Yeah, I haven't been able to get a decent OTA signal since the switchover (if I can get a signal at all). On the other hand, that got me to pretty much stop watching TV, so there's an upside.
yeah...we basically did the same thing. Digital OTA was such crap that it was quickly dropped. Fully predictable
When Firefox kill legacy addons and destroy the best of Firefox forever.
They are trying to hide this. Most of addon community is warning the core developers. Drop the capabilities of legacy addons while they say that webextension will replace it while it has not the same functionality will broke most addons FOREVER.
Turn Firefox webextension into a Chrome clone... Bullshit.
Yes,exactly - and in the process breaking the primary add-ons that keep users in Firefox.
I use Firefox namely for the TabGroups (aka Panorama) functionality - which no other browser has. Sure, there's some extensions in Chrome that purport to do something similar, but none of them work like TabGroups in Firefox. FF57 on present course will break TabGroups. Though the Firefox devs *finally* came around and decided on a solution (as of August 2nd, 2017), but it's still not clear that the solution will be in FF57 or if we'll have to wait until a later release.
Once it was clear TabGroups were not going to be part of Firefox long term, I started migrating to Chrome. Not because I like Chrome better (I don't) but because Firefox wasn't going to be offering any real benefit and some things I need worked better in Chrome.
All of this was part of the "we know better than our users" attitude that Mozilla has had of late. Sure way to kill the product, and the company.
The problem is their cashflow is mixed together with government incentives influencing buyers, and selling ZEV credits to other car manufacturers. It's not at all clear that Tesla's long-term investments actually yield a self-sustainable business model without these external factors. Both have to end at some point.
For the Model3 the credits may make a difference for buyers given it's price; however, for the Model S and Model X - it's not likely an influencer at all on price and they're doing just fine with sales.
For that matter, the backlog on the Model 3 alone blows through the amount of cars allowed to be sold while still receiving the credits, which has been published, and which they would have to list per purchase prices, and yet it seems 1800 people on average every day are still putting down $1k for reservations...
OpenRC has only been around for ten years, not decades. Sorry if you've confused sysvinit for something other than an unmaintained pile of trash. It's been dumped by every commercial Unix and the vast majority of all others. You don't understand where service management has been heading for the last thirty years, nor why.
that's still longer than the crapshoot that is systemd
I agree that making employees feel good isn't an end in itself -- particularly making them feel good all the time. There are times when you,as boss, have to make certain employees feel bad. "Leadership" is just another word for "emotional manipulation".
That said, working under competent and effective leadership tends to lead to success and that tends to be rewarding for people. If everyone around you is worthless, the problem is almost certainly you.
Quite agree. But that doesn't make it your boss's job to make you "happy". Their job is to motivate you to get your work done - happy or not. Yes it is to their benefit to help keep your morale up, etc; but that's a matter of how they want to lead, and what kind of team/company/etc they want to have.
Companies tend to behave like their C-level execs. If those execs are back stabbers, distrusting, etc - it'll show all the way down; and it takes a long time for a new exec team that's not doing that to change the culture to get it out *if* they are successful in doing so; some companies have it so ingrained that the company will die before it changes.
Who do you think were implementing those 'everyone gets a trophy' policies? It wasn't the gen-y and millennials, they were the targets not the source.
True...it was primarily Baby Boomers acting out of the 1970's love fest, and following advice from people like Dr. Spock; people that themselves were part of the 1970's love fest and are a root of a lot of the issues in psychology today.
Yes people will tend to do better in a good environment. But that doesn't mean you cater to making them "happy". Happiness is not something that can be quantitatively defined; it is a qualitative subject and very subjective. What makes on person "happy" won't necessarily make others happy. So while an employer should make a good environment that overall enables people to be successful, keeping them "happy" will not do that.
As the head of this company, it is his job to motivate employees. Otherwise known as "making them feel good".
wrong.
Motivating someone does not necessarily mean making them feel good. As the head of the company his job is to ensure the company is on the right track to do what the owners want the company to do. Yes, that includes keeping morale up, but it does not necessarily mean making all the employees feel good. It may very well at times mean the exact opposite.
For example, if an employee leaks data - even harmless data - then the CEO may call out all the employees in letting everyone know of the bad behavior. That's not going to make everyone feel good; it'll likely anger many. But it's healthy and required to do so.
"Feel good" leadership is solely an SJW concept - and one that fails in the real world. It's also most employed by Gen-Y and Millennials as they were raised with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "can't hurt your self-esteem" mentalities.
