What is actually upgraded with 9.2? I've got KDE 3.3x and up to date programs now, so will just Yast and SuSE provided utilities stay where they are for me unless I upgrade?
Is there a need to upgrade SuSE [ever] if I use APT to keep up with the latest and greatest packages?
It's something I have always wondered. Do I not need to worry until they release v10? Or do I not even need to worry then because I can use apt to get the updates they make to Yast et al?
Or will the packages for 9.2/10 be in a different repository than those for 9.1?
How bout a goddamned stop talking on your fucking speakerphone while i am in line right next to you in Boston Chicken trying to figure out what i want to order not listen to pookie tell you how much he wants you to get home so you can do a little sumpin sumpin you fucking fat pig rude inconsiderate moron! button
i want one of those. i guess grabbing the phone and smashing it would work too, but i don't like getting beaten up.
well, if it can search the AIM html logs I would assume it could search the ones produced by GAIM et al. right? Same with the browser's cache - that is just.txt files,.jpgs,.gifs,.html, etc...i think the only place you need specific support is with proprietary file formats like.doc and.xls. Really, I wouldn't doubt it can read.xml so wouldn't open office be covered already?
before they would just fire off a letter to the ISP who may or may not capitulate and send them your info
not they have to file a lawsuit against John Doe @ 65.67.883.212, and get the name via a legal process which has oversight and protection for the accused.
No law will stop someone from reading it. It is still transmitted in a format anyone can read. Laws miss the point when it comes to this aspect of privacy. Not that I care if someone reads my email - I know it is not secure when I send it!
the Jackson family!
the worst offender in this species seems to have an affinity for places where the sun does not shine, especially on prepubescent boys.
Perhaps they would have been better off keeping the whole thing secret, so no one knows about it, and then have the software log all scans of banknotes into a central database, so the police could keep an eye on who is scanning notes. If forgeries appear in the area, they would know who was to blame......
the ADA - great idea, some great effects...a great hassle for a lot of other people.
why is it so damn hard to just do the 'right' thing for once? the public is stupid enough that you could do the opposite of what they want, put a commercial on TV about how it was a good thing, and they'd forget about it anyway and be happy. we're worse than sheep - as a whole we are about as smart as a shrimp or maybe a minnow.
Nevermind Survivor is coming on, gotta go. Pass me the potato chips.
0-----------0
Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: September 24, 2004
The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush.
The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians.
A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions."
In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings.
"When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance."
The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters.
An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?"
"Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible."
In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well.
"The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst."
In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal.
The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality.
Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful.
Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible.''
But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech."
Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
"There's no way Congress could institute a draft, either. "
it's probably more of a likely occurance than the banning of the Bible.
"Um. Never actually read the Bible, I see?"
sigh. you missed my point. i did go to catholic school for 9 years, so yes i have read the bible once or 10 times. my point is that taking 'under god' out of the pledge has no relation to banning the bible. the pledge is 50 years old. the bible is a few thousand.
tell me how taking 'under god' out of the pledge, or wherever, affects the bible.
Slashdot Mirror
it's the longest username they would allow :)
What is actually upgraded with 9.2? I've got KDE 3.3x and up to date programs now, so will just Yast and SuSE provided utilities stay where they are for me unless I upgrade?
It's something I have always wondered. Do I not need to worry until they release v10? Or do I not even need to worry then because I can use apt to get the updates they make to Yast et al?
Or will the packages for 9.2/10 be in a different repository than those for 9.1?
sigh, oh well
i'd prefer that my computer have full functionality without an internet connection.
i want one of those. i guess grabbing the phone and smashing it would work too, but i don't like getting beaten up.
-Jiveman #1, Airplane
where i live
well, if it can search the AIM html logs I would assume it could search the ones produced by GAIM et al. right? Same with the browser's cache - that is just .txt files, .jpgs, .gifs, .html, etc...i think the only place you need specific support is with proprietary file formats like .doc and .xls. Really, I wouldn't doubt it can read .xml so wouldn't open office be covered already?
before they would just fire off a letter to the ISP who may or may not capitulate and send them your info
not they have to file a lawsuit against John Doe @ 65.67.883.212, and get the name via a legal process which has oversight and protection for the accused.
hope that helps
i use GTKpod with no issues under linux. why use ogg when you can use AAC?
i own the mailbox, the gov't owns the space inside, if that makes any sense.
but no, i don't care if someone goes through my mail. there isn't much that is interesting in there.
and it's not like the law is going to stop somone who wants to look from looking, i don't have a mailbox-guard dog or anything.
i own my mailbox. i bought it. i dug a hole. i put it in the ground.
