Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>> Yup, a bunch of 14 year olds in their mom's basements who want to be
> >>> hackers without knowing the first thing about it.
> >
> >> Required CAD quote: http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20030606
> >
> >    OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?

> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring 
> technical knowledge and skill.

  It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 2:38 PM, Invisible wrote:
> And then of course, in everyday culture "hacking" refers only to
> technical activities which are in some way /illegal/. :-P

I will go with that definition ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>>>     OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
>
>> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring
>> technical knowledge and skill.
>
>    It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
> calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.

Well, I would consider that hacking. But I guess the fundamental point 
is that the word lacks a coherent definition...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >>>     OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
> >
> >> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring
> >> technical knowledge and skill.
> >
> >    It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
> > calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.

> Well, I would consider that hacking. But I guess the fundamental point 
> is that the word lacks a coherent definition...

  One rather usual characteristic is figuring out how something works
(usually something related to computers, and usually more specifically
something related to software) and using it or modifying it in an unusual
and unintended way.

  "Hacking into" a system usually means figuring out how to get past
security measurements by studying how it works and what its weaknesses
are. However, that's only one of the many things that are considered
hacking.

  Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
"hacking".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 03:42 PM, Warp wrote:

>    Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
> "hacking".

I don't know. People seem to use the phrase "I was hacking on XYZ" to 
mean the same thing is "I was working on the source code for XYZ", 
without any particular requirement that the code or the coding activity 
is anything remarkable.

Post a reply to this message

On 03/16/2012 11:42 AM, Warp wrote:
> Invisible<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>>>>      OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
>>>
>>>> I think the necessary criterion is that it's any activity requiring
>>>> technical knowledge and skill.
>>>
>>>     It may be necessary, but not sufficient. I can write a program that
>>> calculates the mandelbrot set, but that's not usually considered hacking.
>
>> Well, I would consider that hacking. But I guess the fundamental point
>> is that the word lacks a coherent definition...
>
>    One rather usual characteristic is figuring out how something works
> (usually something related to computers, and usually more specifically
> something related to software) and using it or modifying it in an unusual
> and unintended way.
>
>    "Hacking into" a system usually means figuring out how to get past
> security measurements by studying how it works and what its weaknesses
> are. However, that's only one of the many things that are considered
> hacking.
>
>    Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
> "hacking".
>

Don't you think substituting "hardware" for computer related is a 
possibly a better fit in the above context?

Back in the day we had the "top" spectrum analyzer ... and our closest 
competitor would buy one of our boxes and reverse engineer large 
portions of the instrument. I remember going into production and finding 
their order, and tagging the box, so we could follow it through the 
process. I was like we made DARN sure it was tuned to the tightest 
tolerance possible, and dared them to replicate. We had them over a 
barrel with certain proprietary micro circuits. Single source for those 
components. Once they came out with their new model, we'd in turn buy 
one of there boxes and take it to the lab to see if we could catch them 
in any copy-right violations.

Doesn't something like that fit the term "hacking"?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 4:01 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 03:42 PM, Warp wrote:
>
>> Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
>> "hacking".
>
> I don't know. People seem to use the phrase "I was hacking on XYZ" to
> mean the same thing is "I was working on the source code for XYZ",
> without any particular requirement that the code or the coding activity
> is anything remarkable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_%28term%29#Hacker_definition_controversy

A hack is also the cracked skin that you can get on your fingers due to 
cold.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Writing a program that does something mundane isn't usually considered
>> "hacking".
>
> Don't you think substituting "hardware" for computer related is a
> possibly a better fit in the above context?
>
> Back in the day we had the "top" spectrum analyzer ... and our closest
> competitor would buy one of our boxes and reverse engineer large
> portions of the instrument. I remember going into production and finding
> their order, and tagging the box, so we could follow it through the
> process. I was like we made DARN sure it was tuned to the tightest
> tolerance possible, and dared them to replicate. We had them over a
> barrel with certain proprietary micro circuits. Single source for those
> components. Once they came out with their new model, we'd in turn buy
> one of there boxes and take it to the lab to see if we could catch them
> in any copy-right violations.
>
> Doesn't something like that fit the term "hacking"?

