#109)
by Jonothan on Tue Apr 16th, 2002 at 11:58:41 PM PST
It's spelled Linux...

No versions of MAC OS or Linux are illegal (as declared by every country in the western world), thats like saying if I made my own program it would be instanmtly classified as illegal. In which case Windows which provides tools to do this, would also be classified as illegal.
Also no foprtune 500 companies would trust there servers with any version of Windows, they like many others use a *nix based OS.

Your blind assertions are meaningless. I understand that you cling to Windows, because your computer knowlege dose not alow you to get past those child proof buttons. This dose not mean you have to condem everything else.

And no I am not a criminal....


Good Lord. (none / 0) (#111)
by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:20:06 PM PST
Is there a template somewhere?



Good Lord. (none / 0) (#112)
by nathan on Thu Apr 18th, 2002 at 08:28:51 PM PST
The Platonic G**k?

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

You know... (none / 0) (#113)
by hauntedattics on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 07:33:46 AM PST
in my world, "Platonic G**k" is at best a redundancy.



humbug (none / 0) (#114)
by nathan on Fri Apr 19th, 2002 at 08:05:43 AM PST
They talk big, but believe me, all those relationships are 'platonic.'

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

 
Don't forget the fan thing. (none / 0) (#19)
by elenchos on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 02:25:46 PM PST
(nt)


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


 
Read This (none / 0) (#101)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Mar 31st, 2002 at 06:33:26 PM PST
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=hackie


 
you ignorant little n00b (none / 0) (#108)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Apr 15th, 2002 at 04:04:21 AM PST
You little house scenario unequals the statement made about hackers.

If your lock is disfunctioning and a person is entering your home without using a key, but using a different tool, wont you buy this guy a beer when you find him in youre home and addressing you about it? No, this guy will bloody SHOOT him. Supposedly the hacker finds his way out of your house, he will fuck YOU over then, he knows the weak spot of your house and CAN abuse it.

Are you willing to turn your back on that?


 
What is a Hacker (none / 0) (#115)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jun 7th, 2002 at 01:29:51 PM PST
> correct me if I'm wrong, there is universal agreement that both
> hackers and crackers break in to computers that do not belong to them.

No, there is not. Traditionally, a hacker is someone who writes computer code or who modifies existing code to fix bugs or to add new function. (He is usually getting paid for it, too, although some people take it up as a hobby.)

A hacker is not someone who tresspasses for any reason--that's a cracker. This is all despite what em or anyone else may say. The term also carries the connotation of marathon coding ("all nighters") and less than perfect code. It often carries the additional connotation that the design phase was brief or non-existant. (Typically you should design your program first, then code to the design. If you just sit down and start keying in code off the top of your head, then you're a hacker. If you're under a tight deadline or trying to fix a production problem, you may have to hack even though you know better. Hacked code is usually much harder to maintain down the road then well desiged programs but it can often be faster to write.)

A related term is hack, which is a section of code that works but that is not elegant and therefore will probably be hard to maintain. When a programmer describes his code as being a hack it means it's not something with which he's satisfied. An example of this: "I finally got the new feature to work. It took all night and it is a total hack but it'll have to do for now."

I remember the days when hacker only meant someone who did binge coding. Somewhere along the line, some of these hackers (but by no means most) started using their skills to break into to other people's systems. The media seems to have picked up on the use of the term hacker to mean people who break into other systems, and thus among the general public it now also carries that meaning. In fact, younger programmers themselves often understand only the mass-media definition of hacker. However, among my profession, and especially among the old-timers like myself, a hacker is considered to be someone who likes to hack at code (or who is good at it), i.e. a skilled programmer. Confusingly, we have adopted the newer meaning as well, and will sometimes use both simultaneously, as in "I was trying to hack that code last night when a hacker crashed the system!"

