B&N Pulls Linux Format Magazine Over Feature On 'Hacking' 301
New accepted submitter super_rancid writes that issue 154 of the "UK-based Linux Format magazine was pulled from Barnes and Noble bookstores in the U.S. after featuring an article called 'Learn to Hack'. They used 'hack' in the populist security sense, rather than the traditional sense, and the feature — which they put online — was used to illustrate how poor your server's security is likely to be by breaking into it."
Read the 1st amendment first. (Score:5, Informative)
B&N could have destroyed Apple (Score:5, Informative)
If, in the 70's they pulled Esquire Magazine for carrying the article "Secrets of the Little Blue Box", an article that described phone phreaking.
This inspired Steve Jobs to convince friend Woz to design and build Blue boxes, which eventually lead to the founding of Apple... now the biggest company in the world...
Apple started from hacker/phreaker roots, and inspired by an article published in a magazine. Just imagine the damage they've done to the future by pulling this Magazine.
Re:Populist security sense? (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly!
I'm a CRACKER not a hacker. Get it right. (No just kidding..... but I should post that on news sites just to see what reaction I get.)
Re:US$300M effect? (Score:3, Informative)
There was no buyout.
B&N spun off a subsidiary (which doesn't handle this sort of thing) and Microsoft took a minority stake in that subsidiary (so even the subsidiary was not bought out).
Re:Populist security sense? (Score:5, Informative)
The new rebrand is "Security Researcher". I haven't seen that get culture-broken yet.
Re:Good for them! (Score:4, Informative)
I have trouble believing either the reason B&N gave, or your more sinister reason.
From the Linux Format website (issue 154):
Learn to Hack
Attack Servers, crack passwords, exploit services, beat encryption - everything you need to be evil. (Ben Everard)
That sounds a little more nefarious than the summary implies.
Adjective Building (Score:5, Informative)
Merriam-Webster:
First known use of PREDOMINATELY: 1594
Even if its used predominantly in America, it's a good bet predominately didn't originate here.
"To predominate" is a verb, "predominant" is an adjective. At some point in time, someone built an adjective off of the verb.
My favorite bit of vestigial English preserved in the colonies -- especially in the midwest -- is "gotten."
And it's not a colloquialism; it's used in formal American English.
"What have you gotten?" (obtained) vs. "What have you got?" (possession)
(There's actually another Americanism in a sentence above. We typically say "off of" while the British say simply "off.")
Re:Populist security sense? (Score:4, Informative)
No, and interestingly enough, this is a tangetial example of names being used incorrectly.
Godwin's Law is not _any_ mention of Hitler or the Nazis. It requires an unfavorable comparison to Nazi Germany or Hitler. Since nothing we've done is as bad as massacring 12+ million civilians, the comparison is ridiculous. Further, the rule is "any flame war shall eventually result in somone comparing someone else or their actions to Nazi Germany. That person loses."
Examples are: "The Nazis had really strict rules about this too!", "You imagine yourself a little Hitler with parades and... and... people saluting you", and, "You know who else liked to invade Poland?"
In other words, you can talk about The Luftwaffe, Swastikas, Panzer design, WW2 re-enactments, etc. without invoking Godwin's Law.