You can have "legal hacks" too... I think the word probably has more 
than one meaning.

1. To do something skillful. (Computer-related, legal-related, basically 
any subject area which requires skill.)

2. Exploiting something in an unintended way. (E.g., patent trolls could 
be said to "hack the legal system".)

Post a reply to this message

On 16-3-2012 15:57, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 2:38 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> And then of course, in everyday culture "hacking" refers only to
>> technical activities which are in some way /illegal/. :-P
>
> I will go with that definition ;-)
>
Yes, it is a form of hijacking. Hacking was a used to mean doing 
something skilled. As long as that was among the small in-crowd that was 
not a problem. The outside world started noticing this term when there 
was interaction with the non-computer world. I.e. when they started 
hacking other devices like telephone equipment. When computers became 
more important people also started to notice it in the context of 
breaking in into computers. Mostly still as a way to show it could be 
done, not to cause harm. It is around this time that companies and 
institutions that preferred to attack the hackers in stead of fixing the 
issues hijacked the term and made it into something that people 
associate with illegal.

Nowadays there is still a group of amateur hackers, but the largest 
scale hacking is done by governments. If that is still illegal can be 
disputed. The chinese are constantly trying to break into every western 
company and institution. From e.g. a US POV that is illegal, but they 
are doing it from china and there this activity is legal. The same for 
US intelligence services trying to hack chinese government sites.

-- 
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the 
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 5:04 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 16-3-2012 15:57, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/03/2012 2:38 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>> And then of course, in everyday culture "hacking" refers only to
>>> technical activities which are in some way /illegal/. :-P
>>
>> I will go with that definition ;-)
>>
> Yes, it is a form of hijacking. Hacking was a used to mean doing
> something skilled. As long as that was among the small in-crowd that was
> not a problem. The outside world started noticing this term when there
> was interaction with the non-computer world. I.e. when they started
> hacking other devices like telephone equipment. When computers became
> more important people also started to notice it in the context of
> breaking in into computers. Mostly still as a way to show it could be
> done, not to cause harm. It is around this time that companies and
> institutions that preferred to attack the hackers in stead of fixing the
> issues hijacked the term and made it into something that people
> associate with illegal.
>
> Nowadays there is still a group of amateur hackers, but the largest
> scale hacking is done by governments. If that is still illegal can be
> disputed. The chinese are constantly trying to break into every western
> company and institution. From e.g. a US POV that is illegal, but they
> are doing it from china and there this activity is legal. The same for
> US intelligence services trying to hack chinese government sites.
>
Yes, but not necessarily skilful, in the early days. Just guessing 
passwords or trying command codes to see what would happen would be 
described as hacking.
One example that I can remember was when I worked offshore and telephone 
calls were regulated. It was possible to dial a speed code to a company 
and before the call was properly connected, dial out from that company’s 
PABX without any restrictions applying. So you could use an internal 
phone to get international calls. Just someone messing about.

