Slashdot Mirror
Slashback: OpenSSH, Falwell, OpenDRM
The Supreme Court declines Falwell's Appeal. yEvb0 writes "The US Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal of Jerry Falwell, who claims that "gripe site" http://www.fallwell.com/ infringes on his trademark by luring surfers away from his own site. Despite winning a case in federal court, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Falwell last year and said that operator Christopher Lamparello was free to operate his site about Falwell's views on gays because he 'clearly created his Web site intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.'"
GP2X now shipping in the US. An anonymous reader writes "The Gamepark GP2X, a Linux-based handheld gaming platform that runs native and emulated games, is now shipping in the US, according to LinuxDevices. The device can reportedly run more than a thousand classic arcade games, through open-source console game emulators such as MAME, SNES, Genesis, and PC Engine. It has a 3.5-inch QVGA (320x240) color TFT LCD screen, and includes a media player supporting MPEG, JPEG, and MP3 formats."
New version of Systrace released. Niels writes "I just recently released a new version of Systrace that runs on Linux without requiring any kernel patches. I termed it the Phoenix release because it has been almost three years since I did any work on Systrace. However, I finally had the need to do some sandboxing on Linux without being able to change the kernel. So, voila, after a few late nights, here we go: Systrace for Linux using a ptrace back end."
Lessig and Stallman look back at Sun's OpenDRM. H4x0r Jim Duggan writes "The Register has an excellent article featuring Lessig and Stallman on 'Open Source' DRM. The spark for the article came from comments made about Sun's 'OpenDRM' by Lessig which were not wholly negative and were interpreted by some as an endorsement. Lessig clarifies: 'There's no disagreement about where we should end up - No DRM.'"
NASA jumps on the anti-matter propulsion bandwagon. steveo777 writes "NASA has an interesting read about creating yet another form of rocket propulsion. They plan on using Anti-electrons (positrons) combine with normal electrons to release enough energy to fuel the way to Mars and back. Its byproduct will be lower energy gamma radiation. From the article, '"Our advanced designs, like the gas core and the ablative engine concepts, could take astronauts to Mars in half that time, and perhaps even in as little as 45 days," said Kirby Meyer, an engineer with Positronics Research on the study.'"
GoDaddy donates $10,000 to OpenSSH. wcbrown writes "Go Daddy has donated $10,000 to the OpenSSH project, which is apparently used extensively within the company." This is another great donation in what hopefully will continue to be a trend within the community. No word on when the blinking will stop.
Ellison explains why he would NOT acquire Novell or Red Hat. Robert writes to tell us CBROnline is reporting that a recent statement by Larry Ellison covered so extensively in the news regarding speculation about why Oracle might be "planning to buy Novell or Red Hat" may have been a little off base. The full transcript of his interview with the FT is illuminating precisely because it reveals why the company would NOT acquire either Novell or Red Hat, and - apparently - why the company did not buy JBoss.
Pictures of the Ball State Wireless 'sculpture'. popeguilty writes "Slashdot readers may recall the story about the Wireless 'Sculpture' at Ball State University. The artwork is up and running, and I've got a few pictures posted for general consumption."
http://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/zap.html
'zap cheap effects' *bliss*
I also like zap colors, zap plugins, restore context menu, and restore selecting. Lots of nice bookmarklets there. I put a small folder menu of those on my toolbar for easy access for dumb sites.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/threatchaos/?p=311
What app made the graphics in the above story. They display all the systems calls in a graphical map like format that are used during the process of serving a web page.
I used to think I was a conservative. Then I worked for one. He was trying to put together a cable channel devoted to Conservatives. After getting to know him and a few of his friends, I realized that not only wasn't I a conservative, I was glad of it.
Now, I realize that I'm a moderate, slightly right of center.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
If I felt attraction towards males (which I do not, btw), I'd be immediately expelled or called to repent - for something that I have not done at all. A common question homosexuals ask (at least those I have met on the internet) is "why does God condemn me for being homosexual if he made me that way?"
You wouldn't at the church I attend - although you'd probably encounter some social ostracism. But that's more a social thing than a theological thing. It's more or less inevitable in our society at the moment that churches are going to have a significant number of middle-class conservatives. Those people are motivated by both Christian values, and conservative middle-class values, and while there is some overlap between the two, they are not identical sets.
In theological terms, I don't know of any mainstream Christian denomination that regards desire (of any sort) as a sin. It's giving in, or catering to that desire that's the problem. Even Christ was tempted (ok, not with homosexual sex) so it's hypocritical to say that temptation itself is wrong. Of course, just because the theology says one thing doesn't necessarily mean squat when it comnes to the attitudes of the parishners.
Finally, something I don't understand is that most christians i've met (again, on the internet) judge homosexuals in a much worse way than heterosexuals - even if heterosexuals engage in sex in their teens. And both homosexuality AND fornication are forbidden in the Bible. Double standards, anyone?
