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."
Contestant: I'll take "Hole Truth" for $100, Alex.
Trebek: OpenSSH, Falwell, OpenDRM
Contestant: What are plugged, ass, and analog?
Trebek: Congratulations, all are examples of different types of holes!
The difference is that fallwell.com is not cyber-squating, it is a critizism of Falwell. Squatters take a site and fill it with ads and/or attempt to sell it to the person they are squatting for rediculous amounts of money. The owner of fallwell.com maintains his site, has actual content, and is not trying to sell it to Falwell.
How many mis-spelling "trap sites" have a link to the real site right at the top of the home page? That's what makes the difference. The owner of fallwell.com isn't trying to steal customers from falwell.com and isn't looking to offend them, either. He makes it plain that his site is devoted to showing why Rev. Falwell's position on gays and lesbians is wrong, and points those who agree with the reverend to the site they were looking for in the first place. If you'd bothered to click on the link in TFA, you'd have seen that, as I did.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
According to TFA, positrons cost $25B:g to produce, though they project the cost will decrease with more R&D (more money). The Mars mission needs 10mg. The amount of energy, not dollars, required to produce the antimatter is not specified, but it's certainly larger than the amount that winds up in the produced antimatter. The antimatter will be produced at the Earth's surface, submerged in our atmosphere, where it can annihilate in contact with any of that matter it comes in contact with.
This is a perfect project to perform in space. The base lab should be on the Moon, using the vast incoming solar energy for power, lasered past the far side to power the reactor creating the antimatter. The antimatter industry is anticipating a large scale anyway, which justifies launching whatever equipment and personnel to the Moon is necessary. That should be small, because the Moon is made of materials useable for the project, including that abundant energy. And the minimization of risk of catastrophic antimatter "pollution" on (in) Earth is priceless. The launch of a new chapter in human industry in space, with specific immediate benefits including environmental protection and energy freedom, can transform our entire society for the better.
--
make install -not war
"Is yet another example of constant persecution of Christians in the United States by the atheist, socialist left-wing types that currently govern our country. GOD BLESS AMERICA!!"
Err... so the Republican Party are atheist, socialist left-wing types?
I hope I never meet any *real* right-wingers then!
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.
$10k from marketing is just as green as $10k from eng. besides, the ceo knows and approves it.
"he 'clearly created his Web site intending only to provide a forum to criticize ideas, not to steal customers.'"
:)
Customers? Sounds more like a store to me than a church. I say cede the domain to Fallwell and start taxing the bejeezus out of him.
"I don't see how this got modded anything but funny, I'm laughing my Falwell off."
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
How is the author profiting? He is profiting by tricking good, God-fearing, heterosexual into "coming over to his side" and accepting homosexuals as valid human beings! This abomination has got to stop! If we don't constantly treat homosexuals as second-class citizens, if we fail to keep insisting that there is something "wrong" with the way God created them -- then God will get pissed off and smite us! You don't want to get smitten, do you? At any rate, "profit" doesn't necessarily have to be monetary. If Falwell honestly beleives mistakenly going to this site is going to change any of his followers' minds, well, then, their faith must be on pretty shakey foundations to begin with!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Why TF would a gay person want to be part of christianity?
Religion is chosen. Homosexuality is not. And only the looniest christian churches condemn people just because "they're gay" and try to threaten them with hell to convert.
An example of a homosexual christian is this guy.
Er, because actual "cyber-misspelling" trap sites don't have disclaimers in bold red lettering right at the top of the page with a link to the correctly-spelled site?
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
If nothing else, there's always the deduction for charitable donations they get on their taxes.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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 know it's kinda cool to be oh-so-cynical and mock Stallman, but he's really an incredibly important person. Sure, he's a stickler for details, and I'm not sure I'd want him at a dinner party - but we really need people like him. They can remind us of the potential consequences of decisions - consequences that we are typically *very* bad at predicting.
;-)
:-)
I think this issue is similar to trade-unions. Sure, they can be corrupt (and full of nepotism), but criticising the _concept_ based on the _implementation_ is crazy. People died fighting for workers rights, and now we are notchalently throwing them away.
Similarly (though not to quite the same extreme) people have sacrificed lots of time to produce free (libre) software tools for everybody. Yes, it's an idealistic goal. Yes, Stallman is an idealist, and can be a PITA. But freedom is lost incrementally. Just look at Naz...
