The *nicest* thing about 2.6 that has changed (regarding the build process) is the ability to have the kernel create/proc/config.gz which is a gzip'd copy of the config file used to build the current kernel. No more keeping several copies of.config around! Just "zcat/proc/config.gz > config; make oldconfig" for a new kernel.
PNG, being an indexed-color format, is not the end-all of graphics formats
No, it is not. It *can* do that, but PNG supports full 24-bit color, with 8 bit alpha. And possibly higher color depths if necessay (there's a byte or so in the header for bits-per-color).
At the risk of feeding a troll, I'm replying again...
Quite frankly, I'm tired of having this debate with American's who can't take the time to understand their own history
Nothing like assuming you know more about a complete stranger than you do, eh?
You shouldn't state a position so forcefully if you're not willing to back it up.
Well, lets check out the 'facts' you've used. You've called me names, told me I don't know history, tried to define me as a "theocrat" (to which my friends had a hearty laugh!), insulted me a lot, and even called me un-American!
*blink* IHBT! Damnit...
But that's okay. I'll toss a copy of the Quoran out on the bridge and I'm sure the troll will go away (chanting something about "don't force your religion on me"). HANL.
If you think that simply reading the text of the US Constitution gives you the understanding and context of the authors or the struggles and history that brought them to the conclusions reflected in the text, you're ignorant.
I've read more than the constitution, but it simply doesn't matter. What was in their minds at the time has no bearing on what the laws of this country are.
Wow, you've just managed to restate the arguments made against the religion clause in the First Amendment. Go read some fscking history before you come make an ass of yourself in public.
No need to be an asshole dude. Sounds like the baptists should have been afraid of the holier-than-thou athiests more than anybody else....
You're personal religious persuasion is irrelevant to the debate.
You're the fucking moron who called me a theocrat!
You still haven't made any useful arguments. You seem to think I don't know history (which is a mistake), and you've only proceeded to insult me. Bleh. What does it matter if I try to discuss my point with yoU?
Or, perhaps, I've actually read the constitution. Amendment 1 is the only one that mentions religion, and then it only states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This says *nothing* about putting the 10 commandments on public property, or having a nativity scene in the center of a town (another "hot topic" lately), etc.
It was the Baptists and other religious groups who were considered illegal separatists and who fought for this absolute separation.
What they fought for, was no state ordained religion (ie. the church of England).
Would my taxes be used for the upkeep of these postings on public property? What about the economic value of the space being used by the posting? Do my taxes not pay for this also? If I am an athiest, then how is this legally different from my taxes being used to pay a priest's salary?
Puh-lease... "Wah! My taxes paid for something I don't like! Wah!" Ever see some bad art that your taxes paid for? Think there should be a separation of state and art?
How would you like it if a group of Athiests came along and put up a sign that said "There is no god!" right next to it? Where does your bluring of religion and government stop?
I defend christians so I must be one eh? I'm actually agnostic if you *must* know. Feel free to put up your 'there is no god' sign. Or "Allah be with you" or anything else you like.
What you fail to understand, is that the government supporting religions (note: plural), and the government enforcing religions is very different. Athiesm is the "new religion" as far as I can tell. "You must not show religious symbols because I'm Athiest and it offends me!" How is this different from "You must not put up signs saying there is no God because I'm Catholic and it offends me!"?
This is just a theocrat's argument hidden in a slew of falsehoods and ignorance. It is an advocation for the violation of my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
As stated, I'm agnostic. Hardly a "theocrat." But even assuming this mindless statement is correct, the constitution proveds for freedom *of* religion, not *from* it. You do *not* have the "right" to not see religios icons. In fact, you're much worse at advocating your 'non-religion' than the christians are at advocating their religion.
Show me the *law* that says the 10 commandments must appear on the steps of court-houses and I'll agree with you. Until then, quit yer bitching.
You're just quibbling on the point of separation of church and state not being in the Constitution. While it is true in a technical sense, Article V of the Constitution states that amendments to the Constitution are to be treated as though they were part of the Constitution itself.
Umn. I didn't claim otherwise. That's what I meant by "in the constitution." The bit I quoted "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is part of the first amendment.
Some will cry the "Slippery Slope is a fallacy" argument, however in this case, it isn't.
Ahh, but it is. Do we want to be in the business of making things illegal because somebody believes there is a possibility it could lead to something else? What you're proposing is that not only should congress not pass laws against/for religion, but that it should also be restrained from having *anything at all* to do with individual religions. This would include tax breaks for religious charities, and other services that religions do provide. I'm not sure if we want to go that route. Religion in society plays a very important role, whether you believe it or like it or not. I don't think the government can just ignore that.
