Nano has a better license and more features. Pico under the default Mac OS X install is a symlink to the installed nano so when you run/usr/bin/pico you are actually running/usr/bin/nano.
I mean, I can configure crappy old Windows to my liking too....I thought Macs just 'did the right thing'.
GP's default terminal behavior sounds like the wrong thing. It's not necessarily the wrong thing. The way you close a window in a Mac OS application, by default, is Command-W. Closing a window is a different logical operation than exiting a shell. For example, if the shell has a problem during the process of exiting then you want the window to still be around to report the problem and be able to recover.
That being said, Apple did allow for your own personal preference and if you want to roll up the functionality of closing a window into that of exiting a shell they let you set it up that way. It's a good compromise in my opinion.
when I type Ctrl-D it should CLOSE the terminal window! Not show process is complete and THEN make you close the terminal. Um, open a window, go to Terminal->Window Settings->Shell, set the "When the shell exits" option to "Close only if the shell exited cleanly" then hit the "Use Settings as Defaults" button
There ya go, now the window will close when the shell exits.:)
Terminal.app is not a half bad terminal program. Yeah there are more customizable ones out there and ones that have some interesting features but Terminal.app is a decent no-frills terminal program. Poke around (or use the help menu) and you'll see that it can be customized decently to fit your liking.
Kuwait (not a democracy, by the way) drilled diagonal wells into Iraq's oil fields. No, Iraq CLAIMED that Kuwait was drilling diagonal wells and they used that as one of the reasons for their assault on Kuwait. As far as I've seen there was never any further substantiation of that claim.
In any case there was no need for Iraq to invade another country over this issue. The proper thing to do would be to use an international body such as the United Nations to negotiate the issue. By starting a war Iraq opened itself up for the United Nations to intervene on the side of Kuwait instead of on the side of Iraq.
You are correct though, the first Gulf War was completely uncalled for. It's too bad that Iraq didn't think that way before they embarked upon a military solution.
As for the name calling, do you think that you can make your argument stronger by using ad hominem attacks? You might want to rethink that strategy, it only ends up making you look foolish.
Don't want to get bombed? Don't bomb other people. That's some sage advice there. You'll note that in pretty much all cases the USA didn't bomb first, they bombed as a result of the other nations actions. For example, Iraq attacks Kuwait, a smaller, neighbor nation. The USA comes in along with United Nation forces and forces Iraq to stop its agression.
Now if you look at the actions of the United States over at least the past 20 years you'll note that we don't have a policy of randomly going around and bombing people, it was always as a reaction to other people's aggressive actions. This is no different than any other nation out there, poke a nation and it will react, same as any individual would.
I'd ease off that high horse before it throws you and you knock your head on a rock.
An Anonymous Coward blathered on about:
ENOUGH with the blumin because of terrorism. You want to hide in a hole somewhere, fine, go do it, most of us would like to keep our lives the way they are. Well apparently you don't have enough conviction in your argument to say it with a real account. See I'm not hiding in a hole somewhere, I have no problem with letting people not only know what I think but also letting them know who is saying it.
You'll also note that I didn't say that I AGREED with the terrorism angle, I simply stated that's the reason WHY it is happening.
Really people, this is Slashdot - news for nerds and all. I figured that geeks would be a step above the usual sheep you meet walking the streets but apparently the sheep post here too...
I would posit that most of the non-native ancestry US citizens would not be here if the immigration standards for their ancestors had been stricter than breathing, strong back and no pink eye. Ahh, I didn't see it was derogatory remark day at Slashdot! I believe this sums up your anonymous post:
They've made it quite clear that they don't like "furriners", so why are people still pressing the issue? Canada is a free and open society, and just to the north. Too bad we really do like "foreigners" (I guess you Canadians spell it differently) here in the USA. However, you try getting bombed a few times and then we'll see just how flexible things will be in Canada.
The reality of the situation is that once you have a serious terrorist attack or two on your soil then everything gets clamped down a bit more. No one wants to be the person who lets the next would-be terrorist into the country. This means that everyone from the top down doesn't have any desire to bend the rules a bit to make life easier. Even with this we still have a fairly free and open society here in the USA, most likely just as free and open as Canadian society.
Maybe you should exercise some of that "free and open" thought that you are trumpeting and try to understand the whole situation rather than just being nasty about it?
