**** I say ***

ok.. I think I get what you are saying. I guess it goes back to a statement I read in Byte Magazine once . It read ” I can make a word mean anything I want it to mean “

pc doc ..

**** I say ***

ok.. I think I get what you are saying. I guess it goes back to a statement I read in Byte Magazine once . It read ” I can make a word mean anything I want it to mean “

pc doc ..

Come on, man — you’re a smart guy. Consider the word “nice”. Do you know what it means now vs. what it used to mean? Look, I’m not arguing about what should be; I’m personally a pretty pedantic person when it comes to this stuff. I’m just telling you how it actually works.

Words change meaning because the meaning is the only value of the word. So if people stop using things correctly (like the pronunciation of nuclear — it’s not NEW-CUE-LER) and take things their own way, then that will become the new “correct” way of using the word.

If we want to fight something we should fight the idea that people who tinker and push the boundaries of understanding being considered criminals. I agree with sticking to THAT fight 100%. My problem is with people who insist on fighting people who use the word Hacker wrong. It’s not wrong; it’s the new definition, as decreed by the majority. It doesn’t change what “real” hackers do, or the morality thereof.

Come on, man — you’re a smart guy. Consider the word “nice”. Do you know what it means now vs. what it used to mean? Look, I’m not arguing about what should be; I’m personally a pretty pedantic person when it comes to this stuff. I’m just telling you how it actually works.

Words change meaning because the meaning is the only value of the word. So if people stop using things correctly (like the pronunciation of nuclear — it’s not NEW-CUE-LER) and take things their own way, then that will become the new “correct” way of using the word.

If we want to fight something we should fight the idea that people who tinker and push the boundaries of understanding being considered criminals. I agree with sticking to THAT fight 100%. My problem is with people who insist on fighting people who use the word Hacker wrong. It’s not wrong; it’s the new definition, as decreed by the majority. It doesn’t change what “real” hackers do, or the morality thereof.

My point is that the battle for the word itself is a battle against ignorance, not just for one word. The people I mentioned fought against the norm because they wished to correct the ignorance around them. If we give up, we give ground to the ignorant.

True, it’s not like battling the idea of a geocentric universe, and it may be a losing battle in this world of morons, but it’s still worth fighting. Are we (as Vincent put it) going to give up to a bunch of morons?

I’m not just talking about one word; I’m addressing a broader problem. To fight ignorance we cannot give up any ground, even in tiny battles like this one.

If this is evolution, it’s backwards and needs to be stopped. Just because a lot of people do it doesn’t make it correct.

Yes, it does still hold its old-school definition within the community, but how long will that last if we allow the ignorant to teach our next generation these falsehoods?

My point is that the battle for the word itself is a battle against ignorance, not just for one word. The people I mentioned fought against the norm because they wished to correct the ignorance around them. If we give up, we give ground to the ignorant.

True, it’s not like battling the idea of a geocentric universe, and it may be a losing battle in this world of morons, but it’s still worth fighting. Are we (as Vincent put it) going to give up to a bunch of morons?

I’m not just talking about one word; I’m addressing a broader problem. To fight ignorance we cannot give up any ground, even in tiny battles like this one.

If this is evolution, it’s backwards and needs to be stopped. Just because a lot of people do it doesn’t make it correct.

Yes, it does still hold its old-school definition within the community, but how long will that last if we allow the ignorant to teach our next generation these falsehoods?

**** I say ****

Actually, science, like language has laws that are formed when a group of people in a community test a theory to test a hypothesis to to form a consensus that upholds such a law. it is not as precise as you want to believe. Case in point. I learned about the nine (9) planets at an early age because I was fascinated about astronomy. Now I have just learned that astronomers in the scientific community have decided that what I learned in grade school was wrong because they have ‘determined’ that Pluto is not a planet, all because there are other bodies that are larger than it that did not get designated as such. If science is about facts and precision, Why are we having conversations about what is and is not a planet ? Another case in point. In chemistry I learned that all matter is composed of atoms, that all atoms are composed of protons neutrons and electrons. Through further reading Im finding out that these particles are made of quarks, and all this stuff is made of strings of energy that vibrate so fast that our five senses can only ‘interpret’ the balls of string-energy as matter. So in other words, matter really DOESN’T EXIST. It is only a figment of our Imagination. Science is precise ? Give me a break. Here’s one for ya. If Scientist can use an electron microscope to ‘see’ atoms, why havent they come up with a machine to ‘see’ electrons and the strings of energy they are made of ?

