Re:checkpointing and restoring TCP connections
on
Linux 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
saving the entire state of a process to storage such that it can start up again where it left off and not know the difference.
But what is the point to save and restore a TCP state? While local endpoint sleeps, the remote endpoint does not receive any reply. After a while it will reset the connexion, and the local endpoint will not even know. Or is it just for connexions to localhost?
[US can restrict your freedom of speech when it serves you a national security letter] was ruled unconstitutional. You gotta keep up with the times, our courts don't let the government do that kind of crap.
Why shouldn't one be allowed to choose what they do to their body?
Many countries forbid you from selling your organs. I hope you understand that economical situation could force some people to do so in order to survive
I think I get it: they means the cookie are disabled server side (i.e.: the server does not send them), this has nothing to do with the client accepting cookies or not.
It displays a warning at the bottom of the page telling site experience is better with cookies enabled. There are two buttons to allow for this site or allow for all, both linking to "#" without javascript onclick. Probably harmless, but weird.
Be careful that your source of information may also be biased.
Of course they are. In my opinion, no source is 100% objective, you always get the facts narrated with the subjectivity of the writer. Even if one tries hard to be unbiased, the choice of words can change your point of view on a story.
Good source are aware they are biaised, and do not try to hide it to the reader. Le Monde Diplomatique claims to be left-wing. Once you know that, you can balance the information you get from them with other sources (which are usually infiltrated by neoliberal ideology without telling it)
My experience with Drupal is that it is fast and easy to setup a web 2.0 site with all the community stuff. However things are getting much more troublesome when one want to customize things. And once you have it done, you fear to upgrade to new versions because it may break everything. Your mileage may vary, and perhaps I did not have a look to the right documentation, but this is how it went for me.
I have a few unusual news sources that tend to complete or contradict the stories given by main stream medias: the two most important are le Monde Diplomatique, which now even have an english edition. arretsurimages.net, which is only in french.
It is worth pointing that I pay for that information. None of these two sources are free for the reader and paid by advertising. I am convinced this is a key point for an independent point of view.
One one hand, this is credible. China has shown an extraordinary appetite for industrial espionage. On the other hand, the story seems to come from the same source that descredited itself lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify Irak invasion.
Why do you think Reporters Without Borders is wrong? Do you have a reason? They seem like a fine organization to me.
There have been a few of papers and books explaining how Reporters Without Border was founded by the USAID, and how it was always zealous at reporting problems in countries the USA has issues with, while being silent for USA allies and USA itself. Some authors even have argued that Reporters Without Border even spread plain lies about Venezuela. You can google +RSF +USAID +Venezuela to get a few references.
That does not make Reporter Without Borders an irrelevant source, but it makes it a suspicious one. We need more
The primary requirement of free speech in a democracy is the ability to criticize the government freely.
I agree that function is essential. But how do you address the case of propaganda? One point of view may bust all the other ones because the group that express it can saturate people's brains with it through their control of key medias.
You gotta keep up with the times, our courts don't let the government do that kind of crap.
You get a point. For now this is a draw game:-)
Go find out how many TV stations the Venezuelan government either owns directly, or gives funding to. Then look how owners and reporters of the other stations are harassed, if they don't lose their broadcasting license altogether.
Why don't you go find facts? I am convinced there is propaganda about lack of freedom of speech in Venezuela. If I listen to the rumor, I should think that Chavez suppressed opposition. But the truth is that political opposition is quite vocal in Venezuela.
Come on, this is not something France would put up with in any way. Did not the Frenchman, Voltaire, defend so eloquently freedom of speech?
Sure, freedom of speech is important. But I think the right to a fair information trumps it. IMO, freedom of speech should be restricted for lies and hate speech. Nobody should be allowed to write in a newspaper that his someone is a pedophile while it is not true, for instance.
The point was about freedom of speech. If you can see how the actions of the government in Venezuela are limiting freedom of speech, then I'm sorry, you are blinded by your preconceptions.
Many states restrict freedom of speech for various reasons. For instance, the US can restrict your freedom of speech when it serves you a national security letter. Some other countries will restrict one ability to spread lies or hateful speech. And some others will suppress political opposition.
I am not sure where Venezuela fits. It does not seems to be a freedom of speech heaven, but I am not sure either this is a place where political opposition is suppressed. And I am convinced that there is a lot of propaganda to push this later idea. For instance, you just repeated (probably with good faiith) a lie about TV nationalization. Please don't call be blinded because I noted your made a false statement.