There is no reason that a "text file" cannot have a null In it. Just open an editor and put one there.
What the effect of that is depends on how the C code happened to be written. If, for example, it scans for new lines, and ":"s, it will just happily include the null in the string. But then some strlen function will truncate it.
Most programmers will make the same assumption that you did. Namely that nulls should not be there, and will therefor ignore the problem.
This type of attack is not theoretical, it was used to break Certificates.
Exactly. No, I didn't ignore that they *couldn't* be in a text file; only that the normal tooling - all of it - won't do that. So if it's there it's there from a nefarious actor.
Yes, but what part of the username? The bit before the null or the whole lot. What if someone creates a user rootstuff, and has the password for the full name but not for root?
This sort of thing was used to break certificate processing in a number of implementations, due to inconsistent handling of nulls.
Usernames are quite well defined in Linux as only being those in/etc/passwd - which is a pure text file and thereby a NULL wouldn't be allowable in there. Good luck trying to match a username with a null in it it (root\0stuff) against anything in that file, or/etc/shadow.
Now where it would get complex would be if an external auth provider (e.g LDAP), but even then the tools would add the user locally and thereby end up in the same pattern. Often integration tools (f.e Samba) provide mappings when they support different kinds of usernames than are locally allowed; but then a NULL would be of issue in most protocols unless it was escaped.
All that to say - using a NULL in a string is a bit of an absurdity for this; and that's not even relevant to the original issue which was valid textual strings that have historically been allowed - and nearly all tools allow - only because an idiot overseeing a system that is getting into the ecosystem by fiat - not technical merit - has decided he doesn't like it.
ReactOS, however, has always been on a moving target [...] Thus they're always behind and will never be able to achieve a complete stable product.
That's exactly what I expect from the name "React[to the changes in the target you're trying to track]OS".
Which is no denigration of the system - I've not actually got round to dropping a spare HDD into a machine to try it - but simply tells me that they know and accept that they're going to always be playing catch-up.
Yes, they've done a fine job; but by constantly changing it keeps from being able to make a more complete and capable system that can run more software and be more compatible in the end.
So, how does it behave if we put a Null in a username. A good way to break most C grade programs. (Sure, not supposed to be allowed, but if an upstream process has a bug that lets it through, the world should not collapse.)
If the username is not found, then no UID will be located and the program will fail to start. That is how every administrator expects things to work; not to be handed full root access. Doesn't matter whether it's because of a NULL in the username or otherwise.
ReactOS works within its defined sphere, and the main difference there is the defined sphere.
FreeDOS is able to achieve better stability because no one else is modifying APIs in its domain.
ReactOS, however, has always been on a moving target - instead of getting a complete stable Win95 API set then moving to Win98/98SE/ME/2k/XP/Vista/7/8/8.1/10, they change the target whenever Microsoft makes a new release. Thus they're always behind and will never be able to achieve a complete stable product.
In today's environment, we can't afford security to be an afterthought, especially in an extremely pervasive and complex piece of software like systemd.
Please remind me why we are using systemd at all? This has been a consistent issue with systemd, and Lennart and team. One reason I'm quite happy to see Devuan release 1.0; really good work and without systemd at all (or rather, it's your choice if you want to use it, but it's not enabled by default).
from the "adduser" manpage:
Add a system user
If called with one non-option argument and the --system option, adduser will add a system user. If a user with the same name already exists in the system uid
range (or, if the uid is specified, if a user with that uid already exists), adduser will exit with a warning. This warning can be suppressed by adding
"--quiet".
adduser will choose the first available UID from the range specified for system users in the configuration file (FIRST_SYSTEM_UID and LAST_SYSTEM_UID). If you
want to have a specific UID, you can specify it using the --uid option.
By default, system users are placed in the nogroup group. To place the new system user in an already existing group, use the --gid or --ingroup options. To
place the new system user in a new group with the same ID, use the --group option.
A home directory is created by the same rules as for normal users. The new system user will have the shell/bin/false (unless overridden with the --shell
option), and have logins disabled. Skeletal configuration files are not copied.
One big difference is the lack of any shell application (f.e/bin/false instead of/bin/bash), the assignment to "nogroup", and a few other things. By convention system users have UID's 1000 and are allowed root equivalent access.
So, you're hiring two or three cheap people, and expecting at least two more to work for a promise, all using maybe $250k of money from investors who were already in the US.
Why is this worth bending or breaking immigration law?
