Last night on 60 Minutes, Leslie Stahl interviewed Vint Cerf and some security experts for a story on identity theft and malware. Cerf was on for maybe 20 seconds and the rest of the segment was your typical the-sky-is-falling doomsday report. What bugged me about Stahl's piece was how rotten she presumed hackers writ large to be. She said the word at least 20 times with no consideration given for honest hackers.
I once used the h-word in a corporate setting in front of my boss. The benign context left no doubt as to my meaning but old pointy hair later assured me I had crossed a line. Memo: the safewords are "code" and "program."
Good to be working on a startup today. Essays like this continue to remind me why I left the establishment.
"Hacker" may very well be (helpfully) keeping the size of HN down. The last time I sent someone a link to an HN discussion they took one look at the url and phoned to tell me that my email had a virus.
Well, the English language is defined by its usage, and if 99% of English speakers think that a hacker is someone who illegally tampers with computer systems, then that's what it means. I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word rather than just coming up with a new word or phrase that defines the positive aspects of being a hacker. In fact, if done properly, the new phrase could even contain the word "hacker".
Any language is, but not by simple majorities. In practice there is something like a pagerank for people for language usage, just as there is for most topics.
For example, it could be that 99% of people who use the phrase "begs the question" misuse it. But the 1% who don't are not merely a random 1% of the population. So in disputes about how to use the phrase, those who get it wrong tend to defer to those who get it right. You couldn't say the meaning of the phrase had changed till that stopped happening, because it implies by induction that everyone who misuses the phrase would change their usage if called on it.
It's even trickier than that. People who get it right will often think less of the person using the term incorrectly, but won't bother to correct them. I'm sure similar things happen when you encounter clueless MBA types in the valley.
There are more extreme cases of this kind of silent dismissal: thick brooklyn accents, ebonics, southern accents, spanglish, etc. will not get you very far in many places I've worked. I'm not saying that's morally right, but it certainly happens.
That's not how it works, at least as explained by linguists. Those 1% do not exist to be the "pagerank 10" sources; they exist to analyze how language is being used, and adjust the official meanings of words to reflect that usage. That's how words and meanings get added to (English) dictionaries and grammar books.
Old meanings are not considered wrong of course, but are often pushed back to the higher-numbered definitions and eventually considered an old or archaic usage.
It doesn't work the same in all languages; for example, French has the l'Académie française which strongly attempts to regulate the meanings of French words, and is quite successful.
To prove my point: there are two official meanings of "begging the question," including the one you assume to be incorrect in your post:
Furthermore, I'm confident that with some research, we could find several words and phrases in your post which were considered "incorrect" several hundred years ago (despite being commonly used then) but are considered "correct" today.
The 1% of people (assuming it's that) "exist to analyze how language is being used?" What does that mean? I'm in the 1% who understand "begs the question." Do I exist to analyze how language is being used?
Nor is the shift of meaning in a word over time identical with people misunderstanding the previous meanings. That type of shift is quite rare. It's much more common for words to shift meaning the way "computer" has than the way "buxom" did.
There's nothing official about dictionaries, incidentally. They describe usage (as well as they can); they don't prescribe it. If dictionaries defined terms in the prescriptive sense, I could refute you by starting one.
Well, I suppose we're talking about a different 1%. Perhaps you feel that you are a "pagerank 10" person regarding "begs the question" because you understand the original meaning. I would argue that the "pagerank 10" would be the person who has studied its usage and has observed that "raises the question" has also become an acceptable use.
Assuming that a shift in a word's meaning due to "incorrect" usage is rare, what makes it any less valid of a change? And are you willing to have the same view regarding all English words that turn out to have been formed as a result of misuse that you have toward "hacker" and "begs the question," even if you are forced to use an obsolete word?
You argue that dictionaries can't prescribe language, and I agree. I'm saying that there are limits to how much you can prescribe language in general, including the attempt to prescribe the meaning of "hacker" and "beg the question." The "beg the question" of 2009 is no less valid than the one of 1600.