Language, on the other hand, is only there to allow us to communicate. As such, a tool that let’s us communicate becomes the agreed-upon tool, precisely because it’s fulfilling its role as a communicator.

*** I say *** Language may be tool, but humankind has used language for more than communication. Language been used for more as a instrument of power than a ‘tool’ for communication.

The US armed forces used the Native Navajo and their language to defeat the japanese because the language was virtually impossible to decipher except of course by another Navajo.

Slave traders would mix of African slaves from different tribes because they knew that if the slave could not communicate, they could not organize themselves for rebellion.

A religion gains power not from its faith of any god but the faith of the WORDS about said god:

e.g

Genesis 1:1
IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.

If this happened before the dawn of man, Then tell me WHO was around to write this as it was happening ? (I know I wasn’t ) All one has is their belief that it happened.

A person that understands the power of words can manipulate weak-minded people in seeing what they want THEM to see , NOT what is. This is why letting POP culture dictate societal policy is a VERY BAD IDEA. Just because its hacker today, does not mean It can’t be scientist tomorrow, Weak-minded people have a very bad way of destroying that which they do not understand or comprehend.

See the difference?

**** I say ***

not really.. science and language are both tools. Just like a hammer and wrench, both are constructed to serve different ends. thats all…

**** I say ****

Actually, science, like language has laws that are formed when a group of people in a community test a theory to test a hypothesis to to form a consensus that upholds such a law. it is not as precise as you want to believe. Case in point. I learned about the nine (9) planets at an early age because I was fascinated about astronomy. Now I have just learned that astronomers in the scientific community have decided that what I learned in grade school was wrong because they have ‘determined’ that Pluto is not a planet, all because there are other bodies that are larger than it that did not get designated as such. If science is about facts and precision, Why are we having conversations about what is and is not a planet ? Another case in point. In chemistry I learned that all matter is composed of atoms, that all atoms are composed of protons neutrons and electrons. Through further reading Im finding out that these particles are made of quarks, and all this stuff is made of strings of energy that vibrate so fast that our five senses can only ‘interpret’ the balls of string-energy as matter. So in other words, matter really DOESN’T EXIST. It is only a figment of our Imagination. Science is precise ? Give me a break. Here’s one for ya. If Scientist can use an electron microscope to ‘see’ atoms, why havent they come up with a machine to ‘see’ electrons and the strings of energy they are made of ?

Language, on the other hand, is only there to allow us to communicate. As such, a tool that let’s us communicate becomes the agreed-upon tool, precisely because it’s fulfilling its role as a communicator.

*** I say *** Language may be tool, but humankind has used language for more than communication. Language been used for more as a instrument of power than a ‘tool’ for communication.

The US armed forces used the Native Navajo and their language to defeat the japanese because the language was virtually impossible to decipher except of course by another Navajo.

Slave traders would mix of African slaves from different tribes because they knew that if the slave could not communicate, they could not organize themselves for rebellion.

A religion gains power not from its faith of any god but the faith of the WORDS about said god:

e.g

Genesis 1:1 IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.

If this happened before the dawn of man, Then tell me WHO was around to write this as it was happening ? (I know I wasn’t ) All one has is their belief that it happened.

A person that understands the power of words can manipulate weak-minded people in seeing what they want THEM to see , NOT what is. This is why letting POP culture dictate societal policy is a VERY BAD IDEA. Just because its hacker today, does not mean It can’t be scientist tomorrow, Weak-minded people have a very bad way of destroying that which they do not understand or comprehend.

See the difference?

