> But we already HAD a word for that and it was not "hackers" it was con artists..

I think the distinction is in your last three words, "hacking a system".

A con man or fraudster will get a _person_ to hand over their property.
A hacker manipulates a _system_ to have it do something other than what it's supposed to do.
TFA says:

"The group was able to change the DNS records managed by Network Solutions for a number of security companies".

They did a number of companies by exploiting NetSol's SYSTEM, not simply tricking one person, but exploiting
holes in the system that the person what was part of. If you can fairly reliably exploit the system, it's a hack in my opinion whether that's a TCP/IP system, a phone system, a traffic light control system, or system that includes both
computers and human.

However, see also the Jargon File for original meanings of the term:
http://www.dourish.com/goodies/jargon.html
http://www.outpost9.com/reference/jargon/jargon_23.html#SEC30

Rule 1: don't be a jerk when you might be wrong.
Rule 2: you can always be wrong.
Rule 3: raymorris is never wrong (note rule 2 says YOU can be wrong, not me).

Hmm, come to think of it, I WAS wrong when I said Clinton didn't barricade open air monuments.
My point, that such shenanigans are a new form of BS by democrats, was correct, though. Perhaps we need rule #4:

Rule 4: If it appears that raymorris is wrong, look at the bigger picture. He's always right about the big picture.

It sucks to be wrong when you're being a jerk, doesn't it.

Rule 1: don't be a jerk when you might be wrong.
Rule 2: you can always be wrong.

By 15, mean 0, right? I see that in the 1980s a service member and a CIA agent were prosecuted for selling information to the Soviets. I'm not finding any journalists being prosecuted until Obama.

What do you mean "of you don't want to participate in culture in it's exact form as it exists right now"?
Right now, you can buy from a boutique retailer who buys from a distributor, you can buy direct from the manufacturer, or many choices in between.

I bought my last pair of glasses from 39dollarglasses.com. They are the same glasses the retailer in the mall will sell me for $160. The differences include - the retailer will measure the distance between my eyes for me, help me find a pair that looks nice, adjust them for me, and charge more. Both choices are "culture as it exists right now". Right now you can buy direct from the manufacturer who is 1,000 miles away, buy from a discount store, or a boutique shop. You can have it any way you want. Why do you insist that I also have to have it your way, that I'm not allowed to getvalue added by a dealer? What posesses you to need to take away the last bit if freedom I have left?

If aggregators, dealers, and other "middle men" don't offer you anything you want, don't use them. Simple.

Note that the grocery store, gas station, and just about every other business you use is a middle man. If the grocery store doesn't offer you any advantage over ordering items shipped directly from manufacturers and producers, you can make that choice. Sometimes, I order things direct. Most of the time, it's more convenient and cheaper to go through an aggregator / retailer like Walmart.

If you want some of the services of a middle man but not all, you have that choice too. Sam's Club and other warehouse stores sell cases at low prices, just like buying direct. Internet distributors are another in-between option. Yet, most of the time we prefer the services of a middle man, a retailer.

More on topic, I have bought, and continue to buy data services through a middle man. The backbone providers sell 10Gb connections. They aren't interested in the 50Mbps I want to buy. My retailer IS very interested in my 50Mbps account and they work hard to keep me happy. If there's a problem with one of the backbones, they have the expertise and the pull to get it fixed.

It seems to me that the larger the bill and the larger the company sending that bill, the lower the competency.

Our three-person company handles web sites serving hundreds of thousands of users per day for a few thousand dollars. We could easily handle a few million users by adding a few more database servers at a cost of around ten thousand.

Depends on if it happens during a bachelor party.

People at work are always saying "the user is doing it wrong". They say that all the time because users do it wrong all the time. A guy named Murphy made it a law - if there's a wrong way to do it, someone will do it wrong. (That's the actual original Murphy's law.)

I'm constantly pointing out that yes, we KNOW that the users will do it wrong if we let them. We also know how to easily prevent those mistakes. Idiots exist, so idiot proof your software.

Our setup related scripts refuse to run if the software is already configured. Something like:

if ($config['basedir']) screwoff();

That's in case someone forgets to delete them.

The turn of the century was the time of Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and Henry Ford - certainly a time when the US was booming.
The top tax rate in 1900 was 0%. In 1913 the top tax rate was 7%.

The roaring twenties were a good time for America, right? Through the 1920s, the top tax rate was reduced to 24%.

During Word War II rates were greatly increased and through the 1970s, taxes were extremely high, as you said.
By 1970, the US economy was screwed and we started seeing headlines about how the US ranked near the bottom in ____, where you could fill in the blank with education or many other things.

1998 rates were cut dramitally, to 28%. The early 1990s boom followed.

My previous subject line mentioned Clinton, but I didn't expand on that in the body. After envy was a big loser for Mondale in 1984, Clinton in 1992 said it was a bad idea. He even pointed that out in his inauguration speech.

So you could say that the envy trend began after the early 60s, was modetately strong in 1980, and had been recognized as error by 1992, but still used for political manipulation in 2008.

Obviously the decline of the republic is a process over time, not an event on a single day . To get bookends on the time frame, compare Kennedy's speeches to Mondale.

JFK spoke of the promise of America, where a store clerk could, through hard work, become president. Twenty years later, Mondale's speeches have a very different tone, a full of class envy and idea that "the man is keeping you down". So the big change in the US was somewhere between 1960-1980. Monadale tried that in 1984 and lost big , so the majority still rejected it. Obama did it in 2008 and won big, so apparently the trend continued.

Of course I'm speaking of the US. Other countries went through the same thing at other times. Stalin, Potpot, Mao, and Castro all took power based on their own brands of class envy.

Time was, the best and brightest WANTED to come to America and they did become Americans. US citizenship was a dream of many through the 1980s. Today, those who still come are waving Mexican flags. How often do you hear people dreaming of becoming an American these days?

> and then the rich realized they could redistrict

Gerrymandering was a well known in 1812. That was 200 years ago. The US started going down the hole around 1970. The country flourished when taxes when on success were a LOT lower. Come to think of it, the huge taxes started around 1970, then the country went to shit.