If some sources are given priority that means other's have less priority and hence performance than they would otherwise - so if a source doesn't pay to be given priority their performance suffers.
Why don't you just try the damn experiment and see what happen.
Hint: there isn't the ia bottle surrounding the ice floating in the water and hence some of it can be in the air above the water - by some amazing coincidence the mass of water it displaces will happen to equal the mass of the ice... Sure "lighter than" isn't the best way to describe less dense, but it's good enough: for a given volume the ice will be lighter because it is less dense.
I will admit I have done limited research on secunia.com, but it looks as though the Linux kernel has atleast one vulnerability every month or two. I know these range from being critical to non-critical, but they are vulnerabilities nonetheless. To keep your Linux system patched and up-to-date, should it still require a reboot every so often then?
http://secunia.com/product/2719/ shows 24 for 2006. If you were running a linux machine with no local non-trusted users (ie. only admins actually log into the machine) that didn't use SCTP or NAT then none of them matter - so there would be no need to have rebooted yet.
I use Windows XP to run putty and ssh into the few dozen linux machines I actually do my work on. And to run firefox. And to run office to be able to read the various documents I need to read. And to run the windows version of some software for testing purposes. And cygwin so I can actually do some things on the machine itself occasionally. Oh, and remote desktop to login to a few remote windows machines.
All my windows are maximised and I alt-tab between them. The only bit of windows I actually see is the taskbar at the bottom of the screen and the blue bar at the top of the window. And the grey box that pops up when alt-tabbing.
Default settings are fine - sure the desktop background looks crap, but I never see it anyway.
I did customise the login screen a little so I click on the yellow rubber ducky to login, but I could live without that easily enough.
I run debian on it, so I just copied my ancient shell script for copying files off my camera via gphoto and added a hotplug rule to kick it off. I've never used the various other linux installs (which are more minor tweaks to the factory image and mightn't have the components I used).
cd "$SOURCE" || exit 1;/usr/bin/gphoto2 --get-all-files chown data.data * for i in *.[Jj][Pp][Gg] do
date=`jhead "$i" | awk '/Date\/Time/ {print $3}'| sed 's/:/./g'`
mkdir "$TARGET/$date" 2>/dev/null
if [ -e "$TARGET/$date/$i" ]
then
base=`basename $i.jpg`
tail=jpg
if [ "$base" = "$i" ]
then
base=`basename $i.JPG`
tail=JPG
fi
cnt=2
while test -e "$TARGET/$date/$base.$cnt.$tail"
do
cnt=`expr $cnt + 1`
done
mv "$i" "$TARGET/$date/$base.$cnt.$tail"
else
mv "$i" "$TARGET/$date/."
fi done
for i in *.[Aa][vV][iI] do
mv "$i" "$VTARGET/$i" done
It's never not worked, but I'm sure there's a case somewhere which will crash it - which is why there's no "delete the files from the camera" step - I do that manually after seeing the photos on the network share. The obvious case is the disk being full which will stop the mkdir from succeeding and hence the photos from copying. However, the usage criteria for me was "can the wife use it" and she can so I declared it "good enough". And yes there should be more quoting of the basename backticks, and the $i bits at the top of the if block, but the camera never puts spaces in file names so I got lazy.
My camera is a crappy canon thing which seems to need gphoto, if your camera exports a standard file system it might be simpler.
Obviously, I had to install gphoto2, hotplug, and jhead.
Apparently my comment has to much whitespace so hopefully this paragraph will up the non-whitespace content a little. Or not, I guess I need even more then. Still not enough this is ridiculous. Oh well I guess I don't get to post what is potentially a useful comment because the website filters comments in a retarded manner. Seriously this is stupid. OK I'm trimming my nice indentation on the damn shell script... And it wants to put the gphoto2 run on the same line as the exit above it no matter what I do, ; added - my script uses a newline instead:)
I don't run slocate. I run a cron job that sets the DNS entry for my ever changing DSL IP if it's different than last time (and the cable IP too - but it never changes anyway it would seem). It's the only machine in my apartment that is on 24x7 - in fact all the other machines are laptops and tend to turn themselves off overnight. If it fails when I'm on vacation why would I care? It would probably be off then anyway...
