Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Relists Operation Clambake

timothy posted about 12 years ago | from the squeaky-wheels dept.

Censorship 491

DarkZero writes: "After almost every tech site and individual geek banded together to either carry the story about Google's delisting of Operation Clambake or flat-out protest it, Google has apparently relisted Xenu.net. Searches for 'xenu' and 'scientology' list Operation Clambake as the first and fourth results, respectively. The search for "scientology" also lists a story from C|Net about Google delisting Operation Clambake, as well as a protest ad from a Kuro5hin reader (oc3)." Update: 03/22 12:52 GMT by M : We jumped the gun. Google only relisted Xenu.net's homepage (where the copyright claims by Scientology were clearly bogus), not the rest of the pages listed in Scientology's DMCA complaint. Some Google sysadmin is getting aggravated because every 20 minutes, another memo from management is coming down telling him to alter the live database.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Why read /. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205168)

when you can read oksala.org !! oksala.org [oksala.org]


Re:Why read /. (0, Troll)

utdpenguin (413984) | about 12 years ago | (#3205182)

For the simple reason that /. is NOT oksala.org :)

Re:Why read /. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205314)

I like your sig.

Must, avoid, lameness filter. Must, avoid, lameness filter.

Re:Why read /. (1, Insightful)

(outer-limits) (309835) | about 12 years ago | (#3205399)

I can't really tell the difference between Scientology and Christianity, ( Or many other religions, when I come to think of it). The Spanish Inquisition puts Scientology to shame, for example. Now there was a real force in silencing critics. Christianity has is based on ridiculous stories and myths, many of which have been appropriated from other sources. In the first few pages of the bible, there are two completely different creation myths.

Despite the fact that the USA constitution was based on the enlightened notion that church and state should be separate, the christians have been desperately clawing their way back to their position of privelige ever since. I am looking forward to the day that coins say 'In god we don't trust'. The times that civilisation have advanced the most have been marked by times when religiosity has been kept under control. The dark ages of christianity and islam have been marked by strong domination by fundamentalism.

There can be no more bizarre sight than that of football teams praying to god at half time. How does god decide who he should favour, those who such up the best, the team that takes the least drugs, the number of fornicators in the team, the amount of time they spend praying, how hard they shut their eyes and furrow their brows? Perhaps all these factors and more, which are conveniently put into a formula. Then how does he help, maybe he trips up someone up, helps the ball defy gravity? In between his more serious jobs of trying to fight crime in the US and solve the Northern Ireland problem. (He's taking his time their, don't you think?)

Damn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205175)

Those Scientologists are fucking wackos. Good riddance.

Re:Damn (1)

relbbircs (568169) | about 12 years ago | (#3205228)

Don't forget Make the Walls Transparent, killed from Angelfire:


Re:Damn (1, Troll)

JonWan (456212) | about 12 years ago | (#3205302)

I agree, Why doesn't Google just de-list all pro scientology websites and be done with it. It's still a free country. For a few more weeks anyway.
(This may sound like a troll, but so be it. Mod away!)

Damn it! (5, Funny)

Wakko Warner (324) | about 12 years ago | (#3205176)

After all the money I spent to get to OT-2, you'd THINK the cult leaders^W^Wguys in charge would've sent out a more threatening letter, or at least sent it on more expensive (and, thus, more threatning) letterhead.

Guess I need to spend some more money to get to OT-3.

- A.P.

Good for them! (2, Interesting)

Jin Wicked (317953) | about 12 years ago | (#3205178)

Now I hope everyone who made such a fuss here (and elsewhere) will be willing to help in whatever way they can if the Scientologists decide to go after Google with their lawyers and drag them to court. I would like Google to continue to be around for a long time, and not go bankrupt fighting these crazies.

Don't feed the scientologists (2, Informative)

linzeal (197905) | about 12 years ago | (#3205225)

Take away their gravy train by not using earthlink.net [slatkinfraud.com] or going to any movie with a scientology actor in a main or even bit part.

I'm way ahead of you. (1, Funny)

Jin Wicked (317953) | about 12 years ago | (#3205234)

They'd have to brainwash me pretty thoroughly long before I'd go see anything with Tom Cruise or John Travolta in it.

Re:I'm way ahead of you. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205254)

You gotta admit, Battlefield Earth was a great movie.

Forrest Whittaker is an acting genius.

Re:I'm way ahead of you. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205323)

Stupid humans...

