In a sense this statement is completely true. But in another sense it gives the impression he was a symbol for the wrong kind of computer user. Without getting much into the types of users I'm talking about, how am I to feel about these types of headlines that use the term "hacker" in ways in which it may be so easily misinterpreted...such as in this instance where I can't even presume to know if the BBC meant the good kind or the bad kind, or if they just left it up to the reader. "Conflicted" is not an acceptable answer to my query since I've got that one covered, but how am I to feel about this? I'm a hacker, but I don't mess with stuff that doesn't belong to me. I want to be able to refer to myself as a hacker without having to give a dissertation on the difference between a hacker and a cracker or good computer usage vs bad. Is there a simple solution that doesn't involve me locking myself indoors and avoiding all human contact?

At any rate, strive for world peace. If you're attacked, don't feel obligated to "never forget" by fighting back. Sometimes the best way to remember those lost to a violent foe is to absorb a few shots, retaliating only with words meant to inspire peace. As a gun toting son-of-a-gun, I know well the urge to blow the shit out of anyone who gives me grief, but the mathematics of achieving world peace don't support retaliation except when the enemy has proven they aren't listening. And to make that work, you have to be honest with yourself about whether or not they're listening. Gandhi was right, George isn't. I may not be from NY, and I may not have lost anyone dear to me, so my perspective on this may not be what it is for many Americans, but I've always been a logic focused problem solver, and peace won't happen unless someone steps back and refuses to fight. And to me, world peace is a larger goal than avenging any number of people. Were I to die today, the greatest thing I could hope to arise from my death, would be complete peace.