Yeah, I see that a lot too. I'm not sure if it's so much double-standards as it is double-tipping. Despite all the politicking going on, homosexuality is still very much against the societal grain, whereas sleeping around is less so.
A homosexual gets hit twice - once by the social prejudice, and once by the Biblical prohibition - whereas heterosexual fornication is shrugged off by society.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
How about an even better question: why would any American Woman(of any race who was born and raised in America) want to be a Christian? obviously they haven't read their Bibles or any woman with a brain of her own would clearly choose to walk away.
yet, i have met many intelligent women who are (quite dumbfoundingly to me) Christian.
Even though in Genesis we learn that this God Person made a man and saw that he was "supposedly" unhappy, put him into a deep sleep, stole one of his ribs and made a woman. Obviously this leads one to believe then that women are merely second-rate cuts of meat(sorry to sound assholish ladies) and rightfully so as one continues to read through the Bible. Women are debased and demeaned thru the whole of the book.
Can someone please explain to me how it is that this God Person Is Love if he treats women as less than dirt? And why it is that women are willing to go along with this?
More a sort of curiosity/desire I suppose. Which, from what I hear, is what homosexuality generally starts out as. A mixture of sexual desire and curiosity.
Curiosity? You think people become homosexual because they are "curious" about other mens genitals? Because they wonder what it would be like to sleep with a sweaty, hairy man? I think someone here is in denial. I'm quite serious.
Some people are homosexual. They are sexually attracted to members of the same sex and desire sex and relationships with them. This isn't some kind of choice, although like anything, one does have to choose to go out and find a partner. Homosexuals will continue to be attracted to members of the same sex no matter how much they try and repress their feelings, "turn heterosexual", or go along with the precepts of some religion.
No one should have to do this. Homosexuality isn't wrong. They shouldn't have to try and become heterosexual or try not to act on their desires. In fact, this would be a terrible things as it would simply lead to greater problems down the line. Homosexuals should act on their desires and form relationships with people of the opposite sex.
Here are the facts, which I'm going to lay out to you, plain and simple. Why do religions, societies and individuals constantly protest and rail against homosexuals, ostrasise them, punish them even kill them? Why do so many come up with such flawed arguments as you have been setting forth in this thread? Why are homosexuals so hated?
The answer simply goes back to adolesent insecurity. While developing, homophobes felt tremendously insecure in their sexuality. They derided homosexuality and lauded heterosexuality as a part of the teenage instinct to conform. They created in their minds the mythos of the homosexual fall from grace, so that they, no matter how far they fell would always be above those who "chose" homosexuality. Even many homosexuals come to believe in this flawed adolesent hierarchy, to their own detreiment.
Some people never grow out of this. They panic at the thought that anyone might think they are homosexual and fear homosexuals will try and "make them gay". This fallacy extends to such ridiculous proportions that someone who is raped by a member of the same sex is often assummed to have been "converted" into a homosexual. This is where such juvinile thinking leads.
Of course, many of these people are in fact homosexual, yet consistantly deny this fact. Like a priest who condenms an attractive young woman from "tempting men", they blame homosexuals for their unbidden, yet natural thoughts, and thus accuse them of trying to convert people to homosexuality. In reality of course, just like the priest, these thoughts come from within, and are only "wrong" in the mind of the thinker.
Such people will probably live an unhappy lie for the rest of their lives. Occassionally they will make the odd freudian slip as you did above when you spoke of homosexuality "starting out" as "curiosity". As a heterosexual, I can tell you that curiosity is most certainly not a motivator for sexual attraction. As I mentioned, the thought of a a hairy, sweaty man with a five o'clock shadow is not a titillating image. I'm not going to go on a crusade against it, and in fact I would encourage homosexual people to form relationships, but the act of homosexual intercourse itself is about as sexually stimulating as the thought of parental intercourse.
You may feel that I am degenerating the debate by somehow accusing you of having homosexual desire or being homosexual. That is not my intent. However, I felt it important to clarify the situation with regard to the source of much of your arguments, and to refute your own misunderstandings with regard to the source of homosexuality, and indeed, sexuality in general. I cannot tell someones sexual orientation from a few post on Slashdot. In any case, you are applying a different logic to the sexual development of homosexuals than is applied to hetrosexuals.
May the Maths Be with you!
He's not against keeping information secret. He's against selling people only partial access to information.
DRM simply adds different layers of trust, more than just the two that you have with encryption. You can have partial or full trust with DRM. You only get two options with plain old encryption.
Partial trust...like the kind you have when you give someone a binary without source?
I don't think so. Everyone has secrets, and they have a right to keep them and trust them with whomever they want. DRM gives you that ability. Encryption does not.
Encryption gives you the choice. You should give/sell someone the data to do what they want with, or not at all. This is exactly the same as the GPL - you give someone the software to do what they want with, or not at all.
I am trolling