<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Hackers and crackers: a lesson in etymology and clear communication ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-18T21:23:15-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[nope]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357497]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm afraid I don't have a link, nor do I know who made the kool-aid.  I just vaguely recall that sine nobilis had been proposed as the origin of &quot;snob&quot;, but was later rejected as not tying into the time-and-place of its earliest known usage in modern form, nor of any etymological ancestors.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357497]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 00:14:14 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hm... got a link?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357510]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I accept your statement, I'd just like to know who made that kool-aid I've been having Looked up the snob etymology, parallel beginnings to &quot;cad&quot; apparently, but with a different spin.http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=snob&amp;searchmode=none]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357510]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 23:35:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[not sine nobilis]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357425]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Sine nobilis, as an etymological origin of &quot;snob&quot;, appears to have been discredited.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357425]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:50:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[big difference]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357424]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have never run across any suggestion that &quot;snob&quot; is still being used to mean &quot;cobbler&quot; -- if in fact it ever was; the etymological connection is inferred.By contrast, &quot;anniversary&quot; and &quot;infer&quot;, while they are erroneously used in other ways, still stick to their more prescriptive meanings in formal circles and other circumstances.  The same is true of &quot;hacker&quot;, erroneously (even if widely) used in an incorrect manner, but still in regular  correct use.As long as the correct use is still regular, and the erroneous use contributes at all to confusion of communication, it is worthwhile to deprecate the erroneous use and stand up for correctness.I'm not likely to embark on a crusade to defend the individual rights of australopithecus, but I will damned sure support those of blacks, whites, homosexuals, and Tibetans, because they're still living.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3357424]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:49:33 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Sans knob...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356566]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[No?Riiight, sine nobilis... that's like the opposite of sans knob But; it still has it's original connotations; it's someone rubbing shoulders with &quot;better folk&quot;... it still refers to the same people, just the angle has changed.When it was sine nobilis, they were looked down upon by their con nobilis &quot;peers&quot;, but now they are looked upon contemptuosly by their not-hobnobbing fellows.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356566]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 08:05:11 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[English is not my first language]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356558]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[But I speak English as properly as I can. Usually with a larger formal vocabulary than many native speakers (sans the slang vocabulary).Originally It bugged me to no end that English evolves through ignorance (oops, I meant, use) but that's the way it is, whether you or I like it or not.Check the roots of some words in your own &quot;proper&quot; vocabulary and you will find many aberrations where words even mean the opposite or something different than what they used to mean.&quot;Sophisticated&quot; for example, would you say that it now means something false? or that it describes a person that tries to appear as something it isn't?. I may sound snob but... Hey, there is another one, research the evolution of &quot;snob&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356558]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rarsa]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 07:20:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[quitter]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356260]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I don't use &quot;anniversary&quot; to mean &quot;one month&quot;.  That's absurd.  Why would you?I suppose you use &quot;infer&quot; to mean &quot;imply&quot;, too -- or &quot;axe&quot; to mean &quot;ask&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356260]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 09:32:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That's one thing...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356017]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Another thing is, that the word hacker is still used in it's original meaning too. So usage is on both sides. Were the hackers and people who know them to stop using the term, then yes, it's gone. But if not, then accepting only the wide and shallow use as defining, is giving in to a tyrranny of the majority... and a majority that doesn't care much to begin with. That, to my opinion would be a great shame and folly.The majority cares little enough to change it's use.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356017]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 22:01:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[While I concur I've now accepted English evolution]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356000]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes, words have meaning. Yes, it bugs me when people use &quot;hacker&quot; to refer to computer systems attacker; But I've finally accepted that in English the meaning of the world is given by it's use. i.e. It does not matter what the roots are or what some words used to mean, they now mean whatever people use them for.The clearest example for me is &quot;anniversary&quot; which comes from &quot;Annum&quot; (year) and &quot;vertere&quot; (to turn/return); this is: comes back every year.Now due to use it means a periodic celebration, whatever the period: &quot;Three months anniversary&quot;.It is what it is.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3356000]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[rarsa]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:39:33 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Right on the nail head Bob!!..]