So essentially the answer to the complexity of SELinux is to simply add rules to ignore whatever it complains about? Great:). FWIW, I think for 99% of users standard Unix DAC is just about right on the security/convenience tradeoff curve, and there is/far/ more to be gained from programmatic defenses against errors in code (as OpenBSD, Fedora, RHEL have done) without a loss in convenience.
BTW, the unlabeled cases - you really want to go label the files concerned instead. The cifs_t case is simply a fundamental weakness of SELinux (AIUI), to solve that you'd have to go add a cifs_and_http_t type (which seems about the same security as Unix groups, for a/whole/ lot more complexity).
This is the same excuse communist gov't give for taking away possessions.
Rubbish.
"Intellectual Property" is not a possesion. Indeed only the *existence* of a government (or at least, a cohesive civil society) is what allows you to think that you have some rights on your ideas that are vaguely akin to property rights. Without a government/civil society you simply would *not have* any way to control what is done with your ideas (other than being very strict about how you divulge them).
Why are physical objects different than intellectual ones?
Because they are not objects. Why do you think they *are* the same? Can you hold an idea? Can you forcibly take an idea from me and prevent me "having it"? No you can't, cause an idea simply is just that, an idea - ephemereal and without substance.
It used to be with music and other media that at least, even if the idea was ephemereal that it still required substantial fixed substances, time and human labout and expertise to reproduce. But that has changed too, such that music, software, literature and other forms of expressive works are now as ephemereal and easy to reproduce and share as all other ideas.
Like it or not, this simply changes a lot of things:).
You are no more communist than I am and I can guarentee this.
I'm definitely not a communist.
I sir am not going to give away my rights wholesale just because you want me to live in poverty whilst you want to do meanial labour
I'm not asking you to give your rights away, I'm just pointing out where you got those rights from.
(and most code jobs are just that...I'm glad I'm management and design apps and have keyboard jockies that code them for me) and get paid big bucks because its hard work actually having to use your body as opposed to someone like me that works smarter as opposed to harder.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. However, I did *not* say anything about what kind of job I want you to do. However, times change and so do the jobs people do. Does technology sometimes wipe out whole classes of jobs and industries? Sure. Should we have stopped the printing press because it put skilled scribes out of work? eg, look at the likes of the Book of Kells and all the other hand-copied and beautifully enscribed bibles from back them - compare it to a printed bible even, and the painstaking hand-copied version is far better and wrote on materials which will last far far longer (vellum). Yet we have no scribes anymore today, they were wiped out. However, we have *far* more books today. Same thing for the weaving industry - find me a crofter today.
if i get an extortion letter form the RIAA for $36,000 because i downloaded Kelly Clarkson, can i play stupid in court and win?
You can play what you want in court and win because, despite all the bluster from the "Official Representatives of the Poor and Starving Artists" associations, downloading is not illegal (making downloaded songs available to others would be).
If I understand you, you don't believe that a creator should have any say in how his work is redistributed.
He didn't say that, he pointed out that creators' having such a say is a *privilege* granted unto them by society. It is not a right intrinsic to the 'property' concerned.
You can't steal an idea, it's just a fundamental fact with respect to ideas. That creators' have *some* recourse against the most egregious redistributors of "their" idea is only possible because of a construction of civil law, further it can not prevent such distribution.
You have no rights beyond owning a specific item that I gave you.
You completely *missed* his point that the author only has the ability to have "rights" because society grants those rights (typically in order to encourage authors to create works and share them with society).
There is no intrinsic right to an idea, the posession of which does not affect the ability for others to posses it.
What the hell does that mean? You want more?! No bombs by anyone will do me fine.
You're the one who started off about Irish bombs in the UK, Irish American funding of those bombers. Sadly without any perspective on *why* these bombers came about, or why so many Irish-Americans felt the need to support them. That lack of perspective on the NI problem though is typical of those living in mainland UK... (And as I explained in another post, the general "we don't care about NI as long as it doesn't bother us" attitude is what led/directly/ to the modern NI problems).
it's 4 years since the last IRA bomb in the UK
Sorry no, last *IRA* bombs were in 1996. The cease fire has its tenth anniversary in 2007. Your Sept 11th theory holds no water at all. It made it impossible to go back to terrorism, but you'll have a hard time rewriting the timelines in all the history books out there that show the peace process well underway during the 90s, and with several *years* of an IRA cease-fire in place by Septh 11th.