It's not. but there's a difference in what you pay people out of college vs 5 yrs later vs 10 yrs later. No need to break immigration law for what I said - that just SOP for start-ups - though as others pointed out that $250k may be used as the basis for loans (initial contribution and interest payments) to get more money and hire more people too. There's numerous ways it can be applied - my main point was that it won't really get used to pay people's salary.
Oh, and the "promise of future gains" is core to many startups, especially tech startups. It's a matter of whether they can find people willing to take that risk. But with high risk comes high reward.
Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?
Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.
When in Start-up mode, that $250k won't cover salaries - it'll cover office space, equipment, securing loans, etc getting things going.
Startups are not expected to make a profit for the first 5-7 years. Yes, they will start paying out salaries before then - but the people at the top are typically expected to go without until the business starts to have a positive balance sheet.
So of that $250k, you might get a secretary/office admin (to look after the basics), and a couple junior type people that will be reporting to the unpaid senior staff (paid in stock grants should the company succeed or be sold).
Actually, the Government is not the Legislative. So this implication is not a given. The Government is all the organisations, institutions and persons (including the President), which actually execute the Law, hence the name "Executive power". Quite often the Government really wants a law to be passed, but in this case has to go to the Legislative and propose said law. But it's not up to the Government to pass it. In this case, it was a branch of the Government, the Copyright Office, which proposed legislation, thus the title is exactly describing the situation.
No industry wants 50+ regulations to follow. They're always lobbying for superseding regulations at the highest possible level. Shitty regulations if possible, the less the better. However, the important part is there is only one Federal agency to lobby or take over.
And yet that's already the case as CA has some of the strictest regulations, so most all manufacturers build to the CA standards when it comes to the environment, or they run two lines - one for CA and one for the rest of the USA.
What commons. If these states feel that their citizens should only have access to more efficient appliances they can affect their own regulations.
Yes, because energy doesn't cross state lines.
You do realize that in the USA most Energy Efficiency standards are done to CA Regulations as CA has the strictest regulations of all 50 states; things that don't meet CA regulations typically have a label saying "not for sale in CA". So yes, States with stricter standards can make it happen for the others or even just within their own borders.
After all, he claims that never has there been an administration that has gotten so much done. So much. Except for this.
Easy answer: We don't think the regulation is good and therefore are abandoning it. It will never be published.
You can't force the Executive to create a regulation. The Judiciary does *not* have that power. Congress does by making a statutory regulation in the form of Law. Judiciary can only say that the regulation is not within the Executive's ability to perform (it's illegal) for whatever reason. That is the separation of powers.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if some liberal activist judge decided they could force the Executive to do something the Executive didn't want to do - but don't expect it to hold up at SCOTUS. This is one lawsuit the States should lose for very obvious reasons.
I have some with newer spouts that seal up automatically. I had a hell of a time pouring with them, it made a mess and got everywhere.
Then I happened to see a demo of similar products. If you put the spout into the gas tank opening before you engage the release, it doesn't spill and it shuts off when you let go of the release, so no drip. I like it way better then the old ones. I just had to learn how to use it.
Try doing that on a small 2-cycle engine where the "engage and release" mechanism doesn't get triggered by the tank of the 2-cycle so you have to manually hold it open if you want to put gas into the 2-cycle engine.
Or accessing the tank of a normal engine with the short 3" spout on a 5g can. Sure the engage and release mechanism works well, but you can't reach the tank with short spout.
Honestly, all this crap on redesigning them to have (a) short spouts and (b) improper fluid flow since the air and fluid go through the same nozzle is jut ridiculous. Spilled far less with a proper gas can, longer nozzle, and separate air flow valve than I do with these crap cans where it's nearly guaranteed to get gas on the engine, surrounding surfaces, ground, etc. - even my hands and gloves.
UNFCCC is a properly ratified treaty. This was an accord under that treaty that needed no new ratification. Pulling out of the UNFCC would end the Paris Accord (At least for the US). Better than a failure of a Constitutional challenge for an accord reached under terms of a treaty.
UNFCCC may have been; but amendments to it in any form would still *require* a new ratification which was never sought for the Paris Accord. So no, not legally binding on the USA in any manner or form.
That's not to say a good diplomat wouldn't honor it in principle in some form - that's good politics, but such honoring would likely be to the most minimal degree - no money spent, no new regulations to support it, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I haven't been able to get a decent OTA signal since the switchover (if I can get a signal at all). On the other hand, that got me to pretty much stop watching TV, so there's an upside.
yeah...we basically did the same thing. Digital OTA was such crap that it was quickly dropped. Fully predictable
In my head, PNG stands for Pretty Neat Graphics. I've never bothered to find out what it really stands for.
