Not even the Vatican is as holey...
>>>Man... Common definition can be something,
>>>slang is another thing.
>>>In Spain coger is to "pick
>>>up"
>>>In Latin-america coger is to "fuck"
>>>
>>>
>>>But the real meaning of coger
>>>is to "pick up", and
>>>the slang used in Latin-america
>>>is "fuck".
>>
>>And your point is?
>
>
>The original meaning of hacker was
>another one, now, because non-hacker
>people wanted, it changed. But
>the real meaning will always
>be the original one, first,
>because honor and ethics have
>a place in our planet.
I don't know where you get this half-brained idea that the first meaning of a word is its one and true meaning? Ever take a look in a DICTIONARY? Ever see the word "archaic" besides some of the definintions? It means the definition is OLD and rarely used anymore.
The oldest meaning of the word "hacker" is a person who hacks up words. Does that make it the first definition? Yes. Does it make it the one and only CORRECT definition? No.
"Hacker" is an English-origin word and the English language is the language with THE MOST homonyms and synonyms of ANY language on the planet. With that in mind, how can you refute that "hacker" has more than one meaning? You can't, end of discussion.
>>>Well, with hackers is the same.
>>>I believe that I'm a
>>>hacker, but, because the humanity
>>>(NON-HACKER HUMANITY) wanted to change
>>>the term, I'm not a
>>>hacker anymore.
>>>
>>>Is that fair?
>>
>>It doesn't matter if it is fair. Is it fair that
>>a very powerful and once-good symbol like the
>>swastika was corrupted by the Nazis? No, of
>>course not, but times change.
>>
>It doesn't matter to you because
>you aren't interested.
>For you to know, that's the
>first cause why I'm telling
>you that "hacker" is not
>what everyone says.
>But, if you don't care if
>that is fair or not,
>I can't discuss this matter
>with you, because you are
>gaining a 50% of ignorance
>by not having interest in
>the topic.
Great, now we have ignorance ratings. Let me clarify something for you:
#1, I am arguing the idea of yours that the meaning of "hacker" as a person who works with code, is the correct meaning of "hacker." Yeah, I care, if that's the word, about that.
#2, What I DON'T care about, is the so-called "struggle" that self-named "real" hackers CLAIM to be fighting in order to preserve a definition of the word "hacker" to mean a person who "hacks" code. I don't care about the struggle. You/they can fight this war for whatever reason, logical or not, and I really don't care because it is POINTLESS.
>And about the swastika. That's what
>people would have to stop.
>"Big bosses" trying to change
>terms because they like. But,
>remember, Hitler reach the power
>because Germany was in a
>stage with an increased economic
>poverty and the Germans moral
>was very very low. And
>all that made the shit
>easy.
Oh wonderful, now we have "big bosses" running the word like the crime bosses of New Reno. And tell me, where is your proof? Does ANYBODY have anything to gain by sending out "propaganda" to discredit "real" hackers?
You're creating your own separate reality. Get down to Earth and back up your claims will you?
>>>If the media says your mother
>>>is a fucking bitch you
>>>are gonna defend it because
>>>you know that isn't true.
>>
>>We are describing definitions of words, not if
>>the media suddenly decides to insult someone.
>
>No no, the topic evoluted to
>this point:
>
>1. You defined the term hacker
>
>2. I defined another meaning
>3. You say that it's archaic
>and that I'm a stupid.
>
>4. Now I'm talking about the
>mistake you are (and lots
>of people are) having because
>a wrong meaning of a
>concept. Why it's not okay
>to label a hacker as
>a computer breaker.
And I'm arguing that you are creating your own reality and you need to WAKE UP and realize that you are fighting against IRREFUTABLE proof.
It IS okay to call a hacker a person who breaks into computers. The people who DO break into computers call themselves hackers. How do you explain that? Are they ignorant or have they just realized (or known all along as most do) that they are speaking of "hacker" in a certain CONTEXT?
