Problem with Debian-multimedia.org
I have a sarge machine that I have set up to rip CDs wtih the packages from the Debian multimedia archive. When I run apt-get update, I get the following: apt-get update Hit http://mirrors.kernel.org sarge/main Packages Hit http://mirrors.kernel.org sarge/main Release Hit http://mirrors.kernel.org sarge/main Sources Hit http://mirrors.kernel.org sarge/main Release Hit http://security.debian.org sarge/updates/main Packages Hit http://security.debian.org sarge/updates/main Release Err http://www.debian-multimedia.org sarge/main Packages 404 Not Found Ign http://www.debian-multimedia.org sarge/main Release Failed to fetch http://www.debian-multimedia.org/dists/sarge/main/binary-i386/Packages.gz 404 Not Found Reading Package Lists... Done E: Some index files failed to download, they have been ignored, or old ones used instead. Is there a problem with debian-multimedia.org? Do I need to change my apt-sources list because of etch going stable? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Fwd: Re: Sarge packages have disappeared
--- Raquel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 22:21:12 +0200 Nigel Henry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a bit sad. Christian has trashed all the available multimedia packages for Sarge since Etch has gone stable. Christian, Since Sarge will be supported by debian until it is moved to archive status (probably in about a year), do you think you could put the sarge packages back? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
--- Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:55:57 -0700, zfh wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: ..are you referring to the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11??? On Let's roll! these civilians _became_ lawful combattants under Arnticle 4A(6) in the 3'rd Convention: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/365-570017?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007? With the statements above you clearly demonstrate your irrational sympathy with terrorists. Every legal system recognizes the right of the individual to defend against mortal threat. The terrorist boarded flight 93 with the intent of committing mass murder. The passengers were in the wrong place at the wrong time and decided to attempt to defend their lives. They ended up dying, but saving he lives of unknown others in the processs. Do not soil their act by equating them with the terrorists. The United states ignored international terrorist for twenty years including all of the Clinton Administration. This failure to engage a clear enemy bent on killing americans, and enemy bent on escalating their acts of terror, brought us to September 11, 2001. The way to prevent history from repeating itself is to engage and defeat this enemy. The terorist are illegal combatants under article 4 and tribunals and Gitmo are the all justice they deserve. War is a dirty business, expecially a war like this. Many innocents have died and many more will die. If the tribunals do their job, the guilty will be puinshed beffiting their crimes. You need to think about what type of world might come into being if surrender to the terrorists become a reality. With that, I sign off from this thread and commit it to the spam filter. ZFH -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
--- Arnt Karlsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't resist this one. Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants that wear no uniforms and ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11? commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may be ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot after having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the murderer, and in an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur and the spy. The latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to earn a verdict, but can still be held as POW for the duration of the war without committing any war crimes, read especially the commentary to Article 46 for background: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument leagaly shot on sight. ..this applies only to mercenaries, who first needs to be identified as such under Article 47: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750057?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750057?OpenDocument During the cold war, the understanding developed that everyone has spies and that if you don't kill mine I won't kill yours. ..true, and irrelevant, as the high contracting powers instead agreed to go after mercenaries. Are you old enough to remember that famous antiwar photo from the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier shooting a captured vietcong agent in the head? Under the geneva convention, that was legal. ..citation? ;o) Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or freedoms. We need to follow the rules because we are who we are and need to stay that way if free nations are to survive. Though there have been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily outside the rules when dealing with an organized terrorist threat. ..really? ;o) They are. On one line: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906? opendocument ..a good starting point for further reading: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief? OpenDocument -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. Its too bad that you never read the documents you site. Look at the document on treatment of prisoners of war. The terrorists you seem in sympathy with (see the first line you wrote in the previous response) make not atempt to qualify under aritcle 4. Under the terms of the convention it doesn't apply to them. In the present circumstances, the US is being extremely civil with the terrorist, better treatment than americans and British get around the world even though our armed forces do quaify under article 4 and our civilians are clearly civilians. Where do kidnapings, hostage taking, and beheading figure into the conventions? International terrorism is not solvable in the short term, but granting legal protections to to terrorist that under existing teaty don't deserve them is the worst possible strategy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 04:20:04PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since some of the al-Qaeda and taliban prisoner's were in fact denied their GC protections, by being tortured, mistreated, etc., it's pretty obvious that the QCs don't apply provision was the operational part of this order, and not taken out of context quite badly. It's more reasonable to conclude that the other language was included as whitewash. Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't resist this one. Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants that wear no uniforms and commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may be leagaly shot on sight. During the cold war, the understanding developed that everyone has spies and that if you don't kill mine I won't kill yours. Are you old enough to remember that famous antiwar photo from the Tet offensive in Vietnam of an ARVN soldier shooting a captured vietcong agent in the head? Under the geneva convention, that was legal. Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or freedoms. We need to follow the rules because we are who we are and need to stay that way if free nations are to survive. Though there have been some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily outside the rules when dealing with an organized terrorist threat. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Woohooo! Dell + Linux
--- Johannes Wiedersich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 10:43:30PM -0400, Jim Hyslop wrote: If I had immediately followed with some outrageous claim that Windows is better and has fewer security holes because insert some stupid reason, *THEN* you could accuse me of spreading FUD. Windows *is* better, since Microsoft reports much fewer bugs than any Linux distribution :-) Windows *is* better, since it has more users than any other OS, and those simply can't be wrong. The same applies to M$ office. Practically none of its users ever think of *why* this or that would be better or worse than any of the alternatives. Just my .02 Johannes -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you consider the cost of purchasing Windows and Office, as well as the hardware to run these products in a usefull manner and updates, it should be better. But considering the number of unpatched vulnerabilities in windows, the ease with which new malware effect, and the multinational businesses that have come into being securing windows from malware, is it really better and worth the cost? The cost of almost every component of the PC has been going down, except for windows which now (for the common business PC at least) is nearly the most expensive component. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