I also run a nightly backup to remote machine, and backup from remote machine - but they hit the hard drives anyway.
It also runs a ntp thingamee-jingamee don't know if that logs anything though.
It's not a NAS for me, it happens to server files amongst other duties. It's primary roll is really providing a pointy-clicky interface to this thing: http://www.dacal.com.tw/dc300.htm (which exposes itself over USB as a mouse of all the bloody things they could have used).
There are a bunch of consumer level devices designed to have a USB hard drive plugged into them and export SMB shares from it. They are all around $80 or so. I have this one: http://www1.linksys.com/products/product.asp?prid= 640 but there are a bunch of ones by other companies.
It runs linux out of the box, but I've flashed mine to run a full debian system, only 32MB of RAM is the main draw back. But its attached to 3 USB drives in a software RAID, and a CD storage device, and a thumb drive (for the main system - so the disks don't get hit by every cron job). Plus plugging my digital camera into it downloads all the photos into dated directories on the 'photos' share. It also serves some web pages, mainly a cgi interface to eject disks from the CD storage device.
Works well for me, and it's a reasonably cheap and pysically small (and very underpowered CPU/memory wise) linux machine with 2 USB ports and a network port.
Where do I find these $100-$150 an hour jobs that only require me to work a few hours a day for a month?
Can I do all the work in a big chunk on the weekend - I'm willing to give up 4 weekends a year to fund the scotch for the other 48.
You have a strange idea of "in the hole" too. Because someone else could earn 40% more what I earn doing something different that I find amazingly boring means I'm in the hole?
I hear Bill Gates made more money than you. Does that mean you're a few billion in the hole?
I hear this kind of speach a lot and it concerns me. It seems to me that basically all data files (or network packets, etc.) are binary formats. What's really in question is what kind of higher-level data structures are imposed on those binary formats.
Traditionally a binary file format is a one that isn't text. And a text file format is one that uses plain text which needs to be parsed and translated. It will always be faster to read 4 bytes from a file and plonk them into memory and interprete them as an integer than it is to read some bytes and do a subtraction and a multiply for each one until you read a seperator/terminator byte.
Of course the price you pay for the speed of the former is that the file won't load correctly on a machine which uses a different byte order or has different sized ints, but it is unquestionably faster to plonk uninterpreted bytes into RAM than it is to parse text.
The other big mistake: file formats aren't fast or slow. The algorithms for reading and writing them are (or aren't) slow. Marino Marcich of the ODF Alliance implicitely made this point when he said that different ODF-capable applications have different performances. Perhaps you could, in a fit of brilliant computer science analysis, prove that no reader for a particular file format could parse it as fast as Word 2000 can parse a.doc file, but no one has made that claim.
A more verbose file format is slower than a less verbose one if the parsing algorithms are essentially the same. If I choose to represent integers as a string of ASCII '1's the length of which encodes the number it will be slower to read than if I used decimal - simply because more data will need to be read from disk and parsed. If I used single letter names for my XML elements and no unnecessary whitespace, that'll be faster than if I used 80 character ones and lots of whitespace - though have fun with those files - simply because there is less data to read from disk and parse. With modern hardware though I really don't think it matters.
It's trivially easy to make a ridiculously slow file format - you could represent all numbers>1 as multiplications of primes and represent those primes in the file format as the first prime factor of the numbers you do store in the file - or store md5 sums instead and let the parser just try all the numbers until one matches the sum (and hope for no collisions).
If subsidy truly hurt the subsidizing nation in the long run.. there would be absolutely no reason to prohibit them in various free trade agreements. No one nation would ever do something willingly simply to hurt itself. Even the argument that what hurts 1 partner hurts the other, falls flat on its face. If I am trading with you, and you do something stupid to weaken yourself, all that you do to me, is provide me with an opportunity to buy you out completely and then conduct trade with myself on whatever basis I choose.