No law will stop someone from reading it. It is still transmitted in a format anyone can read. Laws miss the point when it comes to this aspect of privacy. Not that I care if someone reads my email - I know it is not secure when I send it!
that mailbox is my property, and it has a door. it is not the same as an email sitting on server someone else owns.
the Jackson family! the worst offender in this species seems to have an affinity for places where the sun does not shine, especially on prepubescent boys.
i think a 'sticky terminal' may be more apropos
Perhaps they would have been better off keeping the whole thing secret, so no one knows about it, and then have the software log all scans of banknotes into a central database, so the police could keep an eye on who is scanning notes. If forgeries appear in the area, they would know who was to blame......
who says they aren't doing this already?
and when I mean well, I screw up :)
(i'm in the shrimp category)
the ADA - great idea, some great effects...a great hassle for a lot of other people.
why is it so damn hard to just do the 'right' thing for once? the public is stupid enough that you could do the opposite of what they want, put a commercial on TV about how it was a good thing, and they'd forget about it anyway and be happy. we're worse than sheep - as a whole we are about as smart as a shrimp or maybe a minnow.
Nevermind Survivor is coming on, gotta go. Pass me the potato chips.
"called for the vietnam vets for truth, (a public entity unconnected with GOP re-election campeign funding and thus out of 'Bush's command'"
t ion/president/2004-08-25-bush-lawyer_x.htm
except for the fact that their legal advisor worked on Bush's campaign until a few weeks ago, and only left the campaign because of pressure from media exposure.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/na
"You've said that twice now, despite it being an untrue statement"
why is banning the bible more likely than a draft? tell me that.
here is a scan of the mailer:
g n/24bible.html
http://www.steveclemons.com/GOPMailer.htm
article from the NY Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/campai
0-----------0 Republicans Admit Mailing Campaign Literature Saying Liberals Will Ban the Bible By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK Published: September 24, 2004 The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to mobilize religious voters for President Bush. The mailings include images of the Bible labeled "banned" and of a gay marriage proposal labeled "allowed." A mailing to Arkansas residents warns: "This will be Arkansas if you don't vote." A similar mailing was sent to West Virginians. A liberal religious group, the Interfaith Alliance, circulated a copy of the Arkansas mailing to reporters yesterday to publicize it. "What they are doing is despicable,'' said Don Parker, a spokesman for the alliance. "They are playing on people's fears and emotions." In an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, confirmed that the party had sent the mailings. "When the Massachusetts Supreme Court sanctioned same-sex marriage and people in other states realized they could be compelled to recognize those laws, same-sex marriage became an issue,'' Ms. Iverson said. "These same activist judges also want to remove the words 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance." The mailing is the latest evidence of the emphasis Republicans are putting on motivating conservative Christian voters to vote this fall. But as the appeals become public, they also risk alienating moderate and swing voters. An editorial on Sept. 22 in The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, for example, asked, "Holy Moley! Who concocts this gibberish?" "Most Americans see morality more complexly," the editorial said. "Many think a higher morality is found in Christ's command to help the needy, prevent war and pursue other humanitarian goals. Churchgoers of this sort aren't likely to believe childish allegations that Democrats want to ban the Bible." In statement, Senator John Edwards, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, said President Bush "should condemn the practice immediately and tell everyone associated with the campaign to never use tactics like this again." Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, called the mailings an ugly contrast to Mr. Bush's public statements. Although the president has called for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he often emphasizes the need for tolerance as well. "The president takes more or less the high road and his henchman and allies on the right have been let loose to conduct these ugly, divisive smear campaigns," Mr. Foreman said. "It is wedge politics at its worst." In any event, the Bush campaign appears confident about its religious appeal. The mailing seeks to appeal to conservative evangelical Protestant pastors and political leaders who say they worry that legal rights for same-sex couples could lead to hate-crimes laws that could be applied against sermons of Bible passages criticizing homosexuality. Conservative Christian political commentators often cite the case of Ake Green, a minister in Sweden who was jailed in June for a month for a sermon denouncing gays as sinful. Mr. Parker, of the Interfaith Alliance, said, "I think it is laughable to think that someone could be arrested for reading out loud from the Bible.'' But Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, argued, "We have the First Amendment in this country which should protect churches, but there is no question that this is where some people want to go, that reading from the Bible could be hate speech." Still, Mr. Land questioned the assertion that Democrats might ban the whole Bible. "I wouldn't say it," he said. "I would think that is probably stretching it a bit far."
do you really think banning the BIBLE [!] is more likely than a draft? i don't think either is likely, but are you nuts?
"There's no way Congress could institute a draft, either. "
it's probably more of a likely occurance than the banning of the Bible.
"Um. Never actually read the Bible, I see?"
sigh. you missed my point. i did go to catholic school for 9 years, so yes i have read the bible once or 10 times. my point is that taking 'under god' out of the pledge has no relation to banning the bible. the pledge is 50 years old. the bible is a few thousand.
tell me how taking 'under god' out of the pledge, or wherever, affects the bible.