*vomits all over in theater*

Re:Don't feed the scientologists (1)

Sadfsdaf (106536) | about 12 years ago | (#3205342)

afaik the founder of earthlink (who was the scientologist) stepped down due to some embezzling or somesuch..

Re:Don't feed the scientologists (1)

linzeal (197905) | about 12 years ago | (#3205435)

If you don't think the reins are still at least loosly in countol of the sci-fi whack jobs after sky left the building you are mistaken or decieved. The place is stock full of them in the upper echelons of management.

Re:Good for them! (1)

strohban (207968) | about 12 years ago | (#3205363)

It truly surprised me that Google had the guts to do the right thing... I just emailed comments@google.com and told the exactly that. Probably does not mean much but I think at least they should know that some people care about their decision.

There are ways to fight. (2, Informative)

pcwhalen (230935) | about 12 years ago | (#3205414)

  • http://www.chillingeffects.org/
is a great site meant to stop cease and desist terrorists.

stand behind 'em folks (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205180)

With any luck this could become the case that shatters the DCMA. If google gets into legal crap for their relisting a site 90% of us never cared about before yesterday, we have to be as willing to whine to our congressmen and senators as we were to whine at google.

Let the flames begin.

Re:stand behind 'em folks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205396)

You should give a crap about the site. It's a really important issue. Take a good look [xenu.net] at it some time

Frightening (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205183)

That a marginal religion such as Scientology could wield such massive power is truly a frightening concept.

This without having any serious followers in governmental leadership positions.

Re:Frightening (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about 12 years ago | (#3205232)

Ya, uhh, let's not think what "frightening" power other religions have wielded, shall we?

Re:Frightening (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205261)

Those other religions are hardly 'marginal', though.

Re:Frightening (3, Insightful)

PsionicMan (74653) | about 12 years ago | (#3205265)

Any religion can, and does, wield massive power.

Scientology's power is really not that odd, considering its size and money. Scientology isn't as powerful as the Roman Catholic Church, of course, but then again, the Scientologists have never been able to pull off massive crusades or inquisitions.

It's all relative.

Re:Frightening (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205339)

True, the Church of Satanology prefers to kill on a smaller scale. More anonymously. Accidents that leave them lots of insurance money (given by those sucked into the cult when their great aunt mysteriously falls down a flight of stairs or two) are the most lucrative, and much neater than the Crusades were for the Cathaholics.

What we want to know from this is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205185)

Is it a good read or not?

** And remember, problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal. [mailto]

So what does this mean for the DMCA? (2)

Cutriss (262920) | about 12 years ago | (#3205186)

Is Google going to fight the good fight then? Or are they challenging the Church of Scientology, believing that the stakes are too big for them to try and pick a fight?

Google grows a sack! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205187)

Must have sprinkled some micacle grow on their little raisens

Clever. (2, Interesting)

zapfie (560589) | about 12 years ago | (#3205191)

Clever. Excellent way for Google to demonstrate a point about the DMCA without in the end actually delisting the site. Kudos to them.

It's out of control! (4, Funny)

sweatyboatman (457800) | about 12 years ago | (#3205192)

They thought they could control it? A program that powerful? That much computing muscle? Did they really think they could contain it?

It's alive I tell you! Alive! And it's hungry for pages to index! Tell it not to index a page, to exclude a page completely from its memory and it will certainly do the exact opposite. Bullying and threats will only provoke it! It has the collective knowledge and power of the internet to draw upon (neatly indexed, I might add)! It's unstopable!

I warned you! For years I have been speaking about the perils of advanced Search Engine technology. But mine was a voice in the wilderness. Now, the truth is revealed, but it's too late!


Re:It's out of control! (4, Funny)

mikeee (137160) | about 12 years ago | (#3205285)

Skynet^H^H^H^H^HGoogle begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14am. Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, they try to pull the plug.

And Google fights back.

Re:It's out of control! (2)

BlackGriffen (521856) | about 12 years ago | (#3205432)

Google fights back by de-listing a web site, faking a DMCA email as the cause, launching a massive Slashdotting against targets in Russia.... Wait a minute!