It doesn't just hurt the sibsidising nation. It hurts the nations who could otherwise export to that nation as well. Trade is not a zero sum game - the one side buying out the other is irrelevant too - trade will still be happening since (and I repeat yet again) it's not about which corporations are doing the trading it's about the people doing the trading. If BigCorporationA happens to both own the electronics company in one nation and the wheat farm in another when wheat is exchanged for electronics it's still trade and the people on both sides benefits. Of course a multinational corporation won't optimise the trade since it will also be trying to move revenue to the lower taxed country and expenses to the higher taxed and so on. So the people don't benefit as much as they should due to the inneficient trade.
You also keep assigning the US Government to me. I'm not the US Government. I don't vote in US elections. I'm not American. My Government does not maintain a huge military.
Trade is beneficial so Government rules to not by foreign made products is a bad thing for both countries. That multinational corporations also do things that reduce the efficiency of trade is completely unrelated.
by "efficiency" I take you it are not referring externalizing the costs of manufacturing? Because by any other measure, American manufacturing processes are amongst the most efficient in the world in terms of manpower required, resources consumed, and damage to the environment. But by your calculus of efficiency, 1 company that gets 16 hours of work from its workers, 7 days a week, by threatening them with rape and beating or starvation, hiring them during childhood and burning them out by 25 years of age is more "efficient" than the company which makes the stupid mistake of allowing workers to go to the bathroom, go home after a mere 8 hours, and live long and relatively satisfying lives?
Yes countries who treat their workers badly and don't bother with environmental controls will be more efficient in some things. Just like England was when it went through its industrial revolution. At some point the people don't put up with it any more.
Also efficiency can be relative. The US may be more efficient than another country at producing A, but more efficient at producing B by a higher margin - in which case trading B for A is beneifical to the US.
Yes... subsidization may "artificially" reduce the cost to company of needing to treat its labour force in a HUMANE fashion. But trade at the expense of HUMANITY is not beneficial to either PARTY. That is at least when you are talking about what foreign trade policies a NATION should adopt. Because in deciding trade policy the only parties are the NATIONS themselves, not the corporations. The NATIONS are the representatives of the PEOPLE and only have moral rights derived from HUMAN RIGHTS of the citizens. When you argue that increased trade is good for a NATION, you are talking about the human beings in that nation. However, you do not and can not make the claim that increased trade is always good for the people of both trading nations, because this is quite obviously NOT TRUE.
Subsidies have nothing to do with treating the labour force humanely. Europe does not subsidise their farmers for humanitarian reasons - they subsidise them for political reasons. Increased trade is better for the economies of the trading nation, which results in lots of benefits to the people of the nation - of course some people would prefer less wealth in order to keep traditions and so on.
When you say that subsidies is bad for the CORPORATION and therefore should be prohibited you are attacking a straw man. Because no one with authority to prohibit or allow subsidies derives authority from the CORPORATIONS. They derive authority from the PEOPLE. And the PEOPLE are often helped by subsidy.
no one interested in the public good really cares what is good or bad for THE CORPORATION. We are only interested in what is good for real human beings. And trade is not always beneficial to both "parties", when you are referring to the parties as being the constituents of a nation.
I didn't mention corporations - so who has contructed the straw man here?
In fact... trade can be and in modern times often IS detrimental to both "PARTIES".
Trade between China and the US, is not only increasing human rights abuses in China, but it is increasing human rights abuses in the US. The people of both nations lose, as multinational corporations trance along their merry way externalizing the true costs of manufacturing and business to the poor oppressed people of BOTH parties, while a miniscule number of business executives and corrupt government officials perform a song and dance about how trade is good for BOTH parties.
I don't think trade between China and the US causes increasing human rights abuses in China. Those abuses would happen if there was no trade. I also can't see any evidence for trade leading to human rights abuses in the US. Trade has nothing to do with multinational corporations - multinationals can of course engage in international trade, but so can individuals and small businesses.
