Virtually every program in the world handles just LF or CR+LF the same (some may think the CR is a whitespace before the LF, but this does not affect their behavior). Even on Linux, due to the need to deal with files from Notepad. Therefore the combined output of notepad will work. What this does mean is that output from other programs is viewable in notepad.
I agree it would be nice if they just made it output LF only, but the reason is so they can get rid of "text mode" file I/O.
This is incorrect. Quite a few terminals, especially line printers and video terminals, interpreted LF as moving to the start of the next line.
It was teletypes that did the unusual move straight down. This was done in order to hide the slowness of the mechanism for returning the carraige. Having to send a LF after a CR meant that there was an extra character time to handle the CR and get the carraige all the way to the left before printing.
Dec in particular used Teletypes as cheap terminals, leading to the CR+LF behavior. CP/M was strongly influenced by DEC and from that you got MSDOS and Windows. Other systems (ie Multics, but also all other mainframe systems) used as single character for newline.
You are right, that is what it says, implying we are at (or near) the minimum. Seems strange to say we are in the "middle of the cycle" because who is to say the ends of the cycle are at the maximums (rather than the minimums) which is why I quickly read it to mean we are half way between them. The USA Today article uses the same wording so it is not the summary fault. I didn't pay the $10 to read the academic paper, besides it might not say. I wonder if perhaps they mangled the response from somebody to this question, I find it hard to believe that a scientic source would say "middle of the cycle" rather than "near the minimum".
I don't like Trump much, but as far as I can tell this is far worse. Whatever happened in the US did not cause the military and para-military death squads to start killing all the Mexicans or force them back over the border and burn their neighborhoods.
It is pretty obvious there are a lot more than 16,000 accidents per month, if you just look at how many cars are in repair shop yards. This site https://www.driverknowledge.co... claims 6 million car accidents a year which is 500,000 per month. However if you divide your 3.22 trillion figure (confirmed here: https://www.npr.org/sections/t...) by that you get 533,333 which is close to what you claimed, so I think you screwed up with your quote somewhere.
I'm still a little doubtful. I have a car with about 50,000 miles on it, and I backed into a post once to cause permanent damage to the car (I never fixed it). So my admittedly limited sample claims accidents are 10x more likely than your statistics show.
If there were self-driving taxis passengers could transfer to them (a different one, think hard in case the idea of using more than one car on a trip somehow is difficult for your little brain...) at each end. And in a lot of cases the trip on one end or another would be so short that a bicycle or walking would be faster. It does seem to me that some bicycles will fit in a box designed for humans so it is kind of ok to carry these vehicles with you. Electric scooters would be even smaller. Though both bikes and scooters might be available for rental use at each end just like self-driving cars will be.
Even in the video the elevator seems to be the slow part. I would just load from the level of the tunnel, the elevator could be much larger because it would be a real 1 point-to-point vehicle so the number of riders can be quite large. He wants to limit the size of the cars so they can stop less often compared to a subway but perhaps several cars can be filled by one elevator load. Also people are obviously willing to go several stories underground to do things (witness city shopping malls and especially city parking).
There are lots of problems and questions with his idea, but even I know this is different from the hyperloop. The pods will not be travelling very fast and there is no vacuum.
That was an Arthur C Clarke short story. I think there was a whole series of them about the first landing on the moon, written in the 50's. The Americans, Russians, and the British all sent ships at the same time, and there were about a dozen people on each of them.
If the state's popular votes were 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B, but the electors then vote 100% for candidate A, then about 40% of them are not "voting in lockstep with the State's respective popular votes".
Endless repeating of the lie that there was "no NN before this" is not going to make it true. But this appears to be the lie that your overlords have chosen. Sad.
Without NN there will be nothing *but* facebook! Don't you get it? Do you have a clue at all? The stupidity being presented here, and the endless confusion of NN with some kind of "fairness doctrine" is disgusting.
You have to realize that within a few years the "slow lane" will have a speed of ZERO. Think about it and stop being an echo chamber.
What you are describing is what they were attempting to do. It got shot down. Now AT&T can just refuse to ever move the wires (in effect making the "reasonable fee" infinite) and Google is blocked.
Competition would certainly lower the cost of Internet a lot. However I really doubt it will cause NN, despite that being a common claim from the libertarians here.
Even in countries where competition works, there are at most a dozen ISPs and usually only 4 to a given location. I don't see why they won't all choose to charge Netflix the standard "fast lane" price. The idea that enough customers will choose an ISP because it is neutral to make it a success, despite it being more expensive and Netflix is slower, is a fantasy.
Sorry but as far as I can tell rules are necessary. Or live with the result which maybe is not that bad (libertarians do have a point that often the result of a free market is pretty good), but say goodbye to Linux and free software and say goodbye to alternative opinions and free porn and small business having websites.
This is because some are being lied to, capitalizing on their inability to distinguish the word "neutrality" from "communist plot".
When the right sees the internet turned into a giant Safe Space where nonconforming opinions are not allowed because they hurt business, and there is no more free porn, they might realize they were misled.
I see what you are getting at. The certainly are not defensive weapons either (if NK had the ability to take out a carrier task force with a nuke then they could be defensive, but I don't think anybody thinks they have any chance of doing that, and even NK's propaganda implies that the nukes are for destroying cities). I was defining "offensive weapon" as "useful for winning a conflict", rather than the definition you are using of "not defensive". In reality the nukes are neither offensive or defensive, which is the real indication that the NK is totally insane, since they spent a lot of their meager resources on this.
Possibly some in NK think of them as defensive in the form of "they will make the other countries treat us better", though that is obviously not true. Another argument is that they prevent an attack but since they have not been attacked when they did not have nukes this does not make sense either. I really feel that the real purpose of them in their minds is "it makes you notice us" and "it gets you all bothered". Some of the more scary parts of the NK probably think of it as "when we go down we will cause a lot of death so you will remember us".
I don't like the fact that you think I disagree with you about the threat. The Trump administration is doing as good a job on this as I think is possible (though I think all previous administrations have done just about as good a job as possible too). Nobody attacked before, but now chances of a war with China have greatly reduced now, so the problems left are the expense and the fear of millions of refugees. So it may very well be logical to do it.
Why the hell do you think I said the nukes "don't exist"? Obviously they do. All I said is that they are not "offensive weapons". Offensive weapons are weapons designed to win a fight.
They are completely insane, yes, but I don't think even they think that launching a nuke will somehow allow them to win a fight (it would require them to accurately target nukes to hit enough task forces and military bases so that we could not retaliate with overwhelming force). The dangerous and insane thing in their minds is that they see it as "we will kill a lot of you before we lose so you will remember us" if a war breaks out. The less insane thing is that they think this deters attacks on them (including economic sanctions), which (whether or not it really works) means they think of them as defensive weapons.
The odd thing is that the army, which the gp described as "defensive", is far more usable as an offensive weapon. They could invade a good deal of south Korea and if they are really lucky the allies might stop fighting before taking all of the terrain back, in which case they actually did gain something, so the army is an offensive weapon.
Slashdot Mirror
Virtually every program in the world handles just LF or CR+LF the same (some may think the CR is a whitespace before the LF, but this does not affect their behavior). Even on Linux, due to the need to deal with files from Notepad. Therefore the combined output of notepad will work. What this does mean is that output from other programs is viewable in notepad.
I agree it would be nice if they just made it output LF only, but the reason is so they can get rid of "text mode" file I/O.
This is incorrect. Quite a few terminals, especially line printers and video terminals, interpreted LF as moving to the start of the next line.
It was teletypes that did the unusual move straight down. This was done in order to hide the slowness of the mechanism for returning the carraige. Having to send a LF after a CR meant that there was an extra character time to handle the CR and get the carraige all the way to the left before printing.
Dec in particular used Teletypes as cheap terminals, leading to the CR+LF behavior. CP/M was strongly influenced by DEC and from that you got MSDOS and Windows. Other systems (ie Multics, but also all other mainframe systems) used as single character for newline.
You are right, that is what it says, implying we are at (or near) the minimum. Seems strange to say we are in the "middle of the cycle" because who is to say the ends of the cycle are at the maximums (rather than the minimums) which is why I quickly read it to mean we are half way between them. The USA Today article uses the same wording so it is not the summary fault. I didn't pay the $10 to read the academic paper, besides it might not say. I wonder if perhaps they mangled the response from somebody to this question, I find it hard to believe that a scientic source would say "middle of the cycle" rather than "near the minimum".
It says are half way between the maximum and minimum.
I don't like Trump much, but as far as I can tell this is far worse. Whatever happened in the US did not cause the military and para-military death squads to start killing all the Mexicans or force them back over the border and burn their neighborhoods.
It is pretty obvious there are a lot more than 16,000 accidents per month, if you just look at how many cars are in repair shop yards. This site https://www.driverknowledge.co... claims 6 million car accidents a year which is 500,000 per month. However if you divide your 3.22 trillion figure (confirmed here: https://www.npr.org/sections/t...) by that you get 533,333 which is close to what you claimed, so I think you screwed up with your quote somewhere.
I'm still a little doubtful. I have a car with about 50,000 miles on it, and I backed into a post once to cause permanent damage to the car (I never fixed it). So my admittedly limited sample claims accidents are 10x more likely than your statistics show.
Originally designed to see the Big Bang, delays mean it will only be able to see back to 4 years after the big bang.
Putting one car on another car is pretty silly.
If there were self-driving taxis passengers could transfer to them (a different one, think hard in case the idea of using more than one car on a trip somehow is difficult for your little brain...) at each end. And in a lot of cases the trip on one end or another would be so short that a bicycle or walking would be faster. It does seem to me that some bicycles will fit in a box designed for humans so it is kind of ok to carry these vehicles with you. Electric scooters would be even smaller. Though both bikes and scooters might be available for rental use at each end just like self-driving cars will be.
Even in the video the elevator seems to be the slow part. I would just load from the level of the tunnel, the elevator could be much larger because it would be a real 1 point-to-point vehicle so the number of riders can be quite large. He wants to limit the size of the cars so they can stop less often compared to a subway but perhaps several cars can be filled by one elevator load. Also people are obviously willing to go several stories underground to do things (witness city shopping malls and especially city parking).
There are lots of problems and questions with his idea, but even I know this is different from the hyperloop. The pods will not be travelling very fast and there is no vacuum.
They are putting the trackers in the cars anyway even without self-driving. Don't blame self driving.
That was an Arthur C Clarke short story. I think there was a whole series of them about the first landing on the moon, written in the 50's. The Americans, Russians, and the British all sent ships at the same time, and there were about a dozen people on each of them.
If the state's popular votes were 60% for candidate A and 40% for candidate B, but the electors then vote 100% for candidate A, then about 40% of them are not "voting in lockstep with the State's respective popular votes".
Endless repeating of the lie that there was "no NN before this" is not going to make it true. But this appears to be the lie that your overlords have chosen. Sad.
Orange is a small regional provider? Thanks for providing the laugh of the day.
Holy fuck you people are stupid.
Without NN there will be nothing *but* facebook! Don't you get it? Do you have a clue at all? The stupidity being presented here, and the endless confusion of NN with some kind of "fairness doctrine" is disgusting.
You have to realize that within a few years the "slow lane" will have a speed of ZERO. Think about it and stop being an echo chamber.
Vancouver more than Toronto, actually.
I think they ruled that neither you or Sam can move Joe's crap.
What you are describing is what they were attempting to do. It got shot down. Now AT&T can just refuse to ever move the wires (in effect making the "reasonable fee" infinite) and Google is blocked.
They *did* take them to court, and lost!
Competition would certainly lower the cost of Internet a lot. However I really doubt it will cause NN, despite that being a common claim from the libertarians here.
Even in countries where competition works, there are at most a dozen ISPs and usually only 4 to a given location. I don't see why they won't all choose to charge Netflix the standard "fast lane" price. The idea that enough customers will choose an ISP because it is neutral to make it a success, despite it being more expensive and Netflix is slower, is a fantasy.
Sorry but as far as I can tell rules are necessary. Or live with the result which maybe is not that bad (libertarians do have a point that often the result of a free market is pretty good), but say goodbye to Linux and free software and say goodbye to alternative opinions and free porn and small business having websites.
nobody but the left really cares
This is because some are being lied to, capitalizing on their inability to distinguish the word "neutrality" from "communist plot".
When the right sees the internet turned into a giant Safe Space where nonconforming opinions are not allowed because they hurt business, and there is no more free porn, they might realize they were misled.
You end Gerrymandering by requiring that the total length of the borders of all districts be minimized, and let a computer figure out the districts.
Probably only needs to clear the TLB when leaving kernel mode. I don't think it is a problem if the kernel can read user pages using this bug.
I see what you are getting at. The certainly are not defensive weapons either (if NK had the ability to take out a carrier task force with a nuke then they could be defensive, but I don't think anybody thinks they have any chance of doing that, and even NK's propaganda implies that the nukes are for destroying cities). I was defining "offensive weapon" as "useful for winning a conflict", rather than the definition you are using of "not defensive". In reality the nukes are neither offensive or defensive, which is the real indication that the NK is totally insane, since they spent a lot of their meager resources on this.
Possibly some in NK think of them as defensive in the form of "they will make the other countries treat us better", though that is obviously not true. Another argument is that they prevent an attack but since they have not been attacked when they did not have nukes this does not make sense either. I really feel that the real purpose of them in their minds is "it makes you notice us" and "it gets you all bothered". Some of the more scary parts of the NK probably think of it as "when we go down we will cause a lot of death so you will remember us".
I don't like the fact that you think I disagree with you about the threat. The Trump administration is doing as good a job on this as I think is possible (though I think all previous administrations have done just about as good a job as possible too). Nobody attacked before, but now chances of a war with China have greatly reduced now, so the problems left are the expense and the fear of millions of refugees. So it may very well be logical to do it.
Why the hell do you think I said the nukes "don't exist"? Obviously they do. All I said is that they are not "offensive weapons". Offensive weapons are weapons designed to win a fight.
They are completely insane, yes, but I don't think even they think that launching a nuke will somehow allow them to win a fight (it would require them to accurately target nukes to hit enough task forces and military bases so that we could not retaliate with overwhelming force). The dangerous and insane thing in their minds is that they see it as "we will kill a lot of you before we lose so you will remember us" if a war breaks out. The less insane thing is that they think this deters attacks on them (including economic sanctions), which (whether or not it really works) means they think of them as defensive weapons.
The odd thing is that the army, which the gp described as "defensive", is far more usable as an offensive weapon. They could invade a good deal of south Korea and if they are really lucky the allies might stop fighting before taking all of the terrain back, in which case they actually did gain something, so the army is an offensive weapon.