pouët.net

Sotsoft's latest demo!

I look at him with awe as I am a stupid computer. We don't know why we know what we know. It's obvious to us human intelligences. It's unreachable, it's a talent to the corresponding stupid computers. There is no single definition of intelligence. It can be everything. Someone might be very good at solving Sudoku even if it's unpractical. I am very good at programming but suck at math. No, even math intelligence can be separated in subsections of intelligence. I am good at understanding the concepts especially visually. I am good at making a practical use of them. But I always sucked at solving mathematical problems just to pass the exams. I also suck at studying (The alternative path for exam success would be to solve one thousand exercises per month and have a very good memory too). Yet I am better at programming than maths. I can find in a very short time alternative solutions or optimizations to algorithms, a kind of coding intuition, people staring at me and wondering where the hell do they sell inspiration and I bought some? Humans are intelligent at interpreting imagery. We instantly see houses, faces, cars, dogs, cats, plants and even smaller details in a blink of an eye. Computers need to be prepared with sophisticated image recognition software to achieve that. If I ask you to add all numbers from 1 to 100 you may either take a long time to make all the additions one by one (each of you may either be preferably more fast according to the means: paper and pencil, calculator or abacus) or use your intelligence to invent an equation to do it fast (like Pascal did iirc) but a computer would still do that from zero to one million in nanoseconds. That's why they are called computers :) They say that great pianists had in such way evolved neural networks in their brains that justified their unique talent. Say that because of my long lasting occupation as a computer programmer I have evolved in such way my neural networks that I can instantly have a whole image of programming and algorithmical problem solving and is quite easier for me to read a programming exercise in university exams and know what to do. The same way it's easy for a math genious which leaves me wondering how it's possible. I am not even aware that it's a talent. Evolution is slow. It seems obvious to me, I even don't remember when there was a time that I wasn't able to grasp the primary notions. Imagine that each of us has some overdeveloped networks of neural nets that help them perform specific functions faster and better than others while we have weak or badly developed networks on other aspects. I am good at programming and optimization, bad at planning, lazy in studying, not a good socializer. Others are better or worse on various other aspects. Viewing it like this it gave me a lot of possible answers to what is intelligence, talent, intuition, habits, personality and the main questions raised are what are the reasons we have evolved our brain this way and how easilly can some things change. I mean, I am good at programming because I was into programming for years and my brain has learned to deal with these kinds of problems before my eyes. But there must be a time I wasn't good at programming. There must be an initial moment when my skills on programming, maths, socialization or even things like my resistance and attitude to laziness, ability to plan, reaction to emotions or habits, where all set at zero. There was a time that when I should start learning how to approach girls or drink beer, I was lost into binary logic. Why maths and no girls? Why girls and no maths? Why computers and no maths? Why not everything? Why avoiding or not being interested in some? What dragged me into others? I am thinking of two or three primary reasons. And you can add more. Questionable is how biology plays a role. Then it is our choices in the past. And then it is emotions. Someone would add social or school or family environment, inspirations from the outside world, etc. These are secondary but I believe that the whole of them can fit into one bigger image. Brain biology: I was always a fan of this notion. I have the feeling that I am better or worse at some things no matter how I try because of this. Of course there is a possibility that this could be a delusion. Maybe, if after the years I overdeveloped the neural networks for programming and underdeveloped those having to do with socialization then it all seems to hard to change. So hard that it feels like I was born with that. But even the sole idea that everything is tabula rasa doesn't wipe out the influence that brain biology can bring to the game. Some people are too emotional and others are psychopaths. Some have more analytical way of thinking and others are more capable socialy. Even if I can't answer to the question whether this brain differences where initial or evolved. Actually what could be initial would be the biological inclination to evolve to each different path. If for example analytical thought favours certain brain parts that happened to be in better communication with each others at birth, then there is a higher posibility for certain choices or habits. It doesn't predict if he will evolve his neural networks towards being good at math or a good socializer though. But it affects. It affects the path that will bring us to now and make us think why we are what we are. Put an asterisk to that though, it's great for studying further (and I am not a neuroscientist to know). Choices. I often wonder. What would happen if I had not taken the path to become a great computer programmer? Would I have not evolved my neural networks into that. Would I now be staring at algorithm solutions and optimizations uncapable of thinking how is this possible? Would I have instead found a purpose in my studies and become a genious at math? Would I met some other people, another hobby, another purpose and be something completely different? That initial moment when I was 16 and was teased by my classmates and thought I would proove them smarter or gain my lost self-esteem by becoming great at something nobody understands. That initial moment could have happened by chance? Chance is how I am currently thinking it. They say that evolution is not exactly chance. There is a purpose but no creator. It's more like natural selection. Of course chance exists, my attention could have been drawn by something else and snap a different choice. But in the big picture when you see all the pieces together you can see a patern. They ask me what would happen if there were no computers in the world. Would I be just like the rest? Would I just engage in regular boring activities? Most probably I would have found another geeky hobby. If I was a neandertal I would invent fire or something. I know it :). But things could slightly change, I would be good at maths instead of programming, with different friends or parents I could have evolved slightly different habbits, different ways of reacting to my negative emotions, family and society could surely play a role in the way my neural networks evolved. But the primary motive would still be here. My brain wanted to learn, to be creative, I couldn't stop analyzing things (Remember the number one reason here). Emotions. They can make you love or hate things. Maybe it's the reasons I am not motivated to solve maths or study. And remember, some old habits, some old evolved neural networks are hardly changed if not modified. In order to be really good at maths as I am in programming I'd have to be motivated to solve thousands of exercises just to pass the exams. What if I studied computers science and had maths as a hobby? Still something missing. Motivation. I am motivated to solve problems with a practical use unlike math problems at school which are useful just to pass the exams. I use maths but for algorithms. They are not the same. Maths at exams are like sudoku puzzles, at least some of them. And the rest are boring. I could put motivation into the equation among with emotions and a sense of purpose for what we do. Emotions, there can be negative. You can hate things. They form your habbits. Maybe I always liked the idea of great scientists that dragged me into wishing to become a great computer programmer or something. Maybe that was the initial tension at 16 to follow that path which after a lot of practice evolved my neural brains in such a way to be easilly for me to fiddle with algorithms and stuff. I am wondering now if negative emotions among other people led me into avoiding socialization. Currently I believe that being too emotional makes me being extremely overwhelmed when into social situations. Emotions complicate matters too much. They form our personality, our habits, our tensions to follow or avoid any path. And when we follow our habits, that piece of neural networks which is connected with that is preserved more and more as much as it used and should be abandoned for a very long to be wiped out and/or replaced with a parallel path. That's why it's too hard to change. When you have learned to hate social situations or the people who criticise you for being weird and not having a life then how easy is to change? And why change the habit of thinking too much or programming when they are such valuable talents to most? And when they keep telling you that you are not