That is where you are going wrong. Yes, your meaning is correct for people WHO ARE ACTUALLY HACKING CODE. As for people who break into computers THEY ARE ALSO "HACKERS."
If we went by only one definition for each word our dictionary would be one FOURTH its current size.
>>>Well, here the same...
>>>
>>>But well..... Nobody is interested...
>>>And what can I do against
>>>that? I only have the
>>>knowledge, if you were a
>>>(real) hacker, your opinion would
>>>be similiar to mine.
>>
>>No, I'd probably just figure there are two
>>meanings of the word. Words have different
>>meanings under different contexts. Yeah, you're
>>a code hacker when you're coding Linux apps, but
>>when you're breaking into a system, you're a
>>hacker (computer breaker).
>
>Original hackers does not accept the
>new term.
And why should anyone CARE if self-named "original hackers" say that they don't accept the current term? I mean really, it's like saying you're boycotting a certain product and you send the company a letter. Do they REALLY care? Does ANYONE? Unless you're actually important to the company (or in this case, the computer industry) YOU DON'T MATTER.
The fact is, there are more IMPORTANT PEOPLE, including those "original hackers," who acknowledge and use the term "hacker" as a person who breaks into a computer system. They will use YOUR definition, original definition or not, in the CONTEXT that the definition REQUIRES.
>For being an original hacker you
>have to do lots (I
>mean LOTS) of mental things,
>and a "new hacker" only
>has to break a stupid
>computer system security and start
>causing chaos...
>(Be aware that the code of
>conduct of the old hackers
>were to never let be
>seduced by the information and
>start to copy/move/delete/etc. it)
Whether or not the "original" hacker is doing any harm, the fact remains: they are still breaking into a system. New or old, as cutesy as hackers think they are by following the "hacker's ethic" they are STILL breaking into a system. That is an undeniable FACT.
>>>Understand that, the way I am,
>>>I can't accept everything that
>>>is imposed.
>>>Thanks to nature, I have the
>>>capacity to think in my
>>>own, and not because someone
>>>says that.
>>
>>And as unique and special as you think you are,
>>you are STILL affected and shaped by society. No
>>man is an island.
>
>Yes, there is an indirect affectation.
>But the society has rules,
>and these rules have been
>IMPOSED (yes, they have been
>inevitably imposed) by the "bosses"
>on the world.
Care to name any of them? Really, I'd like to know who these "bosses" are.
>I'm not gonna let that these
>people fill my brain with
>shit that they think it's
>correct and I don't.
You're just eating up the propaganda created by paranoid people. It is just as bad as eating up propaganda created by a government.
Look at the world around you, I assume you are in the United States, look at it. We have more freedoms than ANY nation on Earth. Sure, Europe has some pretty lenient nudity laws, big deal. What nation has an organization, the NAACP which, despite its connotation with pro-minority issues, supports Ku Klux Klan marches out of the idea that no limits be set on the freedom of speech? What nation crys "foul" on issues like the right to carry an AK-47 Assault Rifle into a church? What government allows itself to be sued?
And here you are, complaining that media has supposedly changed the word of "hacker" when it was really the hackers themselves? Get over it.
>>>Hackers were less than 0.1% of
>>>the world poblation, how they
>>>can defend the degradation of
>>>the word? It's impossible.
>>
>>You can fight whatever imaginary battles you
>>want. The fact still remains: "Hacker" has two
>>different definitions.
>
>Imaginary? Could you stop acting with
>ignorance?
>Do you know WHY the Enforce
>team entered to the Pentagon
>in 1998?
>Glamour? No, it was in the
>name of the real hackers.
And these "real" hackers should be dealt with. Do you actually think hackers in any shape or form, aside from people who work with code, are GOOD? Should society even have to DEAL with people breaking into systems. Good or bad, ethical or not, breaking into a computer system is AN ILLEGAL ACT, and has NO place within society.
Do you think that if we didn't have these people that we wouldn't have to waste time and resources to combat them? Yeah, there are "good hackers," the ones who break into systems and leave a nice note showing the weaknesses, but if we didn't have hackers, malicious or not, roaming the internet skies, would we need "good hackers"?