> I don't know why hackers are always fighting an impossible uphill battle to change public perception of the word
Probably because it allows easy group identification. Those that use the positive meaning are in the group and those that use the negative meaning are outsiders.
We use many words this way. At the risk of sounding very suburban, witness the difference between Gangsta/Gangster when used by people inside/outside hip-hop culture.
Do you remember the 90's? I recall that, for a time, at least twice a week the news would have a story going on about hackers, the danger to the audience, and their children.
I don't hear hackers used for fear mongering as much anymore, so I suspect that hackers will eventually reach the top of the hill. Of course, I expect it will always have slight negative connotation.
Do we really need to go over this again? It's pretty simple: within the computer community 'hacker' has a positive context. For everyone else it's negative.
It's like 'fag'. Say that in the UK and you are talking about cigarettes. Say it in the US and it's offensive.
not to cut teeth here, but the 'fag' analogy doesn't really hold up. no matter how you swing it, the term 'hacker' relates to technology (hardware, software, wetware, whatever). in this case, 'fag' has two very different meanings. i'm reminded of the story posted a month (or so) ago on the linux hacker dad whose son received some flack from an ignorant teacher (anyone have a link?).
I disagree. It's all about context. Don't describe yourself as a hacker unless you are around fellow hackers (in the sense used on this site). Otherwise you risk being misinterpreted.
i'd rather educate than be misinterpreted. the term 'hacker' best describes me and what i do. i'm not [just] an engineer. i'm not [just] a designer. i'm a hacker. hacker has a real, defined meaning. the media and popular interpretation be damned.
Well as a programmer, I'd say "a hack" has a mild negative connotation (something hastily thrown together and brittle).
But the terms "to hack" and "hacking" are both positive (to get stuff done).
I have no problem with the term 'hacker', but I don't call myself one. To me it feels the same as calling myself a 'player' or something... like I'm a poseur.
Splitting these connotations is a tough battle. The "skeptics" movement faced the same issue 30 or so years ago. "Skeptic" was seen as equivalent to "cynic," and to outsiders can still share some of the same emotional attachments.
People thinking about doing this with their startup should bear this in mind.
That might make for an interesting story! There're arguments about the origin: there's the mindset that says it's slang for "the new things", using "news" as a plural for new. Then there's the one that says "NEWS" is an anagram of "North East West South." It leads to some interesting arguments in media class, when it comes to defining "What is News?" (That's an argument that Hacker News seems to have as well, so it's far from dead.)
"The original sense of news was 'new things'; this is long obsolete. Since the 15th century it has been used to mean 'tidings, the report of recent events, new occurrences as a subject or report or talk.'"
There is some interresting things for a non american guy in this article, although i think the way he bounds the fact of being a hacker, and the fact of being american is truely stereotypical, and a little bit sad also seen from outside.
I'd have prefered if he dug the intellectual property thing a bit more.
I don't agree that everyone in the tech world agrees on the term.
When I was in school (late 90s/2000), one of our professors made a clear distinction between "hacker mentality" and "software engineer mentality"–emphasizing that the latter was professional/preferred and the former was undesirable/rogue.
To him, a "hacker" didn't plan, didn't show an engineering thought-process, didn't think long-term, and wasn't a team player.
So, at least in academia, not everyone thinks "hackers" are good.
Even some of the people we would call "hackers" consider a "hack" to be a temporary fix they put in that's meant to work until they have the opportunity to do it right.
There's a lot more to this post than semantic arguments. Get past the first three paragraphs and read about the profound connection between hacking and liberty. It's tied to our past, our present and our future innovations.
I once used the h-word in a corporate setting in front of my boss. The benign context left no doubt as to my meaning but old pointy hair later assured me I had crossed a line. Memo: the safewords are "code" and "program."
Good to be working on a startup today. Essays like this continue to remind me why I left the establishment.