November 2014 - luv-talk

Re: [luv-talk] Virgin Australia Web checkin issues in Linux.
by Daniel Jitnah 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

Thanks for that. Actually, its for a couple of elderly travellers for whom a piece of paper makes more sense and gives more comfort. These travellers are not using a smartphone - if I'd just been able to print the boarding pass all would be resolved. Other options will just be more complicated for them now. Daniel. On 08/11/14 21:10, Anthony Hogan wrote: > Generally all you need is the PNR ID (six character alphanumeric) and > then you can walk up to a terminal and key it in.. That or if you have a > mobile, you can bring it up on your phone (after locking rotation and > turning up brightness) and wave that at scanners. I've never needed > hardcopy for Virgin (unless they've changed recently). > > Tiger on the other hand... > > On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Jitnah > <djitnah(a)greenwareit.com.au <mailto:djitnah@greenwareit.com.au>> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Anyone has used the Virgin Australia website recently for web checkin > > After trying out in several browser (Firefox, Opera, Chromium), I am > unable to print a boarding pass that shows the barcode. It prints > everything else but the barcode. > > (It is a horrible flash application and that seems to bypass the normal > browser print functionality, hence no option to print to pdf and print > separately)? > > Any ideas? > > Cheers, > Daniel. > _______________________________________________ > luv-talk mailing list > luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au <mailto:luv-talk@luv.asn.au> > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk > >

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
by Lev Lafayette 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

On Sat, November 8, 2014 8:06 am, Michael Scott wrote: > 1st Corinthians 6: Great, so you don't believe they'll inherit the kingdom of God; from the same book of Paul which says women must be silent in church. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the question asked which (apparently because it needs repeating) "So why can't your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage requirements and just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your definition of marriage has to be enshrined in law?" >> http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html Ahh, so it's subject to interpretation and context. Well, how about that? So why is it that the interpretation and context that you think is right is that one that must be enshrined in civil law? > Slaves, as an example, didn't have Centrelink. They could be slaves or > starve. It was economically better for them to be slaves. Please don't > plead context and deliberately comment out of context. Apart the slave issue being complete nonsense (slaves were typically the spoils of conquest.. they could go home you know), I am mocking your selective use of context. Sometimes you seem to think that a biblical marriage is absolute and sometimes you appeal to context. It's rather like this guy.. http://technoccult.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/leviticustattoo.jpg (For those who don't get the joke, a couple of pages later in Leviticus is a prohibition on tatoos) Despite all this you have no justification on why your religious version of marriage is the one which everyone else has to live with. > The execution of people who worked on the Sabbath was based on a > tradition of Jewish law, not Christian. If you had any idea about > Christianity, > Jewish tradition, you would find that Jesus frowned on the legalism of > Jews, that they had developed laws based on their traditions over the > centuries which did not glorify God, but their own traditions. Apparently "I have not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" is something you can selectively choose. > Jews are of Israeli heritage, whether of the Jewish faith or not. What? Can you explain to me the ethnic Israeli heritage of the Ugandan Jews? You know, I think mDNA studies might disagree with your assertion. > I have made my position quite clear on this. As a Christian I cannot > SUPPORT same sex marriage. I support their legal rights as much as any > others. So you agree to the legal establishment of same-sex marriage, but you don't support it yourself? Well that would be good of you. It would show that you're capable of distinguishing between secular laws which apply to all of us, and are based on available evidence, and heavenly laws which belong to particular sects in accordance to their beliefs. -- Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech Mngmnt) (Chifley) mobile: 0432 255 208 RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt

3 5

Fwd: Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
by Michael Scott 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

