Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

wh0rd.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 248 posts

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#131

Post by cosmodisk »

mr-wendel wrote: post #36
cosmodisk wrote: post #19

The first few sentences were okay-ish, but the more I read,the more it sounded just plain absurd,border line controlling behaviour+ lots of silly assumptions. Going back to the topic itself, the vast majority of parents wouldn't even know where to start, not even mentioning if a kid has really became a haxor of sorts. Taking away computers, sending them out to the church,or doing others 'let's fix this quickly the ad…

Ok, so he missed the satire, but I give points for stating some simple truths. Despite being satire, it's an important topic and "trust in the family" (and in your parents in particular) is the keystone issue here. Everything else is secondary.

Fair enough, I definitely missed it being a satire: shouldn't have skimmed the content:)

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#133

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

endominus wrote: post #130
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the government consistently makes decisions that are bad for society as a whole, I would posit that it is failing at a critical role. Ok, but who's fault is that? We are the ones who vote for these people. > If that is the case, then a certain portion of wealth going to actually good causes rather than the government would be a good thing, not an ethical violation. If the government cannot be relied on to spend…

>I disagree because fundamentally taxes are used to support public services that benefit society as a whole. A large part of my point is that this claim is not true. The purpose of a system is what it does. Taxes are used to appease constituents, not improve society. They may be related, they may overlap at some points, but they are not the same. >The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in sele…

The way you describe it one may as well believe that democracy is just a dictatorship with some handwaving. You blame "the system" or "the political machine" to alleviate responsibility for poor outcomes. The fact is that we, as a people, have significant levels of control over our government and yet we have a shitty result. We are simply not as good and smart as we like to think we are.

Regardless, I don't think a billionaire looking at the elected government of their country and saying "I know better than the people you elected, so I am justified in evading taxes and spending that money how I think it should be spent" is a morally justified position even if it is true.

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#135

Post by zsmi »

poxy_ wrote: post #18

Amazing! "If your son has requested a new "processor" from a company called "AMD", this is genuine cause for alarm. AMD is a third-world based company who make inferior, "knock-off" copies of American processor chips. They use child labor extensively in their third world sweatshops, and they deliberately disable the security features that American processor makers, such as Intel, use to prevent hacking. AMD chips are…

I saw that too and was shocked. I am not the biggest fan of Sunnyvale California but calling it 3rd world seems overly harsh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Micro_Devices#First_t...

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#136

Post by mr-wendel »

cosmodisk wrote: post #131
mr-wendel wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so he missed the satire, but I give points for stating some simple truths. Despite being satire, it's an important topic and "trust in the family" (and in your parents in particular) is the keystone issue here. Everything else is secondary.

Fair enough, I definitely missed it being a satire: shouldn't have skimmed the content:)

Sometimes the best commentary comes from taking satire seriously on accident. I thought your comment was great.

Every one of the outrageous behaviors listed have definitely been someone's actual reality, and for some people it was several of those things. Equally outrageous is how often the parents have no clue what awful things their kids are doing. Not the warez, pr0n, turf wars, freaking, hacking, etc.

It's the stalking, harassment, and deeply seated psychological issues that are guaranteed to get worse by pulling a power-play and declaring victory. That is going now require extra work to correct. That other stuff is more likely to land your kid a great job/career than destroy opportunities to form relationships.

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#137

Post by endominus »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #133
endominus wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I disagree because fundamentally taxes are used to support public services that benefit society as a whole. A large part of my point is that this claim is not true. The purpose of a system is what it does. Taxes are used to appease constituents, not improve society. They may be related, they may overlap at some points, but they are not the same. >The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in sele…

The way you describe it one may as well believe that democracy is just a dictatorship with some handwaving. You blame "the system" or "the political machine" to alleviate responsibility for poor outcomes. The fact is that we, as a people, have significant levels of control over our government and yet we have a shitty result. We are simply not as good and smart as we like to think we are. Regardless, I don't think a b…

"To be ruled is both necessary and inherently discomfiting (as well as dangerous). For our rulers to be accountable to us softens its intrinsic humiliations, probably sets some hazy limits to the harms that they will voluntarily choose to do to us collectively, and thus diminishes some of the dangers to which their rule may expose us. To suggest that we can ever hope to have the power to make them act just as we would wish them to suggests that it is really we, not they, who are ruling. This is an illusion, and probably a somewhat malign illusion: either a self-deception, or an instance of being deceived by others, or very probably both." - John Dunn

>Regardless, I don't think a billionaire looking at the elected government of their country and saying "I know better than the people you elected, so I am justified in evading taxes and spending that money how I think it should be spent" is a morally justified position even if it is true.