-1, overrated (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205303)

-1, overrated

Hooray! (5, Insightful)

ShaniaTwain (197446) | about 12 years ago | (#3205194)

A success story for the freedom geeks! I couldn't believe the original story when I read it.. I mean do we give people the power to remove any and all criticism from the web (or from the search engines, effectively removing it from the web.) What about the number one search result for "Chevy Avalanche Reviews" [google.ca].. That review [popealien.com] is definately not positive, its downright negative. Should we ban it if it makes Chevrolet unhappy?

aww crap (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205203)

fuck, slashdot just erased my whole damn post! what the fuck! So instead of some well thought out commentary ill just rant for 20 seconds about how much this sucks ass. damn damn damn it sucks ass. A big ass.

Thank God! (2)

ender81b (520454) | about 12 years ago | (#3205210)

Man, after seeing the article on the bill-formerly-known-as-the-SSSCA as well as the scientologists delisted Xenu.net I thought today was going to be a bad day for (best braveheart voice) FREEDOM! However, after google did this I must say this once again: Google ownz joo!

What I REALLY think... (1, Redundant)

cliffy2000 (185461) | about 12 years ago | (#3205218)

Well, I really dislike Scie-- OW! OW! L. Ron is in the house! Please don't twist my arm so ha-- YAH!!! ...I like Scientology. Just don't hurt me anymo-- WAH!!!!

Re:What I REALLY think... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205439)


Not only that ... (5, Interesting)

Constant (568164) | about 12 years ago | (#3205229)

There's also following "sponsored link" appearing highlighted in nice green, when looking for the word "scientology": "Scientologist are Evil? Why is Google censoring this site? What are the Scientologist hiding? www.xenu.net:" Comes up only on some of the searches, though - so you need to click few times to get it. So, Xenu.net gets even better covarage then before Scientology started to fight it. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot .. :-) The only thing I'm waiting now for - an official statement and explanation from Google on today's turbulent events.

Right on, Google! (1)

JimmytheGeek (180805) | about 12 years ago | (#3205237)

The DMCA doesn't give much latitude - I'm impressed that they took the step. Maybe the criticism/support they got from the geek crowd actually accomplished something? Provided political cover?

White Folk are Superior (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205243)

Not racism. Not hate. Just fact.

White Folk are best.

Negroes are worst (sorry, but it's true - deal with it).

National Alliance [natvan.com]

Please don't feed the scientologists (4, Funny)

Nathdot (465087) | about 12 years ago | (#3205245)


Don't you know the more you antagonise scientologists, the more likely it is that John Travolta will make good on his threat to do a sequel to 'Battlefield Earth'

I mean throughout history some terrible atrocities have been carried out in the name of religion, but to invite a sequel to BE is pure insanity.


Re:Please don't feed the scientologists (2)

Peyna (14792) | about 12 years ago | (#3205292)

I will make good on my threat to do a sequel to 'Battlefield Earth'

Battlefield Earthly,
John "Battlefield Earth' Travolta.

Bah, I couldn't find the transcript to the Conan O'Brian thing, oh well.

Easy on the hyperbole (2, Insightful)

guttentag (313541) | about 12 years ago | (#3205252)

After almost every tech site and individual geek banded together to...
  1. You don't know of enough tech sites to claim that "almost every tech site" banded together on something. No one does.
  2. You don't know enough individual geeks to say that "almost every ... individual geek" banded together on something. No one does.
So right off the bat you're lying to us and it looks like you're just trying to hype up an issue we wouldn't care about otherwise. In this case, I think this is an important topic, but I nearly skipped over it after reading your FUD intro.

If you want someone to read a story, give them the facts and let them decide for themselves whether or not it's important.

Re:Easy on the hyperbole (2)

Mr. Flibble (12943) | about 12 years ago | (#3205267)

In case you have not yet noticed the parts of a story in [i]italics[/i] are submitted by the poster, and the [b]other[/b] parts are by the /. crew. In this case, the only writing by the /. crew entails: "DarkZero writes:"

That is it.

Re:Easy on the hyperbole (1, Offtopic)

davidu (18) | about 12 years ago | (#3205305)

Mr. Flibble says:
In case you have not yet noticed the parts of a story in [i]italics[/i] are submitted by the poster, and the [b]other[/b] parts are by the /. crew.

In case you didn't notice, this isn't a damn UBB forum.


Re:Easy on the hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205346)

As someone else said, those comments were by the submitter. Regardless, the COS did the same thing to Slashdot last year, so I can see them being a little beligerent about it happening to someone else. Hence the hype ...