Don't confuse the EU Parliament with the EU Commission; the former are elected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of their constituents, the latter are unelected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of anyone who pays for lunch.
And the unelected commission is the only one that can propose a law. The elected parliament cannot.
No, Venezuela fails democratically because they don't have freedom of speech.(...) Chavez has been nationalizing one TV station after another.
Are you sure this is not propaganda? What TV stations Chavez has nationalized?
I think you are referring to RCTV, who supported the coup against Chavez in 2002, and who was denied airwave license renewal in 2007 for that reason. They have not been nationalized and still broadcast on the satellite. Venezuela governement was incredibly nice here. I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.
there is no perfect democracy system (...) The way I deal with this particular problem, is by not voting for a party, but rather the person I think will be best for the job.
This is not very applicable in France, where most members or parliament just follow their party directives. I suspect a majority of them do not even read the laws they vote for. This situation is a consequence of how they are elected. As I explained, it is very difficult for smaller parties to have seats, therefore member of parliament from bigger parties (PS and UMP) are not really challenged.
Remember there are two important things for a democracy: freedom of speech, and the capability to remove an unpopular government without bloodshed.
The problem is that we have to wait five years to remove a government, and we can only hope to choose between two parties. What we miss here the referendum d'initiative populaire, like in Switzerland or Venezuela. The Venezuela flavor is quite nice, since it allows revoking any elected politician by referendum. Chavez already faced two such referendums. That looks like real politicians oversight by the people, IMO.
Perhaps it is just that entertainment industry have an agenda to promote anti-negligence laws worldwide, and they missed the point that they do not have it (yet) in the US
The country is divided in 577 circonscriptions, each one of them having about the same amount of voters (with some spread, but no circonscription can have more than twice the voters of another one). This division has nothing to do this other administrative divisions: circonscription boundaries can spread among cities, or cut cities in half. There are even circonscriptions for french voters abroad.
In each circonscription occurs a local struggle between candidates to a national role, which is a bit odd. There are two polls. On first poll, anyone that scores less than 12.5% of voters is eliminated. On second poll, the biggest score wins. Usually there are two opponents on the second poll, but there can be 3, 4, or even only one, if one candidate was alone above 12,5%
The house is there for 5 years, except if the president decides to dissolve it (another oddity).
The big problem with this system is that a party may have a high score nation wide, but have no seats at all because it was locally beaten everywhere
Except in this case, unless I'm missing something (is the Syrian government considered better or worse than the activists?), it's the other way around.
Yes, if we talk about self defense, there should be a balance between attacker and defender. If you shoot an unharmed attacker in the back, it is difficult to call that self defense.
lol I hate to break it to you, your vote is worth almost nothing. 1/60millionth, to be exact,
This is not just about my vote. The Front de Gauche scored 6,91% nation-wide and got 1.38% of the seats. The Front National scored 13.60% nation-wide and got 0.34% of the seats.
On the contrary, Europe Ecologie les Verts sold their soul to the Parti Socialiste, and that trick got them 2.25% of the seats for just 5.46% of the votes.
Democracy doesn't guarantee you a good government, it gives you the government you deserve.
But we will not call USA a democracy, right? A democrat living in a state with a majority of republicans (and vice versa) does not have his vote taken into account for presidential and senate polls. If you are neither democrat nor republican, your vote is almost always worth nothing.
Note that this is not a USA specific problem. In last french parliamentary elections, 38% of the citizen elected 94% of the lower house.
As a non american, I am vaguely aware of US presidential candidates proposals. I here discover the idea to close the Federal Reserve.
Does he propose to create an alternative body for creating dollars? Or does he considers that only private banks should be able to create money? In the later case, what is his plan to save the economy once they will have bursted the next bubble?
Not only is there no evidence that these meters are harmful, but the effect of radio frequency exposure upon living tissue (approximatly none) is well-studied and understood.
True for the high frequency carrier, but what about the low frequency modulated signal?
Slashdot Mirror
saving the entire state of a process to storage such that it can start up again where it left off and not know the difference.
But what is the point to save and restore a TCP state? While local endpoint sleeps, the remote endpoint does not receive any reply. After a while it will reset the connexion, and the local endpoint will not even know. Or is it just for connexions to localhost?