I wasn't talking about becoming computer literate I was asking the poster of the post I replied to what they used, out of pure and simple interest.
It was one of the words I did have to explain to my students when I used it out of habit early in the C++/Unix course - sh-bang-slash-bin and all that. I made an effort to not use it when teaching, but I'm sure I did without noticing anyway.
Having such long names for such common things (in computing) is madness.
What's wrong with slash and slosh respectively. That's what I've called them for as long as I remember, though I admit back when I was teaching C++ the confused looks before I explained my jargon on the faces of the second year students indicates it's far from universal... Do you say "exclamation mark" instead of "bang" too?
Your combining two sentences. They weren't detecting radioactive plumes they were detecting that the plant was operating at that distance, and then on another topic they could use it to map radioactive plumes if something goes boom.
It's just a programming environment, almost by definition anything you can do in it you can do in vi or emacs.
It's not some amazing leap in technology it's just a progam that puts text on the screen for you to edit.
If you don't try it you'll never know if it's methodology suits you better - though if writing a vim macro or two to do such thing seems like a good approach to you I suspect you're not going to like it at all. I'd put my money on you hating it and B2ing Exit pretty quick.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the damn definition of the thing.
If some sources are given priority that means other's have less priority and hence performance than they would otherwise - so if a source doesn't pay to be given priority their performance suffers.
Because whether the caller or the callee pays the extra cost for the mobile call is pretty much irrelevant and works out even in the end.
Why do you have to pay extra for calling someone on their mobile phone instead of on their land line? Seems a bit of a rip off to me.
So you have a poor implementation of telecommuting. Oh well, lot's of offices have poor implementations of office layouts and so on too.
Is it fun being completely retarded?
Why don't you just try the damn experiment and see what happen.
Hint: there isn't the ia bottle surrounding the ice floating in the water and hence some of it can be in the air above the water - by some amazing coincidence the mass of water it displaces will happen to equal the mass of the ice... Sure "lighter than" isn't the best way to describe less dense, but it's good enough: for a given volume the ice will be lighter because it is less dense.
I always just declare my packet of chewing gum as food and hence go through the fast line.
I will admit I have done limited research on secunia.com, but it looks as though the Linux kernel has atleast one vulnerability every month or two. I know these range from being critical to non-critical, but they are vulnerabilities nonetheless. To keep your Linux system patched and up-to-date, should it still require a reboot every so often then?
http://secunia.com/product/2719/ shows 24 for 2006. If you were running a linux machine with no local non-trusted users (ie. only admins actually log into the machine) that didn't use SCTP or NAT then none of them matter - so there would be no need to have rebooted yet.
I use Windows XP to run putty and ssh into the few dozen linux machines I actually do my work on. And to run firefox. And to run office to be able to read the various documents I need to read. And to run the windows version of some software for testing purposes. And cygwin so I can actually do some things on the machine itself occasionally. Oh, and remote desktop to login to a few remote windows machines.
All my windows are maximised and I alt-tab between them. The only bit of windows I actually see is the taskbar at the bottom of the screen and the blue bar at the top of the window. And the grey box that pops up when alt-tabbing.
Default settings are fine - sure the desktop background looks crap, but I never see it anyway.
I did customise the login screen a little so I click on the yellow rubber ducky to login, but I could live without that easily enough.
Whatever the latest service pack is, and yes it connects to the internet.
I can work with the default settings of XP just fine.
So force them to play video games?
And restrict their book reading to an hour after they've done their homework?
You should have reported them to the MPAA - since they do care about such things. Plus their actions aren't restricted by that pesky bill of rights...
Visual Basic is not good for writing for the fuel injection computer in your car. For everything else it's perfect.
I run debian on it, so I just copied my ancient shell script for copying files off my camera via gphoto and added a hotplug rule to kick it off. I've never used the various other linux installs (which are more minor tweaks to the factory image and mightn't have the components I used).