All you were concerned with originally was mainland UK, London specifically. I don't remember trying to make any kind of point that bulk of casualties were not paramilitary inflicted, or that of those casualties, the IRA were responsible for most. Simply wishing to point out that your restricted viewpoint of IRA inflicted casualties on mainland UK was rather narrow by highlighting fact that the British state killed far more in NI. No more, no less.
From memory I'd say you're probably right, the IRA killed about 150 people on the mainland.
That sounds slightly high. Looking at this table plus this page to find bombs which killed fewer than 5, I make it to be 83 deaths, 5 of which were civilians killed in the Brighton bomb, for which the IRA at least would make no apologies for (please do remember, *I* don't agree with any of this). BTW, that means deaths in mainland UK due to IRA are in the same order of magnitude as deaths in southern Ireland due to loyalist bombs (26 killed in Dublin).
This pales against the 3000 odd killed in total in NI though.
Indeed.
No, the GFA was dead in the water by Sept 01
Strange, it's still the framework under which the peace process up north is operating. The Democratic Unionists aren't happy with it and would love to change it, but that simply isn't on the table.
Sinn Fein/IRA had no reason to keep to it as they were still well funded, if not well supported.
They are both well-funded and well-supported. Sinn Fein appears to be capable of significantly out-spending other political parties, despite their officially declared spending being quite small, apparently (according to a recent programme on Channel 4 - "Dispatches" this week). SDLP in the north have shriveled to almost nothing in the last few years, their support apparently cannibalised by Sinn Fein.
The last bomb in the UK attributed to the IRA exploded in Ealing Broadway in London on the 3rd August 2001. Coincidence?
That wasn't the IRA. The last IRA bombing in England was the Manchester shopping centre bomb in 1996 (same year as the docklands bomb in London).
Unfortunately, 98% of the Republic doesn't want it back either.
If you think that that referendum meant the Republic voted to not take back the North then you've completely misunderstood the Good Friday Agreement. The republic renounced its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland in return for all parties involved recognising the right for Northern Ireland to determine it's own future (something the Unionists were not terribly keen on as it opens the possibility that NI one day would self-determine that it should cede from the British Union).
If the problem is that the foreign government is oppressive in some way, what guarantee do the remaining people of the other culture have that your own government won't be just as biased against them?
If the partitioning of Ireland ended tomorrow, and the 6 counties of "Northern Ireland" became part of the Republic, and we held elections across a united Ireland, the result would be that the Unionists would probably take somewhere between 15 to 21% of the vote.
In other words, they'd be one of the major blocks. They likely even at some stage would help form a government given we have proportional representation and nearly all governments formed here are coalitions. So the guarantee against bias would be that the unionists'd form a sizeable chunk of our Dail (parliament), indeed they might even be *in* the government.
Note btw that down south religion isn't an issue at all. Irish republicanism has never been about religion, many of its foremost leaders and proponents have been protestant, indeed it was originally a protestant Irish cause. (And my view of the holy roman papal church probably isn't that far removed from Ian Paisley's;) ).
Yes, and Irish Americans were happily funding a terrorist organisation in a western democracy all the way through its most active phase in the late 20th century.
I don't support or condone terrorism, but you really do have to look at the context in which terrorism in NI. While not a legitimate way to deal with grievances, or further your cause, grievances and injustices are what led to that terrorism. And, the modern problems of Northern Ireland aside, Irish and those of Irish descent have a *long* list of reasons to believe that Irish interests would best be served by getting the British Crown *out* of this island (from Cromwell through to the Black and Tans after WWI).
I can't see a breakdown for the mainland, but I don't think that killing people in NI is any more acceptable than on the mainland.
Conversely, neither is killing people in NI more acceptable.
You vented about people in London being killed by those horrible Irish terrorists, I'm pointing out the British Army (I didn't even include UDR or RUC btw - they weren't exactly unbiased or representative of the UK as whole) killed far more *civilians* in NI than the IRA ever killed in England. And yes of course, paramilitaries killed even more again in NI.
If you try argue that deaths of innocents at hands of British Army are sort of inevitable due to the disturbed situation which existed in NI (indeed, "war"?), then you're making the same kind of collateral damage value judgements as the IRA did.
As for "giving it back" - that's a fairly silly term to use in this context. It wasn't exactly taken from the Irish republic - and from what little I remember about the details I thought there was a referendum at some point. I may be wrong.
It was never taken from an Bunreacht na hEireinn, no. However we were supposed to have commisions and what not look at the matter in more detail after WWI, it never happened (the Unionists were pretty good at keeping the 6-county 'quicky' partition). Further there are counties which, even if you accept partitioning, should never have been part of Northern Ireland (eg Armagh).