Yeah I pretty much figured that. I was thinking more along the lines of the old Apple Newton. Note-taking (handwriting recognition, not keyboarding), lightweight drawing programs, simple spreadsheets and databases, that sort of stuff.
They don't allow you to install OSX on custom hardware. They don't allow people to build Apple-compatible hardware. They have locked down almost everything in their OS interface, and the options are limited.
Initially they had all proprietary ports for peripherals even, and you had to buy special Apple printers and what not (now they're more liberal in that department). Both of these are related to the fact that Apple is mostly a hardware company (well really a total solution company). Most of their business comes from hardware sales. Anything that would hurt the hardware sales is not encouraged, such as selling you a copy of Mac OS to run on someone else's hardware. Yes they do sell copies of Mac OS separate from the hardware but that is intended for people who already own a Macintosh and are looking to upgrade their operating system.
Apple also had good reason for what type of connections they used for their peripherals. The first Mac used a DB-9 port, RJ11 connector for the Macintosh Keyboard, two RS-232/RS-422 serial ports, and a sound port for external audio amplifier or headphones. These are all standard ports. Throughout the years Apple tried several different types of ports, almost all of them were non-proprietary standards. Even the "proprietary" printer port was a standard Mini-DIN 8 port. Oh and you didn't need a special Apple printer, most Apple computers of that era had standard SCSI ports and many printers worked just fine with the proper parallel to SCSI cable.
The difference is that Apple sometimes made choices that the non-Apple computer manufacturers didn't adopt. This is mostly because Apple was willing to try new standards in order to make a better product. A good example of this is USB. Prior to the iMac almost no computers were made with USB ports. The iMac abandoned almost all types of ports out there and just had USB ports. This was a very risky move on Apple's part but it caught on and now USB is the de-facto standard.
I'm in the process of svn-downloading the source (which takes forever [grin]) but there's no mention anywhere of what this "--with-heavenly=/path/to/Heavenly1A543a.UserBundl e" option refers to, when compiling the toolchain. Take a look at this page, down near the bottom.
The really cool thing here is reading the source code of the "Hello World" application. It's great to see that it's pretty standard stuff for Mac OS X programmers. I mean I know that the iPhone is running a version of Mac OS X but it didn't really hit home until I saw the familiar Cocoa programming that I use to make Mac OS X applications for desktop and laptop computers.
This is very exciting for developers, I really hope that Apple either encourages this or at the worst turns a blind eye to it. Apple hasn't done much to discourage people from modding their iPods, Macintoshes, or Apple TVs, lets hope that trend continues. If the iPhone becomes a true handheld computer and not just a fancy phone then I can see it really taking off.
Taking away the guns results in tremendously fewer gun deaths. And taking away water would result in tremendously fewer water deaths but I still wouldn't advocate that we all move en-masse to Mars.
OK lets take one of your examples:
If you stop me in the street and ask me for directions, and I help you out without asking for a fee in return, I am giving you a free service. It is irrelevant that you as a consumer or a taxpayer are part of a system that has, for example, provided us with streets to talk about, or which has provided me with healthcare to be able to be there. It is also free even if I decide I will only grant these requests if other people have similarly helped me out. Now this analogy falls apart when you compare it to how government programs REALLY work. The government doesn't have random helpful people walking around giving out stuff free of charge. Instead the government has PAID employees whose JOB it is to provide services for you. These people get paid from money which you gave to the government in the form of TAXES. There is nothing for free, if the government doesn't collect taxes then these people don't get paid and then there are no government programs giving stuff out for "free".
Yes, there is no immediate, per-instance cost of a lot of government services. Instead you pay continuously in installments for the privilege of getting services for "free". A better analogy would be those offers you get in the store, "buy two apples, get one FREE". You don't get the third apple for free, instead you get 3 apples for the cost of 2 of them. As a matter of fact you probably didn't even get a discount at all since they most likely just bumped up the price of each apple by 33% in the first place.
If the government or anyone else provides it for no charge, it is by definition free. If the government is providing something for "no charge" then they probably already charged you for it through your taxes. Just because you didn't explicitly pay for it that doesn't mean that you got it for free.
The plastic is just fuel for the process, it reduces the amount of oil or natural gas you would need to run the smelter. The glass actually helps you a bit because it becomes part of the slag which assists in the separation process.
With a well-designed process you can get pretty good efficiencies out of the smelter and also keep emissions into the environment at a low level. With modern smokestack scrubbers and effluent recovery systems you can re-capture elements that you can turn around and sell in order to defray the costs of running the plant. You'd be surprised at just how far waste recovery systems have come in the last 20 years or so.