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3352105]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This is why I get upset with the &quot;glorification&quot; of criminals and anything of bad behavior by the media. Then they cluck their tongues in disapproval when the frustrated public ends up taking on matters at hand, on their own.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3352105]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JCitizen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 13:34:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Hackers and crackers: a lesson in etymology and clear communication]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3352012]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[There is a simple way to approach this. A hacker is a person who writes a computer program for his own use. That is the original meaning, and the meaning intended by most of the folks who fear them. But,  A person who breaks into a computer to take information is no different than someone who breaks into a home to take jewelry. Call both &quot;burglers&quot;. A cyberburgler is a self explaining term for most people.Breaking into a computer is not hacking the computer. It is cracking the computer. Just like a squirrel cracks (breaks open) a nut to get at the sweet stuff inside, a safe cracker breaks open a safe to get the valuables inside. A computer cracker breaks open a computer system to get at the valuables inside also. The law treats them mostly the same, and should treat them exactly the same.We should all be quite vocal to let others know that a criminal is a criminal, not something special.A stage magician will often pick a volunteers pocket to amaze the audience, but on the street, a pickpocket is just a thief. If tried, the crime is theft, not practicing magic.The same it true in computer use.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3352012]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[YetAnotherBob]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 10:55:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[casual writting]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3351127]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I won't ever claim perfect spelling or grammar and also post casually rather than as formal written work. The intended meaning was clear and I recognize the difference in formal work.Now that you've pointed out &quot;there&quot; vs &quot;their&quot;, did you have anything relevant to the topic of the noun being discussed and it's historical context?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3351127]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 05:28:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;There&quot; is a word with meaning too....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3350899]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...in fact it has several, none of which relate to your use of the word (ie the hat belonging to them.) &quot;The colour of there hat&quot; has no meaning in English. The closest approximation to a meaning I can up with is &quot;The colour of the hat located in that place.&quot; The word you are looking for is their (belonging to them). &quot;The colour of their hat&quot; is the phrase you need.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3350899]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ericthekite@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:59:34 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[keep in mind . . .]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349760]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I probably do the Dreyfus model a disservice with my gross simplification and definitely non-comprehensive knowledge of it.  I'm actually reading about it in the context of consciously taking steps to improve one's autodidactic facility.  A general understanding of the Dreyfus model is just one of several ingredients for improving one's learning (in a non-technical sense) that I've encountered thus far in the source material.  It's interesting reading, if nothing else.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349760]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 14:34:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Hm... as I intuit it...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349728]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[that's one way to describe some learnings... specifically learning things that are taught.It's not, I think, so good for describing things that are acquired (stealing the term from &quot;language acquisition&quot; as opposed to &quot;language learning&quot;). But then, it's a model for skill learning, not skill acquisition, so I guess that's considered already. The way I see things, learning and acquisition are parallel processes, often simultaneous. Usage feeds acquisition, instruction feeds learning. The higher levels of dreyfus learning probably include a large amount of acquisition, but at that point they become inseparable; you can't get that good without lots of practical use.There are also individual differences to consider, f.x. I find that my mentality - for lack of a better word - somewhat impairs learning but facilitates acquisition. It's a pretty good deal most of the time - acquisition is effective and keys directly into &quot;getting it right&quot; rather than &quot;knowing what to do&quot; - but writing my thesis is a god-awful mess, in a thesis &quot;it just is&quot; doesn't much cut it  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349728]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 13:32:22 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[the Dreyfus model and the Macedonian hack]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349713]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I rather enjoyed your reference to the Gordian knot when I first read it yesterday.  That does, indeed, seem to draw heavily upon the hacker spirit in two senses of the term: the unorthodox solution, and the hacking motion with a blade, to &quot;cut&quot; straight through the center of the problem -- so to speak.The Dreyfus model of learning was developed by a pair of brothers who were AI researchers.  They decided that, before they could properly start work on emulating human learning using a computer, they needed a theory of human learning to emulate.  Much research, study, and analysis later, they had what has come to be known as the Dreyfus model.That model became the basis for a revolution in the training and advancement of the nursing profession some decades ago, at a time when that profession was in dire straights due to the negative pressures on learning, expertise, and initiative within that profession.  By applying the Dreyfus model to training and management, the nursing profession was turned around and became an integral, important part of the medical care industry above and beyond &quot;doctor's little helper&quot;.  