Je regarde les logs de mon bootpd et j'ai des lignes :
bootpd[34456]: service time 0.000017 seconds
à raison d'une ligne toutes les 30s.
Je suspectait un plantage/redémarrage mais apparament le processus
reste vivant (le pid ne change pas)...
Serait-ce normal ?
FiLH
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
Web: http://www.filh.org e-mail filh@filh.org
FAQ fr.rec.photo : http://frp.parisv.com/
Sitafoto la photo a Bordeaux : http://sitafoto.free.fr/
Cette action est irreversible, confirmez la suppression du commentaire ?
Signaler le commentaire
Veuillez sélectionner un problème
Nudité
Violence
Harcèlement
Fraude
Vente illégale
Discours haineux
Terrorisme
Autre
FiLH
subject of the Lock Hospital _have, in too many instances, been altogether misleading_." (Report of Commission, p. 2, parag. 2.)
"In 1862 (five years after the Act had been in force) Dr. Murray was '_completely satisfied_ with the _incalculable_ benefit that had resulted to the colony from the Ordinance of 1857'"[A]
[Footnote A: An extreme form of C.D. Acts, without parallel in any other place under British rule.]
"In 1865 (after eight years' experience) he wrote, 'the _good_ the Ordinance does _is undoubted_; but the good it might do, were all the unlicensed brothels suppressed, was incalculable.'"
"In 1867 (after ten years' experience) the _public_ was informed that the Ordinance had been 'on trial for nearly ten years, and _had done singular service_.'"
_Yet in this very same year_--1867, April 19th--"Dr. Murray stated in an _Official Report not intended for publication_, but found by the Commission among other Government papers, and published,--'That venereal disease has been _on the increase_, in spite of all that has been done to check it, _is no new discovery_; it has already been brought before the notice of His Excellency.'" (Report, p. 35, pars. 4 and 5.)
What is to be thought of the character of such reports for the _Public_, and such an _Official Report_, "not _intended_ to be _published_"?
This same Dr. Murray's Annual Report for the _Public_ for 1867, was _actually put in evidence before the House of Lords' Committee_ on venereal diseases--1868, page 135. "Venereal disease here has now become of _comparatively rare occurrence_." Yet the _Army_ Report for the previous year (1866, page 115) states that "the admissions to hospital for venereal disease were 281 per 1000 men;" i.e., more than
subject of the Lock Hospital _have, in too many
instances, been altogether misleading_." (Report of Commission, p.
2, parag. 2.)
"In 1862 (five years after the Act had been in force) Dr. Murray
was '_completely satisfied_ with the _incalculable_ benefit that
had resulted to the colony from the Ordinance of 1857'"[A]
[Footnote A: An extreme form of C.D. Acts, without parallel in any
other place under British rule.]
"In 1865 (after eight years' experience) he wrote, 'the _good_ the
Ordinance does _is undoubted_; but the good it might do, were all
the unlicensed brothels suppressed, was incalculable.'"
"In 1867 (after ten years' experience) the _public_ was informed
that the Ordinance had been 'on trial for nearly ten years, and
_had done singular service_.'"
_Yet in this very same year_--1867, April 19th--"Dr. Murray stated
in an _Official Report not intended for publication_, but found
by the Commission among other Government papers, and
published,--'That venereal disease has been _on the increase_,
in spite of all that has been done to check it, _is no new
discovery_; it has already been brought before the notice of His
Excellency.'" (Report, p. 35, pars. 4 and 5.)
What is to be thought of the character of such reports for the
_Public_, and such an _Official Report_, "not _intended_ to be
_published_"?
This same Dr. Murray's Annual Report for the _Public_ for
1867, was _actually put in evidence before the House of Lords'
Committee_ on venereal diseases--1868, page 135. "Venereal disease
here has now become of _comparatively rare occurrence_." Yet the
_Army_ Report for the previous year (1866, page 115) states that
"the admissions to hospital for venereal disease were 281 per 1000
men;" i.e., more than
subject of the Lock Hospital _have, in too many instances, been altogether misleading_." (Report of Commission, p. 2, parag. 2.)
"In 1862 (five years after the Act had been in force) Dr. Murray was '_completely satisfied_ with the _incalculable_ benefit that had resulted to the colony from the Ordinance of 1857'"[A]
[Footnote A: An extreme form of C.D. Acts, without parallel in any other place under British rule.]
"In 1865 (after eight years' experience) he wrote, 'the _good_ the Ordinance does _is undoubted_; but the good it might do, were all the unlicensed brothels suppressed, was incalculable.'"
"In 1867 (after ten years' experience) the _public_ was informed that the Ordinance had been 'on trial for nearly ten years, and _had done singular service_.'"
_Yet in this very same year_--1867, April 19th--"Dr. Murray stated in an _Official Report not intended for publication_, but found by the Commission among other Government papers, and published,--'That venereal disease has been _on the increase_, in spite of all that has been done to check it, _is no new discovery_; it has already been brought before the notice of His Excellency.'" (Report, p. 35, pars. 4 and 5.)
What is to be thought of the character of such reports for the _Public_, and such an _Official Report_, "not _intended_ to be _published_"?
This same Dr. Murray's Annual Report for the _Public_ for 1867, was _actually put in evidence before the House of Lords' Committee_ on venereal diseases--1868, page 135. "Venereal disease here has now become of _comparatively rare occurrence_." Yet the _Army_ Report for the previous year (1866, page 115) states that "the admissions to hospital for venereal disease were 281 per 1000 men;" i.e., more than