No need to remove the functionality, just remove the swap partition. 'swapoff -a' does the trick nicely. Nope, you have the wrong OS there, that's how you do it under Linux. Under Mac OS X you edit the/etc/rc file and comment out the line that says:
Unlike InfoSec Sellout (who is likely blowing smoke up his as*), Charles Miller and the rest of the Independent Security Evaluators team should be applauded for their work. They responsibly reported the vulnerability (and a potential fix) to Apple for investigation. I totally agree. This is a clear-cut example of responsible investigation. They reported the bug to Apple and gave them a decent amount of lead time to work on the problem. It's no big surprise that Apple has already responded and the two groups are communicating to solve the issue.
People wonder why Apple doesn't respond to a group like InfoSec well the answer should be obvious: InfoSec is not in the investigation business to help solve problems, they are in it to cause problems. A lot of these groups are either in it to try to cause embarrassment to companies or to sell their findings to people who have nefarious intents. Many "security analysts" are simply greedy trolls who no sane company would give any sort of recognition.
There are still some decent researchers out there and the Independent Security Evaluators team appears to be among them. Thanks for doing the right thing guys!
I think grandparent post is talking about the machine doing something shonky like: 1. Generate a random number. 2. Convert that random number to a game outcome. 3. If outcome is 'player loses', display a non-paying 'near miss' on the lines played, or even a paying 'near miss' on unplayed lines. Probably but I wanted to point out that there are legal ways of being intentionally misleading when it comes to slot machines. Yes the law is says that you can't do the steps you outlined but there are many ways of still misleading the slot machine player that don't fall under the law.
The method I described is only one of many ways that a slot machine manufacturer could influence a player in a way that favors the casino. An example of another way of being misleading is to have additional symbols that closely resemble the winning ones. Then when these symbols come up you are tricked into getting the initial elation of winning a big prize. If these misleading symbols also payout for small prizes then you are further rewarded for playing and are more likely to continue to play. These small wins can be tailored to have a win rate which is less than the loss rate but only a careful player would ever notice this fact.
The article is a bit hamfisted with some of the information and conclusions it presents but one thing definitely rings true - the casino tailors the environment to best work on the psychology of the players in order to get them to spend more money and get addicted to gambling. This can be seen in every aspect of the casino environment, from the structure of the games to the ancillary entertainment provided by the casino to the food and the comps systems used.
The key to countering this is to make all your decisions before you enter that environment. Decide how long you are going to stay, how much money you are willing to lose, what exactly you are going to do at the casino, and so on. Also take a good, hard look at the reason WHY you are going to the casino in the first place and whether there is someplace else less risky that would satisfy that reason. If it is for entertainment maybe you would be better off going to dinner and a movie for the price of $50 per person rather than the casino for the price of $200 per person.
There's nothing wrong with casinos, what's wrong is going to them blindly and randomly and getting addicted to the "thrill" of the casino experience. It's like any other activity - moderation is good, excess is bad.
In fact, intentionally displaying "near misses" is illegal in pretty much every single gaming jurisdiction. Actually there is a very easy way of legally doing this. You set up the wheels so that certain wheels have more of some symbols than others.
Suppose there are 3 wheels and 3 symbols - a, b, and c. The wheels have the symbols in the following amounts: wheel 1: a a b c c wheel 2: a a b b c wheel 3: a b b c c
In other words, two wheels have two copies of symbol "a" and one wheel has one copy of symbol "a". The same goes for the other symbols.
You now have a much greater chance of getting 2 of any symbol than you do of getting all 3. This is just a simple example, there are many more ways of setting up the wheels so that you get a large amount of "near misses" and are goaded into playing the machine more. It's not illegal to set up the wheels in this manner, what is illegal is pre-deciding the result of a random spin of the wheels. This kind of setup is just obfuscating the chances of getting a certain layout of symbols.
Anyways, the whole point is that even with a large temperature difference we aren't talking about much of a difference in volume. The likelihood is that we are talking about under a 1% difference. Maybe there should be a push for a regional assumed temperature that each state's Department of Weights & Measures would adopt for validating gasoline pumps but refitting existing pumps with temperature monitoring features is probably overkill.