A good nurse can mean the difference between life and death for a patient, where previously the patient would likely have simply been SOL.The model itself, at its most superficial, classifies levels of expertise in five categories:1. Novice -- needs &quot;recipes&quot; and close supervision to succeed, learn, and advance, and not an opportunity to work independently toward a goal so much2. Advanced Beginner -- needs focus on technical, howto information plus clear goals to succeed, learn, and advance, and not the &quot;big picture&quot; so much3. Competent -- develop conceptual models of the problem domain, can troubleshoot effectively and work on their own; need planning and past experience to succeed, learn, and advance, and not external context or a deep understanding of the underlying principles so much4. Proficient -- understand underlying principles of the skillset and concern themselves with external context; need the &quot;big picture&quot;, and to grok the fundamentals, to succeed; tend to be notable innovators in that subject area; benefit substantially from intuitive flashes that advance their work; chafe at rules and restrictions that stand in the way of their solutions to the problems they set out to solve5. Expert -- a proficient practitioner who has internalized and habitualized so much of the understanding of the realm that the majority of their work is almost unconsciously accomplished, based on intuition, rather than having to think things through to arrive at the best answer; essentially innovate with every task accomplished, though they and those in their orbits may not even recognize some acts as innovative in their approach; utterly wasted in bureaucratic settingsIt seems normal for the best teacher or mentor for a given level of expertise to be one level, maybe two levels at most, above the level of the student.In programming, as in most other areas of expertise, the vast majority of &quot;professionals&quot; are advanced beginners or competents.  Which is the larger group depends on the subject area and its culture.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349713]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:53:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[neilb:]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349699]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I appreciate the effort on your part to avoid (mis)using the term, and thus to avoid contributing to the problem, given your stated lack of interest in the results.As for McKinnon . . . it's kind of a stretch to call him a &quot;hacker&quot; even by the standards of the media-twisted usage of the term.  They've sensationalized the case to the extent that the fact there was little or no security cracking involved at all has become a non-issue to the public audience.  We might as well call a Representative in the US Congress a &quot;hacker&quot; if he sends sexually harassing emails to one of his aides, given this lax definition of &quot;hacker&quot;.edit: typo]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349699]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[apotheon]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:24:23 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I understand the general public interpretation]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349667]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The general public has often generalized negative connotations around a word. That's not stopped the positive connotations related to that word from combing back into the public's awareness. When someone does know the difference, people not knowing the difference does not justify disregarding the correct use of the term. In your case, you know the difference and it would be absolutely no effort for you to say &quot;criminal&quot; when what you mean is a criminal.But.. really, I was just pitching in info about the McKinnon case since that is a separate but interesting topic. I truly hope your countryman gets a fair trial and the medical help he'll need for condition and the additional affect the case will have on him.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349667]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:47:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I know! But everybody else does name him a hacker]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349678]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[except for those very few (relatively) inside your &quot;true hacker&quot; community and, given the prominence of the case over here, that is a LOT of people. That's what I've been trying to point out - over and over - that the word &quot;hacker&quot; has escaped your control.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349678]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[neilb@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 11:29:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I wouldn't call Mr McKinnon a Hacker]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349439]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[He used known vulnerabilities which Hackers have been warning the world about since first discovered. Default and empty passwords; that's a known risk. Nothing new or creative about it's re-use. Using a crowbar to break into a building doesn't make one a skilled blacksmith; they simply re-used a tool in a formerly well known manner discouraged by the majority of tool makers.He was only a &quot;hacker&quot; in the media that had a financial interest in sensationalization and in the publicized view of the military that had a political interst in redirecting attention from there administrative incompetence. (A military that leaves systems wide open to any idiot that can search a default password list is incompetent)In reality, he was not active within the hacking community. He was a UFO nut that under reduced capacity, knowingly breached computer systems looking for UFO related evidence. He used known methods which would never have been available to him had the US military put Hackers in charge of the network instead of bureaucrats. The media did not add any value or clarity to his story by calling him a &quot;hacker&quot;; to them, it was just a buzword to sell more viewer hits.Specifically with the case, I think he should have been allowed to serve time on British soil; extradition and the times in prison he was threatened with by the US amounted to excessive punishment. Granted, his real crime was embarrassing a military officer not breaking into military property. The US actually said to him &quot;we're going to get you for the maximum time we can&quot; which turned something about accepting responsibility and punitive action into a threat against his life.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-334808-3349439]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Neon Samurai]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 05:08:58 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

