I used to think there were two separate uses of the word, and one was less correct than the other. I used to insist people distinguish between a good "hacker" a

I used to think there were two separate uses of the word, and one was less correct than the other. I used to insist people distinguish between a good "hacker" and an evil "cracker". Now I understand the essence of the term, there is no distinction between the two. Its all the same. Central to the essence is this notion that good and bad are subjective, and anything characterised as hacking should probably be both good (for someone or something) and evil (for someone or something) combined. Destruction and creation are both equally implied. I think if something is purely 100% good for everyone, I don't think the word hacker applies.