I'm not a huge Java fan, but I think they have maintainability down pat. Very consistent language, well defined coding convention, and a mature set of defacto tools (JUnit, javadoc, log4j, struts, spring, hibernate, etc..) make it a lot easier to jump into older code because everything feels familiar. In most other languages you have to spend quite a bit of time just decrypting the existing code, and then more time learning the particular API's they've chosen. I totally agree about that, I'm also not a fan of the language but at least they have a very well-defined coding convention which makes it much easier to read if the programmer followed the guidelines.
I do a lot of programming in Objective-C by way of Apple's Cocoa and I find Apple's Coding Guidelines for Cocoa to be a great set of coding conventions to follow. Once you get used to their guidelines it becomes very easy to read code that follows those guidelines. Add to this the fact that Objective-C is naturally an easy language to understand and you have a great combination.
Well it's kinda implied by what I said but you're right, I should have explicitly listed them.
Ti is the temperature of the standard that the gas company uses for its metering, 60 degrees F. Tf is the theoretical temperature I chose in my example, 100 degrees F
You need to convert the temperatures to Celsius so they would become Tf = 38 C and Ti = 16 C, for a delta T of 22 C
Vi and Vf are left dimensionless since I really want the ratio of the two. I basically divided both sides by Vi in order to get the equation:
(Vf / Vi) = 1 + 950 x 10^-6 x (Tf - Ti)
(Vf / Vi) = 1 + 950 x 10^-6 x 22
(Vf / Vi) = 1.0209
That's a little off my figure of 1.0211% but it's probably due to a rounding error.
That's a bigger different in money than the rounding up they do with that extra 0.009. You buy enough of it that the 3rd digit is random and they always round it up, so I see that as on average you're paying (1+2..+9)/10 or 0.0045 extra for fuel. Which for a a $10 tank of gas is.045% Um, if you buy $10 worth of gas you'll get exactly $10 worth, there's no rounding or anything involved. Therefore you are paying 0/10 or 0% extra for fuel.
Now if you buy 1 gallon of gas for $3.099 and they round up you'll pay $3.10 for $3.099 worth of fuel, which is $0.001/$1 or 0.1% extra for your 1 gallon.
If you do the same for 5 gallons it's the same because 5 x $3.099 = $15.495, rounded up is $15.50, a difference of $0.005/$5 which is 0.1% extra again.
So basically we are both saying it's an amazingly low amount for both the extra thousands place in the price and the extra cost due to thermal expansion? Sounds about right to me...
"From shallow depths to about 200 ft (61 m) below the surface, the temperature is constant at about 55F (11C)."... I got this from a friend of mine the is a geologist that works for Chevron. The fuel tanks I have seen are not 200 feet deep. Yes, the tanks are buried relatively shallow. This statement says that FROM shallow depths TO 200 feet is around 55F. Therefore an assumption that the fuel temperature is around 60F is probably about right. That statement does NOT say that 200 feet and below is around 55F.
Slashdot Mirror
GP's default terminal behavior sounds like the wrong thing. It's not necessarily the wrong thing. The way you close a window in a Mac OS application, by default, is Command-W. Closing a window is a different logical operation than exiting a shell. For example, if the shell has a problem during the process of exiting then you want the window to still be around to report the problem and be able to recover.
That being said, Apple did allow for your own personal preference and if you want to roll up the functionality of closing a window into that of exiting a shell they let you set it up that way. It's a good compromise in my opinion.
There ya go, now the window will close when the shell exits.
Terminal.app is not a half bad terminal program. Yeah there are more customizable ones out there and ones that have some interesting features but Terminal.app is a decent no-frills terminal program. Poke around (or use the help menu) and you'll see that it can be customized decently to fit your liking.
In any case there was no need for Iraq to invade another country over this issue. The proper thing to do would be to use an international body such as the United Nations to negotiate the issue. By starting a war Iraq opened itself up for the United Nations to intervene on the side of Kuwait instead of on the side of Iraq.
You are correct though, the first Gulf War was completely uncalled for. It's too bad that Iraq didn't think that way before they embarked upon a military solution.
As for the name calling, do you think that you can make your argument stronger by using ad hominem attacks? You might want to rethink that strategy, it only ends up making you look foolish.
Now if you look at the actions of the United States over at least the past 20 years you'll note that we don't have a policy of randomly going around and bombing people, it was always as a reaction to other people's aggressive actions. This is no different than any other nation out there, poke a nation and it will react, same as any individual would.
I'd ease off that high horse before it throws you and you knock your head on a rock.