No, I don't actually have a point. I just wanted share.
Portable Network Graphic, along with its cousin MNG - Multiple-Network Graphic.
When Firefox kill legacy addons and destroy the best of Firefox forever.
They are trying to hide this. Most of addon community is warning the core developers. Drop the capabilities of legacy addons while they say that webextension will replace it while it has not the same functionality will broke most addons FOREVER. Turn Firefox webextension into a Chrome clone... Bullshit.
Yes,exactly - and in the process breaking the primary add-ons that keep users in Firefox.
I use Firefox namely for the TabGroups (aka Panorama) functionality - which no other browser has. Sure, there's some extensions in Chrome that purport to do something similar, but none of them work like TabGroups in Firefox. FF57 on present course will break TabGroups. Though the Firefox devs *finally* came around and decided on a solution (as of August 2nd, 2017), but it's still not clear that the solution will be in FF57 or if we'll have to wait until a later release.
Once it was clear TabGroups were not going to be part of Firefox long term, I started migrating to Chrome. Not because I like Chrome better (I don't) but because Firefox wasn't going to be offering any real benefit and some things I need worked better in Chrome.
All of this was part of the "we know better than our users" attitude that Mozilla has had of late. Sure way to kill the product, and the company.
The problem is their cashflow is mixed together with government incentives influencing buyers, and selling ZEV credits to other car manufacturers. It's not at all clear that Tesla's long-term investments actually yield a self-sustainable business model without these external factors. Both have to end at some point.
For the Model3 the credits may make a difference for buyers given it's price; however, for the Model S and Model X - it's not likely an influencer at all on price and they're doing just fine with sales.
For that matter, the backlog on the Model 3 alone blows through the amount of cars allowed to be sold while still receiving the credits, which has been published, and which they would have to list per purchase prices, and yet it seems 1800 people on average every day are still putting down $1k for reservations...
Better yet, Tesla should move to another state. Arizona and Idaho are close.
So Tesla is in that location b/c they bought a car factory previously used by Toyota.
OpenRC has only been around for ten years, not decades. Sorry if you've confused sysvinit for something other than an unmaintained pile of trash. It's been dumped by every commercial Unix and the vast majority of all others. You don't understand where service management has been heading for the last thirty years, nor why.
that's still longer than the crapshoot that is systemd
I agree that making employees feel good isn't an end in itself -- particularly making them feel good all the time. There are times when you,as boss, have to make certain employees feel bad. "Leadership" is just another word for "emotional manipulation".
That said, working under competent and effective leadership tends to lead to success and that tends to be rewarding for people. If everyone around you is worthless, the problem is almost certainly you.
Quite agree. But that doesn't make it your boss's job to make you "happy". Their job is to motivate you to get your work done - happy or not. Yes it is to their benefit to help keep your morale up, etc; but that's a matter of how they want to lead, and what kind of team/company/etc they want to have.
Companies tend to behave like their C-level execs. If those execs are back stabbers, distrusting, etc - it'll show all the way down; and it takes a long time for a new exec team that's not doing that to change the culture to get it out *if* they are successful in doing so; some companies have it so ingrained that the company will die before it changes.
Who do you think were implementing those 'everyone gets a trophy' policies? It wasn't the gen-y and millennials, they were the targets not the source.
True...it was primarily Baby Boomers acting out of the 1970's love fest, and following advice from people like Dr. Spock; people that themselves were part of the 1970's love fest and are a root of a lot of the issues in psychology today.
Yes people will tend to do better in a good environment. But that doesn't mean you cater to making them "happy". Happiness is not something that can be quantitatively defined; it is a qualitative subject and very subjective. What makes on person "happy" won't necessarily make others happy. So while an employer should make a good environment that overall enables people to be successful, keeping them "happy" will not do that.
As the head of this company, it is his job to motivate employees. Otherwise known as "making them feel good".
wrong.
Motivating someone does not necessarily mean making them feel good. As the head of the company his job is to ensure the company is on the right track to do what the owners want the company to do. Yes, that includes keeping morale up, but it does not necessarily mean making all the employees feel good. It may very well at times mean the exact opposite.
For example, if an employee leaks data - even harmless data - then the CEO may call out all the employees in letting everyone know of the bad behavior. That's not going to make everyone feel good; it'll likely anger many. But it's healthy and required to do so.