If a public religious display has no appearance of authority, why do people feel the need to place them in front governmental locations?
Well, if you're Christian and building a court-house, you may be inspired by your upbringing. In your mind you think of all that exemplifies a court house, law, etc. And you think of the 'original 10 laws' given by your God. Seems pretty natural to me (even as a non-christian).
I aknowledge your 'individual' vs. 'using power of office' differences. But I think what we differ on is whether something as benign as the 10 commandments on a court-house steps is indeed an over-reach of ones power in office. It declares no laws, changes no rules in society, imparts no taxes, and enforces no fines. I can feel free to disagree with them (and I do with several), and receive no punishment. I can kiss my neighbors wife on Sunday while taking the lords name in vain and chanting a pagan prayer on the steps of the court-house!
How I 'feel' or what I 'think' are very different from how I am treated. What if I get that same speeding ticket in Harlem, and on the way to the courthouse I see all black people, and a statue of Malcolm X? I am white. Wouldn't I be called a racist if I demanded that blacks not run courts and that Malcolm X has no place in government?
This issue always comes down to "this makes me feel uncomfortable." Well tough. There is a hell of a lot more than the 10 commandments in this world that will make you feel uncomfortable. The government does not exist to ensure you are comfortable.
What this means is that Government (and it's all of its various branches) can not even appear to prefer one religion over another.
Actually, I thought it was pretty clearly stated that it means congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Appearing to believe in a religion is a far cry from passing laws enforcing it. Would you say that if Joe Liberman were elected that he couldn't wear a yamaka?
FWIW, I consider myself to be agnostic, so the 10 comandments aren't part of my belief system. But they don't give me the impression that my right to practice any religion I want is being oppressed (including the right to not practice *any* religion).
I recommend you have look at The Jefferson Bible Where he specifically eliminates all supernatural events, and considers Jesus a philosopher, not god.
With all due respect to Mr. Jefferson, he was not the only person involved in the creation of this nation. He was an idealist (and a hypocrite, but that's neither here nor there) and a great statesman. But his word is not law.
Is *not* about removing religious symbols from public property
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not "Congress shall tear down religious symbols wherever it may annoy citizens."
Allowing a court house to have the 10 commandments in front of it is hardly passing a law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is called "Freedom of Religion" people. The right to actually have a religion.
You don't work with other people much do you? It's probably for the best.
These things cost money. Migrating apps that use the old DB to the new one, testing, bugs introduced in the migration, etc. If it works most companies will stick with it and not risk spending large amounts of money for no 'gain' (in their mind).
I don't think that's his claim though. President Bush, like so many before him, is taking credit for things that happened while he is president. Whether or not he actually *did* anything to take credit for them is debatable. He's just trying to *not* take blame for the recession we headed into (in all fairness it did begin just before he got into office).
The public has a funny way of thinking the president effects everything (ignoring the 50 senators and 433 reps). Not to mention local state and city/town government.
But here's the rub. To boot from a CD, you need to *burn* the CD you want.
Why can't some people realize that not everyone stays on the cutting edge of tech? Or works in 'perfect' scenarios where everything is always available?
I'd love to see the look on my boss's face if I told her that I need a CD burner at work because I'd likt to burn 1.4Meg onto a CD to quickly test my machines memory. Just because I don't want to use the floppy drive.
anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.
So you agree that this is a good thing? Defending yourself ought be illegal? I said nothing of deterance, nor of making anything safer. Only that it's sick that defending yourself against a mugger with a gun will land you in jail (the hypothetical situation created by the grandparent).
That's not what that sentence says at all. I'll requote it for clarity:
anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.
This says that any man defending his home/person with a handgun is guilty. Apparently the 'British view' as you believe is that everyone should just bend over and let the mugger have their way with you rather than defend yourself.
And to respond to you:
The US' is essentailly that if everyone's armed, then everyone's equal. The UK play it that if no one's armed, everyone's equal.
Guns aren't called the "great equalizer" for nothing. An 85 year old woman unarmed against an unarmed 25 year old thug stands no chance. That same old broad with a 9mm *definitely* stands a chance. Don't tell me they were "equal" without guns.
Slashdot Mirror
The *nicest* thing about 2.6 that has changed (regarding the build process) is the ability to have the kernel create /proc/config.gz which is a gzip'd copy of the config file used to build the current kernel. No more keeping several copies of .config around! Just "zcat /proc/config.gz > config; make oldconfig" for a new kernel.
PNG, being an indexed-color format, is not the end-all of graphics formats
No, it is not. It *can* do that, but PNG supports full 24-bit color, with 8 bit alpha. And possibly higher color depths if necessay (there's a byte or so in the header for bits-per-color).
At the risk of feeding a troll, I'm replying again...