I think that the rest of what you say is true.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/16/2012 02:16 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 5:04 PM, andrel wrote:
>> On 16-3-2012 15:57, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 16/03/2012 2:38 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>>> And then of course, in everyday culture "hacking" refers only to
>>>> technical activities which are in some way /illegal/. :-P
>>>
>>> I will go with that definition ;-)
>>>
>> Yes, it is a form of hijacking. Hacking was a used to mean doing
>> something skilled. As long as that was among the small in-crowd that was
>> not a problem. The outside world started noticing this term when there
>> was interaction with the non-computer world. I.e. when they started
>> hacking other devices like telephone equipment. When computers became
>> more important people also started to notice it in the context of
>> breaking in into computers. Mostly still as a way to show it could be
>> done, not to cause harm. It is around this time that companies and
>> institutions that preferred to attack the hackers in stead of fixing the
>> issues hijacked the term and made it into something that people
>> associate with illegal.
>>
>> Nowadays there is still a group of amateur hackers, but the largest
>> scale hacking is done by governments. If that is still illegal can be
>> disputed. The chinese are constantly trying to break into every western
>> company and institution. From e.g. a US POV that is illegal, but they
>> are doing it from china and there this activity is legal. The same for
>> US intelligence services trying to hack chinese government sites.
>>
> Yes, but not necessarily skilful, in the early days. Just guessing
> passwords or trying command codes to see what would happen would be
> described as hacking.
> One example that I can remember was when I worked offshore and telephone
> calls were regulated. It was possible to dial a speed code to a company
> and before the call was properly connected, dial out from that company’s
> PABX without any restrictions applying. So you could use an internal
> phone to get international calls. Just someone messing about.
>
> I think that the rest of what you say is true.
>

well ... it's true enough that /some/ good has come from hacking 
(soft/hardware) in the more benign sense, but lately, I would say the 
term has taken a beating, a more negative context. Seems like it just 
boils down to the fact that more folks are willing to push boundaries.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2012 9:11, James Holsenback wrote:
> if we could catch them in any copy-right violations.

Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed by copyright law. Now, actually 
stealing any microprocessor executable code is something different.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 9:11, James Holsenback wrote:
> > if we could catch them in any copy-right violations.

> Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed by copyright law.

  Not all countries have the same copyright law.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2012 11:40, Warp wrote:
>> Reverse engineering is explicitly allowed by copyright law.
>    Not all countries have the same copyright law.

Point to Gryphendor.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2012 11:40, Warp wrote:
>    Not all countries have the same copyright law.

On the other hand, the USA is certainly working to correct that flaw, eh? ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 11:40, Warp wrote:
> >    Not all countries have the same copyright law.

> On the other hand, the USA is certainly working to correct that flaw, eh? ;-)

  Yeah, if someone breaks the copyright law of the USA, they will simply
demand the hosting country to extradit that person so that he can be put
in jail in the US. By using an international agreement created to fight
terrorism.

  OTOH, "terrorism" nowadays means "everything we don't like".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 7:41 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> On 3/16/2012 11:40, Warp wrote:
>>>     Not all countries have the same copyright law.
>
>> On the other hand, the USA is certainly working to correct that flaw, eh? ;-)
>
>    Yeah, if someone breaks the copyright law of the USA, they will simply
> demand the hosting country to extradit that person so that he can be put
> in jail in the US. By using an international agreement created to fight
> terrorism.
>
>    OTOH, "terrorism" nowadays means "everything we don't like".
>

Five points to Gryphendor. :-D

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 6:36 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> well ... it's true enough that /some/ good has come from hacking
> (soft/hardware) in the more benign sense, but lately, I would say the
> term has taken a beating, a more negative context. Seems like it just
> boils down to the fact that more folks are willing to push boundaries.

Careful, with an attitude like that you could get extradited to the US. 
Oops! I forgot. You already did. :-P

It seems to me that some people would rather use the law and a big stick 
rather than do a proper job on their security.
First the war on drugs then the war on terrorism closely followed by the 
war on sharing. What next, the war on not having the same opinion?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D

For the love of God, Gryffindor.

GIYF.

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 10:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D
>
> For the love of God, Gryffindor.
>
Which God? and I'm dysloxic.

> GIYF.

LOL Get you.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 03/16/2012 05:45 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 6:36 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>> well ... it's true enough that /some/ good has come from hacking
>> (soft/hardware) in the more benign sense, but lately, I would say the
>> term has taken a beating, a more negative context. Seems like it just
>> boils down to the fact that more folks are willing to push boundaries.
>
> Careful, with an attitude like that you could get extradited to the US.
> Oops! I forgot. You already did. :-P

LOL ... no kidding, and through no fault of my own ;-)

>
> It seems to me that some people would rather use the law and a big stick
> rather than do a proper job on their security.
> First the war on drugs then the war on terrorism closely followed by the
> war on sharing. What next, the war on not having the same opinion?