But I have a sneaking suspicion that the British government has repeatedly begged the Irish one to take NI off their hands, and the Irish say "Hell No!" every time. They don't want to have to deal with extremely pissed of "loyalists".
Sort of appealing to think this, but it's almost certainly never happened.
BTW, I'm not british, I just happen to live in London and have a small, selfish interest in not being blown up. And it would be nice to have litter bins in train stations, too;)
See, that's exactly the root cause of the NI Irish problem. Mainland England not caring less about NI or what went on there as long as it didn't bother them. That's exactly what allowed the Carsonites after partitioning free reign to make institutionalised sectarianism a de facto reality in Northern Ireland from the 1920s onward. That's the vacuum which led to the rise of the provisional IRA in the 1960s, gave them their power.
It's also the exact reasoning for the IRA bringing the troubles to the UK mainland.:(
BTW, you havn't had republican bombs in London for a *long* time, have you?
I was merely pointing out (perhaps a little flippantly) that it's common knowledge that the Irish communities of Boston and New York were the prime funders of the various IRA incarnations who killed many, many people in London thoughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Firstly: Irish Americans have been funding Irish Republicanism since long before the present troubles, dating back to late 1800s at least with the founding of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. The reason of course there are so many Irish in USA is cause the Brits[1] saw fit to let millions of us starve to death over the course of ten years, and millions more emigrate to USA (and all to avoid the price of grain falling. Ireland was an *exporter* of foodstuffs all throughout the famine.). Irish Americans, perhaps more than others, carry the famine in their cultural memory.
Secondly: Very few people died in London, or even mainland UK in total, compared to how many died in Northern Ireland during the troubles. *Far* more civilians died in NI at the hands of the UK state apparatus than British civilians did in UK mainland at hands of IRA. (See this for source).
It escaped no-one's notice that the IRA's funding, and thence their will to fight, dried up around about 12th September 2001.
This is waffle. The current peace process was well-underway, long before Sept 11th. That event may have added a fresh perspective, but I doubt it changed anything significantly wrt Northern Ireland. The IRA, unfortunately, still have significant support and funds.
Centuries of mistreatment and propaganda have turned Ulster into a ghetto run by quasi-religious, gun-toting militia. The problem now is how to get rid of them. Nuke them all I say; let Odin sort them out.
Urg no. Give the province back to Ireland. We care more about Paisley et al than you mainland brits do anyway. (I do hope one day to see Paisley in Dail Eireinn, even if it's only Ian Paisley, Jr. Preferably as a TD.)
1. I say Brits, not english, cause good proportion of those responsible were Anglo-Irish land-owners, British seems more accurate than English.
They never told him to stop though. He had *walked* through the station (he paid his ticket, never jumped over barriers - that was a cop). He was *sitting* on the train already when police came up to him, one restrained him by holding him his arms against him and pushing him back into his seat while the other officer shot him 5 times or more in the head at point blank range.
This lib64 madness seems a little shortsighted as well. Why don't we assume that 64bit machines will strive to be native 64bit across the board and have a lib32 directory for compatibility and not rename every damn library?
Cause then the 64bit "native" system will be incompatible with the 32bit one and vice versa. Just *think* about what happens if you compile for 32bit on a 64bit versus a 32bit system. Unless the locations of the two ABIs are in the/same/ place on *both* systems, you have no compatibility (otherwise you get 32bit on 32bit compiled apps linking to/lib and 32bit on 64bit compiled linking to/lib32 - they won't work on the other system - utterly pointless). Further, how will you compile for 64bit on 32bit system? Where do you put the 64bit libs, and if lib64 - then that's where it must be on the 64bit system:).
Systems like Solaris and IRIX, which have dealt with multi-ABI support for *donkeys years* get this right. IRIX has *3* different ABIs too, o32, n32 and n64. They all install the same userland per default too, regardless of the underlying architecture (UltraSPARC, MIPS, MIPS-64 capable or x86-64 or i386). It's the same OS in all cases, regardless of bityness, and it just works, and you can just compile whatever ABI you want with just -mabi=n32 or -m32 / -m64 and it just works presuming you installed the libraries for the relevant ABIs. In the case of Solaris, you install it on x86-64 and you can boot with either i386 or x86-64 kernels - userspace doesn't care, it just works.