/usr/local/bin/archive_photos
/etc/hotplug/usb/libgphoto2
/usr/bin/gphoto2 --get-all-files .jpg` .JPG`
:)
I added:
to the end of
archive_photos is:
#!/bin/sh
PATH="/usr/bin:/bin:$PATH"
TARGET="/mnt/data/shares/photos/images"
VTARGET="/mnt/data/shares/videos"
SOURCE="/mnt/data/shares/photos/download"
cd "$SOURCE" || exit 1;
chown data.data *
for i in *.[Jj][Pp][Gg]
do
date=`jhead "$i" | awk '/Date\/Time/ {print $3}'| sed 's/:/./g'`
mkdir "$TARGET/$date" 2>/dev/null
if [ -e "$TARGET/$date/$i" ]
then
base=`basename $i
tail=jpg
if [ "$base" = "$i" ]
then
base=`basename $i
tail=JPG
fi
cnt=2
while test -e "$TARGET/$date/$base.$cnt.$tail"
do
cnt=`expr $cnt + 1`
done
mv "$i" "$TARGET/$date/$base.$cnt.$tail"
else
mv "$i" "$TARGET/$date/."
fi
done
for i in *.[Aa][vV][iI]
do
mv "$i" "$VTARGET/$i"
done
It's never not worked, but I'm sure there's a case somewhere which will crash it - which is why there's no "delete the files from the camera" step - I do that manually after seeing the photos on the network share. The obvious case is the disk being full which will stop the mkdir from succeeding and hence the photos from copying. However, the usage criteria for me was "can the wife use it" and she can so I declared it "good enough". And yes there should be more quoting of the basename backticks, and the $i bits at the top of the if block, but the camera never puts spaces in file names so I got lazy.
My camera is a crappy canon thing which seems to need gphoto, if your camera exports a standard file system it might be simpler.
Obviously, I had to install gphoto2, hotplug, and jhead.
Apparently my comment has to much whitespace so hopefully this paragraph will up the non-whitespace content a little. Or not, I guess I need even more then. Still not enough this is ridiculous. Oh well I guess I don't get to post what is potentially a useful comment because the website filters comments in a retarded manner. Seriously this is stupid. OK I'm trimming my nice indentation on the damn shell script... And it wants to put the gphoto2 run on the same line as the exit above it no matter what I do, ; added - my script uses a newline instead
I don't run slocate. I run a cron job that sets the DNS entry for my ever changing DSL IP if it's different than last time (and the cable IP too - but it never changes anyway it would seem). It's the only machine in my apartment that is on 24x7 - in fact all the other machines are laptops and tend to turn themselves off overnight. If it fails when I'm on vacation why would I care? It would probably be off then anyway...
I also run a nightly backup to remote machine, and backup from remote machine - but they hit the hard drives anyway.
It also runs a ntp thingamee-jingamee don't know if that logs anything though.
It's not a NAS for me, it happens to server files amongst other duties. It's primary roll is really providing a pointy-clicky interface to this thing: http://www.dacal.com.tw/dc300.htm (which exposes itself over USB as a mouse of all the bloody things they could have used).
There are a bunch of consumer level devices designed to have a USB hard drive plugged into them and export SMB shares from it. They are all around $80 or so. I have this one: http://www1.linksys.com/products/product.asp?prid= 640 but there are a bunch of ones by other companies.
It runs linux out of the box, but I've flashed mine to run a full debian system, only 32MB of RAM is the main draw back. But its attached to 3 USB drives in a software RAID, and a CD storage device, and a thumb drive (for the main system - so the disks don't get hit by every cron job). Plus plugging my digital camera into it downloads all the photos into dated directories on the 'photos' share. It also serves some web pages, mainly a cgi interface to eject disks from the CD storage device.
Works well for me, and it's a reasonably cheap and pysically small (and very underpowered CPU/memory wise) linux machine with 2 USB ports and a network port.
Where do I find these $100-$150 an hour jobs that only require me to work a few hours a day for a month?
