

The Hacker Matrix - naish
http://spectrum.ieee.org/static/hacker-matrix/?utm_source=techalert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=071411

======
albedoa
Since they're looking for feedback, I'd suggest changing either of the
"Simple" or "Innovative" labels, as those words are not necessarily antonyms.

Perhaps "Simple" and "Complex" if that's what they're going for. Or
"Traditional" and "Innovative" if they are referring to the novelty of the
method.

~~~
dmooney1
Perhaps a third dimension? Certainly there are simple and innovative hacks.
Certainly there are complex, traditional hacks.

~~~
hammock
You mean fourth. The third dimension is good/bad/murky.

~~~
dmooney1
You are right. I hadn't even noticed those checkboxen.

------
turbojerry
They definitely have things wrong here, for example LulzSec is way on the
Simple side where as Gary McKinnon is on the Innovative side, Gary looked for
blank passwords whereas LulzSec did much more complex cracks. So while the
IEEE do lots of good work which I respect, here they have at best made a
mistake and at worst are taking a political position which is contrary to the
facts to help get Gary extradited. If it is the former, I hope they swiftly
correct the error and if it the later, then they have lost me as a customer
forever.

------
danohuiginn
The 'high impact' hacks are mostly 'bad', the 'low impact' ones are mostly
good.

This may of course be accurate; it's easier to destroy things than to improve
them.

~~~
p4bl0
There's also so many diffrent kind of impact. Like albedoa and codeodor said,
the graphic is poorly labeled and the data poorly categorized.

------
murz
> Note: If you're using Internet Explorer 7, the dots on the chart will not
> appear in the correct place.

Go figure.