For multi-ABI: pick a location for a specific ABI. If an architecture gains a new ABI, put the new ABI in a new directory, unless you intend to fully deprecate the old ABI - in which case, you can still have things work if applications have not specified paths in their ELF tables (default), and your runtime linker is clever enough. Glibc's isn't clever enough btw, and ld-linux.so is the one dll all apps full-path link to. Which makes well-known library-path per ABI location *essential* on Linux, AIUI.
The likes of Solaris have some rather cute 'virtual' runtime linkers to make it all work out (the linker and libc change according to which ISAs/ABIs are supported. Same path, different library;) ).
You buy a rack of these things, who says the storage has to be *in* each server? Sun also sell SAN storage and HA NFS and iSCSI solutions (note these boxes come with plenty of GigE ports built-in).
English has never been standardised. There is no standardisation process (like some other languages which try mandate grammar, spelling, etc.). The correct usage and spelling in english is simply determined by common usage.
The common (and uncommon) usage of English is however documented: By compilers of dictionaries, by literature, etc. Chaucer is part of that record.:)
Actually, "payed" is the old English spelling for "paid". See, eg, Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales". In a way it's correct, though not the current common form of the word.
I suspect "dyke" is the longer standing version of that spelling, given it parallels the old version of the word in dutch. It's the version I've always used in english, which makes me think that's how we were taught to spell it in school (most of my schooling having been in the Irish education system;) ).
So by your logic a homeless american with no money is richer than a homeless 3rd world person.
Yep, because the country they live in is rich enough that they can always find something to eat in bins, if not actually find proper food at shelters set up specifically to aid the homeless.
Homelessness in the 1st world typically is due to one of severe substance abuse problems or mental illness. In the 3rd world however it's not some half-crazy or drug-addled person on the street who is there because they can't cope with society, rather it'll be entire families who are out on the street simply because of abject poverty (eg continued crop failures or utter lack of work in shanty-towns). Rather than living out of rubbish bins and shelters, these people often simply die.
You really need to get out and look around the world a bit more if you think there's no difference between being homeless in a 1st world city and a 3rd world country.
No, it's rare. For a hurricane to get to the NL it first has to miss the USA and get carried by the jetstream first north offshore of the USA's eastern seaboard, and then west across the atlantic by the jetstream.
When it eventually gets across the atlantic a week or two later it will not be that strong anymore, more a big atlantic depression, plus it typically first has to cross Ireland and the UK to get to the Netherlands, which tend to dissipate even more energy.
The only hurricane I can think of which hit the NL and UK was in 1987, it actually originated from the Bay of Biscay, strangely. Wind speeds were recorded of 70 to 100 knots by the british met service. (1 knot is greater than 1mph).
Atlantic storms with wind speeds of anywhere from 30 to 50 knots are a bit more typical over here, particularly during the winter.
It seems to be a general problem with developed land really. There's a problem seen in Ireland and the UK with broad valleys of land which become very developed: All the concrete, tarmac, and storm drains simply funnel rain down a hinterland into the rivers - where previously far more of that rain would be absorbed into the ground and only slowly make its way to either the water table or the river.
The people living downstream of the river then suffer freak flash floods.
I think we need to become far more intelligent about land use with respect to flooding. Particularly given global warming and higher amount of energy and water that will be in atmosphere.
Dyke is simply an older form of spelling of dijk. "Ij" (lange-ei) in dutch is pronounced similarly to "y" and indeed used to be written as "y" in dutch. My dictionary tells me that "dyke" is indeed an acceptable english spelling, and indeed I think it's by the more common form, at least on this side of the english speaking world.
That's not a vanilla kernel, it's a patched up kernel from RedHat.
Bah, yes. I completely missed the "vanilla versus patched-up" aspect of the question. I should go to sleep.
Note however that FC tries to/not/ patch-up the kernel, like RH used to do for RHL. Only obvious fixes that are already on their way into vanilla are/supposed/ to be allowed into FC (AFAIK anyway).
So, let me correct myself: No idea about "vanilla", but FC kernels have been rock solid for me, and FC kernels should be pretty close to "vanilla".
Slashdot Mirror
So essentially the answer to the complexity of SELinux is to simply add rules to ignore whatever it complains about? Great :). FWIW, I think for 99% of users standard Unix DAC is just about right on the security/convenience tradeoff curve, and there is /far/ more to be gained from programmatic defenses against errors in code (as OpenBSD, Fedora, RHEL have done) without a loss in convenience.
/whole/ lot more complexity).