We programmers usually don't use the term hacker to describe ourselves to non-programmers to avoid confusion, but we often still use the term in its older sense among ourselves. Sometimes it's complementary, sometimes not. We say that someone is "quite a hacker" if we admire his coding skills. Or we say he's "just a hacker" when we don't think much of his design skills. And when someone calls himself a hacker, it's usually meant in a vaguely self-deprecating way. Em's buddy Rick probably assumed that em would understand him; after all, he was in Silicon Valley. There are lots of hackers there! Or maybe Rick spends so much time with computer folks that he's just not very good at dealing with non-computer types (a common syndrome).

There are some people who make a self-serving distinction between hackers who just test other people's security (without the owner's permission) and crackers who break into systems with the intent to steal or destroy data. This is a bogus distinction, since in both cases tresspassing ("cracking") is involved. Tresspassing is a crime and there is nothing altruistic about it IMO.

Well, that's my rant and I'm done with it.



Cheers,
dave k.


 
Secret Language? (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 01:38:51 PM PST
A secret language from communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words??

Wow... I'm from Brazil... and there is nothing like this!

I wonder where the author had those strange ideas... tsk tsk tsk...


Strange ideas indeed. (none / 0) (#21)
by RobotSlave on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 03:02:04 PM PST
I used to go to nightclubs in Boston where Brazilian teenagers did this cool fighting dance that they called Capoeira.

I always thought it was something they made up after watching a lot of kung-fu movies and listening to hip-hop and smoking pot, but I never asked any of them about it directly.

Say, you're from Brazil. Do you know anything about this Capoeira stuff, or is it just an invention of American street kids?


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Capoeira (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 03:27:34 PM PST
Capoeira is a west african martial art, born in Angola, disguised as a dance in Brazil to deceive the masters during slavery days. You see it performed mainly in the region of Salvador. It exists, with some differences, in the islands of the Caribbean too, where it is known under other names: laghia for example in Martinique or Saint Lucia. It is said that a good capoeirista doesn't fear a karateka.


Fascinating. (none / 0) (#23)
by RobotSlave on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 04:01:28 PM PST
I am intrigued about this deception of "the masters during slavery days." Do you know any more about that? It sounds interesting.

I'm positively marooned here at work, and a bit of history to while away the time would be most welcome.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Mastering ... (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Mar 26th, 2002 at 05:40:37 PM PST
The art of deceit, of illusion, is the defense of the oppressed. In regions where the white masters were a minority, and/or with strong roman catholic influence, they would definitely prohibit any fighting (dangerous for their property, the slave), any practicing of fighting (dangerous for them), any pagan ritual, but they woul allow dancing and a little drinking. So the fights and the practicing went on, as acrobatic dancing (Those fights were already codified in Africa, they just made them a little more artistic, more choreographic, with more harmonies in the music).

In more puritan regions, like the United States, the main, if not one, distraction for the slaves was the church. They sang, and they could write their own songs. If you listen carefully to the old gospels, and if you know the keys, you will be surprised by the meaning (Canaan = Canada, and the songs about Canaan were giving all the instructions to go to Canada).


Do tell! (none / 0) (#48)
by RobotSlave on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 02:04:47 AM PST
I've heard some mention of this hidden communication through song in North American slave culture. Do you imagine there was any sort of hidden communication in South American slave and quilombo culture, or do you suppose they were content to simply practice martial arts disguised as dance?

On another note, why do you suppose modern practitioners of Capoeira are so attached to its African origins, when it is not practised in Africa today, and it seems clear it was shaped in part by the indiginous South American people living in the quilombos? Is it tied in with the semi-mythological aspects of the story of Zumbi, do you suppose? Or maybe you don't have to read too much into it, there. I mean, there isn't much mention of escaped slaves living in native North American settlements in your average American classroom, either.

Hey, I wonder where the word "marooned" comes from? I mean, how did a color come to describe isolation, you know? It seems a little weird.

This is just great stuff! Keep it coming. You sure seem to know a lot about it.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

...con el cimarron que se va pal monte (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 03:25:01 AM PST
A sort of hidden communication in South America and quilombos? Sincerely, I don't know. I would say yes (there are remnants of such communication in the West Indies) but I have no proof of that, and unfortunately, I never discussed the subject with the descendants of quilombeiros I met in Brazil.

