IIRC Solaris has switched to an 1-1 threading model by default in its latest version. And also IIRC, linux has had a 1-1 model all this time because Linus thought it was good enough and way simpler than a n-m model.
that's the point of having to tell the kernel, so that it can make available to the module only the public part of the API if the module is not GPL-compatible.
IIRC linus also said in the past that sticking to using that API does not automatically make the module a non-derivative work.
Port knocking is no more about "security through obscurity" than firewalls are. And it's commonly accepted that firewalls are quite useful.
Think about port knocking as a "firewall extension", which allows the firewall to filter out a bigger amount of unwanted connections.
Also, just like this concept can be implemented via port knocking, it could also be done in some other fancy ways, like sending one time passwords via UDP which get no response from the server except the opening of some ports.
There's quite a bit of difference between Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolitons. Like the difference between municpal parking laws and laws against armed robbery.
My point was simply to show the behaviour of Israel and the US, it doesn't matter where they voted that, it just shows their way of dealing with those that get in their way.
Read Hamas literature. They want the complete destruction of Israel, under all circumstances, no ifs, ands or buts. Many other Palestinian groups believe the same thing.
And most other Palestinian groups do not believe the same thing, what's your point?
Also, Israel is a rich country, with one of the most powerful armies in the world, and backed by the US, the most powerful country in the world. Palestinians are mostly refugees who do not even control their water resources (Israel does), most of them live in complete misery, and their territory is occupied by Israel. Israel can go an buy all shorts of weapons from any country they want, Palestinians can't legally form an army. I could go on...
I'm not saying I agree or like everything the Palestinians do, of course I disapprove suicide bombers. But under those conditions I really can understand why they hate Israel.
I really see no way Israel's position can stand any analysis, they are simply occupying other people's land. Only when they go away they'll have the right to complain if they get attacked.
Although both principles do have equal weight, the second is impossible without the first one, "acknnowledgement of the sovereignity and territorial integrity" of __all__ states in the area cannot be accomplished until Israel moves out of the Palestinian territories. How could the Palestinians not be at war against a country which is occupying its territory?? Both principles have equal weight, but one cannot happen without the other happening first.
Also, you should check this resolution from the General Assembly, stating among other things that Israel must:
Withdraw from the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
Dismantling the Israeli settlements in the territories occupied since 1967
138 countries voted in favor of that resolution, only two countries voted against it... guess who: Israel and the United States
Of course the Palestinians must not be at war against Israel... but only when Israel leaves _their_ country.
The problem that makes the UN impotent is not the fact that many countries are ruled by dictators (the idea behind the UN is to be a forum for *all* countries, not just democracies).
One of the biggest problems is the US's behaviour. For years the US refused to pay its quota, and has only paid its debt with the UN when they wanted something from it.
US's respect for UN resolutions is not very good either, and the UN does not have the capability of enforcing the resolutions, that's just impossible. Just two examples here:
There was a UN resolution telling Israel to move out of the occupied territories. Israel has obviously not moved out, and while many countries have said it should, the US just lets Israel do whatever they want.
Last november the UN said Iraq should disarm and sent inspectors, now the US wants a resolution that will allow them to attack Iraq, there's nothing wrong with asking for a resolution, except that Bush said he would only follow the resolution if it said what he wanted.
Now, how could the UN be useful if the single most powerful and influent nation in the world does not want to know anything about it, except if it is for its own benefit??
So you want to restrict the access to knowledge based on citizenship. It's sad to see people wanting to limit the access of others to technological advances, as someone has already told you, it is good that there is still people (like Linus) who think that this kind of stuff should be universally available, free for everyone.
If you really think that what's developed by a country's government should not be available for outsiders, please act accordingly to your words and stop using any technology that has been fully or partly developed outside your country.
It's not only right to allow everyone, everywhere, to have access to scientific advances and new technologies, it is also better since it speeds up the development of new technology.
Sure you cannot avoid some civilian casualties, but the U.S. seems to value the life of one of his pilots (like the one that said that dropping bombs on Afghanistan was like playing the SuperBowl... shame on him) more than the life of thousands of kosovar refugees, or serbian civilian citizens, or whatever gets in the way. The U.S. chose to risk missing its targets and killing hundreds of innocent people rather than making its planes fly lower and risk the life of a few of its pilots. That is murder. I could also mention the bombing of hospitals in Afghanistan and many other things, but that will serve as an example.
By the way, your signature says a lot about your "I-give-a-shit-about-everybody-else-on-this-planet " attitude.
They can all do business with Cuba if they so choose.
Wrong. The U.S. economically penalizes non-US companies that do business in Cuba.
What the Cuban government does with its budget is a completely different discussion (my point was not to defend the Cuban government, but to critizise the US attitude towards it).
About the Pinochet bit, maybe you should go find some information on that topic. Pinochet took over Chile's democratic government and killed tens of thousands of people. The U.S. helped him perform his genocide just because the democratically-ellected president (whom, by the way, was killed) had a socialist ideology. Sure the U.S. did not drop a bomb on Chile, but genocide is much worse than a bomb.
to think we'd nuke a country, or even kill many of their people (military or civilian) by their mere posturing is lunacy.
Yeah, that's true, in those cases the U.S. takes other, very democratic, measures, like starving a whole country to death (like Cuba) or help some random fascist military person take control of the country and kill tens of thousands of people (Chile - Pinochet).