normal and you keep reacting to the negative emotions with the same boring way then imagine what happens in your brain and how badly you enstregthen the chronic situation. A big turn has to be done there. You have a path that split in two. At the initial point where you have to make a choice, not speaking about the different realities at stake, it seems that at the initial point you didn't have a preference. Let's say that you didn't. From that point and later, what follows forms a tendency. Say that initialy I decided to become a great programmer. I started coding slowly slowly, then I learned a little, then a little more, then I liked what I was doing because I became better at it. Then my neural networks had already evolved a little into that direction. When you walk a road you can't just go back and take another one. As long as a tendency to work on programming problems was slowly slowly formed into my brain, as long as new neural cells were infected by my engagement in programming, the more my neural nets were fired towards that direction. I could even stare at an image or hear a word having nothing to do with computers and somehow relate it to my hobby because there were more cells infected with programming specific things. I am not really into neuroscience (even if I'd like to learn more) to know how neural cells or networks work (I am even feeling I am using the wrong terms) and how they evolve, if they grow, even if it's an empty hard disk or new trees are born, I just speak out of how I feel the whole picture of what I am talking about. Anyways, the more you are engaged with something, the more your brain is filled with that stuff and the more it's filled, the more you are inclined to be more engaged with that. Kinda like a vicious circle. But there was that initial point where the skill was near zero and there was no inclination towards it just pure chance. Or wasn't it? It wasn't. Computer programming was not a thing I was aware of once I was born. But there were other notions related to it. Somewhere I have heard that programmers are scientists. Somewhere else I have heard that scientists are smart or cool. I have also heard that computer is the future. I liked their colors and shapes. Did I always have that visual mathematician way to view things? Or did it evolve too? If scientists were cool and computers were fancy and I also needed an injection of self-esteem that would make a good match but how did I have the notions of good and cool and sexy and smart? There was an initial point where everything was at zero. I knew nothing. Pure chance? Or also brain biology? You can say that I was an analytical brain. But what if this was a tension too? What if I decided to think too much? What if at a very early stage a primary tension/tendency/inclination towards thinking and analyzing was build up, some of the first evolved neural networks were build upon this scheme? And this scheme made me seek for knowledge and understanding? It could be with others too. I am not the only who thinks in here. But why do I think so much? Why do I think much more than others? Could we say it's just psychological? I think it's a biological difference in brain. But this part is still in debate. Still thinking about tendecies is important. I found one that one primary reason at the time that I initialy have chosen to become a good programmer was that it snapped me that I would heal my bad self-esteem during that moment. Which didn't happened. But left me with the ability to do really spectacular things with a compiler. I am recently healing my self-esteem following a different path. Which is also snapped me. After I have seen results I have said "Wowa! How did I do this?". In the same way that I get that inspiration and I don't know why. The same way someone solves a problem and things it's obvious. Before several months it wasn't that obvious. Parenthesis here. I found that at my 16 but I later forgot I wasn't programming because programming is good but because it snapped me at my 16. This doesn't make sense but wtf. All I mean is there are influences from my birth that evolved my neural networks one after the other and brought me into this time. Some talents, some bad habits, both can't easily change. There could be a reason, not chance but natural selection, like I was inclined to be geeky as I was meaned to be lazy. Some can change. Lack of self-esteem was not something I tried to avoid. I really wanted it. I recently feel like having it but started being build since the first time I asked for it. It took time. Or maybe? Self-esteem took time while programming much less time? Was my brain inclined towards one and against the other? One can achieve something if he really wants it but does the biology play such a big role? How can specific children at 6 or 8 years old play the piano, write assembly or solve higher maths? It all points to the brain. Chance maybe but that is changed to natural selection. Different paths are being followed but the initial inclination to chose one in favor of others are primary the brain and then aditionally social/family growth, evolved emotion (things we learn to love or hate) and habits formed. But the primary paths, the tendencies/inclinations, the roots. I'd like to know more.. Nah. I am used to it. I was thinking that in the same way that you instantly see the whole picture out of smaller parts and meanings while the computer needs sophisticated image recognition software to do just that, in the same way I am truly struggling to disclose the bigger image of thoughts and ideas about everything (the reason for my big texts) in order to let myself out of the cognitive dissonance I had been through all these years. And neural networks are evolving towards that direction too. Even those that let me decide a nicer way to react to the negative emotions produced by incompatibility of ideas. They are build and most of the time without a conscious plan but out of my primary motives. I was lost into thoughts of not being normal and one day I was fed up. The change didn't immediately came, just the timid decision to stop caring. Other things, ideas, happenings led me to a similar decision. All these together slowly slowly evolved into acceptance of myself and the world around me, while also killing softly my old habit of self-pitty. But it came so slowly that I wasn't conscious of it until one day that I woke up and thought I was getting better at something I thought I was lost. I felt know that what I believe is obvious. I was the stupid computer. I am the human intelligence. I evolved. It's nice thinking of everything this way. A different point of view that I recently found important. Some of it's primary aspects are things I have been thinking in the past and someone would say that it's not something new. But here comes the part where they see doors and windows and a brick wall but they can't see the whole bigger image, they can't see the house. Here is the part where I have that greater feeling of a whole that explains a lot but it might sound trivial to many of us. It's not an entirely new view, it always combines previously written ideas because that's how evolution works. The big image inherits older ideas combined together, which each of them inherits much older ideas and when I feel so great about writting a blog post like this is when suddenly this cloud of thoughts, this confusing puzzle suddenly seems to be forming the bigger whole. Those are very randomly written thoughts. Not exactly the whole picture. I also wished to write a new post and put the last article down (enough bashing "hackers" :P). From those scattered writtings I might privately make some notes hopefully into a good scheme of things (I never did that no matter how many times I wanted to really organize my thoughts :PP) It seems that my anti-hacker posts will never seize to appear. In fact I am really motivated to get more into it in any way possible :P I will just make some comparisons now of the average person in three different communities. And two funny analogies too.. (my favorites :) First, some distinctions have to be made. I will be shortly talking about the hacker, the cracker and the scener. I will define their meaning at least as used in this post. I need to be sure that no misunderstandings will take place because of a different understanding of the same words and that my point will be understood. The hacker: I know that you don't like the use of this term to describe these electronic pranksters as seen on TV (Neither do I). In this post though I will use it as it is (even without the quotes) and I will mean only the definition as portrayed by the mass media and adapted by our own culture. I will not mean in this post by the word "hacker" the hobbyist programmer, the computer enthousiast or the computer pioneers of the past. Please understand this is just for the purpose of the post and as means to be understood even by the illiterate. The cracker: Be careful to my definition of this term for the purpose of this post! This is not the term used in hacker ethics to differentiate from the programmer to the electronic prankster. It does not mean the bad hacker or the script kiddie here. It is about the software cracker, the dude who managed to overpass the copy protection of commercial software, makes serial number generators or even makes those