BTW, the unlabeled cases - you really want to go label the files concerned instead. The cifs_t case is simply a fundamental weakness of SELinux (AIUI), to solve that you'd have to go add a cifs_and_http_t type (which seems about the same security as Unix groups, for a
--paulj
This is the same excuse communist gov't give for taking away possessions.
:).
:).
Rubbish.
"Intellectual Property" is not a possesion. Indeed only the *existence* of a government (or at least, a cohesive civil society) is what allows you to think that you have some rights on your ideas that are vaguely akin to property rights. Without a government/civil society you simply would *not have* any way to control what is done with your ideas (other than being very strict about how you divulge them).
Why are physical objects different than intellectual ones?
Because they are not objects. Why do you think they *are* the same? Can you hold an idea? Can you forcibly take an idea from me and prevent me "having it"? No you can't, cause an idea simply is just that, an idea - ephemereal and without substance.
It used to be with music and other media that at least, even if the idea was ephemereal that it still required substantial fixed substances, time and human labout and expertise to reproduce. But that has changed too, such that music, software, literature and other forms of expressive works are now as ephemereal and easy to reproduce and share as all other ideas.
Like it or not, this simply changes a lot of things
You are no more communist than I am and I can guarentee this.
I'm definitely not a communist.
I sir am not going to give away my rights wholesale just because you want me to live in poverty whilst you want to do meanial labour
I'm not asking you to give your rights away, I'm just pointing out where you got those rights from.
(and most code jobs are just that...I'm glad I'm management and design apps and have keyboard jockies that code them for me) and get paid big bucks because its hard work actually having to use your body as opposed to someone like me that works smarter as opposed to harder.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. However, I did *not* say anything about what kind of job I want you to do. However, times change and so do the jobs people do. Does technology sometimes wipe out whole classes of jobs and industries? Sure. Should we have stopped the printing press because it put skilled scribes out of work? eg, look at the likes of the Book of Kells and all the other hand-copied and beautifully enscribed bibles from back them - compare it to a printed bible even, and the painstaking hand-copied version is far better and wrote on materials which will last far far longer (vellum). Yet we have no scribes anymore today, they were wiped out. However, we have *far* more books today. Same thing for the weaving industry - find me a crofter today.
You better start swimmin', Or you'll sink like a stone, For the times they are a-changin'..
That's how it is, that is how it has always been and always will be. You can't be a scribe forever.
And fuck your condescending attitude that I completely '*missed*' his arguement.
Well you did, sorry
--paulj
if i get an extortion letter form the RIAA for $36,000 because i downloaded Kelly Clarkson, can i play stupid in court and win?
You can play what you want in court and win because, despite all the bluster from the "Official Representatives of the Poor and Starving Artists" associations, downloading is not illegal (making downloaded songs available to others would be).
If I understand you, you don't believe that a creator should have any say in how his work is redistributed.
He didn't say that, he pointed out that creators' having such a say is a *privilege* granted unto them by society. It is not a right intrinsic to the 'property' concerned.
You can't steal an idea, it's just a fundamental fact with respect to ideas. That creators' have *some* recourse against the most egregious redistributors of "their" idea is only possible because of a construction of civil law, further it can not prevent such distribution.
You have no rights beyond owning a specific item that I gave you.
You completely *missed* his point that the author only has the ability to have "rights" because society grants those rights (typically in order to encourage authors to create works and share them with society).
There is no intrinsic right to an idea, the posession of which does not affect the ability for others to posses it.
electronic pedophilia
I don't get the joke. What has an electronic love of feet got to do with anything.
I think you meant paedophilia.
--paulj
What the hell does that mean? You want more?! No bombs by anyone will do me fine.
/directly/ to the modern NI problems).
You're the one who started off about Irish bombs in the UK, Irish American funding of those bombers. Sadly without any perspective on *why* these bombers came about, or why so many Irish-Americans felt the need to support them. That lack of perspective on the NI problem though is typical of those living in mainland UK... (And as I explained in another post, the general "we don't care about NI as long as it doesn't bother us" attitude is what led
it's 4 years since the last IRA bomb in the UK
Sorry no, last *IRA* bombs were in 1996. The cease fire has its tenth anniversary in 2007. Your Sept 11th theory holds no water at all. It made it impossible to go back to terrorism, but you'll have a hard time rewriting the timelines in all the history books out there that show the peace process well underway during the 90s, and with several *years* of an IRA cease-fire in place by Septh 11th.
It doesn't even mention the mainland.