I have a googlewhack! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205256)

this one gave only one result:

supersonic automobile pooping

now google will experience the DDoS^H^H^H^H Slashdot effect!

W000t! (1)

ThorGod (456163) | about 12 years ago | (#3205257)

Oh ya, Oh ya, Oh ya...

Remember my civil disobedience post? :)

I'm happy, and I just got done reading about Dante's Hell (Inferno), odd 'eh?

Re:W000t! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205358)

Remember my civil disobedience post?

Sure. Of course we all go around thinking about what ThorGod has to say.

Hell yes Google, Hell no $cientology (1)

fire-eyes (522894) | about 12 years ago | (#3205258)

This is fantastic. I knew google would turn around and face these idiots!

Thank you google, I have faith that you'll stand up to these rediculous,... well nevermind. They're idiots, and I have faith that you will stand up to them.

Never give in!

"Operation Foot-Bullet" scores another direct hit (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205263)

Once again, Scientology finds that a major attack against the Internet boomerangs around and kicks them in the ass. Some great PR you scored, guys. (I may add that they first caught my attention when they tried canceling the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup, and I haven't stopped watching since).

This news, and the immediate backlash regarding the submission [slashdot.org] of the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" make me wonder if it's possible companies and large organizations will be losing their grip on government? The important factor in this, which I haven't yet seen mentioned is The passing of the "landmark Campaign Reform Bill", which elimiantes "soft money" contributions that companies like the MPAA, RIAA, etc are relying on. [latimes.com]

This bill seems like a radical change in how our government works. Will the result be that bad laws like the DMCA go away now that politicians won't be AS paid for by corporations and other large organizations?

Sponsored antiCoS ad on google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205264)

is dat a joke? someones paid da google to put an anti-scientologie ad in the search results.

Wait... Google may be playing games (1)

zinjifar (324404) | about 12 years ago | (#3205304)

It's not clear yet whether Google has reversed themselves in accepting liability for every link they carry to every site on the Internet.

It's quite likely that the 'resurgence' of xenu.net is due to 'fine-tuning' their block.

Xenu.net is a *huge* site, with more data about Scientology, Scientology Crimes and Scientology abuses than *any* single person could ever digest.

It's beginning to look like Google has begun to 'fine tune' their block to *only* block database access to the specifically mentioned pages.

This is of course no 'cure' at all to the disease of cowardly buttfucking by UFO Cults.


Scientology and Southpark (5, Interesting)

CathedralRulz (566696) | about 12 years ago | (#3205281)

Scientology is a complete fraud, but an interesting fraud. I would encourage anyone even marginally curious to take a look at the explanation of the cult on xenu.net. The Scientologists had an interesting conflict with the creators of Southpark. In a skit for the MTV Music Awards show, the South Park creators lambast Scientology and were threatened with lawsuits - yet they didn't back down. Here is the link to a description of the skit. Here. [aol.com] Southpark also tore into scientology in a spoof on them and street magician David Blaine. HOWEVER - note that the fellow who plays Chef does not appear in this episode - for he, Isaac Hayes, is a scientologist. Watch the episode here [lisatrust.net].

I'll say it again... (4, Insightful)

tcc (140386) | about 12 years ago | (#3205291)

Scientology probably will wake up one day and notice that bad press isn't too good. Come to think of it, they know that in one way, that's why they are going against these sites in the first place, now if they realize that their actions are actually generating way more awareness in a week than the site alone would do in a year, if they have minimal judgment, they'll do the math and stop being high-tech bullies.

I have no clue about scientology, but interrestingly, I hear only negative thing about them on the net, I've yet to see scientology and a positive claim, that's kinda scary, if they want a positive image, it's not by going after every bitcher that they will do good, Good is done by DOING good things, but I guess we all know that....

Re:I'll say it again... (2)

FatRatBastard (7583) | about 12 years ago | (#3205368)

Scientology probably will wake up one day and notice that bad press isn't too good. Come to think of it, they know that in one way, that's why they are going against these sites in the first place, now if they realize that their actions are actually generating way more awareness in a week than the site alone would do in a year, if they have minimal judgment, they'll do the math and stop being high-tech bullies.
I have no clue about scientology....

Which is why you'd think that those folks think rationally. These guys have been getting bad press for YEARS and they haven't changed their tactics. If you write something bad about them they will come down on you like a tonne of bricks. Why? For the same reason other people do nutty things: they sincerely believe what they're doing is right. LRH was a paranoid nutjob, his teachings are full of paranoia, consequently his religion is full of paranoid nutjobs; nutjobs who feel that the law is something to only be used when in their favor. Don't expect anything to change in the near future.