Oops! Almost did a Godwin!
Anyway Ritchie, I've got a lot of respect for you - please keep being a stickler on our behalf!
Cheers.
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
It's not without its issues; you can learn more by checking out the wiki and also visiting #gp2xdev and #gp2x on EFNet.
Why wasn't the guy who owned PETA.org (people eating tasty animals) allowed to keep his domain? Mr. Falwell, you have bad attorneys that don't know how to railroad the little guy. I'd ask for your money back.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
For a second I thought you were talking about Harlan, and we were in for an explitive-filled tirade about how he hates computers and would never buy a software company, capped with a threat to sue anyone that reprinted, quoted, or even linked to said tirade.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
Why the fuck would a gay person want to be part of christianity?
Why would a straight person want to be part of Christianity? Maybe they grew up in a church, maybe they married into it, maybe they're raising kids and want to give them a certain moral frame of reference, maybe they like the networking opportunities, maybe they like its social missions, maybe they're just in it for a good choir, maybe they're new to an area and want the sense of community, maybe they're sick and want the hope and support that a church can provide. Or they might have experienced the whole born again thing. But Christianity has a pretty wide spectrum, and there's any number of reasons why someone might want to be a member of a church regardless of their orientation.
Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business. But even in those denominations, growing up in a church community is pretty significant -- those people are your friends and neighbors and, to some extent, your second family. Provided you still believe in the church's overall values, that community is not something you're going to throw away lightly, even if they condemn one aspect of your life.
Movements always need a strong leader or they fail. In the free software group it is a god send to have one or two (or three) people that, while people don't always agree with/die listening to via boredom, toe a very specific and non changing line; they provide focus and direction. So for all of the horror of hardcore idealist dullness and jokes I will happily lay on RMS (and the like) I still hold a great deal of respect for him and as a member of the movement roughly follow his guidance on issues. ...Keep being that stickler for all of our sakes.
I ate your fish.
the constition [...] Sadly, it has been badly eroded over the years.
:o)
to the point where it doesn't even have a "U" in it anymore...
If they are a corp. Their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it can't be justified as "marketing"
As a blanket statement, your post is inaccurate. As a specific statement about GoDaddy, your post is just ignorant, and you should read their prospectus before saying what *might* or *might not* be included in it.
What you should have written:
If they are a publically traded corporation their shareholders can sue them for that sort of thing if it isn't in line with their prospectus.
Then you should have actually read their prospectus, and reported with certainty which part(s) of their budget the donation could have come from.
If DRM adds trust and the industry does not trust us, then why should we trust the people who create DRM?
"If they don't trust you, why should you trust them?"
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
People mean different things when they say homosexual. You see to be saying homosexuality is the attraction to members of the sane sex. The definition most often used by churchs is sexual acts between members of the same sex.
I can see why someone who is a homosexual by the first definition would want to be a Christian. It's no different from someone who has a tendancy towards alchoholism, or gambling, or heterosexual infidelity. But that's very different from the homosexual who engages in sexual acts with other members of the same sex, and (this is the important part) sees nothing wrong with that and doesn't want to change.
Maybe the situation where I live is different to the US. But over here, most Christians would not have a problem with someone who has homosexual tendancies but doesn't act on them, or someone with a homosexual past who has left it behind being a part of their church.
That's where the choice comes in. You can have homosexual tendancies, just the same as you can have alchoholic tendancies, or a weakness for gambling, etc. The choice is in whether you succumb to that temptation or not. I wouldn't call someone had homosexual tendancies, but didn't have homosexual sex a homosexual, any more than I'd call someone who had an urge to drink, but never did, an alchoholic.
But if you ask someone if they think homosexuals should be allowed in the church, they are probably going to think you're asking "Do you think people who approve of and engage in homosexual sex should be considered faithful Christians?". And the answer to that is easy. The Bible clearly states that homosexual acts are wrong. If your faith is one that adheres to the Bible, then clearly homosexuality is not compatible with your faith.
Of course, arguments over whether or not the Bible is correct in it's claims that homosexual acts are immoral is a whole other can of worms.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
DRM is not evil. It is JUST a technology.
Sure, its a technology. It uses crypto, but...
Lets go back to basics. Crypto means A wants to send a message to B, and C is not allowed to read it. A, B, and C are different. A and B can share keys (say, using RSA).
No problems.
