-Caveat Lector- this is utter garbage - so we should ban heavy engineering because it makes weapons of war we should ban nuclear science because it can bring pollution we should ban cosmology because it shows our flaws we should ban chemistry because it makes toxic chemicals we should ban biology because there are too many diseases we should ban computer programming because of bad programmers -
the author of this article should carry on watching the teletubbies andrew hennessey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jei" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 2:13 PM Subject: [CTRL] Licenced to Program? > -Caveat Lector- > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8145809.html?tag=tp_pr > > Enough already! Ban programming. > @ Articles Dec 16 2001 - 02:54 EST > acideye writes: > > > No I don't agree with or endorse in any way this statement, but to anyone > who would like an insight into the minds (often closed minds) of the > general public who have been manipulated by the mass media into almost > decleration of war on Hackers and other such sub-cultures of hacking. > This article is from Adequacy.org and as such copyright and the rest of > it. > > > Programming computers is, for practically everyone, something done far > away in exotic software engineering facilities by a priesthood of > ultra-specialized, half-mad obsessive-compulsives. This is as it should > be, and it is where we get the software we use every day to do our online > banking, send email, and get productive work done. Though few normal > people have any experience of it, or know anyone who does it, there is > another kind of programming performed outside this legitimate sphere, one > that you probably assumed was illegal, but shockingly, is not. > This other kind of programming also affects us every day, but negatively, > as a continuous series of massive disruptions to the worldwide economy in > the form of viruses, in the form of important and useful computer services > being sabotaged with denial-of-service, in the form of defacement attacks, > and in the form of substantially higher prices for all sorts of > intellectual property such as software, DVD movies and music on CD, all > due to piracy. I'm talking about "hacking" of course. It is the evil dark > side to all the good that computers have brought us, and we are all sick > of it. The time has come to put a stop to "hacking", because we can no > longer tolerate the damage "hackers" cause, and the potential risk of > terrorism when, not if, "hackers" go to work for such forces of mayhem as > have begun an onslaught of terror against not just the United States, but > Western Civilization's freedom to be loose and decadent in general. > > For a time, our society tolerated "hackers" because they promised that > something useful would come of their shady and secretive tinkering. Yet we > have had nothing but a harvest of bitter fruit from "hackers", and it is > now time to pull the plug. It is time to ban all unlicensed computer > programming, and take steps to ensure that no one outside of government, > select universities, and state-sanctioned private-sector corporate > software engineering facilities is given the knowledge, skills, or means > to write or compile computer code of any kind. Amateur or hobbyist > computer programming has grown from a minor annoyance to a major social > disease, and it simply can no longer be tolerated. > Although ordinary decent people will find this suggestion to be obvious to > the point of banality -- in fact, I'm sure many of you are surprised that > amateur computer programming was ever legal! -- many of those who > associate themselves with the "hacker community" will bridle at the > suggestion. Strictly as an exercise, it would perhaps be diverting to > entertain some of their more obvious objections. > > The first cry in defense of hobbyists toying with this dangerous > technology is that hackers have already proven their worth by producing a > valuable piece of software -- namely, the Apache web server. Others would > even claim that more than one useful program has been written in the > garages and and lonely bedrooms of hobbyists. There are two delusions at > work here. > > One of these delusions is that any of the Open Source applications that > have found some utility in business and industry were written by amateurs. > The truth is that Apache began it's life as the work of professional > coders employed by Amazon.com, and as any software engineer you want to > ask can tell you, nothing of value was added by anyone but professionals. > In truth, the work of the gainfully employed programmers on this project > was often interrupted and even sabotaged by the ham-fisted meddling of the > teenage wanna-be's and self-styled "gurus" who have accumulated around > professional Open Source projects like so many leeches and barnacles. This > episode alone demonstrates that if there is anything good to come out of > Open Source methodology, it will only be helped along by the removal of > dilettantes from the picture. Indeed, once the "hackers" have been > outlawed, Open Source will very likely reach new heights of utility and > quality, and perhaps even fulfill the promise of greatness that Open > Source advocates have been making for years. > > The other delusion, or I should say piece of misinformation, that has been > perpetrated by "hackers" is that there are many other "tools" that have > been created by hackers and gifted to a grateful world by our benevolent > hobbyists. What about Emacs, for example? What about it? Emacs was > originally created at MIT, a trusted part of the US military research > establishment. Obviously, such facilities and their (suitably cleared) > employees will never be banned. The time has come to ban the reckless > tourists from the programming field, not legitimate university > researchers. It is true that Emacs, and similar tools have subsequently > been "enhanced" by "hackers". Generally, we have seen a pattern of > mind-boggling feature creep and software bloat as a result of this. Emacs, > for all its admirers, is