"Feel good" leadership is solely an SJW concept - and one that fails in the real world. It's also most employed by Gen-Y and Millennials as they were raised with the "everyone gets a trophy" and "can't hurt your self-esteem" mentalities.
There is no reason that a "text file" cannot have a null In it. Just open an editor and put one there.
What the effect of that is depends on how the C code happened to be written. If, for example, it scans for new lines, and ":"s, it will just happily include the null in the string. But then some strlen function will truncate it.
Most programmers will make the same assumption that you did. Namely that nulls should not be there, and will therefor ignore the problem.
This type of attack is not theoretical, it was used to break Certificates.
Exactly. No, I didn't ignore that they *couldn't* be in a text file; only that the normal tooling - all of it - won't do that. So if it's there it's there from a nefarious actor.
Yes, but what part of the username? The bit before the null or the whole lot. What if someone creates a user rootstuff, and has the password for the full name but not for root?
This sort of thing was used to break certificate processing in a number of implementations, due to inconsistent handling of nulls.
Usernames are quite well defined in Linux as only being those in /etc/passwd - which is a pure text file and thereby a NULL wouldn't be allowable in there. Good luck trying to match a username with a null in it it (root\0stuff) against anything in that file, or /etc/shadow.
Now where it would get complex would be if an external auth provider (e.g LDAP), but even then the tools would add the user locally and thereby end up in the same pattern. Often integration tools (f.e Samba) provide mappings when they support different kinds of usernames than are locally allowed; but then a NULL would be of issue in most protocols unless it was escaped.
All that to say - using a NULL in a string is a bit of an absurdity for this; and that's not even relevant to the original issue which was valid textual strings that have historically been allowed - and nearly all tools allow - only because an idiot overseeing a system that is getting into the ecosystem by fiat - not technical merit - has decided he doesn't like it.
That's exactly what I expect from the name "React[to the changes in the target you're trying to track]OS".
Which is no denigration of the system - I've not actually got round to dropping a spare HDD into a machine to try it - but simply tells me that they know and accept that they're going to always be playing catch-up.
Yes, they've done a fine job; but by constantly changing it keeps from being able to make a more complete and capable system that can run more software and be more compatible in the end.
So, how does it behave if we put a Null in a username. A good way to break most C grade programs. (Sure, not supposed to be allowed, but if an upstream process has a bug that lets it through, the world should not collapse.)
If the username is not found, then no UID will be located and the program will fail to start. That is how every administrator expects things to work; not to be handed full root access. Doesn't matter whether it's because of a NULL in the username or otherwise.
The difference is that FreeDOS actually works.
ReactOS works within its defined sphere, and the main difference there is the defined sphere. FreeDOS is able to achieve better stability because no one else is modifying APIs in its domain.
ReactOS, however, has always been on a moving target - instead of getting a complete stable Win95 API set then moving to Win98/98SE/ME/2k/XP/Vista/7/8/8.1/10, they change the target whenever Microsoft makes a new release. Thus they're always behind and will never be able to achieve a complete stable product.
In today's environment, we can't afford security to be an afterthought, especially in an extremely pervasive and complex piece of software like systemd.
Please remind me why we are using systemd at all? This has been a consistent issue with systemd, and Lennart and team. One reason I'm quite happy to see Devuan release 1.0; really good work and without systemd at all (or rather, it's your choice if you want to use it, but it's not enabled by default).
from the "adduser" manpage:
/bin/false (unless overridden with the --shell
option), and have logins disabled. Skeletal configuration files are not copied.
/bin/false instead of /bin/bash), the assignment to "nogroup", and a few other things. By convention system users have UID's 1000 and are allowed root equivalent access.
Add a system user
If called with one non-option argument and the --system option, adduser will add a system user. If a user with the same name already exists in the system uid range (or, if the uid is specified, if a user with that uid already exists), adduser will exit with a warning. This warning can be suppressed by adding "--quiet".
adduser will choose the first available UID from the range specified for system users in the configuration file (FIRST_SYSTEM_UID and LAST_SYSTEM_UID). If you want to have a specific UID, you can specify it using the --uid option.
By default, system users are placed in the nogroup group. To place the new system user in an already existing group, use the --gid or --ingroup options. To place the new system user in a new group with the same ID, use the --group option.
A home directory is created by the same rules as for normal users. The new system user will have the shell
One big difference is the lack of any shell application (f.e
So, you're hiring two or three cheap people, and expecting at least two more to work for a promise, all using maybe $250k of money from investors who were already in the US.
Why is this worth bending or breaking immigration law?
