I too am a Mormon, and I share your stance on filtering. I may be against porn, but I'm not about to force my beliefs onto anyone else. I want to be able to discuss my beliefs with someone and allow them to choose whether or not to agree with me. After all, agency and freedom are at the center of our beliefs.
The people who create these problems in Utah aren't necessarily Mormon. Some of them are of course, but not all. Yes, Mormons have a colossal advantage when it comes to getting their viewpoints expressed. That's only because there are so many in Utah. It then logically follows that the beliefs of the church get passed into law since the members want the law to reflect what they think is right. So yes the church leaders have influence in politics, albeit indirectly.
The more fundamentalist Mormons are either hypocritical (slamming porn one day, getting off on it the next) or don't really understand what their religion teaches. 'Tis the same for the rest of Christianity. The basic concepts of unconditional love, charity, tolerance, free will, and agency are merely paid lip service by these people, regardless of denomination.
Personally, I am morally against abortion, but am pro-choice because we _must_ be able to make choices. The same goes for same-sex marriage. I would never use drugs, but I will allow others to do so (provided it does not endanger anyone's life). I am against gun control, censorship, and in general a libertarian. So much for fitting stereotypes of 'conformist', 'cult member', 'fundamentalist', and 'zealot'.:-)
In other words, judge a person based on his or her values, morals, and ethics alone, rather than what religion he or she belongs to.
Slightly offtopic, but does anyone know if it is safe to drive a fixed frequency monitor at lower frequencies than those it's supposed to be driven at? I have a ff monitor that I want to use, but I don't want to ruin it by trying to run it in text mode (which runs at about 30 kHz horizontal and 60 Hz vertical). I know that it would display no image in text mode, but if I accidentally try to use that mode, would that ruin my monitor?
The Jargon File states that 'cracker' is now the correct name for those who break into computers. I don't totally agree with this, as crackers who break copy protection and password schemes without any malicious intent are okay. Yet calling them crackers makes them sound evil and morally degenerate. Perhaps we need to add another term for those who crack but for malicious purposes, as opposed to those who do it just for the sake of knowing how. Hacker and script kiddie would maintain their current definitions, but cracker would basicially mean 'one who can break security and copy protection schemes, and does so only for the sake of learning how'.
According to the jargon file, the term 'hacker' originated at MIT in the 1960s, whereas the term 'cracker' was coined by hackers around 1985 to describe those who break into computers. Journalists were clueless then (as if they aren't now) about the real meaning of the word 'hacker' and used it to mean "one who commits computer crime". That's when the term 'cracker' originated.
It is true that 90% of the population also has the two definitions mixed up, but your statement that the term 'hacker's previous definition was that which is now ascribed to 'cracker' is completely false. The incorrect usage of 'hacker' was started by the media, who continue to use it incorrectly.
If you still have these words confused, check the jargon file.
Great post! I was laughing my head off for a quite a while after I read it. The text was very funny, although not entirely accurate. Just a little off-topic, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.
------Begin off-topic stuff----------- I know several devout Mormons and have learned some stuff about the church from them. As far as I can tell, the cDc text is pretty accurate, except for a few things:
1) The food supply is for any situation where purchasing food is not possible or convenient (lack of money, natural disaster, or being too tired to go to the store;-> ), not just the apocalypse. 2) 'Righteous' non-Mormons will be around too after the "end of the world". 3) 'At hand' could mean anywhere from tomorrow to 100 years from now (or longer). 4) Eden is just the center of a larger "paradise".
These aren't really that important to know, I just wanted to post them in hopes of discouraging less-informed posters from saying something stupid. ---------End off-topic stuff---------------
Back on topic now, I become extremely annoyed with all the commercials on tv that portray Y2K as the end of the world, such as those Kia (I think) car commercials with the family in the bunker or the long line of people withdrawing all their money from a bank. I'm about ready to start loading _my_ 12 gauge and go put the people who make these commercials out of their (my) misery, as well as those who think that they should build bunkers and withdraw all their cash.
You're correct about the chinese inventing gunpowder first. They also invented clockwork, the printing press with movable type, books, paper money, and so forth. However, I believe that 100 years after they invented the mechanical clock, they forgot all about it. In fact, they were amazed when Europeans came to them and showed them _their_ clocks. From there it went downhill, with the Chinese not really inventing anything new. Europe had caught up, and China had become less innovative. Government has just gotten more and more oppressive in China, and the majority of the people couldn't think for themselves if their lives depended on it. Granted, the government gets all those who can and it uses them to their full potential. If they were so intelligent, why didn't they come up with the missle technology first, just like they did with gunpowder? The reason is this: China is not a _major_ threat because they are still extremely third-world and have not been able to develop as fast as the US and Europe. Yes, at one time they excelled, but they grew lazy and are now extremely behind. Their economy is so poor comparatively that most of that 1+ billion people you mention could never afford an inexpensive car, let alone video game consoles and computers at the level that we can.