**** I say ***

not really.. science and language are both tools. Just like a hammer and wrench, both are constructed to serve different ends. thats all…

And remember, the word still has the real, old-school meaning — but only to the people in the community. As such, only use it in that way with those people. My point is simply that we shouldn’t complain that evolution has taken its course with the word. It’s just the way language works.

And remember, the word still has the real, old-school meaning — but only to the people in the community. As such, only use it in that way with those people. My point is simply that we shouldn’t complain that evolution has taken its course with the word. It’s just the way language works.

Here are two good reasons to fight the good fight:

1) When someone uses the word “hacker” incorrectly, they are not only attacking people in the infosec society, they are attacking all free thinkers. Socrates, Archimedes, and Coppernicus were hackers just like Alan Turing, Brian Kernighan, and Linus Torvalds.

2) There are geeks and there are nerds. Which are you? Would you give up that fight?

I had another reason, but by the time I got around to typing it I forgot what is was. Oh well, such is life.

Here are two good reasons to fight the good fight:

1) When someone uses the word “hacker” incorrectly, they are not only attacking people in the infosec society, they are attacking all free thinkers. Socrates, Archimedes, and Coppernicus were hackers just like Alan Turing, Brian Kernighan, and Linus Torvalds.

2) There are geeks and there are nerds. Which are you? Would you give up that fight?

I had another reason, but by the time I got around to typing it I forgot what is was. Oh well, such is life.

Allow me to retort something Daniel has said:

Science is defined, much like math (usually). It’s precise and is constantly tested for accuracy. One doesn’t change these things because the general public doesn’t understand them.

Science and math are defined that way because somebody thought current thinking was wrong and went about proving otherwise. Several scientists and mathematicians died for their “heretical” beliefs. These people are the reason math and science are so often rethought and re-checked for accuracy.

Furthermore:

Language, on the other hand, is only there to allow us to communicate. As such, a tool that let’s us communicate becomes the agreed-upon tool, precisely because it’s fulfilling its role as a communicator.

So you’re saying that when I hear someone say “I’m gonna go lay down” (as opposed to “lie down”) or “Him and me are going to go to the mall” (as opposed to “He and I are going…”) I should just let it slide because everyone’s doing it? …because everyone gets what that person is saying so it’s ok?

Screw that. Language (just like math or science) can be considered wrong, and should be corrected — wether it’s how a word is defined or the grammar of a sentence or even spelling. I think we’ve gotten a bit lax about it lately.

Allow me to retort something Daniel has said:

Science is defined, much like math (usually). It’s precise and is constantly tested for accuracy. One doesn’t change these things because the general public doesn’t understand them.

Science and math are defined that way because somebody thought current thinking was wrong and went about proving otherwise. Several scientists and mathematicians died for their “heretical” beliefs. These people are the reason math and science are so often rethought and re-checked for accuracy.

Furthermore:

Language, on the other hand, is only there to allow us to communicate. As such, a tool that let’s us communicate becomes the agreed-upon tool, precisely because it’s fulfilling its role as a communicator.

So you’re saying that when I hear someone say “I’m gonna go lay down” (as opposed to “lie down”) or “Him and me are going to go to the mall” (as opposed to “He and I are going…”) I should just let it slide because everyone’s doing it? …because everyone gets what that person is saying so it’s ok?

Screw that. Language (just like math or science) can be considered wrong, and should be corrected — wether it’s how a word is defined or the grammar of a sentence or even spelling. I think we’ve gotten a bit lax about it lately.

This doesn’t mean the other definitions will not be there anymore, or that we should stop using them amongst ourselves who know.

My point is that you shouldn’t be bothered by people who use the word “incorrectly”, because the very fact that the majority of people are using it that way makes it the “correct” way.

It’s a language thing. I’m not being philosophical. I’m not saying that the masses shape reality, or they can join together and make the world flat or something. This us just the way language works.

So amongst ourselves, sure…I still use the word the “real” way, but with laymen it’s a waste to try and educate them to the right way. Their way is the right way.