Would Cyprus arrest creators of Stuxnet, on request from Iran, if those people would show up in Cyprus?
They cannot, as the head of Stuxnet gang enjoys diplomatic immunity when traveling abroad.
Anyone knowledgeable can tell me what is "checkpointing and restoring TCP connections"?
[US can restrict your freedom of speech when it serves you a national security letter] was ruled unconstitutional. You gotta keep up with the times, our courts don't let the government do that kind of crap.
It seems you are not completely done with that kind of crap.
Why shouldn't one be allowed to choose what they do to their body?
Many countries forbid you from selling your organs. I hope you understand that economical situation could force some people to do so in order to survive
I think I get it: they means the cookie are disabled server side (i.e.: the server does not send them), this has nothing to do with the client accepting cookies or not.
There is something wierd in linked site: http://paritynews.com/software/item/66-ios-6-beta-3-jailbroken-already
It displays a warning at the bottom of the page telling site experience is better with cookies enabled. There are two buttons to allow for this site or allow for all, both linking to "#" without javascript onclick. Probably harmless, but weird.
Be careful that your source of information may also be biased.
Of course they are. In my opinion, no source is 100% objective, you always get the facts narrated with the subjectivity of the writer. Even if one tries hard to be unbiased, the choice of words can change your point of view on a story.
Good source are aware they are biaised, and do not try to hide it to the reader. Le Monde Diplomatique claims to be left-wing. Once you know that, you can balance the information you get from them with other sources (which are usually infiltrated by neoliberal ideology without telling it)
My experience with Drupal is that it is fast and easy to setup a web 2.0 site with all the community stuff. However things are getting much more troublesome when one want to customize things. And once you have it done, you fear to upgrade to new versions because it may break everything. Your mileage may vary, and perhaps I did not have a look to the right documentation, but this is how it went for me.
I am now a happy SPIP user.
I have a few unusual news sources that tend to complete or contradict the stories given by main stream medias: the two most important are le Monde Diplomatique, which now even have an english edition. arretsurimages.net, which is only in french.
It is worth pointing that I pay for that information. None of these two sources are free for the reader and paid by advertising. I am convinced this is a key point for an independent point of view.
One one hand, this is credible. China has shown an extraordinary appetite for industrial espionage. On the other hand, the story seems to come from the same source that descredited itself lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify Irak invasion.
Why do you think Reporters Without Borders is wrong? Do you have a reason? They seem like a fine organization to me.
There have been a few of papers and books explaining how Reporters Without Border was founded by the USAID, and how it was always zealous at reporting problems in countries the USA has issues with, while being silent for USA allies and USA itself. Some authors even have argued that Reporters Without Border even spread plain lies about Venezuela. You can google +RSF +USAID +Venezuela to get a few references.
That does not make Reporter Without Borders an irrelevant source, but it makes it a suspicious one. We need more
The primary requirement of free speech in a democracy is the ability to criticize the government freely.
I agree that function is essential. But how do you address the case of propaganda? One point of view may bust all the other ones because the group that express it can saturate people's brains with it through their control of key medias.
You gotta keep up with the times, our courts don't let the government do that kind of crap.
You get a point. For now this is a draw game :-)
Go find out how many TV stations the Venezuelan government either owns directly, or gives funding to. Then look how owners and reporters of the other stations are harassed, if they don't lose their broadcasting license altogether.
Why don't you go find facts? I am convinced there is propaganda about lack of freedom of speech in Venezuela. If I listen to the rumor, I should think that Chavez suppressed opposition. But the truth is that political opposition is quite vocal in Venezuela.
Come on, this is not something France would put up with in any way. Did not the Frenchman, Voltaire, defend so eloquently freedom of speech?
Sure, freedom of speech is important. But I think the right to a fair information trumps it. IMO, freedom of speech should be restricted for lies and hate speech. Nobody should be allowed to write in a newspaper that his someone is a pedophile while it is not true, for instance.
The point was about freedom of speech. If you can see how the actions of the government in Venezuela are limiting freedom of speech, then I'm sorry, you are blinded by your preconceptions.
Many states restrict freedom of speech for various reasons. For instance, the US can restrict your freedom of speech when it serves you a national security letter. Some other countries will restrict one ability to spread lies or hateful speech. And some others will suppress political opposition.
