366 DEAR HACKER
366 DEAR HACKER
Dear 2600: The article entitled “Pirates on the Internet” was absolutely terrible. Did
anyone bother to proofread it? Running it through spell check doesn’t count.
The information presented was inaccurate and incomplete. About a quarter of a page was devoted to a rant about a message board that used to be good. I could list specifics, but it hurts my eyes to read the article again. I actually passed the article around to my coworkers because it was so terrible. I understand that you may have felt the need to fill some more space in the magazine, but a blank page would have been better and left your reputation in a better condition. I would gladly rewrite this article with more useful information for the next is- sue, however, it doesn’t seem like the right article for the magazine.
Keep in mind, I used to love reading 2600 about ten years ago and would like to see it get back to what it was back then—informative and useful hacks.
David Barrios We love getting criticism and letters that point out when we’ve done something bad
or stupid. But this little diatribe doesn’t qualify. Here’s why. You don’t ever get to the point of why the article was bad. You pull the old trick of conjuring up phantom people who all agree with your assessment, thereby justifying it without producing anything of substance. You decline to list any specifics because “it hurts my eyes to read the article again”? Please. If it had so much of an effect on you that you felt compelled to write this letter, surely you can remember more about it than a little rant about a board which took far less space than you claim. Finally, the proverbial dig at us for “the need to fill some more space in the magazine.” If we had that need, why would we have added additional pages in the last year? We know that nobody is going to like every article that gets printed here. But just because you come across something that differs with your perspective, there’s no reason to con- clude that we’ve become desperate for material and will print anything. The only thing those kinds of accusations do is piss us off and detract from the point of your letter, which in this case never was made in the first place.
We appreciate anyone who truly does want to help out and make the magazine better. But simply bemoaning the fact that things aren’t as good as they used to be isn’t constructive. We’ve been hearing that critique since our second issue.
OUR BIGGEST FANS
Dear 2600: Who pays for these? Seriously, do you actually make money off your
quarterlies? I just sit in Barnes and Noble and read them there. That’s just me.
Andrew Sent from my iPhone
While that’s your right, we’re fortunate that not everyone does that. If they did, then we wouldn’t be around for very long. Unlike other magazines, we rely solely on our readers to keep us going. Other publications simply rely on advertisements. They can actually not sell a single issue and still convince their advertisers that people are being exposed to the ads, perhaps in scenarios such as yours. We don’t have that luxury, nor do we want it. You’re obviously reading us for a reason so we hope you’ll see the connection between supporting us and having the material continue to flow.
Dear 2600: Recently, a couple of contributing editors from 2600 the magazine have
been hacking my computer. I don’t like it. I already have proof that one member has already hacked my computer. If people from your magazine continue to illegally hack my computer, I’ll call the police. Please remove whatever backdoor your members have put on my computer.
I have hard evidence that I was hacked. I won’t say who did it because