Why modern practitioners are so attached to the African origins? Well, why do Black Americans want to be called African-American? Why is Kwanza taking the place of Xmas? Why did Marcus Garvey prophecised and funded Rastafari? What about C�saire, Senghor, Damas, and the N�gritude? Why "Say it loud, I'm black and I'm proud" or "Black is beautiful"?

For what I have seen less than 3 weeks ago, Capoeira is still practised in Angola, and is very far from its death bed. It is not very different from the brazilian form, which is mainly african.

Marooned has nothing to do with color. It comes from the spanish cimarron (I don't know where the spanish word comes from), meaning "domestic animal gone to the wild". By the way, marooned means abandoned, forsaken, isolated too.


That was like pulling teeth. (none / 0) (#52)
by RobotSlave on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 03:46:19 AM PST
Now, compare:

"A secret language from communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words?? Wow... I'm from Brazil... and there is nothing like this!

With this:

"A sort of hidden communication in South America and quilombos? Sincerely, I don't know. I would say yes"

Now then. I think you'll find that Capoeira was exported from Brazil to Angola (just as it has been exported to many other nations), rather than continuously practised from pre-colonial times to the present. There is plenty of evidence of fighting dance in Africa, to be sure, but not under the name "Capoeira."

 

I'm trying to teach you something, here. Just because you're from a country doesn't mean a foreigner can't teach you something about your own land. Pay attention to em when he discusses languages. He knows what he's talking about.


© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

Well, you're pulling teeth in the wrong mouth. (none / 0) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 05:35:18 AM PST
I must apologize. I should sign my posts, or become a member of this assembly. The first post in that thread was not mine. The others yes. I am not Brazilian, but I have been there sometimes. I am always willing to learn something, and I do appreciate your attempt. I agree with you, a foreigner can teach me something, even a lot, about my country, and in fact, it has happened (a linguist at the university). Now, about the fighting dances of Africa not known under the name of capoeira, you are right. The only Africans I have met who were calling their dance capoeira were Angolans. I didn't ask them their reason to do so. In Brazil I have heard of Capoeira d'Angola.

I know em knows what he is talking about when he discusses languages. I do not pretend to know something about that (that was not the subject), and he is a linguist.


 
On secret language and capoeira (none / 0) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 09:07:55 AM PST
Well, i'm a brazilian.

I'm not from african origin, but i have many friends that are...

About that secret language stuff... I never heard about that. Never. There is plenty of dialects here im Brazil, but not a dialect with african origin. The african language helped in shaping our "brazilian portuguese", and the african culture had some influence in our culture. But the actual people that descended from africans were too widespread to share a commom secret language. They are all around the country, and their dialects are shaped by very strong regional influences.
There is a few that still lives at the old quilombo sites, and they are, at most, apart from normal society. They could share a african-based language, but it can't be generalized as a secret language of the slaves...

Capoeira is a fighting style very common here. Almost every major city has many schools teaching it... It mixes acrobatic fighting with dance. Capoeristas are know to be very resistant, as the blows they share are somewhat strong. The best schools can be found in Salvador, Rio de Janeiro and S�o Paulo. It uses a primitive instrument (berimbau) as a music base. The berimbau is a string instrument (picture it as a bow with a small bowl attached). The string is played, and the sound reverberates at the bowl...



 
You are ignorant, and arrogant to boot (none / 0) (#105)
by em on Sun Apr 7th, 2002 at 03:10:36 PM PST
A secret language from communities of descendants of escaped slaves in Brazil, identical to Portuguese in grammar, but with all the words replaced by African words?? Wow... I'm from Brazil... and there is nothing like this!

Cafund�, in the state of S�o Paulo, is such a language. From this citation of the standard descriptive work on Cafund�:
The Cafund� language is in reality mostly Kimbundo and Kikongo lexicon with a local BVP [Brazilian Vernacular Portuguese] structure.
And Cafund� is not the only one; there is also the Negro da Costa secret language in Minas Gerais.