nice cracktro screens with gfx/music and sometimes (maybe in the past) option for infitive lives/energy/etc. While piracy is also ethically questionable, in my opinion this guy has not much to do with the hacker as described in the previous paragraph in my opinion. The scener: Some people say that the demoscene has it's ancestors in the cracking scene (as described in the previous paragraph). Some of the software crackers except from removing the copy protection from the commercial software, also did code some sort of a graphical screen with some music, a logo of the cracking group and a scrolling text with greeting/fuckings to various other crackers and other messages. These are the cracktros accompanied some pirated games which some of you might remember a lot of years ago even though they are not too frequent today. Some of the crackers who liked doing these intros stop their cracking abilities and just released similar cracktros (later called intros or demos (from demonstration)) purely for artistic purposes. When I first got involved in the demoscene I had no idea about the cracking scene. I just liked to code demonstrations of graphic algorithms synced to the music and release them to the public. Demoscene has nothing to do with "illegal" (as in piracy) cracking activities except for the roots (how the cracktros evolved into the scene demos of today). In a nutshell: What my terms mean here is: Hacker: As seen on TV and understood by most. Illegally granting access into computer networks for any reason. It's totally irrelevant with the meaning of the computer enthousiast or the programming pioneer in this post. Cracker: Nothing to do with the defintion of a black hat hacker or a script kiddie. It is the software cracker who breaks copy protection schemes of commercial software, codes serial key generators and all that stuff having to do with software piracy. Scener: See for yourself about the demoscene community. They have their roots in the cracktros that crackers coded but their activities are entirely irrelevant. The hacker is mostly caring about the reach of his goal which is to get access to some server in order to make some supposedly "cool" act as defacing a website, spreading a virus, stealing some private informations or maybe make a political statement. The primary force that drove most of these dudes into hacking could be because it sounded "cool" or maybe they thought romantically that they are heros fighting against the system or anything. They don't really care much about knowledge or programming skills as they just really dream for the time they make a cool "hack" into the pentagon or something. 98% "coolness" / 2% soul in my opinion. The cracker mostly cares about the challenge of breaking that copy protection scheme, reverse engineering the algorithm behind those serial codes, disassembling commercial software and make few improvements here and there, etc. They get commercial software from suppliers and send cracked versions to the warez dudez who are responsible for spreading the pirated (and cracked) copies. Sometimes they code cracktros attached to the software and run before it starts, to claim how leet they are. The cracker may not care whether software piracy is accepted or not, they are more driven from the challenge of bypassing the protection against piracy and they feel very proud if succeed. Not much code or work is needed to achieve this but they know what a disassembler is and use it regularly for example. Funny thing is that I have met two crackers in the past and they both ignored or even snobbed my demoscene involvement while bragging about their cracking activities. There is a feeling of leetness in this scene but at least it's not about pranks on the internet and those dudes know a bit about programming and love the challenge. 70% coolness / 30% work (always in my opinion). The scener in his first days had watched some demos done from older scene veterans and for some reasons he really liked the graphics algorithms, music and programming effort went into it. He actually liked the demos alone for their feeling and creativity and thought he'd really like to learn how to create something like that. He is in a great need for being creative with his computer and show that he can do something cool rather than spend time gaming, chatting or watching porn. It's hard at the beginning, needs a lot of effort to learn good programming, optimizations, mathematics, graphics algorithms or even how to choose the proper colors for his demo, it's even hard to organize this one with other sceners who are willing to paint computer graphics or write some music for you and put all things together in a nice presentation. Ripping a demo and presenting it as yours is more than lame in the scene because the whole purpose of what we are doing is to work hard and create a pleasing realtime demonstration of graphics algorithms, art and sound, the creative road taken is the soul of demomaking (entirely opposite from hacking, where someone can even succeed sometimes doing a "lucky" hack in a website and brag about it strongly). Of course there is a bit of a feeling of leetness in the scene too, we use cool sounding nicks and group names and argue with each other too, as in cracking and hacking, something that happens in a lesser or greater degree in every other community now I am thinking it. But the greatest motivation to join was initially to create something like the first demos we have seen and loved, no matter if some of us needed that for curing their low self-esteem too. (I am talking about myself here :)) 20% coolness / 80% creativity. And now my favorites! A scener is someone who walks several miles to reach his destination although he enjoys the walk. A lot of obstacles and problems are to be passed on his way. There is a great prize at the end for the good effort. The cracker needs to jump over a protective electric fence to get to the other side. There is a ramp there at the right position and he finds a broken motorcycle. With his tools he manages to fix it and jump on the other side. He finds the switch to turn off the electric fence and cuts an opening in the fence with his tools for others to get through. The hacker enters into the back of the car of a careless driver who stops to take a piss. The driver gets back and drives to his home. The hacker gets out, gets into the driver's house without to be seen and starts writing messages with spray over the wall. Sometimes he leaves the place, sometimes he breaks some furniture or beat the crap out of the driver too. And at the end he brags about it, thinks he is a hero and even some people congratulate him for his acts because they have heard it's to be respected. Another one. What if sometimes even sceners or crackers seem to be engaged into hacker's activities? Why would that happen in any of these cases? The scener is a scientist who except from his primary expertise also happens to be engaged into lock picking as a hobby because it's a tricky thing to do(like Feynmann for example). At best he finds a safe target just to experiment, not someone else's house. The cracker is into lock picking sometimes. It's a similar technical challenge as his primary cracking activities and gives him back some more of the leetness that makes him feel special. He tries lockpicking and maybe breaks into some house. He maybe steals some food to eat or supply to other people who need it. The hacker most of the times cannot even bother to lockpick but slams the door with a kick and gets inside. He either writes some messages with spray upon the walls or furniture with texts that mock the owner, sometimes he may steal some money or only in rare situations breaks everything apart or kills the owners. In the end he things he is a great respected scientist, a brilliant mind or a hero of the revolution because lockpicking is what Feynmann is into also. Most of the people think that these dudes are like robin hood and praise them. When you have a different opinion they blame you of being ignorant or working for something they call "the system". I said things as raw as I could. Trying to be as exhibitive as possible. And you have seen nothing yet.. Now, to the people who still think I shouldn't be using the term "hacker" to describe what I am talking about in this post I have to say this. Nobody is using or understands the distinction term "cracker". (with which definition I also disagree because there is another scene of software crackers that have almost nothing to do with the new hacker definition (in either color of hats)) It doesn't show the real problem here. We, computer enthousiasts and hardcore programmers are not called hackers anymore. Our image to the average person is of geeks rather than revolutionary heros as seen on TV. And the new definition is deeply into our culture and only confuses things if we try to both keep the old and new definitions or even try to put different titles, not understanding at the end which activities we praise or blame given the words used. If for example I started by saying that hacker is defined as a programming pioneer of the past that is bound to be respected and then tried to either use the same or even a distinction term (like your bad hacker "cracker") to describe it, people would still click to the well known cool sounding of the word "hacker" and further