>Thanks to original hackers the information
>on the internet was not
>censured. Never heard about the
>"Communications Decency Act"?
"Censored"
"Original hackers" never had a thing to do with the CDA. The CDA was overthrown because it violated the First Amendment: Freedom of Speech. It was not because some "hackers" made a big stink over the idea, it was because it was unconstitutional. You ARE affected by society, and THAT was a perfect display of society's part in shaping the internet.
But what does that give way to? Yeah, the idea was to prevent an avalanche of censorship on many topics but really it was to prevent children from seeing porn. Is porn constitutional? Some people argue that if porn was restricted soon images of the human anatomy (i.e. health sites) would be restricted. That was a good point, but now people are arguing that SPAM ought to not be regulated because it falls under "freedom of speech."
How about a "Freedom to Listen" act huh?
>I could tell you lots and
>lots of "imaginary fights" that
>you ignore, not because you're
>stupid, but because you aren't
>interested in this topic. But,
>don't talk if you don't
>know a matter at its
>100%.
I don't care about your fight against society. If you don't like it, become a hermit. I for one appreciate what HAS been done for me. Here's a newsflash: Society is NOT out to get you.
I am not interested in imaginary battles. They ARE imaginary.
>>>Yes yes, the fact was that
>>>it was impossible to reach
>>>the moon by 99.999999999999% of
>>>the humanity.
>>>You are a very kind of
>>>common human, you accept everything,
>>>but these things that affects
>>>your personal (or maybe your
>>>friends) life, you don't care
>>>what the humanity thinks about.
>>
>>And you're trying to put across what point?
>>
>If you were an original hacker
>you would be fighting "my
>imaginary" battle.
>Do you think that you have
>changed the meaning? Even helped
>the mean to change? No
>no... You have adopted an
>imposition made by the media.
Media did not change the meaning of "hacker." Hackers did. Your definition of "hacker" may be coherent in some contexts, and mine (most of society's) is coherent in others. Meanings of a word are not copyrighted no matter what you may think.
Do you think that the GNU would even acknowledge the computer-breaker meaning of "hacker" if they didn't believe it existed? No they wouldn't. The GNU was FOUNDED by hackers who fit your definition. They have accepted the new meaning under its context.
The whole problem is that you don't place the word in its proper CONTEXT. That's what makes the English language the HARDEST language in the WORLD to learn. Chinese is simplistic, so is French, so is Latin. English has SOOO many words that mean more than one thing. Why can't "hacker?"
>>>>That is a crazy illusion you are holding. Wake
>>>>up and see the real world for what it IS.
>>>
>>>And what is the real world?
>>>The world that is made
>>>by "human gods" (aka media,
>>>government, microsoft, etc.) or the
>>>world that tries to don't
>>>allow them to change us?
>>
>>The real world is society. Society consists of
>>our environment and everything created by
>>mankind including the people themselves.
>>
>The fact is that citizens aren't
>completly free. Citizens are controlled
>by consume. The big bosses
>of the big organization do
>whatever they want with the
>citizens, and you can't tell
>me that isn't true.
Again, don't make claims, back them up. You describe "big bosses." Who are they?
>Did you know that there is
>a very consistent rumour that
>Intel has already build 1Ghz
>chips? That violate the rights
>of techonolgy progress for the
>mankind. But, who cares? I
>have money... I can do
>whatever I want.
Intel AND American Micro Devices (AMD) have ALREADY created a 1 ghz processor (I have the PC Magazine issue to prove it). AMD even has a 1.2ghz prototype, so what is your point? How does this violate tech progress? If anything it forwards it. Your point is to moot.
Are they the "big bosses" you speak of? Wait, now who actually BUYS those products? The consumer. Are we FORCED to buy them? Nope. If you don't want to forward their business, don't buy from them. Sheesh.