Unlike you, I don't go around claiming statements about the variation within a language spoken by 200 million people are false merely because they fail to reflect my limited experience.
--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org


 
To concerned parents ... (none / 0) (#68)
by nitallica on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 11:49:30 AM PST
First let me say this: That article is a joke! Anyone who believes all that garbage shouldn't allow their kids to learn to drive either -- they will use their cars as deadly killing machines. (hah!) I think Mr. Gibbons guy had the right idea *IN THEORY*, but if you really want to know what your kids do online, sit down with them and WATCH them! It's the same principle as with what they watch on TV, the music they listen to, who their friends are, etc. Get involved and ask questions. Don't assume everything your kid is doing is legal, but don't assume everything is illegal either. Don't assume anything - just ASK! With the guidelines this guy's laid out, he'd make even the most innocent tech-savvy kid out to be the next Kevin Mitnick (speaking of jokes). And the part about Quake - get a clue, genius! I played Quake for years, and I'm not a hacker. I averaged about 10-12 hours every day on my computer. I learned about hardware and software, and what's vulnerable and what's safe. I even studied viruses - curious about damage they did, so as to protect my system from them. I did all that, and I turned out ok ... and I'm a girl, go stick that in your statistics! Today, I get paid to do the things I learned as a kid, and still enjoy it. That wouldn't have been possible if I had lived in the Gibbons household.


Interesting. (none / 0) (#87)
by derek3000 on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 05:38:47 AM PST
I played Quake for years, and I'm not a hacker.

No, but you are into 'goth', right? 'Nuff said.


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

And that has what to do with what, exactly (n/t) (none / 0) (#88)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 06:05:24 AM PST



She's obviously satanic, that's what. {n/t} (none / 0) (#89)
by derek3000 on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 07:47:43 AM PST



----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Quake = Satanist? (none / 0) (#90)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 08:33:54 AM PST
Define Satanic? One who worships Satan, right? Does wearing black, feeling sorry for yourself, and writing bad poetry equal Satanic? Do all Satanists walk around in black with chains and goofy make-up? I seriously doubt it. Satanists are normal people with different beliefs, not different costumes...

Also, what proof do you have that only Satanists play Quake? I've played Quake, I'm not a big fan of it, but that doesn't make me a Satanist. It sounds like people like you are one of those blaming video games and TV for the downfall of society, instead of bad parenting and shoddy schools.

So, remember kiddies, just because someone looks different and thinks differently than you do, it doesn't make them evil bad meanies!


Re: your retarded question: YES. (none / 0) (#92)
by derek3000 on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 11:26:45 AM PST
Does wearing black, feeling sorry for yourself, and writing bad poetry equal Satanic? Do all Satanists walk around in black with chains and goofy make-up?


----------------
"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

RE: Your retarder reply. (none / 0) (#93)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 11:55:40 AM PST
Ok, you explain to me in an intelligent manner how wearing black, feeling sorry for yourself, writing bad poetry and wearing goofy make-up makes you a Satanist.

Couldn't that make one an Anti-Clown? I've yet to meet anyone Gothic that was a Satanist. Gothics are usually people that percieve themselves as outcasts, and so they make themselves look stupid to reinforce this belief. I know because a few of my friends went through this stage. (Unfortunately) I had to endure the goofy clothes and the bad poetry while they cried a lot... it was awful.

Gothic = Sad/pathetic/lame
Satanist = Some that worships Satan.
Any similarities? Nope. I'm sure there are a few Satan worshippers out there they do dress and act goofy, but not all of them.


Childishnes (none / 0) (#97)
by walwyn on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:38:01 PM PST
Gothics are usually people that percieve themselves as outcasts, and so they make themselves look stupid to reinforce this belief.

Possible derek3000 has underestimated the poseur nature of Goths. Historically the gothic has well into black magic, satanism, and sexual obsession. However modern goths are nothing more than a fashion accesory.


 
How d'you figure? (n/t) (none / 0) (#91)
by budlite on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 08:44:42 AM PST



 
argh!!! (none / 0) (#96)
by nitallica on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:20:52 PM PST
This is what happens when I have too many windows open and reply to the wrong article! *lol*

My apologies to those who (obviously) think me insane.