> > On Fri, November 7, 2014 10:46 pm, Michael Scott wrote: > > > > No, I just don't believe that the definition of marriage should be > > changed so that same sex couples can have the same legal rights, which is > > what they're really after. Otherwise they're after imposing their beliefs > > on others. I have absolutely no problem with same sex couples having the > > same legal rights as heterosexual/married couples. What I don't want is > > the legal definition of marriage being changed. > > Right, so because you have a religious definition of marriage, which you > presuppose is enshrined in law, you don't want that changed. So why can't > your church/denomination/whatever have their own marriage requirements and > just leave everyone else alone? Why is that your definition of marriage > has to be enshrined in law? > 1st Corinthians 6: 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous[b <https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=ESV#fe…> ] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality > > > I don't know what that word, mutuable, is, but the definition of marriage > > is actually biblical. > > s/mutuable/mutable > > Which biblical definition of marriage? Polygamy, as practised by Abraham, > Jacob, and David (c.f., 2 Samuel 12:8)? > > http://www.gotquestions.org/polygamy.html > Or maybe you think think that rape victims should be forced to marry their > rapist? (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) > http://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html > > Or that a man must marry his brother’s widow? (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; > Genesis 38; Ruth 2-4) > http://www.compellingtruth.org/widow-remarry.html > > > Whatever they have a "concept of", it's either Biblical or it's not. > > Which is subject to editions, interpretations, and context. It's biblical > to own slaves, biblical to execute people who work on the sabbath, and > it's biblical that eating shellfish is an abomination. > It's interesting that you mention "context" yet bring up many topics which require context to make any sense. Slaves, as an example, didn't have Centrelink. They could be slaves or starve. It was economically better for them to be slaves. Please don't plead context and deliberately comment out of context. Current translations of the Bible are considered to be quite accurate, though different translations of different sentences are slightly different, given the difference between literal and meaningful translation from ancient Hebrew and Greek to modern English. The execution of people who worked on the Sabbath was based on a tradition of Jewish law, not Christian. If you had any idea about Christianity, Jewish tradition, you would find that Jesus frowned on the legalism of Jews, that they had developed laws based on their traditions over the centuries which did not glorify God, but their own traditions. > > > Do you know anything about Jewish and Christian background. Of course if > > she's of Jewish heritage she's Jewish. I'd never deny that of her. That > > has nothing to do with her religious beliefs. > > So you think that Jews can be secular, but Christians can't? > Jews are of Israeli heritage, whether of the Jewish faith or not. Christians do not have an ethnic heritage. > > > There are 2 commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and > > all your mind and all your soul and all your strength. And Love your > > neighbour as yourself. > > Apparently you don't love your gay neighbours enough to accord them the > same legal certificate that you demand as a right for yourself. > I have made my position quite clear on this. As a Christian I cannot SUPPORT same sex marriage. I support their legal rights as much as any others. > > -- > Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech > Mngmnt) (Chifley) > mobile: 0432 255 208 > RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt > > _______________________________________________ > luv-talk mailing list > luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk >

3 2

Virgin Australia Web checkin issues in Linux.
by Daniel Jitnah 08 Nov '14

08 Nov '14

Hi All, Anyone has used the Virgin Australia website recently for web checkin After trying out in several browser (Firefox, Opera, Chromium), I am unable to print a boarding pass that shows the barcode. It prints everything else but the barcode. (It is a horrible flash application and that seems to bypass the normal browser print functionality, hence no option to print to pdf and print separately)? Any ideas? Cheers, Daniel.

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
by Peter Ross 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

From: "Peter Ross" <Petros.Listig(a)fdrive.com.au> > The "traditional churches" seem to be quite relaxed, it seems. A friends' > marriage which was slightly hampered by rules of the Anglican heritage was > finally married in a Uniting Church, with the blessings of an Anglican > priest as part of the ceremony. "hampered by rules of the Anglican CHURCH" I wanted to say. Forgot rule no.1: Do not turn on a computer if you did not have a coffee yet. Regards Peter

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
by Peter Ross 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev(a)levlafayette.com> > On Sat, November 8, 2014 8:06 am, Michael Scott wrote: >> Jews are of Israeli heritage, whether of the Jewish faith or not. > > What? Can you explain to me the ethnic Israeli heritage of the Ugandan > Jews? > > You know, I think DNA studies might disagree with your assertion. You are opening a can of worms here, I think. AFAIK religious texts refer to the twelve tribes of Israel and the current state of Israel, according to its own constitution a Jewish state, is claiming his current location and right to exist based on these texts. The Nazis did not invent the theory of a "Jewish race" but they used it to persecute million of German citizens (and later in occupied countries) of perceived "Jewish heritage" (the "Aryan pass" to show your heritage and "value" as a German citizen is a joke - unfortunately a deadly serious one for many) Without this your friend may feel "Jewish" as I feel "Lutheran": That's the religion of my ancestors but I am not a practising Christian. I do not say I am "Lutheran". AFAIK there are no "Christian tribes". This seems to be quite undisputed, I think. But that all goes far beyond the original topic.. and I am not the suppository of all wisdom, to quote my Dear Leader. BTW: for years I was living here in Australia with a partner who is the mother of our daughter. We were not married but it mattered much less than in Germany. The "de facto relationship" has a quite solid legal standing here. Trent's word exists, it is civil union. I do not know whether it is necessary to have a "marriage" or a "civil union" will do. Just make sure that the law does not discriminate against them. Overall, Australians appear quite pragmatic, and that may do, I guess. Interestingly, the hardest resistance seems to come from churches with strong American influences. E.g. the Life Church which is founded by an American. The "traditional churches" seem to be quite relaxed, it seems. A friends' marriage which was slightly hampered by rules of the Anglican heritage was finally married in a Uniting Church, with the blessings of an Anglican priest as part of the ceremony. Regards Peter

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
by Peter Ross 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

Hi Michael, From: "Michael Scott" <luv(a)inoz.net> > I said I didn't like the Liberal government's policies, yet you use the > East-West link against me? I don't want to use anything "against you". Sorry. > The government has a large debt. And a T-shirt is a Norwegian jumper. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/government-debt_gov-debt-table-en OECD (developed countries) average 2013: 109.5% Australia: 33.1% Second lowest world-wide behind Luxembourg. Regards Peter