What if the elected government is actually evil? Ever heard the quote, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"? There are a number of dictators, aside from the obvious example, who were democratically elected. There are many countries who use their people's wealth to fund genocidal campaigns against minorities within their borders. Some of those countries are representative democracies.

If it is true that an individual knows better than the elected government and is more moral than them, and you still insist that their power (for what is wealth but liquid power?) be squandered or used for evil ends, I just don't know hwat to say to you. It is a baffling and honestly frightening position to take. To abnegate your own will and submit to that of the people, out of blind faith that they will be right. It is the core to the surrender to every lynch mob, every witch hunt, every moral panic that blinds people and initiates their frenzies of hate.

"We are not as good and smart as we like to think we are" - so we should just allow the zeitgeist to determine our morality and sink our intellect to the lowest common denominator? Is that really what you believe? And which of us, exactly, is "alleviating responsibility?" I place it on a broken system; you on a fallen people.

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#138

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

endominus wrote: post #137
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you describe it one may as well believe that democracy is just a dictatorship with some handwaving. You blame "the system" or "the political machine" to alleviate responsibility for poor outcomes. The fact is that we, as a people, have significant levels of control over our government and yet we have a shitty result. We are simply not as good and smart as we like to think we are. Regardless, I don't think a b…

"To be ruled is both necessary and inherently discomfiting (as well as dangerous). For our rulers to be accountable to us softens its intrinsic humiliations, probably sets some hazy limits to the harms that they will voluntarily choose to do to us collectively, and thus diminishes some of the dangers to which their rule may expose us. To suggest that we can ever hope to have the power to make them act just as we woul…

> What if the elected government is actually evil? Ever heard the quote, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"?

I don't think "taking advantage of all the benefits of a nation's resources and infrastructure while simultaneously contributing nothing, which I can only really get away with because I'm so successful" is a very good form of "resistance". Let's be frank here: there is absolutely no billionaire out there evading taxes because they have a moral problem with how their government uses it.

> If it is true that an individual knows better than the elected government and is more moral than them, and you still insist that their power (for what is wealth but liquid power?) be squandered or used for evil ends, I just don't know hwat to say to you.

I believe pretty much every individual will claim that they are those things. Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? If only there were some kind of system where we could choose...

> To abnegate your own will and submit to that of the people, out of blind faith that they will be right. It is the core to the surrender to every lynch mob, every witch hunt, every moral panic that blinds people and initiates their frenzies of hate.

We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. This isn't about blind faith in rightness, it's about your society electing a government, you being a part of that society and wishing to continue being a part of that society, and therefore you pay your fucking taxes. It isn't about subsuming your will to a mob, it's about not hypocritically enjoying the benefits of society while bemoaning doing your part in keeping it running.

> "We are not as good and smart as we like to think we are" - so we should just allow the zeitgeist to determine our morality and sink our intellect to the lowest common denominator?

No. We should not pretend that we are justifying not paying taxes for moral reasons when we are still totally ok with benefiting from that same immorality. That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral.

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#139

Post by ben_w »

imwillofficial wrote: post #109
ben_w wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reverse, I wonder how well known Irish and British slang is in the USA: “Bumming” can mean to obtain or make use of something that belongs to someone else by begging; “fag” can mean cigarette; “for the craic” (“craic” pronounced “crack”) is “for fun”. (And thanks to the very early part of my mother’s Alzheimer’s, I also know that an archaic meaning of “glory hole” is a cupboard for miscellaneous items, and the ety…

The first time you heard her casual use of glory hole must have been alarming, and later hilarious. (I’m sorry to hear about your mother, my condolences.)

Absolutely, and thank you.

Re: Is your son a computer hacker? (2001)

#140

Post by endominus »

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #138
endominus wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"To be ruled is both necessary and inherently discomfiting (as well as dangerous). For our rulers to be accountable to us softens its intrinsic humiliations, probably sets some hazy limits to the harms that they will voluntarily choose to do to us collectively, and thus diminishes some of the dangers to which their rule may expose us. To suggest that we can ever hope to have the power to make them act just as we woul…

> What if the elected government is actually evil? Ever heard the quote, "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty"? I don't think "taking advantage of all the benefits of a nation's resources and infrastructure while simultaneously contributing nothing, which I can only really get away with because I'm so successful" is a very good form of "resistance". Let's be frank here: there is absolutely no billiona…

>Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral?

You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism.

>We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake.

No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them. This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way.

>That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral.

So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes is fundamentally immoral because they are doing it to justify greed and because governments incentivize that behavior by offering tax breaks?

Post reply on HN