All you were concerned with originally was mainland UK, London specifically. I don't remember trying to make any kind of point that bulk of casualties were not paramilitary inflicted, or that of those casualties, the IRA were responsible for most. Simply wishing to point out that your restricted viewpoint of IRA inflicted casualties on mainland UK was rather narrow by highlighting fact that the British state killed far more in NI. No more, no less.
From memory I'd say you're probably right, the IRA killed about 150 people on the mainland.
That sounds slightly high. Looking at this table plus this page to find bombs which killed fewer than 5, I make it to be 83 deaths, 5 of which were civilians killed in the Brighton bomb, for which the IRA at least would make no apologies for (please do remember, *I* don't agree with any of this). BTW, that means deaths in mainland UK due to IRA are in the same order of magnitude as deaths in southern Ireland due to loyalist bombs (26 killed in Dublin).
This pales against the 3000 odd killed in total in NI though.
Indeed.
No, the GFA was dead in the water by Sept 01
Strange, it's still the framework under which the peace process up north is operating. The Democratic Unionists aren't happy with it and would love to change it, but that simply isn't on the table.
Sinn Fein/IRA had no reason to keep to it as they were still well funded, if not well supported.
They are both well-funded and well-supported. Sinn Fein appears to be capable of significantly out-spending other political parties, despite their officially declared spending being quite small, apparently (according to a recent programme on Channel 4 - "Dispatches" this week). SDLP in the north have shriveled to almost nothing in the last few years, their support apparently cannibalised by Sinn Fein.
The last bomb in the UK attributed to the IRA exploded in Ealing Broadway in London on the 3rd August 2001. Coincidence?
That wasn't the IRA. The last IRA bombing in England was the Manchester shopping centre bomb in 1996 (same year as the docklands bomb in London).
Unfortunately, 98% of the Republic doesn't want it back either.
If you think that that referendum meant the Republic voted to not take back the North then you've completely misunderstood the Good Friday Agreement. The republic renounced its constitutional claim to Northern Ireland in return for all parties involved recognising the right for Northern Ireland to determine it's own future (something the Unionists were not terribly keen on as it opens the possibility that NI one day would self-determine that it should cede from the British Union).
If the problem is that the foreign government is oppressive in some way, what guarantee do the remaining people of the other culture have that your own government won't be just as biased against them?
;) ).
If the partitioning of Ireland ended tomorrow, and the 6 counties of "Northern Ireland" became part of the Republic, and we held elections across a united Ireland, the result would be that the Unionists would probably take somewhere between 15 to 21% of the vote.
In other words, they'd be one of the major blocks. They likely even at some stage would help form a government given we have proportional representation and nearly all governments formed here are coalitions. So the guarantee against bias would be that the unionists'd form a sizeable chunk of our Dail (parliament), indeed they might even be *in* the government.
Note btw that down south religion isn't an issue at all. Irish republicanism has never been about religion, many of its foremost leaders and proponents have been protestant, indeed it was originally a protestant Irish cause. (And my view of the holy roman papal church probably isn't that far removed from Ian Paisley's
Yes, and Irish Americans were happily funding a terrorist organisation in a western democracy all the way through its most active phase in the late 20th century.
;)
:(
I don't support or condone terrorism, but you really do have to look at the context in which terrorism in NI. While not a legitimate way to deal with grievances, or further your cause, grievances and injustices are what led to that terrorism. And, the modern problems of Northern Ireland aside, Irish and those of Irish descent have a *long* list of reasons to believe that Irish interests would best be served by getting the British Crown *out* of this island (from Cromwell through to the Black and Tans after WWI).
I can't see a breakdown for the mainland, but I don't think that killing people in NI is any more acceptable than on the mainland.
Conversely, neither is killing people in NI more acceptable.
You vented about people in London being killed by those horrible Irish terrorists, I'm pointing out the British Army (I didn't even include UDR or RUC btw - they weren't exactly unbiased or representative of the UK as whole) killed far more *civilians* in NI than the IRA ever killed in England. And yes of course, paramilitaries killed even more again in NI.
If you try argue that deaths of innocents at hands of British Army are sort of inevitable due to the disturbed situation which existed in NI (indeed, "war"?), then you're making the same kind of collateral damage value judgements as the IRA did.
As for "giving it back" - that's a fairly silly term to use in this context. It wasn't exactly taken from the Irish republic - and from what little I remember about the details I thought there was a referendum at some point. I may be wrong.