It's not. but there's a difference in what you pay people out of college vs 5 yrs later vs 10 yrs later. No need to break immigration law for what I said - that just SOP for start-ups - though as others pointed out that $250k may be used as the basis for loans (initial contribution and interest payments) to get more money and hire more people too. There's numerous ways it can be applied - my main point was that it won't really get used to pay people's salary.
Oh, and the "promise of future gains" is core to many startups, especially tech startups. It's a matter of whether they can find people willing to take that risk. But with high risk comes high reward.
Exactly how many full-time salaries do you think $250k will cover?
Real tech start-ups need millions in funding. This looks more like a way for people to buy immigrant entry to the US.
When in Start-up mode, that $250k won't cover salaries - it'll cover office space, equipment, securing loans, etc getting things going.
Startups are not expected to make a profit for the first 5-7 years. Yes, they will start paying out salaries before then - but the people at the top are typically expected to go without until the business starts to have a positive balance sheet.
So of that $250k, you might get a secretary/office admin (to look after the basics), and a couple junior type people that will be reporting to the unpaid senior staff (paid in stock grants should the company succeed or be sold).
Actually, the Government is not the Legislative. So this implication is not a given. The Government is all the organisations, institutions and persons (including the President), which actually execute the Law, hence the name "Executive power". Quite often the Government really wants a law to be passed, but in this case has to go to the Legislative and propose said law. But it's not up to the Government to pass it. In this case, it was a branch of the Government, the Copyright Office, which proposed legislation, thus the title is exactly describing the situation.
Mod parent up.
No industry wants 50+ regulations to follow. They're always lobbying for superseding regulations at the highest possible level. Shitty regulations if possible, the less the better. However, the important part is there is only one Federal agency to lobby or take over.
And yet that's already the case as CA has some of the strictest regulations, so most all manufacturers build to the CA standards when it comes to the environment, or they run two lines - one for CA and one for the rest of the USA.
Yes, because energy doesn't cross state lines.
You do realize that in the USA most Energy Efficiency standards are done to CA Regulations as CA has the strictest regulations of all 50 states; things that don't meet CA regulations typically have a label saying "not for sale in CA". So yes, States with stricter standards can make it happen for the others or even just within their own borders.
After all, he claims that never has there been an administration that has gotten so much done. So much. Except for this.
Easy answer: We don't think the regulation is good and therefore are abandoning it. It will never be published.
You can't force the Executive to create a regulation. The Judiciary does *not* have that power. Congress does by making a statutory regulation in the form of Law. Judiciary can only say that the regulation is not within the Executive's ability to perform (it's illegal) for whatever reason. That is the separation of powers.
Though I wouldn't be surprised if some liberal activist judge decided they could force the Executive to do something the Executive didn't want to do - but don't expect it to hold up at SCOTUS. This is one lawsuit the States should lose for very obvious reasons.
I have some with newer spouts that seal up automatically. I had a hell of a time pouring with them, it made a mess and got everywhere. Then I happened to see a demo of similar products. If you put the spout into the gas tank opening before you engage the release, it doesn't spill and it shuts off when you let go of the release, so no drip. I like it way better then the old ones. I just had to learn how to use it.
Try doing that on a small 2-cycle engine where the "engage and release" mechanism doesn't get triggered by the tank of the 2-cycle so you have to manually hold it open if you want to put gas into the 2-cycle engine.
Or accessing the tank of a normal engine with the short 3" spout on a 5g can. Sure the engage and release mechanism works well, but you can't reach the tank with short spout.
Honestly, all this crap on redesigning them to have (a) short spouts and (b) improper fluid flow since the air and fluid go through the same nozzle is jut ridiculous. Spilled far less with a proper gas can, longer nozzle, and separate air flow valve than I do with these crap cans where it's nearly guaranteed to get gas on the engine, surrounding surfaces, ground, etc. - even my hands and gloves.
It's OK, the mines are Italian :-).
LOL - but so true.
UNFCCC is a properly ratified treaty. This was an accord under that treaty that needed no new ratification. Pulling out of the UNFCC would end the Paris Accord (At least for the US). Better than a failure of a Constitutional challenge for an accord reached under terms of a treaty.
UNFCCC may have been; but amendments to it in any form would still *require* a new ratification which was never sought for the Paris Accord. So no, not legally binding on the USA in any manner or form.
That's not to say a good diplomat wouldn't honor it in principle in some form - that's good politics, but such honoring would likely be to the most minimal degree - no money spent, no new regulations to support it, etc.