the worst known example of this. In addition, all > of the "functionality" that has been added to Emacs, or other "tools" > touted by free software hackers such as Flex, Bison, gcc, etc. are > hacker's tools. That means that they are like lock picks or zip guns. They > have no inherent functionality that is not ultimately malevolent and > illegal in its purpose. This is not utility or service. This is > disservice. > > The reason that hobbyists work so feverishly hard on creating this kind of > tool is precisely because they are locked out of the world of the normal, > decent software engineer, where professional-grade IDEs, debuggers, and > similar tools are abundant. Those with ultimately criminal intent must > cobble together their own weapons. There are dozens, even hundreds of > these types of destructive programs in circulation, such as those > mentioned, as well as the notorious "Back Orifice", or the hacker > operating system, "Lunix". While a "hacker" could disingenuously and > spuriously argue that each one of these various illegal programs has some > redeeming social value, it is clear that taken as a whole, such "warez" do > not in fact benefit anyone except "hackers" and other criminals. > > Rather than waste any more time tediously demonstrating this fact for each > of these "hacker's" tools, it would be best to move on to the other canard > that "hackers" raise in defense of their "freedom" to "hack". And that > would be freedom itself. Is there a right to "hack"? Well, of course there > most certainly is not. Is there a right to build atomic bombs or breed > anthrax bacilli in one's back yard? Is there a right to spy on your > government and pass on that information to our foreign enemies, merely > because you have chosen espionage as a "hobby"? Perhaps you could claim > that your interest in espionage is driven by an innate curiosity, a desire > to discover new things and understand how the world works. And so what? > Such apologetics are amusing coming from children, but to hear an adult > make such excuses is not funny at all. It is merely sad. > > Few precocious adolescent "hackers" are capable of understanding why > responsible nations must ban "hacking", but as adults we can all recognize > that these apologetics for hobbyist "hacking" carry no weight at all, and > so we must do what is right. If you style yourself a "hacker" and you > really want to play around with dangerous toys, be it source code, > fissionable material, or biotoxins, then you have only one route open to > you: go to college and prove that you really have the mental horsepower to > cut the mustard, and prove also that you are a loyal patriot who can be > trusted with potentially deadly power. Then, and only then, will a decent > society trust you with the secrets of our most awesome technology. Those > too impatient to wait, too dull to get into a university, and too flaky to > get security clearance due to low character, drug abuse, and trafficking > with unsavory characters are simply out of luck. And it's a good thing > too. > > Is it practical to ban "hacking" now? > > Absolutely. There is no better time than now. As we have seen by the > recent mass murders by terrorists, computer technology is a mainstay of > criminals, and they rely most on such "free" tools as text editors and > military-grade encryption programs that "hackers" use simply because they > think it is cute to play with such power. But the rest of society has lost > patience with this childish diddling, and the civilized world has said > unequivocally that we want strong legal safeguards enacted to put an end > to "hacking" and terrorism. We most especially have no qualms about > banning activities like playing with explosives or creating software when > these so-called "hobbies" are restricted to a tiny fringe element who for > whatever reason gets no pleasure from healthy pastimes like fly fishing or > drinking alcohol at gentlemen's clubs. > > Put simply, normal folks are not going to let themselves get blown up > because a tiny minority of freaks like to "hack". If you aren't willing to > code for Uncle Sam, then don't code at all. > > Author's note: Since it is likely that many so-called g**ks or "hackers" > will read this article and will perhaps become angry about it, and then, > typically, lose control of their anger, I want to this opportunity to ask > them to please refrain from attacking Adequacy.org in retaliation. Though > you might disagree with an opinion that you read, that is no reason to > launch a denial of service attack against the medium. Please use your > reason and, if you feel strongly, engage in a polite dialogue, rather than > acting out your anger with illegal "hacking" attacks. Thank you for not > attacking this web site. > > read comments (62) | write comment > > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> > DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER > ========== > CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic > screeds are unwelcomed. Substance-not soap-boxing-please! These are > sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'-with its many half-truths, mis- > directions and outright frauds-is used politically by different groups with > major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. > That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and > always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no > credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > > Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. > ======================================================================== > Archives Available at: > http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html > <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of > [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > > http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> > ======================================================================== > To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: > SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Om > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