Can I do all the work in a big chunk on the weekend - I'm willing to give up 4 weekends a year to fund the scotch for the other 48.
You have a strange idea of "in the hole" too. Because someone else could earn 40% more what I earn doing something different that I find amazingly boring means I'm in the hole?
I hear Bill Gates made more money than you. Does that mean you're a few billion in the hole?
I hear this kind of speach a lot and it concerns me. It seems to me that basically all data files (or network packets, etc.) are binary formats. What's really in question is what kind of higher-level data structures are imposed on those binary formats.
.doc file, but no one has made that claim.
Traditionally a binary file format is a one that isn't text. And a text file format is one that uses plain text which needs to be parsed and translated. It will always be faster to read 4 bytes from a file and plonk them into memory and interprete them as an integer than it is to read some bytes and do a subtraction and a multiply for each one until you read a seperator/terminator byte.
Of course the price you pay for the speed of the former is that the file won't load correctly on a machine which uses a different byte order or has different sized ints, but it is unquestionably faster to plonk uninterpreted bytes into RAM than it is to parse text.
The other big mistake: file formats aren't fast or slow. The algorithms for reading and writing them are (or aren't) slow. Marino Marcich of the ODF Alliance implicitely made this point when he said that different ODF-capable applications have different performances. Perhaps you could, in a fit of brilliant computer science analysis, prove that no reader for a particular file format could parse it as fast as Word 2000 can parse a
A more verbose file format is slower than a less verbose one if the parsing algorithms are essentially the same. If I choose to represent integers as a string of ASCII '1's the length of which encodes the number it will be slower to read than if I used decimal - simply because more data will need to be read from disk and parsed. If I used single letter names for my XML elements and no unnecessary whitespace, that'll be faster than if I used 80 character ones and lots of whitespace - though have fun with those files - simply because there is less data to read from disk and parse. With modern hardware though I really don't think it matters.
It's trivially easy to make a ridiculously slow file format - you could represent all numbers>1 as multiplications of primes and represent those primes in the file format as the first prime factor of the numbers you do store in the file - or store md5 sums instead and let the parser just try all the numbers until one matches the sum (and hope for no collisions).
And what about when they suspend a student because the student posted to a web site that they went a party and got drunk on the weekend.
If subsidy truly hurt the subsidizing nation in the long run.. there would be absolutely no reason to prohibit them in various free trade agreements. No one nation would ever do something willingly simply to hurt itself. Even the argument that what hurts 1 partner hurts the other, falls flat on its face. If I am trading with you, and you do something stupid to weaken yourself, all that you do to me, is provide me with an opportunity to buy you out completely and then conduct trade with myself on whatever basis I choose.
It doesn't just hurt the sibsidising nation. It hurts the nations who could otherwise export to that nation as well. Trade is not a zero sum game - the one side buying out the other is irrelevant too - trade will still be happening since (and I repeat yet again) it's not about which corporations are doing the trading it's about the people doing the trading. If BigCorporationA happens to both own the electronics company in one nation and the wheat farm in another when wheat is exchanged for electronics it's still trade and the people on both sides benefits. Of course a multinational corporation won't optimise the trade since it will also be trying to move revenue to the lower taxed country and expenses to the higher taxed and so on. So the people don't benefit as much as they should due to the inneficient trade.
You also keep assigning the US Government to me. I'm not the US Government. I don't vote in US elections. I'm not American. My Government does not maintain a huge military.
Trade is beneficial so Government rules to not by foreign made products is a bad thing for both countries. That multinational corporations also do things that reduce the efficiency of trade is completely unrelated.
by "efficiency" I take you it are not referring externalizing the costs of manufacturing? Because by any other measure, American manufacturing processes are amongst the most efficient in the world in terms of manpower required, resources consumed, and damage to the environment. But by your calculus of efficiency, 1 company that gets 16 hours of work from its workers, 7 days a week, by threatening them with rape and beating or starvation, hiring them during childhood and burning them out by 25 years of age is more "efficient" than the company which makes the stupid mistake of allowing workers to go to the bathroom, go home after a mere 8 hours, and live long and relatively satisfying lives?