Yep ... afraid that while I was away much has changed. Kind of like a 
train wreck in slow motion, but I have to keep the faith and hope that 
cooler heads will eventually prevail.

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2012 15:04, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D
>
> For the love of God, Gryffindor.

Nerd alert!

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 16/03/2012 10:04 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> >> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D
> >
> > For the love of God, Gryffindor.
> >
> Which God? and I'm dysloxic.

  For the love of [insert deity or non-deity of your choosing here].

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D

  Even with the correct spelling, I don't get it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> It seems to me that some people would rather use the law and a big stick 
> rather than do a proper job on their security.
> First the war on drugs then the war on terrorism closely followed by the 
> war on sharing. What next, the war on not having the same opinion?

  The war on internet and, ultimately, the war on free speech.

  Free speech has this nasty side-effect that it allows people to express
the wrong opinions. That's not good nor PC.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 03:57, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/16/2012 15:04, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D
>>
>> For the love of God, Gryffindor.
>
> Nerd alert!

Is it bad that I haven't read a single book, and yet I know the correct 
spelling?

(Or rather, I recognise incorrect spelling. I'd by lying if I said I 
could spell it correctly myself...)

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 6:32 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> Five points to Gryphendor. :-D
>
>    Even with the correct spelling, I don't get it.
>

One point from Slytherin.

It is from the Harry Potter books.

At the boarding school the pupils are split into houses which have a 
friendly rivalry. Points are awarded to the houses for merit and are 
totalled up at the end of the year to decide which house wins the glory 
of winning.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 6:34 AM, Warp wrote:
>    The war on internet and, ultimately, the war on free speech.
>
>    Free speech has this nasty side-effect that it allows people to express
> the wrong opinions. That's not good nor PC.
>

What “Free Speech”? There Ain't No Such Animal.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 17/03/2012 6:34 AM, Warp wrote:
> >    The war on internet and, ultimately, the war on free speech.
> >
> >    Free speech has this nasty side-effect that it allows people to express
> > the wrong opinions. That's not good nor PC.
> >

> What �Free Speech�? There Ain't No Such Animal.

  There is, still. It's just under heavy attack.

  "Free speech is a great idea, but..."
      - Lindsey Graham, United States senator

  Yeah, free speech is a "great idea", but.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 10:35 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> On 17/03/2012 6:34 AM, Warp wrote:
>>>     The war on internet and, ultimately, the war on free speech.
>>>
>>>     Free speech has this nasty side-effect that it allows people to express
>>> the wrong opinions. That's not good nor PC.
>>>
>
>> What Free Speech? There Ain't No Such Animal.
>
>    There is, still.

Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with 
impunity.

In Britain we think that we have the right to free speech but on 
consideration it is only members of parliament, in the House of Commons, 
that have that right in law. Even then they are restricted to what they 
can say by not using unparliamentary language.


> It's just under heavy attack.
>
>    "Free speech is a great idea, but..."
>        - Lindsey Graham, United States senator
>
>    Yeah, free speech is a "great idea", but.
>

Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or 
sectarian things or incite others to hate?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> What Free Speech? There Ain't No Such Animal.
> >
> >    There is, still.

> Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with 
> impunity.

  The United States is still somewhat of a bastion of free speech. For
example, you can freely criticize a religion (*any* religion) and eg.
burn their holy book, and it's (still) protected by the constitution.
(Of course, as noted, they are working hard to rectify this "problem"
there.)

> Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or 
> sectarian things or incite others to hate?

  Absolutely. Free speech means that people are entitled to express their
opinions regardless of whether you agree with them or not. It doesn't
matter how hideous you think those opinions are.

