"Hackers" blow my mind.

Pages: 123
Guys, you are interpreting hackers wrong, hacking isn't simply gaining access to a website, network, illegally.A hacker solves challenges, hackers have build the internet, they revolutionised the computing world, it is a different ethic

In fact Linus trovalds ,steve woziak and other tech pioneers were also hackers

if you are a good programmer , involved in some freelance or open source projects you are also a hacker, google "hacker eric s raymond" he explains well about it in his website(catb.org)

talking about evil hats , yea they are bad and what causes more breaching is poor passwords,unawareness and recklessness of users,what can security measures do if you have 12345iamcool as your network password

p.s : i m only clarifying what a hacker is, to those not familiar
Last edited on
closed account (iw0XoG1T)
what can security measures do if you have 12345iamcool as your network password

http://xkcd.com/936/
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Also I would like to point out that you don't need a network of computers to launch a DoS attack. People do it with just one computer all the time. Most of the time you just need either a very high end computer or in certain ways of attacks just have more bandwidth then your victim.

And no one ever said a hacker was bad amhndu. I hate using the term hacker in the first place but that's what most people reconize then as so I will use it. In general a hacker is just someone that has a very good knowledge of how computer systems and other computer related stuff work (Internet, programming, ect).

And actually just because you are a good programmer doesn't make you a "hacker", at least not how the term is used in the mainstream now days. People see hackers as people that steal their information or break their computers. So in the way that hacker is used today no programmers and hackers are not the same.

@amhndu,

This is why I had "hackers" in quotes. Some people refer to what we've been talking about as hackers, some refer to them as crackers (this gave me an unnecessary chuckle).

@Zereo,

I said DDoS requires a network of machines under your control, not a DoS. The extra D is important.
@amhndu
You're talking about the original meaning of "hacker", we're talking about the colloquial meaning. Unfortunately, the meaning of a word isn't up to any authority. A word means whatever the most people use it to mean.
For the rest of the thread we should all agree to call them crackers... its much less intimidating :p
Article wrote:
One key difference between the implementations, which will be important in the following section, is that the glibc implementation will use vtable pointers from the current object it is deleting as it walks through the array calling destructors. The MS implementation, however, will take the relevant vtable pointers from the first object in the array, and use them for each object it deallocates throughout the array.
:O
Doesn't that completely break polymorphism?
For the rest of the thread we should all agree to call them crackers... its much less intimidating :p

No one thing even I learned from reading somethiong is that crackers and hackers are two different kinds of people. Crackers mostly just crack programs. (I guess you could say they're the ones who help internet piracy when it comes to apps, although I'm not 100% about that, but I'm pretty sure they are the ones who write the software that cracks DVD and Blu-Ray copyright protection) Hackers on the other hand are the ones who are actually dangerous. They are the ones who create virsuses, adware, spyware, ect, and crack passwords to get into computer systems (whther they be an individual's computer or a company's computer system (including a bank). Oh they're also the ones who try to find vounerabilities in OSes and browsers. That is the differentiation I have in my head between those two different types of people and given those two separate definitions I don't mind crackers in fact I admire them because I hate the copright protection put on DVDs and Blu-Rays (because I believe that if CDs don't have it why should they) but I hate hackers. I have an idea for a program that would fight against a particular aspect of what they do. I'd rather not say it on here because I don't want it to get hijacked.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Umm actually Crackers and Hackers are basically the same thing. Crackers is the correct term for "hackers". Like I said before "hackers" are not bad people its just the general public got this idea from movies that hackers are all people who steal your information and put virus's on your computer. But in general a hacker is just someone that has extensive knowledge of how computers work (Internet, programming, ect.)

And actually CD's do have copyright laws. Why do you think the FEDs come after people that download 10,000 songs off of torrents? Copyright laws are needed otherwise developers in music, movies and even us programming (Games, software) would make absolutely no money. Who would want to pay 20 dollars for this game if it legal just to have a friend copy it and give it to you for free.

So we need copy right laws to protect OUR property and intellectual property.

Also it really doesn't matter if you say the idea or not. I'm almost positive someone has came up with the idea before. Idea's are easy to have, its the actual process of programming that idea and developing that idea that is the hard part.
Last edited on
science man wrote:
I'd rather not say it on here because I don't want it to get hijacked.


It doesn't matter if you release your idea here and now or when you've fully developed it. Sooner or later someone will 'steal your idea' and write a free (usually open source) alternative. To me, these people are doing much more financial damage than the ones that are cracking the software.
I view the hacker/cracker relationship as the square/rectangle relationship (in a sense). I find that hackers typically find inventive ways to manipulate a program to make it do something it was never meant to do (game cheats, display X information, execute shell code, etc) whereas crackers crack passwords (hence the name). Hackers can include crackers, but not all are crackers, and crackers are mainly black hats (which kind of breaks the polygon analogy).
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Well actually I guess everyone's view is right in a sense. Everyone views the meaning of hackers and crackers in their own way. It won't mean the same for everyone. In the past hackers and crackers were the same things, but times have changed I guess and not everyone has the same meaning for the words.

So yes everyone definition for hackers and crackers is correct since there is no set in stone definition of what they are it seems.
Luc Lieber wrote:
It doesn't matter if you release your idea here and now or when you've fully developed it. Sooner or later someone will 'steal your idea' and write a free (usually open source) alternative. To me, these people are doing much more financial damage than the ones that are cracking the software.