attribute the good things of the old definition you describe with their liking of the new definition everybody understands. What we would have here as a result is people thinking that illegally attacking or taking access into computer networks is to be respected and it's called "hacking" and it's done by computer gods and think that your distinction talks about the difference between good and evil hackers who both invade into computer networks but for different reasons. This is why I insisted only on the new term definition, because this is what people think either ways and I really wanted to make it clear to them that this one is not romantic or heroic but purely lame. I thought about the term "neohacker". If you speak to people that people who invade computer networks are called "crackers" (or anything else not using the synthetic word "hacker") they will not understand. Nobody calls anyone cracker outside the world to mean anything like that. It's not deep into their culture as the romantic or heroic sounding word "hacker". And you will confuse the things more. I thought that "neohacker" still having the synthetic "hacker" into it would drag people's attention but make the distinction nicely. "Neo" refers to the new definition of the later generations. "Hacker" with the quotes wouldn't make it because if not written it sounds the same. But "neohacker" would still drag attention and yet not being forgotten as "cracker" and also can easilly make the distinction. In fact neither "neohacker" would do it because those electronic pranksters and wannabe rebellions would still think they are called hackers and that only the bad sides of their activity is called neohacking. Where they would still think that defacing a website is on the good or accepted side (since it doesn't "destroy" anything, hell yet in my opinion it kills a lot of the precious time of people behind the website or the admins, frustrates people and is simply childish :P). But I will use the term more frequently in the future. Not much that can be done when something enters our culture and stays. But we can forget these terms for a while and just concentrate on criticizing these not really to be respected activities. If only meanings wouldn't be distorted because of the words used.. Ο χάκερ δεν έχει και πολύ σχέση με τη αναζήτηση της γνώσης. Δεν είναι αυτός ο βασικός του σκοπός άλλωστε σήμερα. Αν ήταν έτσι τότε δεν θα ασχολούταν αποκλειστικά και μόνο με εκείνο το κομμάτι που καταλαβαίνει ο κοινός νους όταν ακούει για χάκινγκ στην τηλεόραση. Ο όρος χάκινγκ ταιριάζει στο μουράτο. Εισβολή σε υπολογιστικά δίκτυα, defacing σελιδών με wannabe ακτιβιστικό περιεχόμενο ή l33t speak, κλέψιμο κωδικών και καταστροφή στις χειρότερες περιπτώσεις. Δείξε στους φίλους σου τα χομπίστικα projects που έχεις προγραμματίσει (που σίγουρα έχουν περισσότερη δουλειά και νοημοσύνη από τις μύριες ψευτοχακιές που γίνονται στα site) και αδιάφορα θα σου πουν "Οκ, καλό αυτό αν και λίγο βαρετό. Με χάκινγκ ασχολείσαι να πάμε να κάνουμε καμιά πλακίτσα;". Δεν με νοιάζει και πολύ αν η τάδε "χακιά" έγινε με έτοιμα σκριπτάκια ή κάποιος κάθισε και έγραψε δικό του κώδικα για να την πετύχει. Εδώ τα σκριπτάκια έχουν νόημα γιατί αυτό είναι ακριβώς που επιδιώκει ο σημερινός "χάκερ". Το αποτέλεσμα! Να χακέψει το τάδε site για τη μούρη και μόνο. Αν κάποιος είχε τέτοιες γνώσεις προγραμματισμού ώστε να το κάνει με τον επίπονο τρόπο τότε 9 στις 10 δεν θα ασχολούταν με εισβολή σε δίκτυα και defacing για το κερασάκι στην τούρτα. Υπάρχουν χίλιοι δυό ενδιαφέροντες τομείς που μπορεί κανείς να ασχοληθεί αν γνωρίζει προγραμματισμό ή αγαπάει τη γνώση. Μέσα στην λεγόμενη hacking community πιστεύω πως οι 99 στους 100 είναι νέοι που είδαν στην τηλεόραση ή άκουσαν από τους φίλους τους περί χάκινγκ και ίσως ακολούθησαν αυτήν την πορεία ουσιαστικά για να κερδίσουν λίγη από τη χαμένη τους αυτοπεποιήθηση. Ο ένας στους εκατό ίσως είναι ο κύριος που γουστάρει προγραμματισμό και έτυχε από τους χίλιους και δύο τομείς των υπολογιστών να ενδιαφέρεται περισσότερο για computer security. Το χάκινγκ όπως νοείται σήμερα γίνεται κατά ένα μεγάλο ποσοστό για τη μούρη και μόνο. Αυτό που με νοιάζει και με απασχολεί είναι πως δημιουργείται σύγχηση τέτοια ώστε ή όλη "χακερομανία" να θεωρείται θεϊκη και να μιλάνε όλοι με μεγάλα λόγια και με σεβασμό για αυτούς που κάνουν π.χ. defacing μια σελίδα. Ούτε προσωπικά με καίει πως ξεφτιλίζεται ο όρος. Πιστεύω πως ο όρος "χάκερ" είναι ένα παραπέτασμα καπνού για να δικαιολογήσει τη μόδα του σημερινού χάκινγκ. Αυτοί οι 9 στους 10 που αναφέρω παραπάνω (βάλε και τον ένα που μας ξέφυγε και πραγματικά θέλει να μάθει περί computer security, όχι για να εντυπωσιάσει την γκόμενα του) που γουστάραν προγραμματισμό κάποτε γίνανε πολύ καλοί σε αυτό που αγαπούν και ονομάσανε τους εαυτούς τους χάκερς. Δεν χρειαζόταν τίποτε να έχει σχέση με τον ένα και μοναδικό τομέα για να δείχνεις χάκερ, την εισβολή σε δίκτυα υπολογιστών. Χάκερ ήταν και ο προγραμματιστής που έφτιαχνε παιχνίδια, λειτουργικά, compilers, demos ή utilities. Από εκεί βγήκε ή ιδέα πως οι χάκερς είναι πολύ έξυπνοι και πως θα πρέπει να τους σεβόμαστε, πως φέρανε την επανάσταση στους υπολογιστές και αλλάξανε τον κόσμο. Αλλά δεν είχε ο όρος καμία σχέση με την σημερινή έννοια. Ή να το πω και αλλιώς. Με defacings θα αλλάξετε τον κόσμο; Θα κάνω μια (δύο) απλή αναλογία. Φανταστείτε έναν φιλόσοφο που σκέφτηκε και ανέλυσε την έννοια της αναρχικής ιδεολογίας. Θυμηθείτε και ένα σωρό νέους να τρέχουν στους δρόμους και να σπάνε βιτρίνες και αυτοκίνητα επείδη είναι αναρχικοί και νομίζουν πως πολεμάνε για μια ιδεολογία. Ο κύριος φιλόσοφος και οι συναδέλφοι του που απλά τους αρέσει να σκέφτονται και να μελετούν είναι αυτό που θα λέγαμε η παλιά σημασία του χάκερ. Οι νέοι είναι η καινούρια σημασία. Φανταστείτε διάφορους μηχανικούς και εφευρέτες από το παρελθόν μέχρι και σήμερα. Κατασκευάσανε τον τροχό, την άμαξα, την τυπογραφία, το τηλεσκόπιο, την πυξίδα, μέχρι και τους υπολογιστές μας. Κάποιοι ανακαλύψανε την πυρίτιδα και φτιάξανε και όπλα. Κάποιοι νέοι βγαίνουν στους δρόμους και αρχίζουν να πυροβολούν με αυτά τα όπλα όποιον ή ότι βρουν για τους δικούς τους λόγους τέλος πάντων. Το να αποκαλούνται αυτοί που εισβάλουν σε δίκτυα και κάνουν defacing χάκερς είναι σαν να λες πως οι νέοι με τα όπλα είναι εφευρέτες και φέρανε την τεχνολογική επανάσταση στον κόσμο. Πόσο πιο απλά μπορώ να το παρουσιάσω; Δεν υπάρχουν hacker ethics. Δεν υπάρχουν redhats, greenhats, greyhats, blackhats or whatever. Δεν υπάρχει επανάσταση. Δεν είναι ακτιβισμός. Είναι μουράτο, κάποιοι ταυτίστικαν, κάποιοι χρειαζόντουσαν λίγη αυτοπεποιήθση, κάποιο είδαν κάτι στην τηλεόραση και είπαν "ας το κάνουμε, φαίνεται κουλ!" Τα πάντα είναι ένα παραπέτασμα καπνού. Οι κύριοι που χακάρανε τον LHC εμμέσως λένε αυτά που λέω εγώ εδώ πέρα, δηλαδή ότι είναι μια μόδα που γουστάρουν τα παιδάκια, δεν έχει καμιά σχέση με τον χομπίστα προγραμματιστή ας πούμε. Βασικά συμφωνούμε! Αλλά ταυτόχρονα αντιφάσκουν. Γιατί κάνανε ένα μουράτο defacing την σελίδα του LHC για να μας πουν ακριβώς αυτό, πως το χάκινγκ είναι γνώση και όχι μούρη. Και φαντάζομαι έναν νέο να βλέπει την "χακιά" τους και να τους βρίσκει και πολύ κουλ. Και να αναρρωτιέται πως θα γίνει να μάθει να κάνει το ίδιο; Δεν θέλει να μάθει προγραμματισμό αλλά να μπορεί να φέρει εις πέρας το ίδιο αποτέλεσμα σε ένα αντίστοιχο site για να νοιώσει και αυτός "χάκερ". Ο περίφημος mentor είχε βγάλει ένα μανιφέστο που το πιπιλίζουν όλοι σαν καραμέλα. Δυστυχώς δεν γνωρίζω τίποτα για τον κύριο, δεν διάβασα καθόλου για την ιστορία του (σύγχρονου) "χάκινγκ". Δεν είμαι σίγουρος αν ήταν απλώς ένας πολύ καλός προγραμματιστής σε κάποιο τυχαίο τομέα ή επικεντρονώταν ειδικά σε αυτό που κάνουν και οι κύριοι "χάκερς" της GST. Αλλά από το επαναστατικό ύφος και τη θεματολογία του μανιφέστου του μου φαίνεται πως ήταν μοντέρνος "χάκερ". Γκρίνιαζε για το πως αλλοιώθηκε ή σημασία του χάκινγκ από τα μέσα ενημέρωσης και πως η πληροφορία πρέπει να είναι ελεύθερη κλπ. Δεν ξέρω πως το εννούσε πραγματικά, δεν ξέρω αν ήταν προγραμματιστής που γούσταρε την αρχαία σημασία του χάκινγκ ή ασχολούταν αποκλειστικά με το network security breach και απλώς ήθελε να το κάνει επανάσταση και να δικαιολογήσει τις πράξεις του. Αλλά αυτό που λέει περί μμε και παραπληροφόρησης πιστεύω πως σχετίζεται με την σύγχησ που έχει προκληθεί και αναφέρω παραπάνω, και όσο βγαίνουν "νεοχάκερς" που θέλουν να κάνουν defacing για τη μούρη, ουσιαστικά αυτοί είναι που διαιωνίζουν την λαθασμένη εικόνα. Και τους ακούς να αναφέρονται συνέχεια στο μανιφέστο του mentor με θαυμασμό, με παρεξηγούν πως εγώ παραπληροφορήθηκα από τα μμε λες και δεν είναι όλη αυτή η χακερομανία που διαιωνίζει μια μόδα που καμιά σχέση δεν έχει με αυτό που ισχυρίζεται και για την οποία δεν μπορώ να νοιώσω σεβασμό. Νομίζω πως φάσκουν και αντιφάσκουν. Η ίδια η wannabe hacking community ξεφτυλίζεται και όχι τα μμε. Τα μμε απλώς προβάλλουν μια μόδα που πάντα άρεσε στον πολύ κόσμο και ορισμένοι νέοι διαωνίζουν τη μόδα που είδαν στην τηλεόραση ή άκουσαν από φίλους. Τα μμε προβάλλουν αυτό που συμβαίνει σήμερα σε αυτές τις κοινότητες (με λίγη υπερβολή βέβαια). Χάκινγκ και χάκερ σημερα σημαίνει αυτό που καταλαβαίνει ο κόσμος. Ναι, εισβάλεις παράνομα σε ένα ξένο υπολογιστικό σύστημα και ο κυριότερος σκοπός είναι να κάνεις μουράτο defacing. Καμιά σχέση με δεινούς προγραμματιστές, ιδιοφυίες και σεβασμό. Αυτό καταλαβαίνει ο κόσμος, αυτό καταλαβαίνεις και εσύ όταν μου λες πως θέλεις να γίνεις "χάκερ" και πως οι