DRM means A wants to send a message to B, and B is not allowed to read it. Really. This is NOT a typo.
How to do this? B is given information by A, locked into hardware, that B doesn't have access to. Really. This is NOT a typo.
Go figure. A doesn't trust B, and yet B is the receiver of the message. A wants to control B at a level that B has no say over.
It may only be a technology, but *I* don't want to deal with a paranoid like A. And, if I buy something, I want to use it for MY benefit, and not have it reserved for someone elses.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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
I don't normally feed trolls, but here goes.
The justification Christian churches use when they declare homosexuality to be a sin is from Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination". Sounds fair. That means Homosexuality is bad, doesn't it?
Well, what about Leviticus 21:5, "They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh"? That means shaving is a sin. Similarly, other passages from this book prohibit tattoos, eating of shellfish and pork, clothes made of more than one fabric, and other common activities.
Since these other passages are commonly ignored by Christians out of convenience, all a gay Christian has to do is ignore one more, 18:22, and they're in the clear. It's extremely hypocritical for Christian churches to pick and choose parts of this book to obey or disobey. If you're going to consider Leviticus holy, abide by the whole thing. If you're going to ignore it, ignore the whole damned book. You can't have it both ways.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
Oh, yeah, don't get me started on people who say, "how can you have morals when you don't believe in God?" :)
If the only reason you act morally is the threat of supernatural fury and eternal damnation, then you are not a moral person. A truly moral person is one who behaves ethically for entirely internal reasons. External reasons, such as threat of punishment, etc. are not a good basis for a moral code.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
Believe me dudes, christians have allot of problems with homosextuality, christians that dont, havent done their homework and read their bibles. Just to take your example. Leviticus was a book written to one of the 12 tribes. This tribe was dedicated to serve God in the 'temple' area. Thus this book in the bible is written to them. To show them the lifestyle God expects of them and to line out their duties in the 'temple'. That is why in this book you will get things like, not shaving, one color clothing and a indepth look in how this tribe must live, because in that time they were the ones that had to act as the person between God and his people. But to get back to the point of Homosextuality. One of the major stories of the old testament is (and you might have heard of this), is Sodom and Gremora. In this storyline the very reason for both these cities bieng destroyed is homosextuality, that is how much it angered God, that he wiped both cities. So for any christian to say. Christianity promotes Homosextuality, is a lie and these people say so because of what they want not what their bible teaches. Sorry if my English is rusty it's not my Home language.
You seem to be just showing off here. Whatever the details of the reaction, if the end result inncludes uncontrollable high energy gamma rays, it's pretty useless for propelling astronauts.
I am trolling
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
For the Falwells of the world to focus on one thing and ignore the others exposes them for the venomous bigots and hypocrites that they are. The bible is merely a crutch to support their own deep seated intolerance.
Stop saying that the judicial system is derived from the ten commandments. That's crap, and nothing else.
With Christ's death and resurrection the ceremonial law was abolished - this covers the shaving and the foods. This does **not** cover homosexuality. Leviticus 21 is prefixed "Speak to the priests and Aaron" ... this is directed towards the levites, this is ceremonial law. Leviticus 18 says "Speak to the Israelites." This is religious law that we are still bound to, to this day.
A few complaints:
Not all Christian churches go for the abomination business.
Indeed. Here in the US, the UU (Unitarian-Universalist) and UCC (United Church of Christ) are both openly welcoming to and supportive of homosexuals. Many American Episcopal (i.e., Anglican) churches are also gay-friendly, though the official policy may not make much of a big deal of this, so if you like Catholic-style ritual, this might be the church for you.
At the other extreme, some Christian sects have been openly hostile to even "straight" sex. They often use Paul's comment in his first letter to the Corinthians (7:9), "But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. (ASV)" This passage is often interpreted to say that a true Christian would lead a celibate life; only the weak ones give in to sexual desires.
Taken to the obvious extreme, this had led to some sects (such as the Shakers) dying out because they didn't have children to indoctrinate and they weren't able to attract enough converts to keep the church going. OTOH, some monastic orders have lasted quite a long time despite an official ban on all sex.
It's fairly clear that with Christianity, you can pick your church based on its policies, and you can find a fairly wide range of policies. With the UUs, you don't even have to accept the whole package of beliefs, though you might not be too happy there if you don't accept their basic doctrine of tolerance of diversity.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.