sunny256 - Slashdot User

Comment Re:What are the plans after the tree is dismantele (Score 1) 248

by sunny256 on Wednesday December 17, 2008 @05:59PM (#26151609) Attached to: Christmas Tree Made From 70 SCSI Hard Drives

And the error message also reads: "An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, whom you can also contact if the problem persists."

They're in for a surprise when opening their inbox tomorrow.

Australians To Get New Sex Party 4

Posted by samzenpus on Tuesday November 18, 2008 @02:32PM from the it's-about-time dept.

No, not that kind of sex party, a political party. The Australian Sex Party will be launched in Melbourne on Thursday as an alternative to moral campaigners and prudish politicians. Fiona Patten, who is head of the national adult retail and entertainment lobby group the Eros Association, said the trigger had been the government's decision to place a mandatory filter on the Internet. "This filter actually blacklists any adult site so it means that material which is absolutely legal for an adult to buy in a newsagency in Australia, they will be prohibited from viewing it online," Patten said. I'm not sure how effective they will be, but I'm sure they'll have the best conventions ever.

Ubuntu Satanic Edition Banned From Distrowatch 24

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday September 11, 2008 @12:12PM from the open-source-satan dept.

skeeto writes "The infamous Ubuntu Satanic Edition has been banned from Distrowatch by the site's maintainer, Ladislav Bodnar, who said, 'There is no way I am going to add this distro to DistroWatch. [...] I don't consider the name "Satanic edition" as an appropriate name for a Linux distribution.' But the main reason seems to be that 'Ubuntu is a registered trademark of Canonical. You need to show me an official permission from Canonical that grants you the use of the word Ubuntu in your product's name.' What about Muslim and Christian editions? It seems that worries about trademark infringement and offensive material does not stop Distrowatch from including those."

Submission + - Google Maps Street View NOT invasion of privacy (blogspot.com)

Submitted by

airshowfan

on Monday June 04, 2007 @03:02AM

airshowfan writes: "Applicable laws say that Google Maps Street View is NOT a violation of privacy. The most relevant law here is probably the one used by Jennifer Aniston to sue a paparazzo! It says that an invasion of privacy only occurs when someone looks into your window while using "enhancing devices" (telephoto lenses, binoculars, etc) and sees/takes a picture that is more detailed than what a passerby could see from the street with the naked eye. So as long as Google's images are not as sharp as what you could see as you walk past, Google should be ok. This article explains these issues of how private your home really is, and goes into issues of surveillance and sousveillance, of how much privacy one can expect while in a public place, and of how the information age is all about organizing the crumbs of information you leave behind. It is no longer reasonable to expect that your information trail cannot be easily organized, interpreted, and broadcast to the world."

Slashdot Top Deals