>>And why does that matter? It does not matter
>>whether "hacker" is a person, and ethic, or a
>>concept, it is still a WORD, and a word can have
>>MANY meanings
>>
>And concept-words can't have contradictory meanings.
It most definitely can. It is called a paradox.
Take for example a perfect sphere on a surface. It rolls on a perfect plane. Now a perfect circle touches a plane at only one point. A point however has no tangible area, it only a location. Does the circle have friction on that surface? It DOES touch the surface, but it touches with no area.
It IS touching, so it MUST have friction, but it has an infinitely small amount of friction which is technically zero.
It is a paradox.
"Hacker" is not even a concept however. It is a word, it is jargon, computer jargon. Words may have multiple meanings. Words may have INFINITE meanings. It all depends on where and when you use the word.
Take the word "glare":
Would you use the definition "to stare harshly or angrily" in a sentence like this:
"The glare of the light on the television made it impossible to see the show."
No you wouldn't.
Your point is to moot.
>See, in real life, nothing is
>black or white.
Exactly, now why are you arguing with me? If you realize this, why do you claim that there is only one "real" definition of hacker?
That concept is called "contradiction."
> You must
>have an open mind to
>see what's good or bad,
>you must be in each
>side to know what it
>feels, you must gain experience
>with direct contact with real
>life to know what's all
>about.
Yes, of course, now apply that to your contradiction.
> You must live. Go
>to streets, at night, at
>day, walk, watch, think, evaluate,
>talk, be sociable, nice, and
>then, try to be a
>moron with a person you
>don't know. Feel, gain knowledge,
>be silent, hear the people
>who knows, and then evaluate
>your point of view, your
>perspective.
Why are you making this non-sequitorial speech?
> Every opinion will be
>different, no one thinks the
>same at 100%, maybe 98%,
>maybe 99.9999999%, but never at
>100%.
*Cough* Isn't that what I've been PROVING all along?
>We are humans, we can do
>that.
>Believe in God, and then, don't
>believe in it, live being
>a Christian and then a
>Protestant, then make your choices,
>or, if you don't want
>to do that, seek knowledge
>with the people who knows.
>Like me, I chose to
>be Agnostic, I don't believe
>in God as I believe
>in it. I'm in a
>neutral position, to watch and
>evaluate the point of views.
>I accept the parapsychology, but
>I don't agree or disagree
>with it. Why? Because I
>don't know. I can't believe
>in God if I never
>feel him, or if I
>found that living without him
>was better than living with
>him (that was what happened
>to me).
And your, or anyone's religion relates to the topic how?
>>"Hacker" is also considered slang. It was coined
>>by computer guys in the 1960s to describe
>>themselves. "Hacker" was considered a person who
>>cut up wood before that time. It is only a so-
>>called "globalized" term since the information
>>era starting in the early eighties.
>>
>No, the term "hacker" was used
>by the first time when
>the telephone company Bell was
>first funded in U.S.A. in
>1868.
This has no relation to computers. Moot point.
>What you say was in 1961
>when the M.I.T. bought a
>PDP-1 (don't know exactly if
>it was) computer. Inside the
>university people started to build
>programs to work in that
>environment. They called "hacks" to
>the programming short cuts that
>helped the PDP to do
>his tasks faster.
Hence 1960s, when computers were really first introduced.
>We can say that the first
>real hacker was Ken Thompson
>when in 1969 invented the
>UNIX OS.
Again, 1960s, am I incorrect?
>>Actually it wasn't. It meant "happy" long before
>>it was connotated with homosexuality. I'm sure
>>people didn't like "gay" changed into such a
>>negative connotation but THEY GOT OVER IT.
>
>Excuse my ignorance, I never knew
>that.
And it proves my point.
>>"Something that existed before computers were
>>created" does not make sense. "Hacker" in your
>>terms, was created during the computer era
>>
>But when the mean was consolidated
>as a solid meaning, it
>comprehend anyone who made a
>good to the mankind.
>Like discovering new technolgies, or make
>a good program.