Has communism ever really worked? The last holdouts are China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. None of those countries are in proper economic shape, and the government controls everything, not the people. The people really don't have any say in what the government does, unlike we do in the US. Granted, we don't have as much as we should have, but our democratic/capitalist system seems to function much better than their communist system. We still have most of our freedom, a healthy economy, and so on. They don't have money, health, education, or anything.
In short, next time you post, make sure you _really_ know what's going on. China is only a minor threat (even with the missles). They are poor and extremely backward. Communism will eventually fail because of the human nature to fight against oppression (Tianmen Square was such a demonstration, although a tragic one). The USSR had missles in Cuba when Kennedy was president, remember, and we were able to dissolve that problem before anything could happen.
Just exactly what is wrong with capitalism? Communism didn't work out too well I hear, seeing as how it fell apart in the USSR and basically everywhere else (excluding China). Sure capitalism has its evils. But it allows for competition, provided that those involved aren't greedy like Microsoft. Capitalism may have its roots in exploitation, but the free market is really the only way that products can grow and mature.
It doesn't matter what happens to the GPL as long as the ideas behind it have a strong presence. For some reason, you think that the GPL will be the victim of capitalism. Yet the philosophy behind the GPL is much like that of capitalism. In both cases, the system is much more open and competition can grow. The only difference is that the GPL won't let capitalism turn into imperialism, which is what you should be criticizing. Microsoft is the epitome of a capitalistic organization gone wrong. Instead of the motive being simply to make a good product and allow it to continue being so through improvements and competition, the MS philosophy is to make a mediocre product, force everyone to use it, and take over other profitable businesses.
This is much like imperialism, where the goal is to get the most money and property that you can. If it looks good, take it. Force the people to obey your rules and pay you money for the privelige. This isn't capitalism, just battles between corporate empires.
Slashdot Mirror
I too am a Mormon, and I share your stance on filtering. I may be against porn, but I'm not about to force my beliefs onto anyone else. I want to be able to discuss my beliefs with someone and allow them to choose whether or not to agree with me. After all, agency and freedom are at the center of our beliefs.
:-)
The people who create these problems in Utah aren't necessarily Mormon. Some of them are of course, but not all. Yes, Mormons have a colossal advantage when it comes to getting their viewpoints expressed. That's only because there are so many in Utah. It then logically follows that the beliefs of the church get passed into law since the members want the law to reflect what they think is right. So yes the church leaders have influence in politics, albeit indirectly.
The more fundamentalist Mormons are either hypocritical (slamming porn one day, getting off on it the next) or don't really understand what their religion teaches. 'Tis the same for the rest of Christianity. The basic concepts of unconditional love, charity, tolerance, free will, and agency are merely paid lip service by these people, regardless of denomination.
Personally, I am morally against abortion, but am pro-choice because we _must_ be able to make choices. The same goes for same-sex marriage. I would never use drugs, but I will allow others to do so (provided it does not endanger anyone's life). I am against gun control, censorship, and in general a libertarian. So much for fitting stereotypes of 'conformist', 'cult member', 'fundamentalist', and 'zealot'.
In other words, judge a person based on his or her values, morals, and ethics alone, rather than what religion he or she belongs to.
I hate to reply to my own posts. I forgot to mention that that mirror has the css-auth and LiViD code as well.
I know that everybody and his mother has a mirror for DeCSS, but here's mine anyway. http://www.cc.utah.edu/~rdj5
Slightly offtopic, but does anyone know if it is safe to drive a fixed frequency monitor at lower frequencies than those it's supposed to be driven at? I have a ff monitor that I want to use, but I don't want to ruin it by trying to run it in text mode (which runs at about 30 kHz horizontal and 60 Hz vertical). I know that it would display no image in text mode, but if I accidentally try to use that mode, would that ruin my monitor?
The Jargon File states that 'cracker' is now the correct name for those who break into computers. I don't totally agree with this, as crackers who break copy protection and password schemes without any malicious intent are okay. Yet calling them crackers makes them sound evil and morally degenerate. Perhaps we need to add another term for those who crack but for malicious purposes, as opposed to those who do it just for the sake of knowing how. Hacker and script kiddie would maintain their current definitions, but cracker would basicially mean 'one who can break security and copy protection schemes, and does so only for the sake of learning how'.