I am not sure where Venezuela fits. It does not seems to be a freedom of speech heaven, but I am not sure either this is a place where political opposition is suppressed. And I am convinced that there is a lot of propaganda to push this later idea. For instance, you just repeated (probably with good faiith) a lie about TV nationalization. Please don't call be blinded because I noted your made a false statement.
Don't confuse the EU Parliament with the EU Commission; the former are elected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of their constituents, the latter are unelected and do a pretty decent job of being representative of anyone who pays for lunch.
And the unelected commission is the only one that can propose a law. The elected parliament cannot.
Reporters without borders has a good summary in English.
And where does it tells about nationalizing TV stations one after another?
I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.
Why would you think that?
I am not sure freedom of speech can really trump national security in the US nowadays. But I agree this is just my own feeling
No, Venezuela fails democratically because they don't have freedom of speech.(...) Chavez has been nationalizing one TV station after another.
Are you sure this is not propaganda? What TV stations Chavez has nationalized?
I think you are referring to RCTV, who supported the coup against Chavez in 2002, and who was denied airwave license renewal in 2007 for that reason. They have not been nationalized and still broadcast on the satellite. Venezuela governement was incredibly nice here. I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.
there is no perfect democracy system (...) The way I deal with this particular problem, is by not voting for a party, but rather the person I think will be best for the job.
This is not very applicable in France, where most members or parliament just follow their party directives. I suspect a majority of them do not even read the laws they vote for. This situation is a consequence of how they are elected. As I explained, it is very difficult for smaller parties to have seats, therefore member of parliament from bigger parties (PS and UMP) are not really challenged.
Remember there are two important things for a democracy: freedom of speech, and the capability to remove an unpopular government without bloodshed.
The problem is that we have to wait five years to remove a government, and we can only hope to choose between two parties. What we miss here the referendum d'initiative populaire, like in Switzerland or Venezuela. The Venezuela flavor is quite nice, since it allows revoking any elected politician by referendum. Chavez already faced two such referendums. That looks like real politicians oversight by the people, IMO.
Perhaps it is just that entertainment industry have an agenda to promote anti-negligence laws worldwide, and they missed the point that they do not have it (yet) in the US
Here is how french upper house is elected
The country is divided in 577 circonscriptions, each one of them having about the same amount of voters (with some spread, but no circonscription can have more than twice the voters of another one). This division has nothing to do this other administrative divisions: circonscription boundaries can spread among cities, or cut cities in half. There are even circonscriptions for french voters abroad.
In each circonscription occurs a local struggle between candidates to a national role, which is a bit odd. There are two polls. On first poll, anyone that scores less than 12.5% of voters is eliminated. On second poll, the biggest score wins. Usually there are two opponents on the second poll, but there can be 3, 4, or even only one, if one candidate was alone above 12,5%
The house is there for 5 years, except if the president decides to dissolve it (another oddity).
The big problem with this system is that a party may have a high score nation wide, but have no seats at all because it was locally beaten everywhere
Except in this case, unless I'm missing something (is the Syrian government considered better or worse than the activists?), it's the other way around.
Yes, if we talk about self defense, there should be a balance between attacker and defender. If you shoot an unharmed attacker in the back, it is difficult to call that self defense.
lol I hate to break it to you, your vote is worth almost nothing. 1/60millionth, to be exact,
This is not just about my vote. The Front de Gauche scored 6,91% nation-wide and got 1.38% of the seats. The Front National scored 13.60% nation-wide and got 0.34% of the seats.
On the contrary, Europe Ecologie les Verts sold their soul to the Parti Socialiste, and that trick got them 2.25% of the seats for just 5.46% of the votes.
Democracy doesn't guarantee you a good government, it gives you the government you deserve.
But we will not call USA a democracy, right? A democrat living in a state with a majority of republicans (and vice versa) does not have his vote taken into account for presidential and senate polls. If you are neither democrat nor republican, your vote is almost always worth nothing.
Note that this is not a USA specific problem. In last french parliamentary elections, 38% of the citizen elected 94% of the lower house.
As a non american, I am vaguely aware of US presidential candidates proposals. I here discover the idea to close the Federal Reserve.
Does he propose to create an alternative body for creating dollars? Or does he considers that only private banks should be able to create money? In the later case, what is his plan to save the economy once they will have bursted the next bubble?
Not only is there no evidence that these meters are harmful, but the effect of radio frequency exposure upon living tissue (approximatly none) is well-studied and understood.
True for the high frequency carrier, but what about the low frequency modulated signal?