You'll also note that I didn't say that I AGREED with the terrorism angle, I simply stated that's the reason WHY it is happening.
Really people, this is Slashdot - news for nerds and all. I figured that geeks would be a step above the usual sheep you meet walking the streets but apparently the sheep post here too...
Green Blackboards (And Other Anomalies)
The reality of the situation is that once you have a serious terrorist attack or two on your soil then everything gets clamped down a bit more. No one wants to be the person who lets the next would-be terrorist into the country. This means that everyone from the top down doesn't have any desire to bend the rules a bit to make life easier. Even with this we still have a fairly free and open society here in the USA, most likely just as free and open as Canadian society.
Maybe you should exercise some of that "free and open" thought that you are trumpeting and try to understand the whole situation rather than just being nasty about it?
Yeah I pretty much figured that. I was thinking more along the lines of the old Apple Newton. Note-taking (handwriting recognition, not keyboarding), lightweight drawing programs, simple spreadsheets and databases, that sort of stuff.
Initially they had all proprietary ports for peripherals even, and you had to buy special Apple printers and what not (now they're more liberal in that department). Both of these are related to the fact that Apple is mostly a hardware company (well really a total solution company). Most of their business comes from hardware sales. Anything that would hurt the hardware sales is not encouraged, such as selling you a copy of Mac OS to run on someone else's hardware. Yes they do sell copies of Mac OS separate from the hardware but that is intended for people who already own a Macintosh and are looking to upgrade their operating system.
Apple also had good reason for what type of connections they used for their peripherals. The first Mac used a DB-9 port, RJ11 connector for the Macintosh Keyboard, two RS-232/RS-422 serial ports, and a sound port for external audio amplifier or headphones. These are all standard ports. Throughout the years Apple tried several different types of ports, almost all of them were non-proprietary standards. Even the "proprietary" printer port was a standard Mini-DIN 8 port. Oh and you didn't need a special Apple printer, most Apple computers of that era had standard SCSI ports and many printers worked just fine with the proper parallel to SCSI cable.
The difference is that Apple sometimes made choices that the non-Apple computer manufacturers didn't adopt. This is mostly because Apple was willing to try new standards in order to make a better product. A good example of this is USB. Prior to the iMac almost no computers were made with USB ports. The iMac abandoned almost all types of ports out there and just had USB ports. This was a very risky move on Apple's part but it caught on and now USB is the de-facto standard.
The really cool thing here is reading the source code of the "Hello World" application. It's great to see that it's pretty standard stuff for Mac OS X programmers. I mean I know that the iPhone is running a version of Mac OS X but it didn't really hit home until I saw the familiar Cocoa programming that I use to make Mac OS X applications for desktop and laptop computers.
This is very exciting for developers, I really hope that Apple either encourages this or at the worst turns a blind eye to it. Apple hasn't done much to discourage people from modding their iPods, Macintoshes, or Apple TVs, lets hope that trend continues. If the iPhone becomes a true handheld computer and not just a fancy phone then I can see it really taking off.
Yes, there is no immediate, per-instance cost of a lot of government services. Instead you pay continuously in installments for the privilege of getting services for "free". A better analogy would be those offers you get in the store, "buy two apples, get one FREE". You don't get the third apple for free, instead you get 3 apples for the cost of 2 of them. As a matter of fact you probably didn't even get a discount at all since they most likely just bumped up the price of each apple by 33% in the first place.
And on that note I'll refer you to TANSTAAFL
The plastic is just fuel for the process, it reduces the amount of oil or natural gas you would need to run the smelter. The glass actually helps you a bit because it becomes part of the slag which assists in the separation process.
With a well-designed process you can get pretty good efficiencies out of the smelter and also keep emissions into the environment at a low level. With modern smokestack scrubbers and effluent recovery systems you can re-capture elements that you can turn around and sell in order to defray the costs of running the plant. You'd be surprised at just how far waste recovery systems have come in the last 20 years or so.
People wonder why Apple doesn't respond to a group like InfoSec well the answer should be obvious: InfoSec is not in the investigation business to help solve problems, they are in it to cause problems. A lot of these groups are either in it to try to cause embarrassment to companies or to sell their findings to people who have nefarious intents. Many "security analysts" are simply greedy trolls who no sane company would give any sort of recognition.
There are still some decent researchers out there and the Independent Security Evaluators team appears to be among them. Thanks for doing the right thing guys!