It was never taken from an Bunreacht na hEireinn, no. However we were supposed to have commisions and what not look at the matter in more detail after WWI, it never happened (the Unionists were pretty good at keeping the 6-county 'quicky' partition). Further there are counties which, even if you accept partitioning, should never have been part of Northern Ireland (eg Armagh).
But I have a sneaking suspicion that the British government has repeatedly begged the Irish one to take NI off their hands, and the Irish say "Hell No!" every time. They don't want to have to deal with extremely pissed of "loyalists".
Sort of appealing to think this, but it's almost certainly never happened.
BTW, I'm not british, I just happen to live in London and have a small, selfish interest in not being blown up. And it would be nice to have litter bins in train stations, too
See, that's exactly the root cause of the NI Irish problem. Mainland England not caring less about NI or what went on there as long as it didn't bother them. That's exactly what allowed the Carsonites after partitioning free reign to make institutionalised sectarianism a de facto reality in Northern Ireland from the 1920s onward. That's the vacuum which led to the rise of the provisional IRA in the 1960s, gave them their power.
It's also the exact reasoning for the IRA bringing the troubles to the UK mainland.
BTW, you havn't had republican bombs in London for a *long* time, have you?
--paulj
I was merely pointing out (perhaps a little flippantly) that it's common knowledge that the Irish communities of Boston and New York were the prime funders of the various IRA incarnations who killed many, many people in London thoughout the 60s, 70s and 80s.
Firstly: Irish Americans have been funding Irish Republicanism since long before the present troubles, dating back to late 1800s at least with the founding of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. The reason of course there are so many Irish in USA is cause the Brits[1] saw fit to let millions of us starve to death over the course of ten years, and millions more emigrate to USA (and all to avoid the price of grain falling. Ireland was an *exporter* of foodstuffs all throughout the famine.). Irish Americans, perhaps more than others, carry the famine in their cultural memory.
Secondly: Very few people died in London, or even mainland UK in total, compared to how many died in Northern Ireland during the troubles. *Far* more civilians died in NI at the hands of the UK state apparatus than British civilians did in UK mainland at hands of IRA. (See this for source).
It escaped no-one's notice that the IRA's funding, and thence their will to fight, dried up around about 12th September 2001.
This is waffle. The current peace process was well-underway, long before Sept 11th. That event may have added a fresh perspective, but I doubt it changed anything significantly wrt Northern Ireland. The IRA, unfortunately, still have significant support and funds.
Centuries of mistreatment and propaganda have turned Ulster into a ghetto run by quasi-religious, gun-toting militia. The problem now is how to get rid of them. Nuke them all I say; let Odin sort them out.
Urg no. Give the province back to Ireland. We care more about Paisley et al than you mainland brits do anyway. (I do hope one day to see Paisley in Dail Eireinn, even if it's only Ian Paisley, Jr. Preferably as a TD.)
1. I say Brits, not english, cause good proportion of those responsible were Anglo-Irish land-owners, British seems more accurate than English.
thank you Irish-Americans of New York
Read your history back a bit further and you might learn to thank the British government too.
They never told him to stop though. He had *walked* through the station (he paid his ticket, never jumped over barriers - that was a cop). He was *sitting* on the train already when police came up to him, one restrained him by holding him his arms against him and pushing him back into his seat while the other officer shot him 5 times or more in the head at point blank range.
You'd better hurry up, given some other guy today got 15 years for possesion of articles related to terrorism.
This lib64 madness seems a little shortsighted as well. Why don't we assume that 64bit machines will strive to be native 64bit across the board and have a lib32 directory for compatibility and not rename every damn library?
/same/ place on *both* systems, you have no compatibility (otherwise you get 32bit on 32bit compiled apps linking to /lib and 32bit on 64bit compiled linking to /lib32 - they won't work on the other system - utterly pointless). Further, how will you compile for 64bit on 32bit system? Where do you put the 64bit libs, and if lib64 - then that's where it must be on the 64bit system :).
;) ).
Cause then the 64bit "native" system will be incompatible with the 32bit one and vice versa. Just *think* about what happens if you compile for 32bit on a 64bit versus a 32bit system. Unless the locations of the two ABIs are in the
Systems like Solaris and IRIX, which have dealt with multi-ABI support for *donkeys years* get this right. IRIX has *3* different ABIs too, o32, n32 and n64. They all install the same userland per default too, regardless of the underlying architecture (UltraSPARC, MIPS, MIPS-64 capable or x86-64 or i386). It's the same OS in all cases, regardless of bityness, and it just works, and you can just compile whatever ABI you want with just -mabi=n32 or -m32 / -m64 and it just works presuming you installed the libraries for the relevant ABIs. In the case of Solaris, you install it on x86-64 and you can boot with either i386 or x86-64 kernels - userspace doesn't care, it just works.