Quite frankly, I'm tired of having this debate with American's who can't take the time to understand their own history
Nothing like assuming you know more about a complete stranger than you do, eh?
You shouldn't state a position so forcefully if you're not willing to back it up.
Well, lets check out the 'facts' you've used. You've called me names, told me I don't know history, tried to define me as a "theocrat" (to which my friends had a hearty laugh!), insulted me a lot, and even called me un-American!
*blink* IHBT! Damnit...
But that's okay. I'll toss a copy of the Quoran out on the bridge and I'm sure the troll will go away (chanting something about "don't force your religion on me"). HANL.
If you think that simply reading the text of the US Constitution gives you the understanding and context of the authors or the struggles and history that brought them to the conclusions reflected in the text, you're ignorant.
I've read more than the constitution, but it simply doesn't matter. What was in their minds at the time has no bearing on what the laws of this country are.
Wow, you've just managed to restate the arguments made against the religion clause in the First Amendment. Go read some fscking history before you come make an ass of yourself in public.
No need to be an asshole dude. Sounds like the baptists should have been afraid of the holier-than-thou athiests more than anybody else....
You're personal religious persuasion is irrelevant to the debate.
You're the fucking moron who called me a theocrat!
You still haven't made any useful arguments. You seem to think I don't know history (which is a mistake), and you've only proceeded to insult me. Bleh. What does it matter if I try to discuss my point with yoU?
You are either insane or ignorant.
Or, perhaps, I've actually read the constitution. Amendment 1 is the only one that mentions religion, and then it only states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This says *nothing* about putting the 10 commandments on public property, or having a nativity scene in the center of a town (another "hot topic" lately), etc.
It was the Baptists and other religious groups who were considered illegal separatists and who fought for this absolute separation.
What they fought for, was no state ordained religion (ie. the church of England).
Would my taxes be used for the upkeep of these postings on public property? What about the economic value of the space being used by the posting? Do my taxes not pay for this also? If I am an athiest, then how is this legally different from my taxes being used to pay a priest's salary?
Puh-lease... "Wah! My taxes paid for something I don't like! Wah!" Ever see some bad art that your taxes paid for? Think there should be a separation of state and art?
How would you like it if a group of Athiests came along and put up a sign that said "There is no god!" right next to it? Where does your bluring of religion and government stop?
I defend christians so I must be one eh? I'm actually agnostic if you *must* know. Feel free to put up your 'there is no god' sign. Or "Allah be with you" or anything else you like.
What you fail to understand, is that the government supporting religions (note: plural), and the government enforcing religions is very different. Athiesm is the "new religion" as far as I can tell. "You must not show religious symbols because I'm Athiest and it offends me!" How is this different from "You must not put up signs saying there is no God because I'm Catholic and it offends me!"?
This is just a theocrat's argument hidden in a slew of falsehoods and ignorance. It is an advocation for the violation of my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
As stated, I'm agnostic. Hardly a "theocrat." But even assuming this mindless statement is correct, the constitution proveds for freedom *of* religion, not *from* it. You do *not* have the "right" to not see religios icons. In fact, you're much worse at advocating your 'non-religion' than the christians are at advocating their religion.
Show me the *law* that says the 10 commandments must appear on the steps of court-houses and I'll agree with you. Until then, quit yer bitching.
Bingo. This is exactly what I meant.
You're just quibbling on the point of separation of church and state not being in the Constitution. While it is true in a technical sense, Article V of the Constitution states that amendments to the Constitution are to be treated as though they were part of the Constitution itself.
Umn. I didn't claim otherwise. That's what I meant by "in the constitution." The bit I quoted "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is part of the first amendment.
Some will cry the "Slippery Slope is a fallacy" argument, however in this case, it isn't.
Ahh, but it is. Do we want to be in the business of making things illegal because somebody believes there is a possibility it could lead to something else? What you're proposing is that not only should congress not pass laws against/for religion, but that it should also be restrained from having *anything at all* to do with individual religions. This would include tax breaks for religious charities, and other services that religions do provide. I'm not sure if we want to go that route. Religion in society plays a very important role, whether you believe it or like it or not. I don't think the government can just ignore that.
If a public religious display has no appearance of authority, why do people feel the need to place them in front governmental locations?
Well, if you're Christian and building a court-house, you may be inspired by your upbringing. In your mind you think of all that exemplifies a court house, law, etc. And you think of the 'original 10 laws' given by your God. Seems pretty natural to me (even as a non-christian).