  It's precisely the ideology that "free speech is bad because it allows
people to express the 'wrong' opinions" that's the major driving force
behind the modern movement of limiting free speech.

  When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
speech. That's totalitarianism.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 11:43 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:

>> Where? Please name one country where you can say whatever you like with
>> impunity.
>
>    The United States is still somewhat of a bastion of free speech. For
> example, you can freely criticize a religion (*any* religion) and eg.
> burn their holy book, and it's (still) protected by the constitution.
> (Of course, as noted, they are working hard to rectify this "problem"
> there.)
>

Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.
Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to 
whites, even though they believed it?
America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or 
insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
It also has Free Speech Zones where the government may regulate the 
time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression. 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) The implication being 
that outside of these zones you cannot have true free expression.

>> Is it a great idea? Should someone be allowed to say racist and/or
>> sectarian things or incite others to hate?
>
>    Absolutely. Free speech means that people are entitled to express their
> opinions regardless of whether you agree with them or not. It doesn't
> matter how hideous you think those opinions are.
>

I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a 
crime is, in my opinion, generally wrong. Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from 
this site for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG 
at the time when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
Have you changed your mind?

>    It's precisely the ideology that "free speech is bad because it allows
> people to express the 'wrong' opinions" that's the major driving force
> behind the modern movement of limiting free speech.
>

I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech is 
a misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.

>    When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>

That is a different kettle of fish. Political Correctness is another 
tool used by politicians (whether elected or not) to force their own 
opinions on the public. Again, in my opinion.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 16/03/2012 11:15 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
> On 03/16/2012 05:45 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 16/03/2012 6:36 PM, James Holsenback wrote:
>>> well ... it's true enough that /some/ good has come from hacking
>>> (soft/hardware) in the more benign sense, but lately, I would say the
>>> term has taken a beating, a more negative context. Seems like it just
>>> boils down to the fact that more folks are willing to push boundaries.
>>
>> Careful, with an attitude like that you could get extradited to the US.
>> Oops! I forgot. You already did. :-P
>
> LOL ... no kidding, and through no fault of my own ;-)
>

I know and again, I am sorry.

>>
>> It seems to me that some people would rather use the law and a big stick
>> rather than do a proper job on their security.
>> First the war on drugs then the war on terrorism closely followed by the
>> war on sharing. What next, the war on not having the same opinion?
>
> Yep ... afraid that while I was away much has changed. Kind of like a
> train wreck in slow motion, but I have to keep the faith and hope that
> cooler heads will eventually prevail.
>

One can only hope.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?

  It's not illegal to do so (at least yet). That's the point.

> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or 
> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

  The problem with hate crime laws is that they are extremely subjective,
influenced by (often changing) cultural and political trends, and can be
abused for political reasons (eg. to silence dissenters). Almost invariably
such laws are not applied consistently and equally, but some people are in
practice more protected than others.

> It also has Free Speech Zones

  Which is an oxymoron, really.

  Anyways, what I meant is that the US is one of the few places in the
world where you can still publicly criticize religions and cultures with
impunity.

> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a 
> crime is, in my opinion, generally wrong.

  You would have to prove that a speech caused the riot or crime.

> Wasn�t Matt Giwer banned from 
> this site for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG 
> at the time when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
> Have you changed your mind?

  This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
whatever reason he wants.

  If you want a guest to leave your house, you have all the right in
the world to do that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 1:54 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
>
>    It's not illegal to do so (at least yet). That's the point.
>


>    Anyways, what I meant is that the US is one of the few places in the
> world where you can still publicly criticize religions and cultures with
> impunity.
>
I won't argue any more because I know when I am banging my head off a 
brick wall.


>
>    You would have to prove that a speech caused the riot or crime.
>

No, incitement is an anticipatory offence.

>
>    This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
> person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
> whatever reason he wants.
>

Unanimously supported action?



-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >    This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
> > person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
> > whatever reason he wants.
> >

> Unanimously supported action?