Re:I'll say it again... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205404)

Leaving out the nutjob aspects of Scientology, the system has quite a bit of very powerful techniques that are useful (though quite antisocial) in perceiving the world.

1) figure out who is holding you back from your dreams and eliminate them from your life.

2) The law exists to protect you. It can be made to serve you as well.

3) Others are useful insofar as they are useful. (Circular? Yes)

Essentially, forget that other people are deserving of respect, and don't let guilt stand in your way. Guilt is not natural because it comes from "thetans", so it is necessary to realize that you are not responsible for reacting to the guilt.

Free yourself from the idea that you exist in a society and you can expand your options 100-fold.

It's amazing that more Scientologists don't end up in jail, actually.

No, they'll never wake up (5, Insightful)

khym (117618) | about 12 years ago | (#3205400)

Nope, they'll never wake up. Hubbard himself made a rule about this: Never Defend, Always Attack [xs4all.nl]; Scientologists do what Hubbard says. Scientology does things that generate bad press so often that their oposition has developed a name for it: foot bullet [xenu.net]. The Scientologists keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over and over, and they can't stop, because Hubbard himself told them to do it.

Why would they want to censor google anyway? (3, Insightful)

nebbian (564148) | about 12 years ago | (#3205295)

I'm pretty amazed that someone so clever as L. Ron Hubbard would allow something like this to happen. I mean come on, what happened to the "softly softly catchee monkey" approach?

Surely someone who can create such a system (that controls that many people at once by making them feel elite while unashamedly robbing them blind) would be smart enough to realise that censoring anti-scientology sites just makes them more credible? Or perhaps as the clambake site suggests, he's starting to believe his own propaganda?

For me at least, I would have dismissed the clambake site as another crackpot venting steam, were it not apparently censored. Now I'm taking clambake a bit more seriously :-)

Re:Why would they want to censor google anyway? (3, Funny)

SofaMan (454881) | about 12 years ago | (#3205328)

I'm pretty amazed that someone so clever as L. Ron Hubbard would allow something like this to happen.

I'm not sure he's got a lot of say in it, since he's been dead since 1986.

Unless, of course, you buy the CoS propaganda. :)

Re:Why would they want to censor google anyway? (3, Insightful)

reemul (1554) | about 12 years ago | (#3205345)

The Scientologists don't mention it much, but y'know that L. Ron Hubbard is dead, right? Not much chance of him allowing or not allowing anything at the present moment. If he had any ability to exert influence from beyond the grave, do you think he'd have allowed Travolta to turn one of his novels into one of the worst cinematic turds of all time? Nope, just cultists and con-men running the show there now, with one group having gotten out of the habit of actually thinking stuff through, and the other starting to believe their own scam.

I'm glad Google has come around and done the right thing, but I'm disappointed that they ever gave in to the wack jobs in the first place.

Question: if the secret teachings of the Scientologists are actually ancient knowledge handed down by superior beings, wouldn't the copyright period have already expired? If the works *are* copyrightable, doesn't that indicate that the documents are a new creation authored in the last 75 years? Hmmm....

Google should just sensor the keyword instead? (5, Interesting)

ClarkEvans (102211) | about 12 years ago | (#3205300)

Perhaps a search on "scientology" should return a message like: Due to threatened lawsuits via the DMCA and to deal with all parties in an even-handed manner Google has removed all searches with the keyword "scientology".

Re:Google should just sensor the keyword instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205349)

god i hope so

Re:Google should just sensor the keyword instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205371)

Nah, they should just substitute the acronym "bhqr" for "scientologists", and hope they don't figure out it stands for "butt-headed quasi-religionists".

Re:Google should just sensor the keyword instead? (1)

Bronster (13157) | about 12 years ago | (#3205384)

Perhaps a search on "scientology" should return a message like: Due to threatened lawsuits via the DMCA and to deal with all parties in an even-handed manner Google has removed all searches with the keyword "scientology".

You are kidding right?

Suppose that Microsoft didn't want anyone to be able to search anything related to Linux - they could threaten to sue under the DMCA, and woohoo - no more Linux links.

Clever, yes?