You mean "connotated"? No I don't think it was connotated with anyone who "made a good to mankind," it was connotated to people who worked with computers, hacked code, etc. Later it was used by hackers to describe those of them who would take turns trying to bust into each other's systems, later it came to mean any person who busted into systems. Busting into systems without permission is illegal, PERIOD. This meaning was created by the hackers THEMSELVES.
>>No, a newspaper and a web-site doesn't change
>>the definition of a word, but SOCIETY CAN, and
>>society HAS changed the meaning of "hacker." No
>>matter what you may believe, society IS a
>>defining part of your life.
>
>Your believes are wrong, the media
>imposed the new meaning, and
>the citizens adopted it like
>morons.
Media, you describe it like it were a person. "Hacker"/computer breaker's meaning was created by the hackers themselves. Are they morons? Was the self-named hacker Kevin Mitcick, a moron? He busted into NORAD. He was a hacker.
>Now, hacker has a new meaning
>that never was approved by
>the original hackers.
Oh wait, now we need approval from "original" hackers?! C'mon, quit living in a dream. You speak of "original hackers" as if they actually had/have any clout.
The fact is that most "original hackers" acknowledge the new contexted meaning "hacker" and use the old meaning of "hacker" in its own context. CONTEXT. Get the meaning?
>>Oh, and now you're placing "hackers" in a tier
>>of their own now? I CAN think as a real hacker,
>>and quite frankly I have BETTER things to do
>>than try to defend a definition that is still
>>true under certain contexts.
>>
>>Try claiming that "gay" only means "happy."
>
>I'm just continuing this topic because
>you don't really know about
>this topic so well and
>still discussing me.
>It's funny, you know?
From what I've discussed you don't seem to know ANYTHING, hell your spelling doesn't show much either (okay, that was a low blow, but hey, it does show something). What's funny is the people, like you, who try to argue against IRREFUTABLE FACT. It's like arguing with a FOOL.
It's funny, you know?
>>"Computer-literate" pretty much says it all huh?
>>People who know how to use computer.
>>
>And what is to know how
>to use computers? A programmer
>or a moron with Windows
>95?
Would a "moron" who's using Windows 95 be considered literate? Would a person who can only read a few words be considered literate? How about a "moron" who can only rattle off a few words in Spanish, is he fluent? Catch the meaning?
>If both... Well, then "Computer-literate" has
>nothing to do with this
>topic. We are talking about
>original hackers, not about morons
>that can't execute a file
>in a CD because it
>didn't "autorun".
That isn't "literate," again, another moot point.
>>Marketting strategy? This is just sad. You're
>>creating your own illusions. What kind
>>of "market" strategy could anyone achieve by
>>labling computer breakers as "hackers?"
>
>No one knew of crackers, then,
>they use hackers because it
>was best known (and the
>word was nicer).
Don't know the meaning of "cracker"? Of course they know the meaning of cracker. They don't use the term "cracker" because they AREN'T crackers, they are HACKERS. Crackers bust programs, hackers bust systems. There's a big difference.
> You don't
>believe me? Well... Go to
>the pages I show you
>in the other topics. Read
>the book I post, and
>get informed (if you're interested,
>of course)
Go to
www.attrition.org/ where you can see what REAL hackers do. Look at the database of thousands of sites that hackers most "ethical," have busted into. They are hackers. Look at the docs, look at the information.
Take a look at neworder.box.sk/ Look at the utilities for "security" reasons.
Ever read Fravia's security docs? He was a hacker. He had one of the best hacking sites around.
>Then, to help that "market strategy",
>the movie Hackers was created.
Oh, so the whole change of the word was to create that movie huh? Get real. They based the movie off of that meaning of "hacker" that was created BEFORE that time.
No wait, let me think, in Jurasic Park, that little girl (forgot her name) chose to name herself a "hacker" (your definition), I guess we can add that to the tally sheet right?
>And the media started to use
>that term and the rest
>is history.