  So what? We are talking about law here, not about opinion, unanimous
or not.

  Just because people unanimously detest racist opinions doesn't mean
they should be outlawed any more than eg. if people unanimously detested
atheist opinions, or the opinions of the Westboro Baptist Church.

  Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and the right to express
one's opinions should be unalienable, no matter how much you hate those
opinions. The moment we start banning certain opinions, we are entering
a totalitarian form of government where thought crimes are criminalized.
No thanks.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 3:30 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>>>     This is a private server owned by an individual person. It's this
>>> person's private property. This person can ban whoever he wants for
>>> whatever reason he wants.
>>>
>
>> Unanimously supported action?
>
>    So what? We are talking about law here, not about opinion, unanimous
> or not.
>
>    Just because people unanimously detest racist opinions doesn't mean
> they should be outlawed any more than eg. if people unanimously detested
> atheist opinions, or the opinions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
>
>    Everybody is entitled to their opinions, and the right to express
> one's opinions should be unalienable, no matter how much you hate those
> opinions. The moment we start banning certain opinions, we are entering
> a totalitarian form of government where thought crimes are criminalized.
> No thanks.
>

I have no problems with what you have said above. In fact I agree with 
your sentiments.
What I do have a problem with is: [Insert your preferred 
group/individual here] is not like us and lets go and kill them.

Free Speech would allow that.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2012 6:10, Stephen wrote:
> Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.

Mostly in practice, too.

> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortio
n?

Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free speech
 
doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you say.

> Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
> whites, even though they believed it?

Any number of talk show hosts?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of
-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/

The KKK?

> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.

I'd like to see a cite of that. There are "hate crime" laws, but you have
 to 
be breaking a law in the first place for it to be a hate crime.

> It also has Free Speech Zones where the government may regulate the tim
e,
> place, and manner—but not content—of expression.

Yep. And you know what? If you read it, you see that lots of people think
 
such a thing is an attack of free speech.

> The implication being that
> outside of these zones you cannot have true free expression.

Its original purpose was to ensure that only the free expression occurred
, 
and not physical attacks.

> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a 
crime
> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.

Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?

Incitement to riot is not a question of speech. It's a question of 
conspiracy. If you're not likely to *actually* incite a riot, it's OK to 

try. Free speech is free until you actually try to commit a crime. Talkin
g 
about how to rob the bank is legal until you actually start gathering up 
the 
tools you discussed. Just like playing D&D is fine until you actually go 
out 
in the real world and start beheading dwarves.

 > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the ti
me
> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?

This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say th
at 
on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in my house
" 
means you're violating the right to assembly.

> I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech i
s a
> misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.

I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as you
 
start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then it's not
 
free speech.

>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>
>
> That is a different kettle of fish.

Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2012 6:54, Warp wrote:
>    The problem with hate crime laws is that they are extremely subjective,

FWIW, I think the way hate crimes work is that it's an extra punishment on 
top of the crime you already committed. If you beat someone up, that's 
assault. If you call them racist names, that's free speech. If you beat 
someone up while calling them racist names, that's probably assault and a 
hate crime.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2012 9:30, Stephen wrote:
> Free Speech would allow that.

Yeah, as long as you don't *actually* go kill them.

I'm against war, too, but I think if a country's leadership has a country's 
army attack my country, my country's leadership should send my country's 
army to attack back.  Even tho they'll likely end up killing people who had 
no say in the manner in their own country.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 5:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 6:10, Stephen wrote:
>> Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.
>
> Mostly in practice, too.
>

I agree, mostly. (I am not taking a dig at Americans.) But mostly 
implies sometimes not, I think.

>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
>
> Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free
> speech doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you say.
>

Fair point. But why?

>> Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
>> whites, even though they believed it?
>
> Any number of talk show hosts?
>
>
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/
>
>
> The KKK?
>

I stand corrected.

>> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
>> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
>
> I'd like to see a cite of that. There are "hate crime" laws, but you
> have to be breaking a law in the first place for it to be a hate crime.
>
I accept that as you live there.

[Snip]

>
>> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
>> crime
>> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
>
> Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?
>

Does that include bullying?



> Just like playing D&D is fine
> until you actually go out in the real world and start beheading dwarves.
>

Not the same thing.

>  > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
>> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the time
>> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
>
> This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say
> that on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in my
> house" means you're violating the right to assembly.
>

With this you miss my point. In 2000, Uncle Ken wrote “It is with regret 
that this message serves as official notice that Matt Giwer's 
authorization to connect to news.povray.org has been revoked. This is a 
unanimously supported action on the part of the News Server 
Administration and was not done without considerable deliberation on our 
part.”
I asked Warp if he agreed with that at the time and if he had changed 
his mind.

>> I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech
>> is a
>> misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.
>
> I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as
> you start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then
> it's not free speech.
>

But I am not saying free speech is OK.

>>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>>
>>
>> That is a different kettle of fish.
>
> Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?
>

Is that not a straw man?

I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not? 
Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want. 
The laws of slander would be unworkable if you were allowed free speech.
Which, I suppose, depends on your definition of free speech. What is yours?


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 17/03/2012 5:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 9:30, Stephen wrote:
>> Free Speech would allow that.
>
> Yeah, as long as you don't *actually* go kill them.
>
> I'm against war, too, but I think if a country's leadership has a
> country's army attack my country, my country's leadership should send my
> country's army to attack back. Even tho they'll likely end up killing
> people who had no say in the manner in their own country.
>

Woosh! That went over my head.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2012 11:43, Stephen wrote:
> I agree, mostly. (I am not taking a dig at Americans.) But mostly impli
es
> sometimes not, I think.

Sure. But to the extent that it isn't, it's recognised as a bad thing.

It's like me saying "bribery is illegal" and you saying "but people still
 
bribe politicians."  Sure, but that's not a *good* thing. That doesn't me
an 
we want to condone it.

>>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abort
ion?
>>
>> Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free
>> speech doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you
 say.
>
> Fair point. But why?

Why what?

>>> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit 
a
>>> crime
>>> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
>>
>> Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?
>>
> Does that include bullying?

Some people are certainly hoping to make it so. I think we would have to 

distinguish mocking from bullying, since when I was a kid, bullying someo
ne 
involved beating them up, not just calling them names.

>> Just like playing D&D is fine
>> until you actually go out in the real world and start beheading dwarve
s.
>
> Not the same thing.

Ah, OK. So now, tell me why they're not the same thing. That's the point.
 :-)

The problem is that once you open the door and say "Well, we don't want 
people 'bullying' dwarves", you start getting the sort of nonsense where 

people publishing D&D books get arrested.

>> > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
>>> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the 
time
>>> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
>>
>> This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say

>> that on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in 
my
>> house" means you're violating the right to assembly.
>>
>
> With this you miss my point.

I still don't see your point. Anyway, I think Warp answered you.

I'll support your right to say that niggers are stupid. I'll also support
 
the black guy kicking you out of his party for saying so.

>> I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as
>> you start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then
>> it's not free speech.
>
> But I am not saying free speech is OK.

So you want to regulate *all* speech? Or do you want to have a pre-define
d 
list of things you're allowed to talk about, and the opinions you're allo
wed 
to express about those topics?

>>>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>>>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a different kettle of fish.
>>
>> Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?
>>
> Is that not a straw man?

Not to my knowledge.

> I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?


Free speech allows you to express whatever opinions you like. It doesn't 

allow you to publish lies about private citizens. You're certainly allowe
d 
to say "I think Joe Bloggs is a paedophile."

> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want
. The
> laws of slander would be unworkable if you were allowed free speech.
> Which, I suppose, depends on your definition of free speech. What is yo
urs?