I look at him with awe as I am a stupid computer. We don't know why we know what we know. It's obvious to us human intelligences. It's unreachable, it's a talent to the corresponding stupid computers. There is no single definition of intelligence. It can be everything. Someone might be very good at solving Sudoku even if it's unpractical. I am very good at programming but suck at math. No, even math intelligence can be separated in subsections of intelligence. I am good at understanding the concepts especially visually. I am good at making a practical use of them. But I always sucked at solving mathematical problems just to pass the exams. I also suck at studying (The alternative path for exam success would be to solve one thousand exercises per month and have a very good memory too). Yet I am better at programming than maths. I can find in a very short time alternative solutions or optimizations to algorithms, a kind of coding intuition, people staring at me and wondering where the hell do they sell inspiration and I bought some? Humans are intelligent at interpreting imagery. We instantly see houses, faces, cars, dogs, cats, plants and even smaller details in a blink of an eye. Computers need to be prepared with sophisticated image recognition software to achieve that. If I ask you to add all numbers from 1 to 100 you may either take a long time to make all the additions one by one (each of you may either be preferably more fast according to the means: paper and pencil, calculator or abacus) or use your intelligence to invent an equation to do it fast (like Pascal did iirc) but a computer would still do that from zero to one million in nanoseconds. That's why they are called computers :) They say that great pianists had in such way evolved neural networks in their brains that justified their unique talent. Say that because of my long lasting occupation as a computer programmer I have evolved in such way my neural networks that I can instantly have a whole image of programming and algorithmical problem solving and is quite easier for me to read a programming exercise in university exams and know what to do. The same way it's easy for a math genious which leaves me wondering how it's possible. I am not even aware that it's a talent. Evolution is slow. It seems obvious to me, I even don't remember when there was a time that I wasn't able to grasp the primary notions. Imagine that each of us has some overdeveloped networks of neural nets that help them perform specific functions faster and better than others while we have weak or badly developed networks on other aspects. I am good at programming and optimization, bad at planning, lazy in studying, not a good socializer. Others are better or worse on various other aspects. Viewing it like this it gave me a lot of possible answers to what is intelligence, talent, intuition, habits, personality and the main questions raised are what are the reasons we have evolved our brain this way and how easilly can some things change. I mean, I am good at programming because I was into programming for years and my brain has learned to deal with these kinds of problems before my eyes. But there must be a time I wasn't good at programming. There must be an initial moment when my skills on programming, maths, socialization or even things like my resistance and attitude to laziness, ability to plan, reaction to emotions or habits, where all set at zero. There was a time that when I should start learning how to approach girls or drink beer, I was lost into binary logic. Why maths and no girls? Why girls and no maths? Why computers and no maths? Why not everything? Why avoiding or not being interested in some? What dragged me into others? I am thinking of two or three primary reasons. And you can add more. Questionable is how biology plays a role. Then it is our choices in the past. And then it is emotions. Someone would add social or school or family environment, inspirations from the outside world, etc. These are secondary but I believe that the whole of them can fit into one bigger image. Brain biology: I was always a fan of this notion. I have the feeling that I am better or worse at some things no matter how I try because of this. Of course there is a possibility that this could be a delusion. Maybe, if after the years I overdeveloped the neural networks for programming and underdeveloped those having to do with socialization then it all seems to hard to change. So hard that it feels like I was born with that. But even the sole idea that everything is tabula rasa doesn't wipe out the influence that brain biology can bring to the game. Some people are too emotional and others are psychopaths. Some have more analytical way of thinking and others are more capable socialy. Even if I can't answer to the question whether this brain differences where initial or evolved. Actually what could be initial would be the biological inclination to evolve to each different path. If for example analytical thought favours certain brain parts that happened to be in better communication with each others at birth, then there is a higher posibility for certain choices or habits. It doesn't predict if he will evolve his neural networks towards being good at math or a good socializer though. But it affects. It affects the path that will bring us to now and make us think why we are what we are. Put an asterisk to that though, it's great for studying further (and I am not a neuroscientist to know). Choices. I often wonder. What would happen if I had not taken the path to become a great computer programmer? Would I have not evolved my neural networks into that. Would I now be staring at algorithm solutions and optimizations uncapable of thinking how is this possible? Would I have instead found a purpose in my studies and become a genious at math? Would I met some other people, another hobby, another purpose and be something completely different? That initial moment when I was 16 and was teased by my classmates and thought I would proove them smarter or gain my lost self-esteem by becoming great at something nobody understands. That initial moment could have happened by chance? Chance is how I am currently thinking it. They say that evolution is not exactly chance. There is a purpose but no creator. It's more like natural selection. Of course chance exists, my attention could have been drawn by something else and snap a different choice. But in the big picture when you see all the pieces together you can see a patern. They ask me what would happen if there were no computers in the world. Would I be just like the rest? Would I just engage in regular boring activities? Most probably I would have found another geeky hobby. If I was a neandertal I would invent fire or something. I know it :). But things could slightly change, I would be good at maths instead of programming, with different friends or parents I could have evolved slightly different habbits, different ways of reacting to my negative emotions, family and society could surely play a role in the way my neural networks evolved. But the primary motive would still be here. My brain wanted to learn, to be creative, I couldn't stop analyzing things (Remember the number one reason here). Emotions. They can make you love or hate things. Maybe it's the reasons I am not motivated to solve maths or study. And remember, some old habits, some old evolved neural networks are hardly changed if not modified. In order to be really good at maths as I am in programming I'd have to be motivated to solve thousands of exercises just to pass the exams. What if I studied computers science and had maths as a hobby? Still something missing. Motivation. I am motivated to solve problems with a practical use unlike math problems at school which are useful just to pass the exams. I use maths but for algorithms. They are not the same. Maths at exams are like sudoku puzzles, at least some of them. And the rest are boring. I could put motivation into the equation among with emotions and a sense of purpose for what we do. Emotions, there can be negative. You can hate things. They form your habbits. Maybe I always liked the idea of great scientists that dragged me into wishing to become a great computer programmer or something. Maybe that was the initial tension at 16 to follow that path which after a lot of practice evolved my neural brains in such a way to be easilly for me to fiddle with algorithms and stuff. I am wondering now if negative emotions among other people led me into avoiding socialization. Currently I believe that being too emotional makes me being extremely overwhelmed when into social situations. Emotions complicate matters too much. They form our personality, our habits, our tensions to follow or avoid any path. And when we follow our habits, that piece of neural networks which is connected with that is preserved more and more as much as it used and should be abandoned for a very long to be wiped out and/or replaced with a parallel path. That's why it's too hard to change. When you have learned to hate social situations or the people who criticise you for being weird and not having a life then how easy is to change? And why change the habit of thinking too much or programming when they are such valuable talents to most? And when they keep telling you that you are not normal and you keep reacting to the negative emotions with the same boring way then imagine what happens in your brain and how badly you enstregthen