Now wait, let me get this straight, you believe that the whole change of the word "hacker" originated with the movie "Hackers" and THEN the media started to propagate that word around? What kind of dream land is your brain in?
>See, you're sad not because you
>think that I'm wrong, but,
>because you don't understand what
>I'm talking about, and that's
>why you try to insult
>me (in a nice way).
*I* don't understand. I doubt if you even program.
I "insult" you because your arguments are about as thought out as people who want FOOL (Fallout Online), and now you're claiming you "know better"?
Media, "big bosses," the movie "Hackers," is that your only "proof" (and I use that word loosely)?
I'll let others decide. Wait, how many people are agreeing with you here? Hmm, let me count the hands.. no, MatuX, you don't count for your own vote.. NOBODY.
>>I personally don't see it as a good use of my
>>time. I don't care about stuff that really
>>doesn't matter. You're blowing this whole thing
>>out of preportion
>>
>Then, don't discuss with a guy
>who knows about a topic
>that you even are interested
>in.
Again, I don't care about your rebel-without-a-cause battles. What I'm discussing is your unsupported claim that "hacker" has different meanings under different contexts.
>>If I were in front of an omnipotent being that
>>has all the power of the universe and he told me
>>to kiss boys, I probably would.
>>
>Then, if I don't obey him,
>technically I'm being able to
>don't do what a "being
>that has all the power
>of the universe" says me
>to do.
No, it means you're fried.
>And that means that he doesn't
>has all the power of
>the universe...
No, it shows that he has the power to even LET you decide. Power is the ability to withold your own power.
>>Oh, and so you're claiming an evolved human is
>>a "hacker?" No, I'm saying that we've evolved
>>past the point of believing that words are set
>>in stone and are not influenced by society.
>>
>>I really don't know where you got that last rant
>
>Before answer, read what you have
>posted, read what I'm posted
>and then write what you
>think it's okay.
I just did, and guess what? You're pushing points that don't exist.
>No, an evolved human is not
>a "hacker", but the people
>that are you claming to
>be evolved aren't hackers, then,
>what you mean is that
>hackers aren't humans because they
>don't evolve with the rest
>of the "society".
Now where did you pull that out of what I wrote?
You speak of hackers as if they have a say in what goes on in the world. Yeah in their immediate environment they do, but where else? Nowhere.
Hackers evolving with society?
I was saying that most of us evolve with society and come to accept the FACT that society changed, along with all that it encompasses. You are not evolving, and living in a false reality that believes that words have set meanings that do not change and should because the first meaning is always right.
>Society society society... When you finish
>the high school you're gonna
>understand what is the society,
>and how fucked up is
>the world you are living
>in.
I already know what society is and how inefficient it is.
You weren't here when I posted my so-called (by Ares) Xotorian World Order ideals on the old board. It dealt with MANY facets of society, including the internet.
Don't tell me that I don't understand society.
> How big organization control
>us, and the ones who
>can't control are claimed as
>enemies.
You're more affected by the propaganda distributed by paranoid, introvert, "old hacker" people.
Maybe you should wake up, look around you and realize that we live in one of the most free societies the planet has ever known. Take a look at Russia during the Soviet Era, look at the United States during the 1910's, THEY were oppressed. I'd suggest you take some history classes and quit soaking up the propaganda distributed by people who feel they've been wronged by a society which gives them so much.
That's what I hate about people who complain about what they have. Do you think that ANY nation lives as well as people in the United States? We live in no threat of war, we don't have the government spying on us to keep us in check, we have the right to arms, to free speech, to sleep without fear of being forces out of our house, we can complain about the government without retaliation. And you complain that "big bosses" are manipulating your mind? These "big bosses" are rich because they were opprotunistic, took a chance, and made it big.
The United States STILL IS the land of opportunity. The Internet is the land of opportunity. We live in a day and age where you can make money creating WEB SITES. You can start your own business with little to nothing. We have free web site hosting.
Don't tell me that you are deprived.
>A recommendation, talk to
>sociologists and philosophers. These guys
>knows everything about life.
