From: tupac.shakur at hushmail.com (tupac.shakur@...hmail.com)
Subject: Shiver me timbers.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Real hackers today are doing exactly the same thing they've been doing for =
> the
> last 40+ years - hacking. Creating. Exploring and learning. Sometimes the
> only way to learn about something is to break it, or break into it. The
> latter was true in older days, when a lot of systems were inaccessible to t=
> he
> average joe. It's getting less and less true as time goes by and computer
> systems and networks become more ubiquitious and affordable.

Unfortunately, you have set yourself up by providing a schema for fallacy.
If one does exactly the same thing then it is not creative, its consistant.
Lets assume for the moment that hacking evolves and thus changes and is
not the same reiteration or knowledge deriving only from previous knowledge
but are addition premise added to that which is hacking. Creativity. Do
you agree?

> Real hackers are out there hacking. Not talking trash on IRC all day long,
> pretending they're gangstas from the ghetto and trying to break into each
> others' systems. Hackers are hacking, not wasting their time sitting around
> doing nothing. "But I'm a hacker!", someone will undoubtedly protest. "I
> break into systems - hacking is only about breaking into systems and/or
> causing damage!" Maybe in your lexicon. Real hackers are creating things -
> have you created anything lately? If the answer is no, you should try it.

Pretending to be a gangsta from the ghetto is orthagonal to the entire
statement about hacking. Its needless banter that does not dismiss the
possibility for one to become a hacker if one decides for some reason
of pleasure to irc and/or pretend to be a gangsta from the ghetto. Secondly,
your statement 'maybe in your lexicon' sets yourself up to subjective
perspective, and if in fact you subscribe to subjectivism in definition
then it would be futile for you to actually continue you your argument
solely on premises of semantics within a localized context.  Do you retract
any ideas that you have for subjectivism to enter an objective argument?
It's really your call at this point because you made the statement.
Lastly, if real hackers create something in the middle of the forest,
and no one sees it, is it up to those whom are not notified of its existance
or possibly too jaded to see the artistic beauty of a creative work
simply because they dont see it to be the judge of what is creation?
If you agree that creation can occur and YOU yourself are not an empirical
judicator of what is creativity, then all one must simply answer to your
question is YES and you cannot logically argue otherwise. ARE YOU a judge
of creation?

> The underground is definitely still alive, as always - you were right on wi=
> th
> that post. But you're not too likely to find real hackers (as in our
> predecessors from MIT, and in later days, the crews like l0pht and cDc)
> idling all day long on IRC or threatening death and destruction. And the re=
> al
> blackhats, on the other hand, are out there stealing information, breaking =
> into
> banks and governmental networks, working for organized crime and corporate
> espionage sections - you won't find them hanging out on IRC bragging about
> channel takeovers and the like, either.

It is funny that now you mention cDc and l0pht infering that they are real
hackers.  It has been witnessed by many folks that some members have
been known to pretend to be gangstas from the ghetto on or off of irc, just
as a side note to let you know, and theres nothing wrong with that.
Its also funny that you consistantly make statements about where you will
or wont find hackers, and what you cannot do to be a hacker. Such strict
rules on what defines sometimes entails there is no room for creativity
to expand the premises on which hacking is based. You cannot be a hacker
because you act like a ghetto gangster and up until now hackers did not
do this; you created therefore you are not a hacker.

> Have you by chance read Tad Williams' series "Otherland"? If you liked "Snow
> Crash" or Gibson, you should _definitely_ read it. Book one is called "City
> of Golden Shadow". All I can say is, I'm pretty sure construction efforts on
> the pre-alpha versions of what will eventually become the 'Metaverse' are
> already underway. I just hope that hackers will be able to keep it free and
> open, as they did with the Internet (another government-funded project). As
> for jacking into it, well ... you might be interested in the cover story fr=
> om

I agree. I encourage people to read.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: Hush 2.1
Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com

wmEEARECACEFAj1il2QaHHR1cGFjLnNoYWt1ckBodXNobWFpbC5jb20ACgkQfBrdcIbs
8FOoawCeMPmRlTd4OLhhhYlG8FJiPvcWPJcAn2SW4/DhJQyDRuaqL50rp1ML/Eqb
=uLd0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Get your free encrypted email at https://www.hushmail.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists