Maybe you should learn to read." President Trump's new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but it would lay the groundwork for doing so by weakening a key legal justification for the measure"
Holy crap I know you tried absolutely as hard as possible to make what the Obama administration somehow sound wrong but even then it docs like they did exactly the right thing. Counting auxillary benefits is always always always done, unless you really want to lie as you seen to want to.
Aluminum is made where electricity is cheaper than that.
However the more obvious problem with this analysis is that $1 worth of Aluminum is a large piece that is actually useful to make things, some of which cost many orders of magnitude more than $1. $1 of gold is pretty tiny and difficult to make into anything worth much more than a few dollars. Also if Bitcoin crashes it's energy cost per dollar goes up a lot.
You are thinking of some kind of price control on rental units. That is not how any rent control works. Generally a new unit can rent for any amount, the control is that it can't be raised more than a certain percentage each year. So it does not encourage cheaper units.
Bull. I was just in Paris. Not only are Bird and Lime scooters in use, there were many many apparently privately owned motorized scooters in use, perhaps more than bicycles.
I think everybody is asking how useful it is to detect people overstaying *when they are leaving*!!!
You seem rather butt hurt that somebody might question this. It has nothing to do with whether enforcement of immigration is a good or bad idea.
A better explanation without your misconception of what is being asked: 1. it is useful for getting a count of how much overstaying is happening (huge amounts btw, many times the number of people sneaking across the border). 2. It could stop somebody who previously overstayed from entering again (ie they are detected the third time they are in the airport trying to get back in. 3. I think they could arrest you for overstaying, though that seems counter productive unless the person really was an extreme case.
Obviously this could be done with normal passport checking and not facial recognition, so it would be interesting to know if this is faster, more accurate, cheaper, or any other comparisons. Just saying a few thousand got caught does not tell me much.
If this was European pan optician facial recognition of everybody in the airport and not just travelers it might catch more. I can certainly see reasons that somebody overstaying would visit the airport, since they probably know some other people who are coming and going. But as far as I can tell they are not claiming they are doing that.
Twitter could also ban Mother Teresa if her "tweets cross a line with abusive behavior" (probably somebody could pick a better example who is not dead).
This whole article is just to rile and trigger the idiots of all persuasions, apparently, judging by the equal amounts of stupidity displayed by both Trump lovers and haters in these Slashdot comments.
He's not suggesting adding another moon to Earth. His idea won't work for other reasons (in particular if we stop using whatever engines are keeping them in place, the planets will osscilate and eventually collide, this is how the moon was formed).
Sending CR+LF to a terminal that did both for LF was harmless, which was why the dumb definition does that. Most of these terminals had a option to switch the behavior due to the popularity of DEC operating systems (as they supported Backspace it was actually possible some software relied on LF going straight down, earlier terminals did not interpret backspace so going straight down was nearly useless). I know VT100s did, I think VT52 did with a dip switch. As the computer could not know which way the terminals were set, sending both was safer.
This is incorrect. LF was pretty useless for positioning because the machines lacked any method of moving the printhead to the left (other than CR). Backspace did not work.
The reason LF worked this was was to force data to waste the time of 1 character after sending a CR. If LF returned to the left and moved down (as it did on MANY devices) then cheap ones could not do this fast enough to be able to print the next character.
No this is not correct. CR+LF was developed on CP/M and on early DEC microcomputers which were smaller or equal to the machines Unix was developed on. In fact CR+LF saved the need for code that translated one byte to two when printing to terminals that needed it, so in fact the limits of the machines actually caused CR+LF to be preferred. On these machines the idea of storing text long enough to have more than one line was probably laughable, too, so the space taken by a newline was irrelevant.
In the 70's a primary use of Teletypes was about 60 baud! (for wire services).
Believe me, there was INTENSE desire to use only one character for newlines.
The problem was that the mechanism for returning the carraige was slow, so Teletype forced the need to send a second character by making LF go straight down rather than to the left and down.
Wrong. Many printers and video terminals interpreted LF as doing both CR and LF. Nobody can rely on LF moving straight down, and nobody did. The reason for CR+LF was to insure enough time was spent for the carraige to get to the left edge, by wasting an extra character time processing the LF.
No they do not. The BOM is probably the biggest obstacle to getting I18N and Unicode working on Windows, and it is leaking into Linux from there as well.
The BOM is a parser error for many programs that can handle UTF-8 fine. Even if you fix the parsers you have to deal with embedded BOM from concatenation, and you have to deal with other programs having (like the #! parser) not agreeing with you.
Never ever ever write UTF-8 with a BOM unless you are copying a file with a BOM in it.
Slashdot Mirror
I can assure you that people who complain about the GIMP name are not what you call "SJW". Likely the exact opposite.
Maybe you should learn to read." President Trump's new proposal does not repeal the regulation, known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but it would lay the groundwork for doing so by weakening a key legal justification for the measure"
I don't think Trump card one but about stopping sewage from Tijuana. You think the wall is good to be sewage proof?
Holy crap I know you tried absolutely as hard as possible to make what the Obama administration somehow sound wrong but even then it docs like they did exactly the right thing. Counting auxillary benefits is always always always done, unless you really want to lie as you seen to want to.
That was Dukakis, not Mondale
Aluminum is made where electricity is cheaper than that.
However the more obvious problem with this analysis is that $1 worth of Aluminum is a large piece that is actually useful to make things, some of which cost many orders of magnitude more than $1. $1 of gold is pretty tiny and difficult to make into anything worth much more than a few dollars. Also if Bitcoin crashes it's energy cost per dollar goes up a lot.
ldd also does such recursive searches.
You are thinking of some kind of price control on rental units. That is not how any rent control works. Generally a new unit can rent for any amount, the control is that it can't be raised more than a certain percentage each year. So it does not encourage cheaper units.
How about where they store the two tons of metal most workers bring with them every day?
Bull. I was just in Paris. Not only are Bird and Lime scooters in use, there were many many apparently privately owned motorized scooters in use, perhaps more than bicycles.
I think everybody is asking how useful it is to detect people overstaying *when they are leaving*!!!
You seem rather butt hurt that somebody might question this. It has nothing to do with whether enforcement of immigration is a good or bad idea.
A better explanation without your misconception of what is being asked: 1. it is useful for getting a count of how much overstaying is happening (huge amounts btw, many times the number of people sneaking across the border). 2. It could stop somebody who previously overstayed from entering again (ie they are detected the third time they are in the airport trying to get back in. 3. I think they could arrest you for overstaying, though that seems counter productive unless the person really was an extreme case.
Obviously this could be done with normal passport checking and not facial recognition, so it would be interesting to know if this is faster, more accurate, cheaper, or any other comparisons. Just saying a few thousand got caught does not tell me much.
If this was European pan optician facial recognition of everybody in the airport and not just travelers it might catch more. I can certainly see reasons that somebody overstaying would visit the airport, since they probably know some other people who are coming and going. But as far as I can tell they are not claiming they are doing that.
What? It clearly says right on the painting "500K" so he like paid 200x the marked price!
Do phones fall in this category? Seems like a huge detail was left out of summary.
Twitter could also ban Mother Teresa if her "tweets cross a line with abusive behavior" (probably somebody could pick a better example who is not dead).
This whole article is just to rile and trigger the idiots of all persuasions, apparently, judging by the equal amounts of stupidity displayed by both Trump lovers and haters in these Slashdot comments.
He's not suggesting adding another moon to Earth. His idea won't work for other reasons (in particular if we stop using whatever engines are keeping them in place, the planets will osscilate and eventually collide, this is how the moon was formed).
What is Sony ATV? All Terrain Vehicles?
Post to remove fat fingered mod
Linux
Next question?
Sending CR+LF to a terminal that did both for LF was harmless, which was why the dumb definition does that. Most of these terminals had a option to switch the behavior due to the popularity of DEC operating systems (as they supported Backspace it was actually possible some software relied on LF going straight down, earlier terminals did not interpret backspace so going straight down was nearly useless). I know VT100s did, I think VT52 did with a dip switch. As the computer could not know which way the terminals were set, sending both was safer.
This is incorrect. LF was pretty useless for positioning because the machines lacked any method of moving the printhead to the left (other than CR). Backspace did not work.
The reason LF worked this was was to force data to waste the time of 1 character after sending a CR. If LF returned to the left and moved down (as it did on MANY devices) then cheap ones could not do this fast enough to be able to print the next character.
And the BOM breaks every one of those magic numbers by being there instead of them, stupid.
No this is not correct. CR+LF was developed on CP/M and on early DEC microcomputers which were smaller or equal to the machines Unix was developed on. In fact CR+LF saved the need for code that translated one byte to two when printing to terminals that needed it, so in fact the limits of the machines actually caused CR+LF to be preferred. On these machines the idea of storing text long enough to have more than one line was probably laughable, too, so the space taken by a newline was irrelevant.
In the 70's a primary use of Teletypes was about 60 baud! (for wire services).
Believe me, there was INTENSE desire to use only one character for newlines.
The problem was that the mechanism for returning the carraige was slow, so Teletype forced the need to send a second character by making LF go straight down rather than to the left and down.
Wrong. Many printers and video terminals interpreted LF as doing both CR and LF. Nobody can rely on LF moving straight down, and nobody did. The reason for CR+LF was to insure enough time was spent for the carraige to get to the left edge, by wasting an extra character time processing the LF.
No they do not. The BOM is probably the biggest obstacle to getting I18N and Unicode working on Windows, and it is leaking into Linux from there as well.
The BOM is a parser error for many programs that can handle UTF-8 fine. Even if you fix the parsers you have to deal with embedded BOM from concatenation, and you have to deal with other programs having (like the #! parser) not agreeing with you.
Never ever ever write UTF-8 with a BOM unless you are copying a file with a BOM in it.