Are we not dividing the analysis section by question anymore? This article did have headings for the questions previously, but at some point someone removed them. Was this an accident or do you think we should not include them from now on? E.t.dale 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- My preference is that the analysis section not be divided up by question, since this discourages us from considering how the themes we're discussing connect to more than one of our discussion questions. Afamiglietti 19:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I only put it in bullet form initially so that when people went through to prune it and condense into one solid, coherent work it'd be easier to find like ideas to combine tswihart3 00:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I kinda feel that having the analysis section divided up in someway be it questions/theme/ideas/topics so that its a bit easier to add two cents in places and easier to find a specific topic (and easier to read). There could be a sub-header within each section on connections to other themes. Tanner 04:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, at least for the first part of the posting, I think we should have the question headings, then use the previously mentioned sub-headers to divide the information in a more thematic way that would be much easier to read than the current unending wall.
- Yes, right now the questions are organized into a large block of text. Can we organize it such a fashion, with sub-headers and such, that lets the wiki do the work for us. The only problem I see is that the contents table would then balloon with lengthy questions, but numbering them doesn't help either. - Andrew
In terms of answering the questions I believe we need to put an identfier like (regarding question 1) so that we know what questions are being answered. It is a little confusing to read everything, and it is tough to find where and if a certain question has been answered - Sri
I think we should refrain from using headers within the wiki discussions because our professor said our wiki page should flow from idea to idea without breaks. We should just go through each paragraph and connect each statement that is posted. We could also organize paragraphs by similar ideas. -Ross
- Yeah I think thats a good idea, but we need to make accessing the paragraphs easier, but we can't lose the flow of the essay. Instead of headers I think maybe parenthetical documentation might work. This is a tough dilemma. -Sri
- It is a very tedious task and I doubt the majority of the class would contribute to organizing the discussions. -Ross
- I agree with Ross. The discussions DO need to be organized, but doing so in a tedious manner will solve nothing. (sgilmore7)
- This page needs to be cleaned up a little bit I think I am going to go through it and change around a few things.
Ross, it is tedious but as it currently is, it does not look good or makes any sense. I suggest to put the ideas together by question and make every question in the discussion section a new header.. I volunteer to help - Barbs
Are we using meta-wiki as means of communication or as a project which builds a database of "answers/ content" related to the prompt? I just want to know if we are allowed to debate and talk a little in first person. I guess with debate and first person it may be less solid and coherent piece of work. I was merely curious. Mayank
- Let's keep the first person out of the main content space (using it here on the talk pages is fine, of course) just because saying "I" is inconsistent with the multiple authors of our entries. Remember, however, that you can make an argument in favor of something you believe without using the first person! Afamiglietti 02:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I would assume that "the hackers" keeps popping up because the definite article "the" is referencing the specific group of hackers referenced in the reading, in order to distinguish from just hackers in general.
Also, hackers is in quotes because it is not, in the formal sense, a real word.
If you were capable of hacking, what would you hack on the Georgia Tech campus? Hacking includes breaking into physical rooms as well. -Ross
- This question looks like a trap to me.
- I would want to steal the T from tech tower, so I would probably need to break into tech tower, and hack the cameras I guess. This would be a fun experience, but it does have legality issues.
- Not a good idea, I suggest you rent a police helicopter to lift the T from Tech Tower.
- This sounds like something a Georgia Tech undercover security guard would post and then catch people when they answer. But oh well I would want to hack everyones computer and make people's computers play "Friday by REbecca Black or somthing.--Norangio3 15:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- There would be no use; you'd get caught just like that. Especially if it involved something like changing grades or defacing school property somehow.
- I would to set errors on T-square log in page. That students checking scores on the classes will get all 100.
- I would find a way replicate someone's buzzcard access onto another card, or even my own buzzcard. That way, I don't have to call my friends to come let me in everytime I go over to someone else's dorm building.
- I'd give myself administrative access to the new nanotechnology building and clean room, just because I think it would be a ton of fun to run around and experiment with all of the amazing equipment in there. Msmith312 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would find a way to purposely crash T-Square on a Friday night so that they would extend the deadline for the CS homework, which I would have just started hours ago. -- ltolentino3
A quick introduction at the top of the page is needed.
- I added a quick one, it's pretty pathetic though, so anyone is more than welcome to add to it. - Jarvis
- Also, the image in the middle of the page seems misplaced and unnecessary - Jarvis
Just wondering, but how does the image on this wiki page fit in to the discussion of Hackers at all? Yes, it includes a computer I suppose, but it doesn't tie into the discussion of the Hacker ethic at all, and the hand coming out of the screen (and seeming to type on someone else's keyboard) seems much more reminiscent of a cracker, and the conflict between the media's portrayal of Hackers and actual Hackers is something we wanted to make a point of clarifying. TL,DR: The banner seems to run counter to the portrayal of Hackers in the text, and to HAcker culture in general. --Tswihart3 13:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, that image seems to also have replaced the previous picture that was in that position. I have to agree that this new image isn't as relevant to this page, and gives more of an opinionated definition to a hacker than a neutral one.
I think we need to change the outline of the page some so that you can jump to each of the major questions about hackers addressed on this page. This will make it easier to jump around on the page to each question without needing to scroll all the way down the page.
This was one of my favorite readings out of all of them, despite it not being the shortest. I'm not sure why exactly it was, probably something to do with it being a more concrete reading as opposed to some of the philosophical readings we did.