You're allowed to say anything that's true, certainly. If it's phrased as
 an 
opinion, you're allowed to express that opinion. I believe in the USA you
're 
even allowed to publish lies about a public figure, on the grounds that a
 
public figure has a forum under which to express the truth. You publishin
g a 
newspaper article that incorrectly says they are a pedophile about someon
e 
who has no easy way of responding in the same forum is what's slander or 

libel. But in the USA, truth is an absolute defense against the accusatio
n 
of slander or libel. (Unlike the UK, as I understand it. You wouldn't be 

allowed to say Bloggs is a pedophile even if it's true in the UK.)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Em 17/03/2012 15:43, Stephen escreveu:
> I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.

BTW, it never entered my logical programming mind moot statements such 
as that.  Someone comes up to you and say "You're an asshole!" and 
you're supposed to be offended?  Let's take at look at it of both sides:

1) you're an asshole.  Why should you be offended with the truth?
2) you're not an asshole.  Why should you be offended by a liar telling 
a lie?

Yes, I'm aware it probably has to do with what others think of you, but 
what others think of me is not really my concern:  I have not much voice 
about what they should think of me besides trying to appease both greeks 
and trojans.

In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not? 
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want. 

  And where exactly would you draw the line?

  You see how this is going to the direction of "if someone gets offended,
it should be illegal", which in turn makes almost everything illegal, which
in turn is completely unworkable.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 18/03/2012 6:39 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom>  wrote:
>> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
>> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
>
>    And where exactly would you draw the line?
>
>    You see how this is going to the direction of "if someone gets offended,
> it should be illegal", which in turn makes almost everything illegal, which
> in turn is completely unworkable.
>
I have really not made myself clear on this.
I am not an advocate for restricting what people say. I got side lined 
by some of your and Darren’s arguments.
To start at the beginning. I think that free speech whether it be verbal 
or written is something that is impossible to have. It is a nice concept 
but impractical, governments cannot allow it. State secrets for one 
thing make it very hard for any government to allow you to say whatever 
you want. Slander and libel laws are in opposition to free speech. 
Copyrights prohibit one person writing someone else’s work as his own. 
Get my drift?
When a government wants to change things in their country they can pass 
laws prohibiting free speech, for instance Germany’s holocaust denial 
laws. Or in the UK "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an 
offence in 1986 (I think that this is a good thing but it could be 
abused as all laws can). Since the act, race relations in the UK have 
been better, as far as I can see. At least as far as I can see.


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 3/16/2012 8:49 AM, Warp wrote:

>    OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?

The non-criminal definition was something like, "the use of computer 
skills or knowledge that is obtained by an informal means."  An example 
could be learning the features or capabilities of a system by a method 
of trial-and-error (i.e., writing code and seeing what it does).

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Em 18/03/2012 14:41, John VanSickle escreveu:
> On 3/16/2012 8:49 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
>
> The non-criminal definition was something like, "the use of computer
> skills or knowledge that is obtained by an informal means." An example
> could be learning the features or capabilities of a system by a method
> of trial-and-error (i.e., writing code and seeing what it does).

http://www.jargon.8hz.com/html/meaning-of-hack.html

Post a reply to this message

On 3/17/2012 18:08, nemesis wrote:
> 1) you're an asshole. Why should you be offended with the truth?
> 2) you're not an asshole. Why should you be offended by a liar telling a lie?

The problem comes when you start getting statments like "Fred is a bad 
credit risk", or "Joe is an awful dentist who cheats you by telling you your 
teeth need work that they don't."  It's more a matter of reputation.

And of course irrational people *will* get offended if you tell them their 
god is a myth, for example, so you can't be having laws that say you're not 
allowed to offend people.

But sure, face-to-face insults? I agree 100%

> In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.

I think you're after "Mu", not "Wu".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Em 18/03/2012 23:25, Darren New escreveu:
>> In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.
>
> I think you're after "Mu", not "Wu".

oh, seems got that reversed. :p

Post a reply to this message