I took sociology. One thing they emphasized was that sociologists and philosphers STILL don't know anything. They only point out patterns.
If these guys are your Gods, you're worshipping people who THEMSELVES, realize that they cannot explain humans.
>And you don't know about the
>last "rant" because you didn't
>understood what I posted.
I understand that you don't make any reasonable arguments.
>>Again, you're creating another illusion. As cool
>>as you think you are by "rejecting society" you
>>are only being influenced by another part of it.
>
>Oh my god... Stop talking as
>a unity. The fucking life
>is completly divided, life is
>completly unfair, humans are completly
>divided, talking about a society
>as a totality is completly
>absurd.
And you can't accept that a word has more than one meaning? Contradictions, contradictions.
Society is everything that influences us that is not us. Okay, you're not rejecting ALL of society, but you're rejecting BIG chunk of it. The media is pretty representative of the people who are not in your immediate surroundings. Internet is media, television is media. You hate the media so much and yet you are part of it.
>>More illusions. Has society done you wrong?
>Go and eat in McDonalds, buy
>a Ferrari, bought clothes from
>Pierre Cardin and Nike shoes.
>Then, find out that the
>presidents of these companies is
>just one guy.
Do I have to buy from these people? Am I FORCED? Could I just live a life of simplicity and never be really affected by these people? Yes I can. The Amish do that. I have choices.
As for monopolies:
I believe that if a monopoly can and DOES create the best product there is and does not overcharge for it, I will accept that monopoly with open arms.
The fear of monopolies is only because most monopolies, after they become monopolies, charge to much and give too little.
What you do want? A single good dictator, or a congress of idiots?
>That's a fact, did you read
>"The Third Wave"?
Can't say I have.
Have you read 1984? Do you know why that society was so horrible? Because the quality of progress and life was horrible.
But I digress. You see society as such a bad thing, but it isn't.
>>>How old are you?
>>>What are your dreams? You have?
>>>
>>>Do you like to control? Do
>>>you like to be controlled?
>>>
>>>Do you think only by yourself,
>>>or you care what other
>>>peoples believes?
>>>Do you believe in parapsychology?
>>>Do you believe in God? In
>>>Jesus?
>>
>>And this has something to do with the topic in >what way...?
>>
>In the way that you completly
>ignore the real life, and
>you claim as ignorants as
>the people who knows but
>you can't understand them.
"Ignore the real life"? Wait, this is coming from a guy who is making out media to be something it isn't, doesn't accept that words can have multiple meanins under different contexts, thinks there are "big bosses" out to get him, and believes that the word "hacker" changed because of the movie "Hackers"?
The only real life you know is the one inside your head.
>>>What is to be intelligent?
>>
>>To be useful.
>>
>A hacker was useful, todays hackers
>aren't useful, ooh, yes!! How
>do you want original hackers
>to accept that?
By placing it under a different context. Easy concept here.
>>>Do you think what you speak,
>>>or do you speak what
>>>you think?
>>
>>Try to stick to the topic.
>>
>To avoid is to don't allow
>knowledge to fill your mind,
>and that's called to be
>an ignorant.
But to change the topic is to try to find a way out of your original point because you can't support it.
>Bye bye!
Try backing up your claims with something huh?
>PS: I'm really tired of talking
>about this, I would like
>to finish this saying that
>you have a concept in
>mind and I have another
>one and that is.
>I don't want to be your
>enemy, I want to be
>friends, we just have differents
>points of views and all
>of them are corrects.
No, I'm going to come forth and say that my point is correct and yours isn't. I'm not talking on points of view, I'm saying that you are WRONG.
Please don't put forth the "we are all correct" idea when you don't believe it because I know you don't.
>"There're little humans that are capable
>to express with equality, opinions
>that differs from prejudices of
>his environment"
> - Albert Einstein
>
>I hope it's well traduced, but,
>Albert seems to think like
>I am
And you try to reject society or parts of it when you already KNOW you cannot? Why are you arguing then?
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