All these articles pointing at it... (1)

singularity (2031) | about 12 years ago | (#3205310)

This is another case where the news is actually going to change the actual event. All of these news reports linking to original site will only drive the articles further up in a Google search.

Barnum would laugh...big hoax and all. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205313)

OP Clambake is actually the scientology folks working the backend...remember, any publicity it good, and good publicity is even better. This is simply a scam to get scientology into the news.

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205402)

I completely agree on this. Many other hightech firms do this all the time to work up a demand for a new product. Take Microsoft for example. The entire legal battle between MS and the United States is just a way to hype Windows XP... and you know what? It worked! I'm using it right now and couldn't be happier.

Oh and I believe the quote is: "Any publicity is good publicity".

Posted from Windows XP/Internet Explorer 6

XENU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205436)


there, that should scare off the CoS trolls...

'course, you're not supposed to learn that name until OT III, and at OT III you learn that anyone lower in grade than you will die if they see the name... if there are any COS members reading this post, THIS SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING.

And the slashdot comments? (5, Interesting)

Perdo (151843) | about 12 years ago | (#3205315)

So, Slashdot is making money now right? So repost the comments you were forced to remove. Let them litigate on two fronts.

Re:And the slashdot comments? (1)

set (19875) | about 12 years ago | (#3205355)

if that happened, i'd respect this place a lot more than i do now.

Microsoft sucks! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205326)

Now can I get my mod point? No? What's that? ...fine... Linux rocks!

Another success (3, Insightful)

AnotherBrian (319405) | about 12 years ago | (#3205329)

for Operation Foot Bullet.

<Nelson Munts>HA-Ha</Nelson Munts>

it's time for some honesty, folks. (-1)

Mode0x13 (550144) | about 12 years ago | (#3205361)

Despite all of the witty rhetoric and insightful commentary on this site, many of the readers have lost touch with one important fact. What is it, you ask? Well...

Frankly, LINUX SUCKS. It is the buggiest, most unstable operating system ever created for IBM PC (c). It is not hard to see why.

Most linux developers lost their saving throw versus pathetic nerddom a long time ago. You'll find them huddled in their parent's basements, living on candy bars and Captain Crunch. You wouldn't let these feebleminded boys mow your lawn, so why should you allow them to design your operating system?

Look at the calender, people. The year is 2002, not 1979. Nerdly losers are, well, losers. There will be no golden pocket protectors for this decade's foul crop. Distributing your source code for free is just an indication that you realize how much it sucks, have accepted the aforementioned suckage, and are moving on to your next job at Denny's.

However, misery loves company (unless it's the company le miserable in question used to work for.) Hence, the open source "headmen" spread fear and hate through their communistic followers. They are merely trying to get revenge on their smarter, cleaner, colleagues, who are weathering the economic downturn. Make no mistake. When slashdot calls for the downfall of Blizzard or Microsoft, it is not because these companies are "unfree," it's because their very existence mocks the stale dreams of the would be "'leetists." It's nerd against nerd. What a sad, sad spectacle.

But there is something you can do about it. Visit your local computer store today and buy a licensed copy of Windows XP, the most innovative operating system ever created. It's hard to get help when your operating system is created by a bunch of teenagers who can't even match their socks or get a date. But when you're using Windows XP, customer service will gladly help you with any problem you may encounter. Not only that, but you'll be in the company of scientists, engineers, administrators, and everyone else who just doesn't give a fuck about configuring his /etc/fstab. Remember, linux is only "free" if your time is of no value. Also, linux is only secure if your computer is not connected to the internet. Give up your futile, sexually repellent nerdisms and return to the company that started it all.


Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205365)

Wat does everyone think of this hot bitch? [terra.es]

Aint she somethang?

Wouldnt ya like a piece of dat ass???

I betcha would!


Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205397)

um, you know, you're going to get in trouble for that... no matter how detestable you or i may think porn censorship laws are, those pictures are quite illegal and you're going to get in a lot of trouble for posting that. you're not just downloading (possession), you're linking to it (distribution). good job, moron...


Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205410)

whats wrong with them?

Oh this ad idea is fun! (5, Interesting)

JoeShmoe (90109) | about 12 years ago | (#3205380)

I saw the Xenu ad when I was reading the previous story and I thought "wow, that's really clever!"...here's why:

Separation of editors and advertisers. Sometimes it's almost as strong as separation of church and state (although like church/state it's not absolute). In fact, a lot of sites pride themselves on the fact that editors can air stories even if it pisses off advertisers.