the chronic situation. A big turn has to be done there. You have a path that split in two. At the initial point where you have to make a choice, not speaking about the different realities at stake, it seems that at the initial point you didn't have a preference. Let's say that you didn't. From that point and later, what follows forms a tendency. Say that initialy I decided to become a great programmer. I started coding slowly slowly, then I learned a little, then a little more, then I liked what I was doing because I became better at it. Then my neural networks had already evolved a little into that direction. When you walk a road you can't just go back and take another one. As long as a tendency to work on programming problems was slowly slowly formed into my brain, as long as new neural cells were infected by my engagement in programming, the more my neural nets were fired towards that direction. I could even stare at an image or hear a word having nothing to do with computers and somehow relate it to my hobby because there were more cells infected with programming specific things. I am not really into neuroscience (even if I'd like to learn more) to know how neural cells or networks work (I am even feeling I am using the wrong terms) and how they evolve, if they grow, even if it's an empty hard disk or new trees are born, I just speak out of how I feel the whole picture of what I am talking about. Anyways, the more you are engaged with something, the more your brain is filled with that stuff and the more it's filled, the more you are inclined to be more engaged with that. Kinda like a vicious circle. But there was that initial point where the skill was near zero and there was no inclination towards it just pure chance. Or wasn't it? It wasn't. Computer programming was not a thing I was aware of once I was born. But there were other notions related to it. Somewhere I have heard that programmers are scientists. Somewhere else I have heard that scientists are smart or cool. I have also heard that computer is the future. I liked their colors and shapes. Did I always have that visual mathematician way to view things? Or did it evolve too? If scientists were cool and computers were fancy and I also needed an injection of self-esteem that would make a good match but how did I have the notions of good and cool and sexy and smart? There was an initial point where everything was at zero. I knew nothing. Pure chance? Or also brain biology? You can say that I was an analytical brain. But what if this was a tension too? What if I decided to think too much? What if at a very early stage a primary tension/tendency/inclination towards thinking and analyzing was build up, some of the first evolved neural networks were build upon this scheme? And this scheme made me seek for knowledge and understanding? It could be with others too. I am not the only who thinks in here. But why do I think so much? Why do I think much more than others? Could we say it's just psychological? I think it's a biological difference in brain. But this part is still in debate. Still thinking about tendecies is important. I found one that one primary reason at the time that I initialy have chosen to become a good programmer was that it snapped me that I would heal my bad self-esteem during that moment. Which didn't happened. But left me with the ability to do really spectacular things with a compiler. I am recently healing my self-esteem following a different path. Which is also snapped me. After I have seen results I have said "Wowa! How did I do this?". In the same way that I get that inspiration and I don't know why. The same way someone solves a problem and things it's obvious. Before several months it wasn't that obvious. Parenthesis here. I found that at my 16 but I later forgot I wasn't programming because programming is good but because it snapped me at my 16. This doesn't make sense but wtf. All I mean is there are influences from my birth that evolved my neural networks one after the other and brought me into this time. Some talents, some bad habits, both can't easily change. There could be a reason, not chance but natural selection, like I was inclined to be geeky as I was meaned to be lazy. Some can change. Lack of self-esteem was not something I tried to avoid. I really wanted it. I recently feel like having it but started being build since the first time I asked for it. It took time. Or maybe? Self-esteem took time while programming much less time? Was my brain inclined towards one and against the other? One can achieve something if he really wants it but does the biology play such a big role? How can specific children at 6 or 8 years old play the piano, write assembly or solve higher maths? It all points to the brain. Chance maybe but that is changed to natural selection. Different paths are being followed but the initial inclination to chose one in favor of others are primary the brain and then aditionally social/family growth, evolved emotion (things we learn to love or hate) and habits formed. But the primary paths, the tendencies/inclinations, the roots. I'd like to know more.. Nah. I am used to it. I was thinking that in the same way that you instantly see the whole picture out of smaller parts and meanings while the computer needs sophisticated image recognition software to do just that, in the same way I am truly struggling to disclose the bigger image of thoughts and ideas about everything (the reason for my big texts) in order to let myself out of the cognitive dissonance I had been through all these years. And neural networks are evolving towards that direction too. Even those that let me decide a nicer way to react to the negative emotions produced by incompatibility of ideas. They are build and most of the time without a conscious plan but out of my primary motives. I was lost into thoughts of not being normal and one day I was fed up. The change didn't immediately came, just the timid decision to stop caring. Other things, ideas, happenings led me to a similar decision. All these together slowly slowly evolved into acceptance of myself and the world around me, while also killing softly my old habit of self-pitty. But it came so slowly that I wasn't conscious of it until one day that I woke up and thought I was getting better at something I thought I was lost. I felt know that what I believe is obvious. I was the stupid computer. I am the human intelligence. I evolved. It's nice thinking of everything this way. A different point of view that I recently found important. Some of it's primary aspects are things I have been thinking in the past and someone would say that it's not something new. But here comes the part where they see doors and windows and a brick wall but they can't see the whole bigger image, they can't see the house. Here is the part where I have that greater feeling of a whole that explains a lot but it might sound trivial to many of us. It's not an entirely new view, it always combines previously written ideas because that's how evolution works. The big image inherits older ideas combined together, which each of them inherits much older ideas and when I feel so great about writting a blog post like this is when suddenly this cloud of thoughts, this confusing puzzle suddenly seems to be forming the bigger whole. Those are very randomly written thoughts. Not exactly the whole picture. I also wished to write a new post and put the last article down (enough bashing "hackers" :P). From those scattered writtings I might privately make some notes hopefully into a good scheme of things (I never did that no matter how many times I wanted to really organize my thoughts :PP) It seems that my anti-hacker posts will never seize to appear. In fact I am really motivated to get more into it in any way possible :P I will just make some comparisons now of the average person in three different communities. And two funny analogies too.. (my favorites :) First, some distinctions have to be made. I will be shortly talking about the hacker, the cracker and the scener. I will define their meaning at least as used in this post. I need to be sure that no misunderstandings will take place because of a different understanding of the same words and that my point will be understood. The hacker: I know that you don't like the use of this term to describe these electronic pranksters as seen on TV (Neither do I). In this post though I will use it as it is (even without the quotes) and I will mean only the definition as portrayed by the mass media and adapted by our own culture. I will not mean in this post by the word "hacker" the hobbyist programmer, the computer enthousiast or the computer pioneers of the past. Please understand this is just for the purpose of the post and as means to be understood even by the illiterate. The cracker: Be careful to my definition of this term for the purpose of this post! This is not the term used in hacker ethics to differentiate from the programmer to the electronic prankster. It does not mean the bad hacker or the script kiddie here. It is about the software cracker, the dude who managed to overpass the copy protection of commercial software, makes serial number generators or even makes those nice cracktro screens with gfx/music and sometimes (maybe in the past) option for infitive lives/energy/etc. While piracy is also ethically questionable, in my opinion this guy has not much to do with the hacker as described in the previous paragraph in my