Slashdot

This article is absolutely wrong.

The user has misconfigured their DNS and has installed a package called, SURPRISE, caching-nameserver along with the other bind packages.

caching-nameserver IS just that, a caching-nameserver. It SHOULD NEVER BE installed on a DNS server that is used for Primary or Secondary DNS control. The bind packages do not in any way modify named.conf, but if you want a caching nameserver and if you have installed the caching-nameserver package, then you would EXPECT that it would replace the named.conf file.

The real question is, how does crap like this get posted as a feature article on slashdot.

You and about 12% of the male population in North America according to the only study I've ever read. I don't sympathize personally, but we've already spent the better part of human history demonizing men who like other men and women who like other women. Those obviously couldn't be consensual either. Even consensual anal intercourse between a man and a woman is or has recently been illegal in many states.

How is that relevant? Knee-jerk reactions to issues based on a gut feeling are not always the best way to determine legal outcomes of peoples' thoughts or feelings.

Good studies have shown time and again that there is no definite link between the viewing of underage pornography and the abuse of children by that viewer, but because they get turned on by something we lump them in as molestors.

Here's one that really gets me -- technically a pedophile is only someone who gets aroused by pre-pubescent children, but viewing of 17 yr olds who are supermodels (yes, many professional adult looking models are under 18) engaged in sexually explicit conduct qualifies as viewing child pornography.

So next time you all say 'think of the children' remember these laws are about you when you were 17 checking out that picture of your naked 17 yr old girlfriend. Yes, that's child pornography too.

PS look up Genarlow Wilson.

So, you didn't test the update on a non-production server? Just install any old patch and let it take your network down? Who do you work for again? I have to make sure not to do business with that.

Well actually, Windows has version numbers too but it is not shown to the user unless you ask for it (eg. winver), but to be fair, the version of the linux kernel is usually not shown to the user either unless you ask for it (eg. uname).

Where version numbers tend to be relevant is usually related to drivers and hardware compatibility. This is also the case with the linux kernel, especially if you are dealing with the vanilla one.

It is useful for users to have some sort of numbering to also report bugs. I would hate to have to provide support when it is impossible to determine the environment which is causing a problem.

USENET services have been protected by common carrier status since they started; if you start censoring newsgroups, you become responsible for their content. this has been the way it is forever, and is commonly understood and supported in case law.

Those are not my quotes, they are NASA's. And I do realize that 71t "to the moon" means a TLI burn. The reason for the 188t figure is that NASA added a sixth engine to the previously 5 engine stack AND moved from the SSMEs to the RS-68 engines. These changes significantly increased the performance of the booster.

That is, in theory. We'll see how close the booster is to its theoretical figures once it's on the pad. ;-)

Wow. I usually don't think much. Really. I just sit, post, respond, etc... Seldom do I think deeply. Your post made me do so. The vast majority of people here on /. imply that they believe a law that doesn't suit the good of the masses is unjust (some just think that if they don't like it than it is unjust) and believe that those laws should be repealed or changed in the manner that suits their various agendas. So, well, I've seen my State's SOR web site. There are a GREAT many people on it - which is even more amazing given the fairly tolerant place where I live and the very low crime rates in the State of Maine. We can conjecture that there are those who enjoy child pornography (and I'd like to hope that this is a conversation we can have without accusing the parent of being pro-anything) and we can even debate the meaning of child pornography. (I've come across what would probably be termed pornographic material where they simply claim it is art, I do think it was closer to art but some judges would likely consider it to be pornographic simply because it contained under-aged people at nudist camps and the images contained age ranges from near birth to near death.) So, to the discussion that needs having by people more involved. There are only those people who get caught for numbers, I'd am pretty sure that the ratio would be a much higher percent than there are of, say, the 5% figure often used by the homosexual group. They are a group with little representation and yet we grant them additional rights and protections - they're a minority so to speak. It wasn't that long ago in our own American society where you could wed at the age of 12. Hell, in some states you still can. So, if this is a law and the people breaking it aren't stupid but are doing what they feel comes natural to them then do the actual regulations and laws need a revision or a repeal?

If is my understanding from way too many bad movies, internet chats, television shows, and some thinking on my own that maybe we're defining an age as something meaningful. Is a 21 year old capable of drinking safely? Is he more safe to drink at that age than any other? When is a human ready to make the choice to engage in sexual activity with a person of their choosing. In Maine, my State, you can have sex with a 16 year old female. All day long. You can't take a picture of her nude, she can't live with you and send out a lewd picture of herself using your computer, if she sends you nude images you're committing a crime, and more... Who is the judge? The law that suddenly went out and said that 18 is the magic number?

The worst part about this is the media instilled phobias now, "Oh he's looked at children nude online. Studies show he will be jumping out of trees and raping toddlers with a baseball bat, so we'd better ban him from being within however many feet of a place where a child live or plays or go to school so that we keep them safe." (While they're forcing them to live on the outskirts of town, has limited access to the services he needs to prevent becoming a recidivism statistic, or forcing him to not register at all and then become an unknown risk.)