1. Generate a random number.
2. Convert that random number to a game outcome.
3. If outcome is 'player loses', display a non-paying 'near miss' on the lines played, or even a paying 'near miss' on unplayed lines. Probably but I wanted to point out that there are legal ways of being intentionally misleading when it comes to slot machines. Yes the law is says that you can't do the steps you outlined but there are many ways of still misleading the slot machine player that don't fall under the law.
The method I described is only one of many ways that a slot machine manufacturer could influence a player in a way that favors the casino. An example of another way of being misleading is to have additional symbols that closely resemble the winning ones. Then when these symbols come up you are tricked into getting the initial elation of winning a big prize. If these misleading symbols also payout for small prizes then you are further rewarded for playing and are more likely to continue to play. These small wins can be tailored to have a win rate which is less than the loss rate but only a careful player would ever notice this fact.
The article is a bit hamfisted with some of the information and conclusions it presents but one thing definitely rings true - the casino tailors the environment to best work on the psychology of the players in order to get them to spend more money and get addicted to gambling. This can be seen in every aspect of the casino environment, from the structure of the games to the ancillary entertainment provided by the casino to the food and the comps systems used.
The key to countering this is to make all your decisions before you enter that environment. Decide how long you are going to stay, how much money you are willing to lose, what exactly you are going to do at the casino, and so on. Also take a good, hard look at the reason WHY you are going to the casino in the first place and whether there is someplace else less risky that would satisfy that reason. If it is for entertainment maybe you would be better off going to dinner and a movie for the price of $50 per person rather than the casino for the price of $200 per person.
There's nothing wrong with casinos, what's wrong is going to them blindly and randomly and getting addicted to the "thrill" of the casino experience. It's like any other activity - moderation is good, excess is bad.
Suppose there are 3 wheels and 3 symbols - a, b, and c. The wheels have the symbols in the following amounts:
wheel 1: a a b c c
wheel 2: a a b b c
wheel 3: a b b c c
In other words, two wheels have two copies of symbol "a" and one wheel has one copy of symbol "a". The same goes for the other symbols.
You now have a much greater chance of getting 2 of any symbol than you do of getting all 3. This is just a simple example, there are many more ways of setting up the wheels so that you get a large amount of "near misses" and are goaded into playing the machine more. It's not illegal to set up the wheels in this manner, what is illegal is pre-deciding the result of a random spin of the wheels. This kind of setup is just obfuscating the chances of getting a certain layout of symbols.
Don't talk to me, that quote wasn't mine! :)
Anyways, the whole point is that even with a large temperature difference we aren't talking about much of a difference in volume. The likelihood is that we are talking about under a 1% difference. Maybe there should be a push for a regional assumed temperature that each state's Department of Weights & Measures would adopt for validating gasoline pumps but refitting existing pumps with temperature monitoring features is probably overkill.
I do a lot of programming in Objective-C by way of Apple's Cocoa and I find Apple's Coding Guidelines for Cocoa to be a great set of coding conventions to follow. Once you get used to their guidelines it becomes very easy to read code that follows those guidelines. Add to this the fact that Objective-C is naturally an easy language to understand and you have a great combination.
Well it's kinda implied by what I said but you're right, I should have explicitly listed them.
Ti is the temperature of the standard that the gas company uses for its metering, 60 degrees F.
Tf is the theoretical temperature I chose in my example, 100 degrees F
You need to convert the temperatures to Celsius so they would become Tf = 38 C and Ti = 16 C, for a delta T of 22 C
Vi and Vf are left dimensionless since I really want the ratio of the two. I basically divided both sides by Vi in order to get the equation:
(Vf / Vi) = 1 + 950 x 10^-6 x (Tf - Ti)
(Vf / Vi) = 1 + 950 x 10^-6 x 22
(Vf / Vi) = 1.0209
That's a little off my figure of 1.0211% but it's probably due to a rounding error.
Now if you buy 1 gallon of gas for $3.099 and they round up you'll pay $3.10 for $3.099 worth of fuel, which is $0.001/$1 or 0.1% extra for your 1 gallon.
If you do the same for 5 gallons it's the same because 5 x $3.099 = $15.495, rounded up is $15.50, a difference of $0.005/$5 which is 0.1% extra again.
So basically we are both saying it's an amazingly low amount for both the extra thousands place in the price and the extra cost due to thermal expansion? Sounds about right to me...