6 20

Re: [luv-talk] Libs/Labs and other politics, statistics and myths
by Peter Ross 07 Nov '14

07 Nov '14

On Thu, 6 Nov 2014, Michael Scott < luv(a)inoz.net > wrote: > I'd vote Green if their policies only related to their green matters. > Unfortunately they don't. They are able to come up with unfunded policies > which they never have to justify in practice. > > I'd vote Labor if they weren't backed by corrupt unions (and I'm not > saying all unions are corrupt). > > I'd vote Liberal if they weren't backed by corrupt big business (and I'm > not saying all big business is corrupt). I would vote for a party which plans are working in my interest;-) Which are not necessarily "mine" only. Sometimes a "broad view" about society values can be more important for me than just to look after my wallet. BTW: To a certain extend you may be right about the "unfunded ideas" of the Greens. Not being in power (and not close to it) gives them more freedom to dream. "Reality" will interfere with them early enough - as it shows when they have the balance of power. Some dreams come true, some don't. The Victorian standards of pollies seem to be very low at the moment. E.g. handing over parts of a National Park silently to a developer 2 days before going in caretaker mode or signing contracts weeks before an election to promise hundred million dollars of taxpayers' money (our money) to a consortium if his successors decide not to clear the way for a project which is still before the courts.. I would like to see Denis Naphtine in jail instead of in government, to be honest. BTW: I am pretty sure some of it would not work in Germany. These kind of contracts are "sittenwidrig" there (http://www.dict.cc/german-english/sittenwidrig.html: unethical, improper..) and can be nullified in court. Has Australia similar lows to invalidate clearly improper contracts? Anyway, I cannot believe that Australians ignore such behaviour. Naphtine should be unelectable. > Is that far enough Left for you, Russell? Stay calm and carry on;-) Greetings Peter

2 1

The recession we haven't YET had [was Re: Action Needed: What we can do to stop the data retention bill in the next few days]
by Michael Scott 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hi Lev, I understand the definition of a recession. I simply said it hasn't necessarily yet been avoided. We may still yet fall into recession as a direct result of the GFC. We avoided recession immediately resulting from the GFC, but the US government is still "printing money" to keep their market afloat. Interest rates are being deliberately kept low so the government can afford its debt. It won't take too much vibration in the US for confidence to go through the floor again. Michael On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Lev Lafayette <lev(a)levlafayette.com> wrote: > > On Thu, November 6, 2014 12:25 pm, Michael Scott wrote: > > The coalition left the Labor government in a position in which it could > > avoid a recession. The recession hasn't yet been avoided. > > A recession is usually defined as two consecutive quarters of negative > real GDP growth. Australia was one of the very few countries in the world, > and I believe the only one in the OECD, that did not suffer a recession. > This is generally attributable to our financial stability and fiscal > stimulus, despite being an export orientated economy. > > > http://www.treasury.gov.au/PublicationsAndMedia/Publications/2011/Economic-… > > > -- > Lev Lafayette, BA (Hons), GradCertTerAdEd (Murdoch), GradCertPM, MBA (Tech > Mngmnt) (Chifley) > mobile: 0432 255 208 > RFC 1855 Netiquette Guidelines > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt > > _______________________________________________ > luv-talk mailing list > luv-talk(a)luv.asn.au > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk >

3 2

Re: [luv-talk] Action Needed: What we can do to stop the data retention bill in the next few days
by Peter Ross 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

From: "Lev Lafayette" <lev(a)levlafayette.com> > > On Wed, November 5, 2014 4:40 pm, Aryan Ameri wrote: >> So I went to three Victorian Labor Senators' offices and my local MP's >> office today to talk about data retention. > ... >> >> Even if Labor ends up supporting the bill, at least my conscience is >> clear that I did something. In years to come, at least I can say, I >> tried. > > Good on you Aryan. That's the sort of involved citizenship we need to see > more of. Because that is what makes a difference. For a few years the name Melissa Parke "pops up" if it comes to matters like treatment of refugees and recently privacy, e.g. http://www.melissaparke.com.au/speeches/614-restricting-freedom-privacy-cou… She seems to be one of the few Labor members in parliament which are not completely overwhelmed by fear to say "unpopular" words and let her conscience speak. Politicians like her good do with a bit of public support, I think. In my eyes Labor is a disaster if it comes to explain what matters. That makes them less electable than a party which would know and explain why it supports certain matters. Hoping that privacy issues or refugee issues "go away" does not help. It is a strategy worth of an ostrich. The current government would be called right extremists in Germany. It is plainly shocking how far Brandis, Morrison, Pyke etc. pushed the Liberals to the right. The word Liberal is completely misleading. This word would disappear from the political landscape of Australia if parties had to declare the ingredients on the label. Regards Peter

8 13