According to the jargon file, the term 'hacker' originated at MIT in the 1960s, whereas the term 'cracker' was coined by hackers around 1985 to describe those who break into computers. Journalists were clueless then (as if they aren't now) about the real meaning of the word 'hacker' and used it to mean "one who commits computer crime". That's when the term 'cracker' originated.
It is true that 90% of the population also has the two definitions mixed up, but your statement that the term 'hacker's previous definition was that which is now ascribed to 'cracker' is completely false. The incorrect usage of 'hacker' was started by the media, who continue to use it incorrectly.
If you still have these words confused, check the jargon file.
Great post! I was laughing my head off for a quite a while after I read it. The text was very funny, although not entirely accurate. Just a little off-topic, but I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.
;-> ), not just the apocalypse.
------Begin off-topic stuff-----------
I know several devout Mormons and have learned some stuff about the church from them. As far as I can tell, the cDc text is pretty accurate, except for a few things:
1) The food supply is for any situation where purchasing food is not possible or convenient (lack of money, natural disaster, or being too tired to go to the store
2) 'Righteous' non-Mormons will be around too after the "end of the world".
3) 'At hand' could mean anywhere from tomorrow to 100 years from now (or longer).
4) Eden is just the center of a larger "paradise".
These aren't really that important to know, I just wanted to post them in hopes of discouraging less-informed posters from saying something stupid.
---------End off-topic stuff---------------
Back on topic now, I become extremely annoyed with all the commercials on tv that portray Y2K as the end of the world, such as those Kia (I think) car commercials with the family in the bunker or the long line of people withdrawing all their money from a bank. I'm about ready to start loading _my_ 12 gauge and go put the people who make these commercials out of their (my) misery, as well as those who think that they should build bunkers and withdraw all their cash.
You're correct about the chinese inventing gunpowder first. They also invented clockwork, the printing press with movable type, books, paper money, and so forth. However, I believe that 100 years after they invented the mechanical clock, they forgot all about it. In fact, they were amazed when Europeans came to them and showed them _their_ clocks. From there it went downhill, with the Chinese not really inventing anything new. Europe had caught up, and China had become less innovative. Government has just gotten more and more oppressive in China, and the majority of the people couldn't think for themselves if their lives depended on it. Granted, the government gets all those who can and it uses them to their full potential. If they were so intelligent, why didn't they come up with the missle technology first, just like they did with gunpowder? The reason is this: China is not a _major_ threat because they are still extremely third-world and have not been able to develop as fast as the US and Europe. Yes, at one time they excelled, but they grew lazy and are now extremely behind. Their economy is so poor comparatively that most of that 1+ billion people you mention could never afford an inexpensive car, let alone video game consoles and computers at the level that we can.
Has communism ever really worked? The last holdouts are China, Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba. None of those countries are in proper economic shape, and the government controls everything, not the people. The people really don't have any say in what the government does, unlike we do in the US. Granted, we don't have as much as we should have, but our democratic/capitalist system seems to function much better than their communist system. We still have most of our freedom, a healthy economy, and so on. They don't have money, health, education, or anything.
In short, next time you post, make sure you _really_ know what's going on. China is only a minor threat (even with the missles). They are poor and extremely backward. Communism will eventually fail because of the human nature to fight against oppression (Tianmen Square was such a demonstration, although a tragic one). The USSR had missles in Cuba when Kennedy was president, remember, and we were able to dissolve that problem before anything could happen.
Just exactly what is wrong with capitalism? Communism didn't work out too well I hear, seeing as how it fell apart in the USSR and basically everywhere else (excluding China). Sure capitalism has its evils. But it allows for competition, provided that those involved aren't greedy like Microsoft. Capitalism may have its roots in exploitation, but the free market is really the only way that products can grow and mature.
It doesn't matter what happens to the GPL as long as the ideas behind it have a strong presence. For some reason, you think that the GPL will be the victim of capitalism. Yet the philosophy behind the GPL is much like that of capitalism. In both cases, the system is much more open and competition can grow. The only difference is that the GPL won't let capitalism turn into imperialism, which is what you should be criticizing. Microsoft is the epitome of a capitalistic organization gone wrong. Instead of the motive being simply to make a good product and allow it to continue being so through improvements and competition, the MS philosophy is to make a mediocre product, force everyone to use it, and take over other profitable businesses.
This is much like imperialism, where the goal is to get the most money and property that you can. If it looks good, take it. Force the people to obey your rules and pay you money for the privelige. This isn't capitalism, just battles between corporate empires.
Sorry about the rant.