 
To concerned parents ... (none / 0) (#102)
by kohi on Mon Apr 1st, 2002 at 10:58:32 AM PST
I agree, 12 years on USENET taught me more practical information than 6 years of computer science. I would never have the job I have today without the knowledge freely given by the so called *hackers*. nitallica nice to see your NYM out and about, Cya in ABC, all the best

kohi jones

kohi@alt.anonymous.messages


 
Invasion of Privacy by Hackers (none / 0) (#85)
by RootComplex on Wed Mar 27th, 2002 at 09:41:53 PM PST
I work abuse at a major ISP, so I spend most days verifying "hack attempt" logs submitted by customers and helping them (or the local law enforcement authorities as necessary) to act opon them. After having done this job for nearly a year and seeing nearly every type of network abuse by hackers, I offer this description of the anti-hacker system I have employed on my server at home.

Opon attempting to gain access to my OSX server or my win2k server, a hacker is greeted by the following message:

"Welcome h4xor,
My games mp3s and porn are available for download on drive ____ at address ____.

Have fun, download all you want, but please don't install any programs on or delete anything from my computer.

root"

Know what? I've *NEVER* had any malicious traffic or virii infections on my system since I put it up. I don't run any firewall, the IPs are both static and on all day. Sure, a few kids pull some data, but it's no big deal.

Or lets put it this way: If some hacker screwed your system, you deserved it. Not necessarily because it was being used for something unethical or amoral, it could just be because whomever administrates it thinks he's smarter than an entire subculture. And shouldn't idoicy be punished?


Absolutely. (none / 0) (#86)
by The Mad Scientist on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 12:36:22 AM PST
I work as an IT everything in a smaller international company. I have one console dedicated to watching server logs in real time. I run paranoid level of logging of next to everything, all kinds of even slightly unusual traffic including ping and traceroute attempts.

As far all I seen were plain vanilla scans - attempts to see if I have vulnerable version of SSH, if my ftp is capable of serving as a relay, if my SOCKS5 is open for all, if my SMTP is an open relay, if I am vulnerable to an lpd exploit. And most often and relatively most annoying Nimda/Code Red worm attempts...

I never had anything yet that would look like a personal attention. All were scripted attempts. Failed ones, which is no wonder as they were rather lower-class threat. If you're doing your homework properly, you are safe against them.

Or lets put it this way: If some hacker screwed your system, you deserved it. Not necessarily because it was being used for something unethical or amoral, it could just be because whomever administrates it thinks he's smarter than an entire subculture.

Definitely.

And shouldn't idoicy be punished?

Not necessarily actively. Idiocy, when unprotected, sooner or later punishes itself.


 
Erik Larson not the first... (none / 0) (#95)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Mar 28th, 2002 at 01:15:17 PM PST
Sloppy search methodology... See Computerworld, February 22, 1982, "College Learns the Lesson of Computer Crime."
Students tend to be security hackers. Breaking the computer's security is the thing to do today. They want to get into the real world of computers because they are bored with the mundane programs they are studying in the classroom. Breaking the computer's security is an easy, safe way to do it," Laskin said.
See also The New York Times, July 26, 1981, "Case of the Purloined Password" by Vin McLellan.
Indeed, because of its very importance, the password directory is the traditional target for what the computer industry calls ''hackers.''

Hackers are technical experts; skilled, often young, computer programmers, who almost whimsically probe the defenses of a computer system, searching out the limits and the possibilities of the machine. Despite their seemingly subversive role, hackers are a recognized asset in the computer indutry, often highly prized.