That's not that common. Off the top of my head there's only two things I can think of where that has happened. 1. MS Office with Open Office. 2. Windows and Mac with Linux.
Last edited on
closed account (3qX21hU5)
I can think of a lot more then 2 examples. They might not be the exact same as your idea but they will have the same basic principles behind it.
Why do you think the FEDs come after people that download 10,000 songs off of torrents?
Because they need to give the impression that the laws are actually being enforced (and is possible or practical to enforce them). In reality, for every such high exposure case there's hundreds of thousands more people that will never face any legal trouble. It's the safety in numbers effect. You can't kill a swarm of bees with a shotgun; it just doesn't work.

Copyright laws are needed otherwise developers in music, movies and even us programming (Games, software) would make absolutely no money.
You're confusing the means and the end. The benefit of the author is the means. The end is the benefit of society. The question is not whether people would be able to make money through creative pursuits in a world without copyright, but whether they would be compelled to engage in such pursuits without the incentives copyright provides.

Who would want to pay 20 dollars for this game if it legal just to have a friend copy it and give it to you for free.
Who would spend thousands of hours developing a program to release it for free, when they can just not do that?
People are not perfectly rational walking optimizers of utility functions.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Haha damn you helios you're just to damn smart sometimes.

First I agree there are thousands of people that get away with pirating software, music, movies, ect. for everyone one that is caught. I never meant it to sound like they are upholding the laws strictly and people will get arrested just for downloading a mp3 off the internet. More as a example that there are copyright laws against CD's and they can be enforced (though not often).

You're confusing the means and the end. The benefit of the author is the means. The end is the benefit of society. The question is not whether people would be able to make money through creative pursuits in a world without copyright, but whether they would be compelled to engage in such pursuits without the incentives copyright provides.


You do got a point, and I'll comment on it a bit.

The best example I can give involves politics so I am sorry ;p. It is like welfare and unemployment, if someone can make just as much money sitting at home as they could working 40 hours a week what is the incentive to go get that new job? Now there would be probably a percentage of people that would get a job for varying reason but most would choose not to get a job.

Which fits in to what I think you are saying. Which is why would developers go to the lengths they do to create the software and other things they create if there is no incentive other then helping society? Deep down I believe that almost everyone wants to better their self. The main reason for developing something is usually to earn money. Yes there are people that do it just for fun, or to help other people but I am willing to bet they are in the minority.

So basically in order to get the end (Benefit of society) you must have the means (author making money). Without the author getting some benefit most likely he is not going to produce anything that will benefit society.

Or at least that is what I got from that.

Who would spend thousands of hours developing a program to release it for free, when they can just not do that?
People are not perfectly rational walking optimizers of utility functions.


And you got me there.
Last edited on
It is like welfare and unemployment, if someone can make just as much money sitting at home as they could working 40 hours a week what is the incentive to go get that new job? Now there would be probably a percentage of people that would get a job for varying reason but most would choose not to get a job.
It's not a good analogy. Such a scenario would be economically unsustainable.
Besides, for many people welfare would not allow them to make as much money as the job they would otherwise have. Only good-for-nothings consider unemployment a step up.

Which is why would developers go to the lengths they do to create the software and other things they create if there is no incentive other then helping society?
You're assuming that the only way to make money from software production is through the selling of copies. Several models have been successfully tried, such as charging for support, or subscription fees (e.g. an online game whose client is free).
In the case of music, there's concerts, merchandise, etc.
helios wrote:
Because they need to give the impression that the laws are actually being enforced (and is possible or practical to enforce them). In reality, for every such high exposure case there's hundreds of thousands more people that will never face any legal trouble. It's the safety in numbers effect. You can't kill a swarm of bees with a shotgun; it just doesn't work.

This is the reason why torrent sites still exist. Granted, there're ways to protect yourself from getting caught but most of the time it's not necessary for this exact reason.

helios wrote:
You're confusing the means and the end. The benefit of the author is the means. The end is the benefit of society. The question is not whether people would be able to make money through creative pursuits in a world without copyright, but whether they would be compelled to engage in such pursuits without the incentives copyright provides.

Yeah I agree with this. The benefit is for the consumer not the producer.

@Zereo

Have you ever downloaded any torrents or been a part of a torrent sites community? If so you might know that it's not the feds that are the ones who try to come after you. It's the actual copyright holders (such as music artists). And yes, I realize it takes a toll on our field (programming) but there's a main key fact your missing in that claim which is that some people consider some freeware to be better than non-freeware. Examples are Open Office to MS Office or Linux to Windows and Mac. Even I can say from what I've learned and experienced that 7zip is better than WinRAR. Besides despite the fact that software like windows OSes exist on torrent sites, Bill Gates is still a billionaire so it must not be that damaging to the industry.

Also of course CDs have copyright laws but I was talking about actual protection. (the reason why you can't just copy to content off of a DVD without specialized software whereas with CDs even itunes can do it because there's no encrypted protection.
Thats also the noble and good thing about hackers (not crackers hackers) some take it upon themselves to share knowledge and make it available as well as bless the public with applications that will make their lives better simply out the kindness of their hearts.
Is wiki leaks hacker ethos?
Last edited on
Pages: 123