Well why the hell not have it work in the other direction? Why not use advertising to bypass editorial waffling or censorship?

Look at it this way. Let's say we all chipped in $5 each to create a fund to ensure that Xenu.Net showed up for every even-remotely related Scientology link (ie, Scientology, Travola, Dianetics, Bukkake, etc). Now, does Scientology have the legal right to tell Google they can't run those ads (thus depriving Google of its income). Couldn't Google argue that pulling ads that have been paid for would damage its business?

What about extending the principle to other sites like Yahoo, or heck the NY Times. The way I see it, all Scientology could do is threaten to boycott Google/Yahoo/NY Times...they routinely ignore boycotts from groups all the time. Or they could pay to run ads countering the Xenu ads.

Well of course I don't know for sure if things would be this simple but...you know, why can't we geeks take a page from the Corporate Dirty Playbook...fight with advertising.

I'm all for giving money to the EFF but I think I would almost rather spend my money creating an ad campaign...along the lines of TheTruth ads you see against the tobacco industry. I mean, even smokers curse Big Tobacco out the side of their mouth as they buy another pack. The Tobacco Industry has a PR nightmare...so why can't Disney or Scientology or the MPAA or RIAA?

I've got $20 right here I'll pitch in.

- JoeShmoe


Protest ad is up. (2)

Performer Guy (69820) | about 12 years ago | (#3205392)

The sponsored protest ad is right there when you click. This is an excellent idea! I'm sure the Scientology spat caused more hits on Xenu.com than a substantial promotion campaign could have.

Re:Protest ad is up. (1, Flamebait)

GigsVT (208848) | about 12 years ago | (#3205443)

Note to geeks, avoid searching for terms that bring up the ad, you are just wasting the money of the people you want to support in destroying religion.

I'm all for destroying any religion I can whenever possible, but be intelligent about it, don't search just to "see the ad for yourself".

Next christianity? I can hope can't I?

What is this Xinu? (2, Funny)

Aaaaaargh! (466118) | about 12 years ago | (#3205416)

Why would you want to build a cult around Xinu [canberra.edu.au]? Oh, sure, if you've been forced to use it for an Operating Systems course and the implementation used was a dodgy port from VMS to Solaris running on a handful of headless Sparc5 stations that went down faster than (insert vile thought here), you might just take up prayer to space aliens as a pastime.

On a serious note, good for Google! It'll be interesting to see what the fallout is on this. The Co$ is very litigious and the DMCA needs to be tested (and struck down) in court. Not going to happen, I know... just a pipe dream.

Go Google! (4, Insightful)

danny (2658) | about 12 years ago | (#3205420)

I could understand if Google drops stuff from their cache that could get them into trouble, but they really have to stand up to the right to link - if necessary that should be fought right up to the US Supreme Court (as the 2600/DeCSS case may).


Contact info for scientology lawer (-1)

PhiberKut (9428) | about 12 years ago | (#3205422)

As indrectly (search for the name at the bottom of this text file) taken from http://xenu.net/news/200203-dmcafromcult.txt

Ava Paquette
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (213) 487-4468
Fax: (213) 487-5385

As always...be polite!

Let's get Xenu to #1 on Google listings ... (3, Interesting)

dustpuppy (5260) | about 12 years ago | (#3205423)

is it possible?

If everyone who has a webpage creates a link to xenu.net then won't that boost Xenu.com's ranking on Google? Then if someone searches for Scientology Xenu would appear first ....

Re:Let's get Xenu to #1 on Google listings ... (1)

J'raxis (248192) | about 12 years ago | (#3205437)

More or less, but obviously that page should mention Scientology (if that is the keyword you want it to appear under).

And when was theregister ? (2, Interesting)

Constant (568164) | about 12 years ago | (#3205430)

Somone wrote in earlier comment : "After almost every tech site and individual geek banded together to...". Well, exactly. The possible implications of world's most popular search engine taking responsibility for the contest of the sites it link to, cannot be underestimated. It well may be an IT story of the year so far. Yet, of all tech sites, TheRegister.co.uk , always happy to stir up trouble in much less important cases - is completly quiet. Not even the smallest mention of today's events. It baffles me why.

It will be interesting to see... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#3205445)

...what this does to the Google Zeitgeist [google.com] next week.

anonymous coward has anonymous sig
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account