 
On criminal language and the word 'hacker' (none / 0) (#99)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 10:54:11 AM PST
Wow.
First, I've been programming for 21 years, so any insights I may offer sould be considered especially useless.
Second, the only difference between a cracker, hacker, or programmer is merely situation or intent.
I was actually doing research for a term paper on the current Mideast conflict when I happened to come across this site. After hours of reading anti-Semitic literature, this article by 'em' (whoever the hell that is) popped out at me, because of its similarity with Nazi and Arab treatises against the Jews. You can do this yourself. Read 'em's article again, but this time, insert the word 'Jew' where ever you see the word 'hacker.'
History teaches us that the ignorant attack that which they don't understand. This is a case in point.
A careful re-reading of this article will reveal that 'em' could only pull quotes from the 80's to support his position. This is because hacking was only fun that long ago. We are now in the sixth- and seventh-generation of design models, and anyone who understands anything about computer security realizes that a hacker cannot breach your hard drive if that drive has been removed from the computer at the end of the business day and placed in a safe. This is why the 'denial of service' attack has become so popular: there's nothing else left to do.
What 'em's article is really about is making you afraid. If you are afraid of 'them,' you will listen to him, and this gives 'em' power. This is not a unique situation, of course. Is it not an urban legend that automobile mechanics always screw their customers? Is it not also an urban legend that lawyers always lie?
Here's the truth. The major thrust of the hacking community in the 21st century is not criminal, but anti-corporate. For us geeks, our machines were always a happy place that we could go to deal with the world on our own terms. Now that world is being invaded by corporate interests who wish only to see how much money they can suck out of it before it dies, and then move on. This is why programmers hack. 'Em,' who is probably heavily invested in NASDAQ, is going to lose money unless you believe that ametures who can program are all criminals. This is tantamout to claiming that auto mechanics who use rebuilt, rather than factory authorized parts are criminals. Don't fall for this fallacy of ignorance and fear.
Enough said.


OK (none / 0) (#100)
by walwyn on Sat Mar 30th, 2002 at 01:08:16 PM PST
First, I've been programming for 21 years

You come in here with your braggado, chest all puffed out. Well I say Neophyte! I've been programming for 23 years and I can assure you that em is right on the button with this one.

similarity with Nazi and Arab treatises against the Jews. You can do this yourself. Read 'em's article again, but this time, insert the word 'Jew' where ever you see the word 'hacker.'

Your comment is by no means controversial it is simply offensive, to those like my father fought for the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War and my partner is of Jewish extraction. 'hacker' means one engaged in criminal computer activity, 'Jew' does not.

It is a good job that you do not appear to be studying Computer Science as with logic like yours your programs are likely to suck big time.


Wow... (none / 0) (#107)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 11:51:37 AM PST
I've been programming for 23 years.

Wow, 23 years. What, been taking you that long to program your VCR for the first time?


 
st00p1d (none / 0) (#103)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 08:53:36 AM PST
Holy crap this site is stupid. What a retarded "article". Not every hacker is a criminal. A hacker is anyone who, through inventiveness and knowledge, puts things to uses other than those for which they were originally intended. Obviously there are criminal computer hackers, but they are a small and overly publicized group. People such as the Apollo 13 astronauts and flight crew, and the people who invented Silly Putty, were also hackers, and their positive contributions to society are inestimable. These people understandably do not want to be lumped in with dumbass script kiddies who fuck around with people's computers.


What wonderful spelling. (none / 0) (#104)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 2nd, 2002 at 06:13:56 PM PST
You know what I think is "stupid?" Totally missing the central point of an article. And spelling with numbers instead of letters. That's stupid, too. Just the sort of thing you might expect from a "script kiddie."


Impressed (none / 0) (#106)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Apr 9th, 2002 at 11:39:32 AM PST
Wow, I'm impressed. Spelling... way to go. We all know that is the best argument anyone here can be expected to make.
Wait, I forgot. The majority of this site's readers don't know how to form an actual argument. I keep making that mistake, I expect people to have at least a grade school education.


Not impressed. (none / 0) (#110)
by hauntedattics on Wed Apr 17th, 2002 at 04:17:23 PM PST
Here's the thesis of your post:

A hacker is anyone who, through inventiveness and knowledge, puts things to uses other than those for which they were originally intended.

You make up some half-assed, overgeneralized, whitewashing definition of "hacker" and then blame everyone else for not knowing the definition that, again, you made up. Then based on this "definition," you defame a group of brilliant scientists, military officers and inventors by calling them hackers.

So tell me, how is this "forming an actual argument?" I and the other highly educated regulars at this esteemed site are waiting anxiously for your reply.

Well, either that, or we're going out for a drink.




 

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.