For multi-ABI: pick a location for a specific ABI. If an architecture gains a new ABI, put the new ABI in a new directory, unless you intend to fully deprecate the old ABI - in which case, you can still have things work if applications have not specified paths in their ELF tables (default), and your runtime linker is clever enough. Glibc's isn't clever enough btw, and ld-linux.so is the one dll all apps full-path link to. Which makes well-known library-path per ABI location *essential* on Linux, AIUI.
The likes of Solaris have some rather cute 'virtual' runtime linkers to make it all work out (the linker and libc change according to which ISAs/ABIs are supported. Same path, different library
You buy a rack of these things, who says the storage has to be *in* each server? Sun also sell SAN storage and HA NFS and iSCSI solutions (note these boxes come with plenty of GigE ports built-in).
They do come with an OS btw - Solaris 10, free.
English has never been standardised. There is no standardisation process (like some other languages which try mandate grammar, spelling, etc.). The correct usage and spelling in english is simply determined by common usage.
:)
The common (and uncommon) usage of English is however documented: By compilers of dictionaries, by literature, etc. Chaucer is part of that record.
Actually, "payed" is the old English spelling for "paid". See, eg, Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales". In a way it's correct, though not the current common form of the word.
Yep, that's my point.
;) ).
I suspect "dyke" is the longer standing version of that spelling, given it parallels the old version of the word in dutch. It's the version I've always used in english, which makes me think that's how we were taught to spell it in school (most of my schooling having been in the Irish education system
Now lookup "dyke" on the same service.
So by your logic a homeless american with no money is richer than a homeless 3rd world person.
Yep, because the country they live in is rich enough that they can always find something to eat in bins, if not actually find proper food at shelters set up specifically to aid the homeless.
Homelessness in the 1st world typically is due to one of severe substance abuse problems or mental illness. In the 3rd world however it's not some half-crazy or drug-addled person on the street who is there because they can't cope with society, rather it'll be entire families who are out on the street simply because of abject poverty (eg continued crop failures or utter lack of work in shanty-towns). Rather than living out of rubbish bins and shelters, these people often simply die.
You really need to get out and look around the world a bit more if you think there's no difference between being homeless in a 1st world city and a 3rd world country.
No, it's rare. For a hurricane to get to the NL it first has to miss the USA and get carried by the jetstream first north offshore of the USA's eastern seaboard, and then west across the atlantic by the jetstream.
When it eventually gets across the atlantic a week or two later it will not be that strong anymore, more a big atlantic depression, plus it typically first has to cross Ireland and the UK to get to the Netherlands, which tend to dissipate even more energy.
The only hurricane I can think of which hit the NL and UK was in 1987, it actually originated from the Bay of Biscay, strangely. Wind speeds were recorded of 70 to 100 knots by the british met service. (1 knot is greater than 1mph).
Atlantic storms with wind speeds of anywhere from 30 to 50 knots are a bit more typical over here, particularly during the winter.
It seems to be a general problem with developed land really. There's a problem seen in Ireland and the UK with broad valleys of land which become very developed: All the concrete, tarmac, and storm drains simply funnel rain down a hinterland into the rivers - where previously far more of that rain would be absorbed into the ground and only slowly make its way to either the water table or the river.
The people living downstream of the river then suffer freak flash floods.
I think we need to become far more intelligent about land use with respect to flooding. Particularly given global warming and higher amount of energy and water that will be in atmosphere.
Dyke is simply an older form of spelling of dijk. "Ij" (lange-ei) in dutch is pronounced similarly to "y" and indeed used to be written as "y" in dutch. My dictionary tells me that "dyke" is indeed an acceptable english spelling, and indeed I think it's by the more common form, at least on this side of the english speaking world.
That's not a vanilla kernel, it's a patched up kernel from RedHat.
/not/ patch-up the kernel, like RH used to do for RHL. Only obvious fixes that are already on their way into vanilla are /supposed/ to be allowed into FC (AFAIK anyway).
Bah, yes. I completely missed the "vanilla versus patched-up" aspect of the question. I should go to sleep.
Note however that FC tries to
So, let me correct myself: No idea about "vanilla", but FC kernels have been rock solid for me, and FC kernels should be pretty close to "vanilla".