opinion. The scener: Some people say that the demoscene has it's ancestors in the cracking scene (as described in the previous paragraph). Some of the software crackers except from removing the copy protection from the commercial software, also did code some sort of a graphical screen with some music, a logo of the cracking group and a scrolling text with greeting/fuckings to various other crackers and other messages. These are the cracktros accompanied some pirated games which some of you might remember a lot of years ago even though they are not too frequent today. Some of the crackers who liked doing these intros stop their cracking abilities and just released similar cracktros (later called intros or demos (from demonstration)) purely for artistic purposes. When I first got involved in the demoscene I had no idea about the cracking scene. I just liked to code demonstrations of graphic algorithms synced to the music and release them to the public. Demoscene has nothing to do with "illegal" (as in piracy) cracking activities except for the roots (how the cracktros evolved into the scene demos of today). In a nutshell: What my terms mean here is: Hacker: As seen on TV and understood by most. Illegally granting access into computer networks for any reason. It's totally irrelevant with the meaning of the computer enthousiast or the programming pioneer in this post. Cracker: Nothing to do with the defintion of a black hat hacker or a script kiddie. It is the software cracker who breaks copy protection schemes of commercial software, codes serial key generators and all that stuff having to do with software piracy. Scener: See for yourself about the demoscene community. They have their roots in the cracktros that crackers coded but their activities are entirely irrelevant. The hacker is mostly caring about the reach of his goal which is to get access to some server in order to make some supposedly "cool" act as defacing a website, spreading a virus, stealing some private informations or maybe make a political statement. The primary force that drove most of these dudes into hacking could be because it sounded "cool" or maybe they thought romantically that they are heros fighting against the system or anything. They don't really care much about knowledge or programming skills as they just really dream for the time they make a cool "hack" into the pentagon or something. 98% "coolness" / 2% soul in my opinion. The cracker mostly cares about the challenge of breaking that copy protection scheme, reverse engineering the algorithm behind those serial codes, disassembling commercial software and make few improvements here and there, etc. They get commercial software from suppliers and send cracked versions to the warez dudez who are responsible for spreading the pirated (and cracked) copies. Sometimes they code cracktros attached to the software and run before it starts, to claim how leet they are. The cracker may not care whether software piracy is accepted or not, they are more driven from the challenge of bypassing the protection against piracy and they feel very proud if succeed. Not much code or work is needed to achieve this but they know what a disassembler is and use it regularly for example. Funny thing is that I have met two crackers in the past and they both ignored or even snobbed my demoscene involvement while bragging about their cracking activities. There is a feeling of leetness in this scene but at least it's not about pranks on the internet and those dudes know a bit about programming and love the challenge. 70% coolness / 30% work (always in my opinion). The scener in his first days had watched some demos done from older scene veterans and for some reasons he really liked the graphics algorithms, music and programming effort went into it. He actually liked the demos alone for their feeling and creativity and thought he'd really like to learn how to create something like that. He is in a great need for being creative with his computer and show that he can do something cool rather than spend time gaming, chatting or watching porn. It's hard at the beginning, needs a lot of effort to learn good programming, optimizations, mathematics, graphics algorithms or even how to choose the proper colors for his demo, it's even hard to organize this one with other sceners who are willing to paint computer graphics or write some music for you and put all things together in a nice presentation. Ripping a demo and presenting it as yours is more than lame in the scene because the whole purpose of what we are doing is to work hard and create a pleasing realtime demonstration of graphics algorithms, art and sound, the creative road taken is the soul of demomaking (entirely opposite from hacking, where someone can even succeed sometimes doing a "lucky" hack in a website and brag about it strongly). Of course there is a bit of a feeling of leetness in the scene too, we use cool sounding nicks and group names and argue with each other too, as in cracking and hacking, something that happens in a lesser or greater degree in every other community now I am thinking it. But the greatest motivation to join was initially to create something like the first demos we have seen and loved, no matter if some of us needed that for curing their low self-esteem too. (I am talking about myself here :)) 20% coolness / 80% creativity. And now my favorites! A scener is someone who walks several miles to reach his destination although he enjoys the walk. A lot of obstacles and problems are to be passed on his way. There is a great prize at the end for the good effort. The cracker needs to jump over a protective electric fence to get to the other side. There is a ramp there at the right position and he finds a broken motorcycle. With his tools he manages to fix it and jump on the other side. He finds the switch to turn off the electric fence and cuts an opening in the fence with his tools for others to get through. The hacker enters into the back of the car of a careless driver who stops to take a piss. The driver gets back and drives to his home. The hacker gets out, gets into the driver's house without to be seen and starts writing messages with spray over the wall. Sometimes he leaves the place, sometimes he breaks some furniture or beat the crap out of the driver too. And at the end he brags about it, thinks he is a hero and even some people congratulate him for his acts because they have heard it's to be respected. Another one. What if sometimes even sceners or crackers seem to be engaged into hacker's activities? Why would that happen in any of these cases? The scener is a scientist who except from his primary expertise also happens to be engaged into lock picking as a hobby because it's a tricky thing to do(like Feynmann for example). At best he finds a safe target just to experiment, not someone else's house. The cracker is into lock picking sometimes. It's a similar technical challenge as his primary cracking activities and gives him back some more of the leetness that makes him feel special. He tries lockpicking and maybe breaks into some house. He maybe steals some food to eat or supply to other people who need it. The hacker most of the times cannot even bother to lockpick but slams the door with a kick and gets inside. He either writes some messages with spray upon the walls or furniture with texts that mock the owner, sometimes he may steal some money or only in rare situations breaks everything apart or kills the owners. In the end he things he is a great respected scientist, a brilliant mind or a hero of the revolution because lockpicking is what Feynmann is into also. Most of the people think that these dudes are like robin hood and praise them. When you have a different opinion they blame you of being ignorant or working for something they call "the system". I said things as raw as I could. Trying to be as exhibitive as possible. And you have seen nothing yet.. Now, to the people who still think I shouldn't be using the term "hacker" to describe what I am talking about in this post I have to say this. Nobody is using or understands the distinction term "cracker". (with which definition I also disagree because there is another scene of software crackers that have almost nothing to do with the new hacker definition (in either color of hats)) It doesn't show the real problem here. We, computer enthousiasts and hardcore programmers are not called hackers anymore. Our image to the average person is of geeks rather than revolutionary heros as seen on TV. And the new definition is deeply into our culture and only confuses things if we try to both keep the old and new definitions or even try to put different titles, not understanding at the end which activities we praise or blame given the words used. If for example I started by saying that hacker is defined as a programming pioneer of the past that is bound to be respected and then tried to either use the same or even a distinction term (like your bad hacker "cracker") to describe it, people would still click to the well known cool sounding of the word "hacker" and further attribute the good things of the old definition you describe with their liking of the new definition everybody understands. What we would have here as a result is people thinking that illegally attacking or taking access into computer networks is to be respected and it's called "hacking" and it's done by computer gods and think that your distinction talks about the