Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: Scramjet, Golden Ears, Preciousness
Everything that rises must come down under. spam-it-to-me-baby writes: "The Australian trial of a scramjet engine has fizzed. 'The experiment at the Department of Defence's Woomera Prohibited Area, 500 kilometres north of Adelaide, was not successful because the [United States-supplied] rocket experienced flight anomalies prior to the scramjet experiment,' an analysis of what went wrong says. Not to worry, another test is tentatively scheduled for next week, assuming researchers can work out what went wrong with this one on the way up."
Not to be confused with this previous scramjet test, also unsuccessful.
Ah, much better, I thought you were being unreasonable there for a minute. After Jamie drew attention to it in a Slashdot piece on Saturday, SafeSurf changed their legislative proposal. In Jamie's words, "Woo!"
That's not all he said, of course: "Please note that, now, they ONLY want to fine you thousands of dollars for failing to label anything you write that is harmful to an 8-year-old. What a relief! "The penalty for a first offense of failing to label or mislabeling material harmful to minors shall be limited to a fine of under five thousand dollars."
Bennett Haselton passed on this commentary as well:
"If you go to http://www.safesurf.com/online.htm in Netscape and "View Document Info", it shows it was last modified on October 29, 2001. (This function doesn't work in IE.)The original OCPA is [at google]. SafeSurf apparently removed this paragraph from section 6:
Publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently published. The parents shall be given presumption in all cases and do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child, only that the material was severe enough to reasonably be considered to have needed a rating label to protect children.and replaced it with:Publishers may be sued in civil court by any parent who feels their children were harmed by the data negligently published. The parents/plantiffs shall be given presumption, if the case involves graphic images, and do not have to prove that the content actually produced harm to their child, only that the material was severe enough to reasonably be considered to have needed a rating label to protect children.and then added three new paragraphs listing more exemptions from this rule."
Can you hear that pea through the mattresses? For the audio objectivists, a good update to CmdrTaco's recent MP3 v. Ogg Vorbis inquiry: E1ven writes: "Everyone is always arguing about whether Vorbis sounds better than MP3, or vice versa. Here is your chance to see who is right! ff123 is doing a set of Blind Listening tests and could use your help. The more ears the better!"
don't pee on your matresses. dammit, that's just nasty.
this is going out to all the lamers in #linuxwarez!
Two Halloween Acts: Defense of Marriage and Gay Bashing
Commentary by Tim Campbell
It's Halloween already and I still have DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, on my mind. That's mainly because come November 5, lots of people are asking, telling, or expecting me to vote for Bill Clinton and Paul Wellstone both of whom supported the Defense of Marriage Act. Yuk!
When Clinton signed DOMA and ran radio ads bragging about supporting DOMA, Robert Bray with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force sent out a news release calling on Clinton to "Stop Gay Baiting." Bray's term struck me immediately as inappropriate.
"Gay baiting" is the act of suggesting someone is gay or gay friendly because one hopes that suggestion turn people against the "baited" target. Those who wrote or voted for DOMA were not suggesting that anyone was gay or gay friendly. There was nothing like "baiting" about DOMA..
No, the Defense of Marriage Act was much uglier, much more Halloween-like. I would call DOMA "gay bashing" rather than "gay baiting " Political gay bashing.
With this comparison, I have in mind the garden variety of gay bashing in which a physically grown but intellectually deficient male or group of males identifies someone as a faggot and or sissy, then beats up on him a little, rather arbitrarily, to teach him that his behavior is not acceptable, to defend social norms, and to assert the basher's own normalcy, superiority and power.
Gay bashing and the Defense of Marriage Act have another thing in common: they are both "acts." By that I mean the victimizers loudly pretend that the faggot is a threat so that they can justify beating up on him. The truth, however, is that the faggot is not physically threatening anyone. This is the classic "Blame the victim" scenario. And a rather silly one at that: "Your Honor, Miss Sissy was scaring Mr. Bully. Mr. Bully had to protect himself.." What a crock!
That is precisely what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act. Right wing bullies pretended loudly that the future possibility of same-sex marriages was an eminent danger to heterosexual marriage that needed to be cut off at the pass.
A second way in which the Defense of Marriage Act was like gay bashing is that, although the act itself was dreamed up and pushed primarily by the religious right in the Republican Party, it was supported whole-heartedly by moderate Republicans and even by Democrats as liberal as Paul Wellstone, the so-called "ultra-liberal" from Minnesota. These politicians were more hungry for the support of the religious right than concerned about justice or fairness or the rights of faggots. They joined in pretending the Faggot was threatening the Bully, claiming family values were being threatened. Another crock!
Happy Halloween. Think twice before you vote for any gay bashers or bashers friends.
The editors are leftist, self-loathing, fucktards. What do you expect? That's why all the leftist, Eurotrash drivel always gets modded up.
Like harm as in "when you give your children proprietary software you are harming them by taking away their freedom, because they will live thinking that they must give up their freedoms to use computers." Therefore proprietary software must be abolished.
Also, harm as in "when you give your children Free software, you are teaching them that it's ok to share digital content and they will always want to do that and it will turn them into pirates and they will go attacking ships on the high seas." Therefore, Free software must be abolished.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
you think thats bad? i was caught off gaurd oneday, thank god no one else was around when someone sent me this anyway... if this site is still up i strongly encourage everyone NOT to go to it
sig
fuck you
God you pedo^H^H^H^Haudiophiles crack me up.
SAFE SURF CAN SUCK MY FUCKING DICK! FUCK 8 YEAR OLD CHILDREN! ILL KICK EVERYONES ASS WHO WORKS IN SAFE SURF THEN PURPOSELY MAKE WEBPAGES ABOUT THIER DEAD BODIES! AND HAVE AN ANIMATED GIF (TO BE A LISCENCE BASTARD) OF MY PIERCED PENIS CUMMING INTO SOMEONES EYE! HOW YOU THOSE APPLES, SAFE SURF?!?!
blah blah lameness filterhttp://adshjasdh jh aksd asdjh kj hasdjkh asdlkj d haslkdh lkashd lkasdj adjsjh asjldj lkdsj aslkdj klasjd klasjd lkasd jaslk jadkl jlkadj lksadj alskdjlkasjd lkasjd lkasdjsalkdj aslkdjsa pasodipafoi [sdfo [psdfo [sdp]of]ow][cko[dskf o[i f[osdif [osdf
Dear SafeSurf:
Everything I write is harmful to minors (and many adults). Please place me on your "banned" list.
obObscenity: FUCK! PISS! SHIT! GEORGE CARLIN!
- Robin "Roblimo" Miller
Editor and Instigator
plz suck my dick