- luv-talk - example.com

Re: [luv-talk] Mangling - found a gem
by Peter Ross 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

G'day! From: "Slav Pidgorny(GPM)" <slav.pidgorny(a)anz.com> >> On Behalf Of Peter Ross >> The NSA will love it. http://joey.hess.usesthis.com/ What would be your dream setup? I dream of a ARM-based netbook with exceptionally good battery life, an E-ink display, and fully open and non-proprietary hardware. I've put off upgrading for years since this seems such an obvious thing for the market to produce, but the market is fascinated with locked-down tablets instead. --- A bit sidestepping, maybe. But after few years of tablets ands smartphones I really find it astonishing that we are dealing with such weak devices, security- and privacy-wise, full of proprietary hardware and software. I have a hard time to think all developers are idiots and we do not know better how to write software. A feature grabbing octopus like the systemd is the opposite of considerate. To put that in the heart of every Linux distribution is deliberate. Of course, everything about the NSA is overblown. I just wonder why Assange and Snowden are not living peacefully at home. Regards Peter

2 1

Mangling - found a gem
by Peter Ross 10 Nov '14

10 Nov '14

http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May/019657.html On Fri, 30.05.14 04:32, Michael Biebl (mbiebl at gmail.com) wrote: > > 2014-05-30 4:26 GMT+02:00 Greg KH <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>: > > > You update systemd but you don't update the kernel? How does that make > > any sense? > > There might be very valid reasons why you need to stick with the old > kernel. As said, one example could be that the new one simply doesn't > boot. Requiring lock-step upgrades makes the system less > fault-tolerant. > So where possible this should be avoided. To make this clear, we expect that systemd and kernels are updated in lockstep. We explicitly do not support really old kernels with really new systemd. So far we had the focus to support up to 2y old kernels (which means 3.4 right now), but even that should be taken with a grain of salt, as we already made clear that soon after kdbus is merged into the kernel we'll probably make a hard requirement on it from the systemd side. I am tempted to say that we should merge the firmware loader removal patch at the same time as the kdbus requirement is made. As that would be a clean cut anyway... Also note that at that point we intend to move udev onto kdbus as transport, and get rid of the userspace-to-userspace netlink-based tranport udev used so far. Unless the systemd-haters prepare another kdbus userspace until then this will effectively also mean that we will not support non-systemd systems with udev anymore starting at that point. Gentoo folks, this is your wakeup call. Lennart Poettering, Red Hat --- According to that logic, Linux is Linux+udev+kdbus+systemd .. In tone it is pure bullying. "I have taken udev and it will not work without systemd and I don't care about anything else". I don't think it fits in a GNU/Linux community project like Debian. It is not collaborative at all. It is good for a company like Red Hat to have "our ecosystem everywhere" but not for the rest. Lock-step is good for attackers. If I update X I better update Y and update Z too. oh, I don't know. Maybe don't update. And I do not need Z's functionality but I better do it all.. It is not good for embedded systems if the dependencies are many, become circular and hard to understand. The NSA will love it. Linux will work as long as you use it the way Poettering and Red Hat wants you to use it. Well, I have as much interest in it as using Windows or Mac OS X;-) BTW: People are mangling init(8) and sysV init in the discussion. You can run init and then comes inittab, rc.conf, /etc/rc to change between run levels and than /etc/init.d/*. You can change all that and it does not hurt a bit;-) Regards Peter

2 1

Re: [luv-talk] GST
by Peter Ross 09 Nov '14

09 Nov '14

Hi, From: "Arjen Lentz" <arjen(a)lentz.com.au> >>On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, "Pidgorny, Slav(GPM)" <slav.pidgorny(a)anz.com> >>wrote: >>> I don't think that increasing taxes on >>> the better off indefinitely is going >>> to work in the long run. For most of the second half of the last century taxes "on the better off" were higher. We have a real problem that the biggest companies are not contributing at all anymore. > In Finland, anything up to university is free. While that may seem > expensive, It's proven to be a worthwhile investment in the people of the > country. So spending more money on the right thing can be good. It's the same in Germany. And they are talking about spending more on education. Back to the GST: Underneath seems to be an imbalance between Federation and States. The states have, more or less, live on what the Federal government offers on money. But the responsibility is shifting from time to time. Obviously the current lot is not interested in investment in education and health etc. so it "delegates" it to the states. What can you do if you want to run hospitals and schools and unis - and do not have more income? The GST is the only significant factor which could help. The other is more fees. Or a government which is interested in appropriate funding. Keep it in mind when you vote. Slav, as a simple example. Imagine you have a "good income" according to Australian standards. You have a good job in IT and your wife works, maybe $150 000 together. That brings you into the top 10% of the households ranked by income. You get a 2% tax deduction which gives you $3000 more net income. Your two kids will start uni both in two or three years. It gets deregulated and will cost $10,000 more. Each child, each year. Now, imagine to be on a $60,000 income. The decrease in tax gives you $1200. The uni fees are the same. Maybe skip uni then. Face it, your children cannot afford it on $60,000 per year. Then, imagine you are the prime minister. Your child gets a $60,000 stipendium which is unusual and nowhere declared. The person who discovered it is in court and facing 2 years jail. Regards Peter

1 0

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

08 Nov '14

> > To be perfectly honest, and I think that others would agree, you've been > less than clear on the matter. > > To be perfectly honest, it's what I said right from the start, then you brought up other issues to muddy the waters, to help make your point. I have typed "SUPPORT" in CAPS a number of times to emphasise it. It's good to know that you support the legal establishment of same-sex > marriage. > > Please don't put words in my mouth. I do not support same sex marriage, whichever way you want to phrase it. Legal rights of same sex couples is a different matter. > Have a nice day, > > -- > 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 >

5 5

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