Yes countries who treat their workers badly and don't bother with environmental controls will be more efficient in some things. Just like England was when it went through its industrial revolution. At some point the people don't put up with it any more.
Also efficiency can be relative. The US may be more efficient than another country at producing A, but more efficient at producing B by a higher margin - in which case trading B for A is beneifical to the US.
Yes... subsidization may "artificially" reduce the cost to company of needing to treat its labour force in a HUMANE fashion. But trade at the expense of HUMANITY is not beneficial to either PARTY. That is at least when you are talking about what foreign trade policies a NATION should adopt. Because in deciding trade policy the only parties are the NATIONS themselves, not the corporations. The NATIONS are the representatives of the PEOPLE and only have moral rights derived from HUMAN RIGHTS of the citizens. When you argue that increased trade is good for a NATION, you are talking about the human beings in that nation. However, you do not and can not make the claim that increased trade is always good for the people of both trading nations, because this is quite obviously NOT TRUE.
Subsidies have nothing to do with treating the labour force humanely. Europe does not subsidise their farmers for humanitarian reasons - they subsidise them for political reasons. Increased trade is better for the economies of the trading nation, which results in lots of benefits to the people of the nation - of course some people would prefer less wealth in order to keep traditions and so on.
When you say that subsidies is bad for the CORPORATION and therefore should be prohibited you are attacking a straw man. Because no one with authority to prohibit or allow subsidies derives authority from the CORPORATIONS. They derive authority from the PEOPLE. And the PEOPLE are often helped by subsidy.
no one interested in the public good really cares what is good or bad for THE CORPORATION. We are only interested in what is good for real human beings. And trade is not always beneficial to both "parties", when you are referring to the parties as being the constituents of a nation.
I didn't mention corporations - so who has contructed the straw man here?
In fact... trade can be and in modern times often IS detrimental to both "PARTIES".
Trade between China and the US, is not only increasing human rights abuses in China, but it is increasing human rights abuses in the US. The people of both nations lose, as multinational corporations trance along their merry way externalizing the true costs of manufacturing and business to the poor oppressed people of BOTH parties, while a miniscule number of business executives and corrupt government officials perform a song and dance about how trade is good for BOTH parties.
I don't think trade between China and the US causes increasing human rights abuses in China. Those abuses would happen if there was no trade. I also can't see any evidence for trade leading to human rights abuses in the US. Trade has nothing to do with multinational corporations - multinationals can of course engage in international trade, but so can individuals and small businesses.
Corporations a
I wasn't talking about becoming computer literate I was asking the poster of the post I replied to what they used, out of pure and simple interest.
It was one of the words I did have to explain to my students when I used it out of habit early in the C++/Unix course - sh-bang-slash-bin and all that. I made an effort to not use it when teaching, but I'm sure I did without noticing anyway.
The url on my posts might give away the fact that I was in aus when I picked up such terms.
This - / - is a FOREWORD-slash
This - \ - is a BACK-slash
Having such long names for such common things (in computing) is madness.
What's wrong with slash and slosh respectively. That's what I've called them for as long as I remember, though I admit back when I was teaching C++ the confused looks before I explained my jargon on the faces of the second year students indicates it's far from universal... Do you say "exclamation mark" instead of "bang" too?
Your combining two sentences. They weren't detecting radioactive plumes they were detecting that the plant was operating at that distance, and then on another topic they could use it to map radioactive plumes if something goes boom.
It's just a programming environment, almost by definition anything you can do in it you can do in vi or emacs.
It's not some amazing leap in technology it's just a progam that puts text on the screen for you to edit.
If you don't try it you'll never know if it's methodology suits you better - though if writing a vim macro or two to do such thing seems like a good approach to you I suspect you're not going to like it at all. I'd put my money on you hating it and B2ing Exit pretty quick.