difference between good and evil hackers who both invade into computer networks but for different reasons. This is why I insisted only on the new term definition, because this is what people think either ways and I really wanted to make it clear to them that this one is not romantic or heroic but purely lame. I thought about the term "neohacker". If you speak to people that people who invade computer networks are called "crackers" (or anything else not using the synthetic word "hacker") they will not understand. Nobody calls anyone cracker outside the world to mean anything like that. It's not deep into their culture as the romantic or heroic sounding word "hacker". And you will confuse the things more. I thought that "neohacker" still having the synthetic "hacker" into it would drag people's attention but make the distinction nicely. "Neo" refers to the new definition of the later generations. "Hacker" with the quotes wouldn't make it because if not written it sounds the same. But "neohacker" would still drag attention and yet not being forgotten as "cracker" and also can easilly make the distinction. In fact neither "neohacker" would do it because those electronic pranksters and wannabe rebellions would still think they are called hackers and that only the bad sides of their activity is called neohacking. Where they would still think that defacing a website is on the good or accepted side (since it doesn't "destroy" anything, hell yet in my opinion it kills a lot of the precious time of people behind the website or the admins, frustrates people and is simply childish :P). But I will use the term more frequently in the future. Not much that can be done when something enters our culture and stays. But we can forget these terms for a while and just concentrate on criticizing these not really to be respected activities. If only meanings wouldn't be distorted because of the words used.. Ο χάκερ δεν έχει και πολύ σχέση με τη αναζήτησ η της γνώσης. Δεν είναι αυτός ο βασικός του σκοπός άλλωστε σήμερα. Αν ήταν έτσι τότε δεν θα ασχολούτ αν αποκλεισ τικά και μόνο με εκείνο το κομμάτι που καταλαβα ίνει ο κοινός νους όταν ακούει για χάκινγκ στην τηλεόρασ η. Ο όρος χάκινγκ ταιριάζε ι στο μουράτο. Εισβολή σε υπολογισ τικά δίκτυα, defacing σελιδών με wannabe ακτιβιστ ικό περιεχόμ ενο ή l33t speak, κλέψιμο κωδικών και καταστρο φή στις χειρότερ ες περιπτώσ εις. Δείξε στους φίλους σου τα χομπίστι κα projects που έχεις προγραμμ ατίσει (που σίγουρα έχουν περισσότ ερη δουλειά και νοημοσύν η από τις μύριες ψευτοχακ ιές που γίνονται στα site) και αδιάφορα θα σου πουν "Οκ, καλό αυτό αν και λίγο βαρετό. Με χάκινγκ ασχολείσ αι να πάμε να κάνουμε καμιά πλακίτσα ;". Δεν με νοιάζει και πολύ αν η τάδε "χακιά" έγινε με έτοιμα σκριπτάκ ια ή κάποιος κάθισε και έγραψε δικό του κώδικα για να την πετύχει. Εδώ τα σκριπτάκ ια έχουν νόημα γιατί αυτό είναι ακριβώς που επιδιώκε ι ο σημερινό ς "χάκερ". Το αποτέλεσ μα! Να χακέψει το τάδε site για τη μούρη και μόνο. Αν κάποιος είχε τέτοιες γνώσεις προγραμμ ατισμού ώστε να το κάνει με τον επίπονο τρόπο τότε 9 στις 10 δεν θα ασχολούτ αν με εισβολή σε δίκτυα και defacing για το κερασάκι στην τούρτα. Υπάρχουν χίλιοι δυό ενδιαφέρ οντες τομείς που μπορεί κανείς να ασχοληθε ί αν γνωρίζει προγραμμ ατισμό ή αγαπάει τη γνώση. Μέσα στην λεγόμενη hacking community πιστεύω πως οι 99 στους 100 είναι νέοι που είδαν στην τηλεόρασ η ή άκουσαν από τους φίλους τους περί χάκινγκ και ίσως ακολούθη σαν αυτήν την πορεία ουσιαστι κά για να κερδίσου ν λίγη από τη χαμένη τους αυτοπεπο ιήθηση. Ο ένας στους εκατό ίσως είναι ο κύριος που γουστάρε ι προγραμμ ατισμό και έτυχε από τους χίλιους και δύο τομείς των υπολογισ τών να ενδιαφέρ εται περισσότ ερο για computer security. Το χάκινγκ όπως νοείται σήμερα γίνεται κατά ένα μεγάλο ποσοστό για τη μούρη και μόνο. Αυτό που με νοιάζει και με απασχολε ί είναι πως δημιουργ είται σύγχηση τέτοια ώστε ή όλη "χακερομ& ;#945;νία" να θεωρείτα ι θεϊκη και να μιλάνε όλοι με μεγάλα λόγια και με σεβασμό για αυτούς που κάνουν π.χ. defacing μια σελίδα. Ούτε προσωπικ ά με καίει πως ξεφτιλίζ εται ο όρος. Πιστεύω πως ο όρος "χάκερ" είναι ένα παραπέτα σμα καπνού για να δικαιολο γήσει τη μόδα του σημερινο ύ χάκινγκ. Αυτοί οι 9 στους 10 που αναφέρω παραπάνω (βάλε και τον ένα που μας ξέφυγε και πραγματι κά θέλει να μάθει περί computer security, όχι για να εντυπωσι άσει την γκόμενα του) που γουστάρα ν προγραμμ ατισμό κάποτε γίνανε πολύ καλοί σε αυτό που αγαπούν και ονομάσαν ε τους εαυτούς τους χάκερς. Δεν χρειαζότ αν τίποτε να έχει σχέση με τον ένα και μοναδικό τομέα για να δείχνεις χάκερ, την εισβολή σε δίκτυα υπολογισ τών. Χάκερ ήταν και ο προγραμμ ατιστής που έφτιαχνε παιχνίδι α, λειτουργ ικά, compilers, demos ή utilities. Από εκεί βγήκε ή ιδέα πως οι χάκερς είναι πολύ έξυπνοι και πως θα πρέπει να τους σεβόμαστ ε, πως φέρανε την επανάστα ση στους υπολογισ τές και αλλάξανε τον κόσμο. Αλλά δεν είχε ο όρος καμία σχέση με την σημερινή έννοια. Ή να το πω και αλλιώς. Με defacings θα αλλάξετε τον κόσμο; Θα κάνω μια (δύο) απλή αναλογία . Φανταστε ίτε έναν φιλόσοφο που σκέφτηκε και ανέλυσε την έννοια της αναρχική ς ιδεολογί ας. Θυμηθείτ ε και ένα σωρό νέους να τρέχουν στους δρόμους και να σπάνε βιτρίνες και αυτοκίνη τα επείδη είναι αναρχικο ί και νομίζουν πως πολεμάνε για μια ιδεολογί α. Ο κύριος φιλόσοφο ς και οι συναδέλφ οι του που απλά τους αρέσει να σκέφτοντ αι και να μελετούν είναι αυτό που θα λέγαμε η παλιά σημασία του χάκερ. Οι νέοι είναι η καινούρι α σημασία. Φανταστε ίτε διάφορου ς μηχανικο ύς και εφευρέτε ς από το παρελθόν μέχρι και σήμερα. Κατασκευ άσανε τον τροχό, την άμαξα, την τυπογραφ ία, το τηλεσκόπ ιο, την πυξίδα, μέχρι και τους υπολογισ τές μας. Κάποιοι ανακαλύψ ανε την πυρίτιδα και φτιάξανε και όπλα. Κάποιοι νέοι βγαίνουν στους δρόμους και αρχίζουν να πυροβολο ύν με αυτά τα όπλα όποιον ή ότι βρουν για τους δικούς τους λόγους τέλος πάντων. Το να αποκαλού νται αυτοί που εισβάλου ν σε δίκτυα και κάνουν defacing χάκερς είναι σαν να λες πως οι νέοι με τα όπλα είναι εφευρέτε ς και φέρανε την τεχνολογ ική επανάστα ση στον κόσμο. Πόσο πιο απλά μπορώ να το παρουσιά σω; Δεν υπάρχουν hacker ethics. Δεν υπάρχουν redhats, greenhats, greyhats, blackhats or whatever. Δεν υπάρχει επανάστα ση. Δεν είναι ακτιβισμ ός. Είναι μουράτο, κάποιοι ταυτίστι καν, κάποιοι χρειαζόν τουσαν λίγη αυτοπεπο ιήθση, κάποιο είδαν κάτι στην τηλεόρασ η και είπαν "ας το κάνουμε, φαίνεται κουλ!" Τα πάντα είναι ένα παραπέτα σμα καπνού. Οι κύριοι που χακάρανε τον LHC εμμέσως λένε αυτά που λέω εγώ εδώ πέρα, δηλαδή ότι είναι μια μόδα που γουστάρο υν τα παιδάκια , δεν έχει καμιά σχέση με τον χομπίστα προγραμμ ατιστή ας πούμε. Βασικά συμφωνού με! Αλλά ταυτόχρο να αντιφάσκ ουν. Γιατί κάνανε ένα μουράτο defacing την σελίδα του LHC για να μας πουν ακριβώς αυτό, πως το χάκινγκ είναι γνώση και όχι μούρη. Και φαντάζομ αι έναν νέο να βλέπει την "χακιά" τους και να τους βρίσκει και πολύ κουλ. Και να αναρρωτι έται πως θα γίνει να μάθει να κάνει το ίδιο; Δεν θέλει να μάθει προγραμμ ατισμό αλλά να μπορεί να φέρει εις πέρας το ίδιο αποτέλεσ μα σε ένα αντίστοι χο site για να νοιώσει και αυτός "χάκερ". Ο περίφημο ς mentor είχε βγάλει ένα μανιφέστ ο που το πιπιλίζο υν όλοι σαν καραμέλα . Δυστυχώς δεν γνωρίζω τίποτα για τον κύριο, δεν διάβασα καθόλου για την ιστορία του (σύγχρονο ;υ) "χάκινγκ&quo t;. Δεν είμαι σίγουρος αν ήταν απλώς ένας πολύ καλός προγραμμ ατιστής σε κάποιο τυχαίο τομέα ή επικεντρ ονώταν ειδικά σε αυτό που κάνουν και οι κύριοι "χάκερς" της GST. Αλλά από το επαναστα τικό ύφος και τη θεματολο γία του μανιφέστ ου του μου φαίνεται πως ήταν μοντέρνο ς "χάκερ". Γκρίνιαζ ε για το πως αλλοιώθη κε ή σημασία του χάκινγκ από τα μέσα ενημέρωσ ης και πως η πληροφορ ία πρέπει να είναι ελεύθερη κλπ. Δεν ξέρω πως το εννούσε πραγματι κά, δεν ξέρω αν ήταν προγραμμ ατιστής που γούσταρε την αρχαία σημασία του χάκινγκ ή ασχολούτ αν αποκλεισ τικά με το network security breach και απλώς ήθελε να το κάνει επανάστα ση και να δικαιολο γήσει τις πράξεις του. Αλλά αυτό που λέει περί μμε και παραπληρ οφόρησης πιστεύω πως σχετίζετ αι με την σύγχησ που έχει προκληθε ί και αναφέρω παραπάνω , και όσο βγαίνουν "νεοχάκε& ;#961;ς" που θέλουν να κάνουν defacing για τη μούρη, ουσιαστι κά αυτοί είναι που διαιωνίζ ουν την λαθασμέν η εικόνα. Και τους ακούς να αναφέρον ται συνέχεια στο μανιφέστ ο του mentor με θαυμασμό , με παρεξηγο ύν πως εγώ παραπληρ οφορήθηκ& amp;#945; από τα μμε λες και δεν είναι όλη αυτή η χακερομα νία που διαιωνίζ ει μια μόδα που καμιά σχέση δεν έχει με αυτό που ισχυρίζε ται και για την οποία δεν μπορώ να νοιώσω σεβασμό. Νομίζω πως φάσκουν και αντιφάσκ ουν. Η ίδια η wannabe hacking community ξεφτυλίζ εται και όχι τα μμε. Τα μμε απλώς προβάλλο υν μια μόδα που πάντα άρεσε στον πολύ κόσμο και ορισμένο ι νέοι διαωνίζο υν τη μόδα που είδαν στην τηλεόρασ η ή άκουσαν από φίλους. Τα μμε προβάλλο υν αυτό που συμβαίνε ι σήμερα σε αυτές τις κοινότητ ες (με λίγη υπερβολή βέβαια). Χάκινγκ και χάκερ σημερα σημαίνει αυτό που καταλαβα ίνει ο κόσμος. Ναι, εισβάλει ς παράνομα σε ένα ξένο υπολογισ τικό σύστημα και ο κυριότερ ος σκοπός είναι να κάνεις μουράτο defacing. Καμιά σχέση με δεινούς προγραμμ ατιστές, ιδιοφυίε ς και σεβασμό. Αυτό καταλαβα ίνει ο κόσμος, αυτό καταλαβα ίνεις και εσύ όταν μου λες πως

Hooray, another one image demo.

speechless...

no

sie gefallen mir, kommen sie doch mal vorbei und ficken meine schwester

111!

thumb up for the very very long blablashit...

...

BITS prod / Free glop

nothing inside...

Thumbed up by lamers only!

absolutely not

I understand why I have never seen this prod before ;)