I aknowledge your 'individual' vs. 'using power of office' differences. But I think what we differ on is whether something as benign as the 10 commandments on a court-house steps is indeed an over-reach of ones power in office. It declares no laws, changes no rules in society, imparts no taxes, and enforces no fines. I can feel free to disagree with them (and I do with several), and receive no punishment. I can kiss my neighbors wife on Sunday while taking the lords name in vain and chanting a pagan prayer on the steps of the court-house!
How I 'feel' or what I 'think' are very different from how I am treated. What if I get that same speeding ticket in Harlem, and on the way to the courthouse I see all black people, and a statue of Malcolm X? I am white. Wouldn't I be called a racist if I demanded that blacks not run courts and that Malcolm X has no place in government?
This issue always comes down to "this makes me feel uncomfortable." Well tough. There is a hell of a lot more than the 10 commandments in this world that will make you feel uncomfortable. The government does not exist to ensure you are comfortable.
What this means is that Government (and it's all of its various branches) can not even appear to prefer one religion over another.
Actually, I thought it was pretty clearly stated that it means congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Appearing to believe in a religion is a far cry from passing laws enforcing it. Would you say that if Joe Liberman were elected that he couldn't wear a yamaka?
FWIW, I consider myself to be agnostic, so the 10 comandments aren't part of my belief system. But they don't give me the impression that my right to practice any religion I want is being oppressed (including the right to not practice *any* religion).
I recommend you have look at The Jefferson Bible Where he specifically eliminates all supernatural events, and considers Jesus a philosopher, not god.
With all due respect to Mr. Jefferson, he was not the only person involved in the creation of this nation. He was an idealist (and a hypocrite, but that's neither here nor there) and a great statesman. But his word is not law.
Crap...
s/their/they're/g
Separation of church and state:
- Is not in the constitution (as most people think)
- Does not mean nobody can have religion
- Even if their in public office
- Is *not* about removing religious symbols from public property
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not "Congress shall tear down religious symbols wherever it may annoy citizens."Allowing a court house to have the 10 commandments in front of it is hardly passing a law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is called "Freedom of Religion" people. The right to actually have a religion.
*rofl*
Well you've convinced me! It's obvious that your sampling of friends and coworkers is much more accurate than an industry wide study!
Remind me to come asking you when I should change careers, or buy a new house. I'd be interested in how your friends and coworkers are doing then.
You'll save even more money when the bride doesn't show up!
You don't work with other people much do you? It's probably for the best.
These things cost money. Migrating apps that use the old DB to the new one, testing, bugs introduced in the migration, etc. If it works most companies will stick with it and not risk spending large amounts of money for no 'gain' (in their mind).
I'm guessing the CPU doesn't mind so much as the hard drives. Moving parts may not like being that cold...
I don't think that's his claim though. President Bush, like so many before him, is taking credit for things that happened while he is president. Whether or not he actually *did* anything to take credit for them is debatable. He's just trying to *not* take blame for the recession we headed into (in all fairness it did begin just before he got into office).
The public has a funny way of thinking the president effects everything (ignoring the 50 senators and 433 reps). Not to mention local state and city/town government.
I'm curious. Exactly *how* do you expect the president to get jobs back?
I'd use my words, but I doubt you'd believe them. Here's somebody else's.
Wondering what good can come of this... I'm sure somebody has objections to this as well, and of course I'm probably just a right-wing Nazi...
You can? Wow! That's great! You're going to convince my boss to buy a CDRW? I've only got a ROM now. HOW THE FSCKING HELL DO I BURN WITH THAT?
But here's the rub. To boot from a CD, you need to *burn* the CD you want.
Why can't some people realize that not everyone stays on the cutting edge of tech? Or works in 'perfect' scenarios where everything is always available?
I'd love to see the look on my boss's face if I told her that I need a CD burner at work because I'd likt to burn 1.4Meg onto a CD to quickly test my machines memory. Just because I don't want to use the floppy drive.
anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.
So you agree that this is a good thing? Defending yourself ought be illegal? I said nothing of deterance, nor of making anything safer. Only that it's sick that defending yourself against a mugger with a gun will land you in jail (the hypothetical situation created by the grandparent).
That's not what that sentence says at all. I'll requote it for clarity:
anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.
This says that any man defending his home/person with a handgun is guilty. Apparently the 'British view' as you believe is that everyone should just bend over and let the mugger have their way with you rather than defend yourself.
And to respond to you:
The US' is essentailly that if everyone's armed, then everyone's equal. The UK play it that if no one's armed, everyone's equal.
Guns aren't called the "great equalizer" for nothing. An 85 year old woman unarmed against an unarmed 25 year old thug stands no chance. That same old broad with a 9mm *definitely* stands a chance. Don't tell me they were "equal" without guns.
anybody waving a legally-held handgun at a mugger would find themselves locked up pretty quickly.
Now that is sick.