Slashdot Mirror
IIRC Solaris has switched to an 1-1 threading model by default in its latest version. And also IIRC, linux has had a 1-1 model all this time because Linus thought it was good enough and way simpler than a n-m model.
that's the point of having to tell the kernel, so that it can make available to the module only the public part of the API if the module is not GPL-compatible.
IIRC linus also said in the past that sticking to using that API does not automatically make the module a non-derivative work.
Port knocking is no more about "security through obscurity" than firewalls are. And it's commonly accepted that firewalls are quite useful.
Think about port knocking as a "firewall extension", which allows the firewall to filter out a bigger amount of unwanted connections.
Also, just like this concept can be implemented via port knocking, it could also be done in some other fancy ways, like sending one time passwords via UDP which get no response from the server except the opening of some ports.
It doesn't take that many movies to beat Hollywood on quality.
None of the vaccines that presently exist work on this thing - so now, maybe we can do something about it.
That's because this thing did not exist, it must be fun to develop a vaccine for a non-existant virus.
That's exactly why they chose a small company with small resources for this law suit.
There's quite a bit of difference between Security Council resolutions and General Assembly resolitons. Like the difference between municpal parking laws and laws against armed robbery.
My point was simply to show the behaviour of Israel and the US, it doesn't matter where they voted that, it just shows their way of dealing with those that get in their way.
Read Hamas literature. They want the complete destruction of Israel, under all circumstances, no ifs, ands or buts. Many other Palestinian groups believe the same thing.
And most other Palestinian groups do not believe the same thing, what's your point?
Also, Israel is a rich country, with one of the most powerful armies in the world, and backed by the US, the most powerful country in the world. Palestinians are mostly refugees who do not even control their water resources (Israel does), most of them live in complete misery, and their territory is occupied by Israel. Israel can go an buy all shorts of weapons from any country they want, Palestinians can't legally form an army. I could go on...
I'm not saying I agree or like everything the Palestinians do, of course I disapprove suicide bombers. But under those conditions I really can understand why they hate Israel.
I really see no way Israel's position can stand any analysis, they are simply occupying other people's land. Only when they go away they'll have the right to complain if they get attacked.
Although both principles do have equal weight, the second is impossible without the first one, "acknnowledgement of the sovereignity and territorial integrity" of __all__ states in the area cannot be accomplished until Israel moves out of the Palestinian territories. How could the Palestinians not be at war against a country which is occupying its territory?? Both principles have equal weight, but one cannot happen without the other happening first.
Also, you should check this resolution from the General Assembly, stating among other things that Israel must:
138 countries voted in favor of that resolution, only two countries voted against it... guess who: Israel and the United States
Of course the Palestinians must not be at war against Israel... but only when Israel leaves _their_ country.
The problem that makes the UN impotent is not the fact that many countries are ruled by dictators (the idea behind the UN is to be a forum for *all* countries, not just democracies).
One of the biggest problems is the US's behaviour. For years the US refused to pay its quota, and has only paid its debt with the UN when they wanted something from it.
US's respect for UN resolutions is not very good either, and the UN does not have the capability of enforcing the resolutions, that's just impossible. Just two examples here:
Now, how could the UN be useful if the single most powerful and influent nation in the world does not want to know anything about it, except if it is for its own benefit??
+5 just for giving a URL?
So you want to restrict the access to knowledge based on citizenship. It's sad to see people wanting to limit the access of others to technological advances, as someone has already told you, it is good that there is still people (like Linus) who think that this kind of stuff should be universally available, free for everyone.
If you really think that what's developed by a country's government should not be available for outsiders, please act accordingly to your words and stop using any technology that has been fully or partly developed outside your country.
It's not only right to allow everyone, everywhere, to have access to scientific advances and new technologies, it is also better since it speeds up the development of new technology.
Sure you cannot avoid some civilian casualties, but the U.S. seems to value the life of one of his pilots (like the one that said that dropping bombs on Afghanistan was like playing the SuperBowl... shame on him) more than the life of thousands of kosovar refugees, or serbian civilian citizens, or whatever gets in the way. The U.S. chose to risk missing its targets and killing hundreds of innocent people rather than making its planes fly lower and risk the life of a few of its pilots. That is murder. I could also mention the bombing of hospitals in Afghanistan and many other things, but that will serve as an example.
t " attitude.
By the way, your signature says a lot about your "I-give-a-shit-about-everybody-else-on-this-plane
They can all do business with Cuba if they so choose.
Wrong. The U.S. economically penalizes non-US companies that do business in Cuba.
What the Cuban government does with its budget is a completely different discussion (my point was not to defend the Cuban government, but to critizise the US attitude towards it).
About the Pinochet bit, maybe you should go find some information on that topic. Pinochet took over Chile's democratic government and killed tens of thousands of people. The U.S. helped him perform his genocide just because the democratically-ellected president (whom, by the way, was killed) had a socialist ideology. Sure the U.S. did not drop a bomb on Chile, but genocide is much worse than a bomb.
to think we'd nuke a country, or even kill many of their people (military or civilian) by their mere posturing is lunacy.
Yeah, that's true, in those cases the U.S. takes other, very democratic, measures, like starving a whole country to death (like Cuba) or help some random fascist military person take control of the country and kill tens of thousands of people (Chile - Pinochet).
with reduced collateral effect.
I guess that when you say "collateral effect" you mean murdering innocent people.
I am truly shocked reading how easily many of you talk about killing thousands of people, something is really wrong with you.