Is Your Son a Computer Hacker?


Recommended Posts

Thats so funny :D

Glad i didnt have parents like that. If i had im sure ive have been tied up, gagged and deprived of light.

With all those trips to Computer stores, and questions about programming. Whats scary about it is there will be a parent whose like that. Feeeww least it wasnt mine

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 11:26:47 AM PST

thank you for this list of advices!!!

i shall surrender myself to the police right away

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jan 12th, 2002 at 02:12:28 PM PST

how could i have been so blind...i have been putting firewall after firewall on my system. when along along i have tryyng to keep myself out... yes now that i have read your article i realize that i am a hacker...I have reviewed my computer and discovered filthy programs running amuck everywhere...Flash. MP3's. DOS. BIOS. and the holy grail of hacking, yes its true I HAVE LINUX, i am so sorry and at this moment the police are on their way to put me away...THANK YOU for opening my unworthy eyes

by Huggles on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 04:51:40 PM PST

Be careful of that last anonymous poster folks. I think he may be one of the many hackers I know from Tribes 2 virtual reality. If you reply to any of his messages, he will be able to hack your computer using a virus he developed. Trust me, as someone who has admitted to herself that she has a problem.

And my favorite of the first comments page:
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Dec 2nd, 2001 at 05:54:37 PM PST

First of all I would like to make an apology to your kids on the behalf of the human race that they have such poor parents. This sort of ultra-conservative self-serving bull**** would make me vomit if I wasn't laughing so hard.

I had my mom, a technological neophyte read these article. She knows little about computers, but even she found some of your points, especially those about Quake, a faster ISP and AMD highly comical.

At first I thought that this article was a joke, but after reading the comments below, I'm not so sure, and I'm frankly a bit frightened at the blind hostility to technology that many of you seem to exhibit.

In fact, many define hacker as a person who merely looks into software code to see how it works with no malicious intent. All they have is a desire to figure out how stuff works and in some cases, improve it.

Perhaps the informative posts here have informed the confused that this article has only comedic value and is frighteningly inaccurate. If not, I fear for our future.

"and Peter betrayed the principles we tried to encourage in him, when he refused point blank to " click that betrayed link, i shat myself when i read that.. the comments are priceless too ->

"I was inclined to laugh when I started reading, but then I thought 'what if this guy is for real, I can't believe there are still such narrow minded and ****-witted idiots walking the Earth!'"

  • 5 months later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • This got me thinking, would you rather a self driving car prioritise protecting its passengers or everyone else? I'd choose the one that keeps me and my kids safest. At some point, these cars have to make those choices already, don't they? Wonder if we have a way to find out what way they lean.
    • The proportion (or number of iterations) has nothing to with this aspect of Copyright I am describing. In short, it doesn't matter how many times the manager tells you to change something or how. Your work product is always YOURS until and unless you then assign that to the person representing the client/company, usually for financial compensation -- either in salary or as a subcontract work for hire payment. if iterations determined copyright, then businesses would have learned to just keep making changes until they could claim they owned the copyright, without having to compensate the artist for their work. And that would be BAD. The only place where the amount of changes does have a role is in how much does a human modify a previous public domain work (from any source) before it is considered fair use or their own work, etc. For example, if a human makes substantial changes to a public domain (re: AI, by definition) work, then they can then claim that derivative work as their own...but NEVER the original version, of course. That's why anyone can make a movie about Dracula, for example, as long as it is based on the public domain novel, but not if they take new ideas from copyrighted movies made afterwards. As one of the people who personally advised the US Copyright Office on their recent ruling on these very issues, be assured that I specifically used the terminology precisely -- though I made it simple enough for laymen to understand it. If I made this confusing by doing so, I apologize. But, to be clear regarding your assumption that I would agree to your second statement that I quoted above -- the answer is NO. If AI does the work, no matter how much "direction" you give it, it cannot be copyrighted. All AI generated content is in the Public Domain and therefore the copyright cannot be assigned to ANYONE, even you -- until and unless substantial modifications are made to it BY A HUMAN BEING (yourself or a contracted artist/writer/etc.) and then that copyright on the derivative work is legally (in writing) transferred to you. This is a critical distinction. And it is important that people, especially AI sloppers, understand this. For example, YouTube is not paying AI slop generators for the copyright, etc. of their AI slop. What YouTube is doing is sharing AD REVENUE for permission to publish your AI slop. Copyright/ownership/rights never come into it. Importantly, that means that anyone can copy any AI slopware on YouTube, etc. and rehost it anywhere they want, even back on YouTube, and there is nothing legal that YouTube can do about it with regards to copyright protections, ownership, DMCA, etc. Anyone is legally free to use any AI slopware in any way they want. When this ruling was pending, I warned Disney legal of all of this before they did their OpenAI deal -- that it would literally dilute their entire IP portfolio forever. They ignored that warning for the PR and stock bump. But that is why, when the ruling came down last year, Disney quickly extricated themselves from that OpenAI deal, even eating the initial upfront fees -- followed closely by OpenAI ending their entire AI video generating business model. They adjusted their PR release dates to make this less obvious to shareholders, of course. Phew. I hope that this clears up the key distinctions for you and anyone reading. If you have any additional questions or even hypotheticals about AI and Copyright, please feel free to ask.
    • Each of the devices displayed on this page now has a little volume meter next to it to show if there is audio actively playing. About time.
    • Owing to the nature of Windows feature enablement updates, it was distributed over Windows Update services as a complete system upgrade rather than as an ordinary cumulative update
  • Recent Achievements

    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      Skeet Campbell earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      Sharbel earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      561
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      188
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      78
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      74
    5. 5
      neufuse
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!