I have a daughter who was molested by an older cousin. Trust me when I say we have no love for child abuse in our family. (She was five, he was 17.) There are some obvious cases where a child is harmed. Can we successfully make a person wait until the magic age of 18 before having sex? No? Why not? How about because they are naturally curious. Can we stop a man from liking a well developed teen aged girl? Of course not and I don't care HOW much you want to lie to me (not you personally parent post) you too are going to appreciate beautiful females. When you see a fantastic looking woman while out shopping, when you get close enough so that you can see she is even more beautiful, when you get there and see by her face or mannerisms that she is probably underage you do not (I suspect) suddenly feel awful. I suspect you get a few more thoughts about innocence, beauty, and purity. Fortunately thoughts like those are then (hopefully) followed by thoughts of inappropriate because the current legal system prevents this.

We typically support the people here who break unjust laws. Has anyone actually asked the children (those who are in their teens and have passed puberty) what they think their rights should be? I'm not seeing a relationship between my limited exposure to child porn (I am sure that there are some much worse ones out there than what I've seen) but mostly it was a model with some fancy clothing under the guise of art or nudists who were making a FREEDOM OF RELIGION choice.

So, to actually say these things is very tough, will it start a conversation where we attract "pedophiles" or will it fizzle and go no where or will it grow to some seemingly pro-pedophilia threat or be perceived as one? What I'd like would be a conversation that resulted in people moving past the media influence, people making informed choices, a realistic look at the problems and the solutions with actually having a result that can be finalized and then an effort made at altering the laws to better suit the people as a whole.

I'd love to see this fight won vs child abuse but I think we need to decide what child is and how we managed to come up with an arbitrary number for this value and then we need to carefully work at the erosion of rights that have happened across the globe that were fired up by a group with an agenda, and then -- if we make it this far -- we can make an effort to change it.

| This problem isn't going to get fixed by making protocols go away. This problem is bigger than an ISP can ever fix. This is something that requires allowing the pendulum to swing the other way for a while so that it reaches a balance instead of the extreme sides that so many people seem to be fighting for. I think I should make this a sermon in my Church of Galenism... Zealotry (even to the slashdot crowd) has done nothing to actually help anyone but the vocal minority - often the same vocal minority that they claim to want to protect. The term moderation in idealism is beyond the scope of many and many don't actually take a minute to stop and think about how really hypocritical the rules or situations are. But, well, I won't digress to go off topic tonight.

Please explain how "discovering" certain numbers / symbols work well in certain situations is any different to "discovering" certain notes / words work well in certain situations, to the extent that the "artist" is entitled to free-load for the rest of their lives, while the mathematician is not.

They will obviously pay in Linux CPU licenses. I hear they're worth $699.

Maybe they should have just kept the system invite-only, instead of opening it up to everyone -- that would help, the way I see it.

Actually you don't own your property in the truest sense of the word (yes technically I acknowledge that you own and possibly have possession of it). Ultimately the government owns your land. Just stop paying the land or property taxes and this point will be made abundantly clear. Now if a copyright holder had to pay a yearly fee based on the value (either intrinsic, or perhaps market or realized, something along those lines) of the work in question to keep the copyright I'd be a lot more supportive of copyright laws.

An anonymous reader writes "Firefox 3.0.1 was released today. It fixes 3 security vulnerabilities, including a critical issue reported by Billy Rios, Ben Turner, and Dan Veditz. The issue could be combined with an issue in Apple's Safari browser to read data from the user's disk or to execute arbitrary code. This issue was previously discussed on Slashdot. The release also fixes a remote code execution bug involving the CSS reference counter, reported by the Zero-Day Initiative (previously discussed on Slashdot here), as well as a Mac-only potential code execution bug involving GIF image rendering, reported by Drew Yao of Apple Product Security."

Erik J writes "Developer Neversoft has put to rest one of the bigger pressure points for their upcoming title Guitar Hero World Tour. The has confirmed that Xbox 360 version of Guitar Hero World Tour will be fully compatible with Rock Band's Xbox 360 guitars, drums and microphone. There is no news on whether the PS3, PS2 or Wii Rock Band instruments will function."
http://snagwiremedia.com/activision-presser-guitar-hero-2/

You should see the contortions Grumman had to go through, to get the Lunar Module under the mission weight budget, well into the Apollo Program.

I figure the only thing that's changed between now and then is the Internet makes it much easier for the lay public to form entirely the wrong impression about highly complex and technical works-in-progress.

Exactly. Artists never get any money from royalties after the first few years because the labels take most of it through creative bookkeeping. The artists only get money when there's a lot coming in.

Add to that the fact that most new artists lose all there copyrights to the labels by contract and you'll find the only ones not getting screwed by the extension is the labels. Infact for the most part many artists will lose more money since the labels "own" most of their songs they will have to pay royalties to the labels every time the perform them!!!