yuubi

I suspect an editor without sufficient medical knowledge might have made the reverse of that edit to tighten up the first sentence.

To save others a click: CDC says to give ivermectin to kill intestinal parasites (with an exception due to risk to people who might be carrying loa loa). Not horse paste to treat a virus.

I read the question as "what if the designer uses designer tools to make a PNG with text instead of HTML that calls for a fancy font, then posts that?" It seems like that should (in the US) work like any normal use of a font on a designer's pc^Wmac, and the image doesn't get copyright-like encumbrances from the font.

This is a pseudopolynomial time algorithm: polynomial in the magnitude of an important number, not in the number of bits that it takes to write it down. Problems with those kind of algorithm available don't make P=NP because the problems that don't have known pseudopolynomial solutions, when reduced to problems that do, end up with numbers with logs (rather than magnitudes) polynomial in the size of the original problem.

In real life, numbers are often of human scale (rather than the kind you get from reducing a hard SAT instance to knapsack) and a pseudopolynomial algorithm is great.

That information is on the outside of the envelope and is verified before the envelope is opened. In some states, the ballot is inside another envelope that is opened after the voter info is separated from the ballot.

I (not a lawyer) understand copyright law to mostly prohibit us from copying the spec document without permission, and then the license provides permission for some copying of the document.

I'm pretty sure the authors really want to prevent competing implementations that make money for someone else, and the wording expresses their intent. I believe that copyright on the document won't let them stop a company that can afford decent lawyers from implementing the spec, but it certainly doesn't make me any more likely to touch anything related.

The "You may not use or adapt this material for any commercial purpose, such as to create a commercial database or database-as-a-service offering" language suggests that they think the license covers more than just distributing the document, which I believe is an unusual interpretation of what a spec copyright allows the author to prevent.

Lawyer repellent (I hope): The quote comes from https://github.com/mongodb/docs/commit/50e48200cde7e2eaffdc6... , and anyone who receives this comment may copy it as they like.

I read it as "it would be a kindness if you left this information for those who find your repository".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_character_description_... ?

They are the recipe for one piece of the virus (which is important to its function, so hopefully among the parts least subject to mutation), and then your cells that get vaccine in them make the foreign protein, which then causes the usual immune response to foreign proteins. The difference from what you said is that the code in the vaccine is for the foreign stuff, and the immune stuff comes from your immune system.

In cdma2000, it's an option. I didn't notice such a thing in LTE. (LTE does include some options to determine position by propagation delay between mobile and base station, but they all involve the mobile reporting time measurements to the network, and then the network has the info to compute location).

Some terminals support a programmable answerback string, and of course the ENQ control character to send it to the host. Some have programmable function keys and a command to read them, which often (always?) sends the programmed string as consecutive unencoded characters (instead of hex or something).

Less precision, more speed than a digital calculator, in my experience (at least in high school physics class in the early 90s). Makes sense because the slide rule takes one precise movement per number but the digital calculator takes one movement per digit.

Both have public documentation sufficient to decode a message without applying any secret information, so no.

Huh. I heard (US high school algebra in a recent unspecified century) the fact that ab=ba called "the commutative property of multiplication", and the "symmetric property of equality" meant a=b <=> b=a, and didn't run across anything later on (comp sci from a department of the engineering college rather than the math department) inconsistent with that. Symmetry sounds like a reasonable term for both, but it sounds like there's a distinction I don't get?

It works better if you know how the scales are constructed and get familiar with properties of logarithms (mainly variations on log ab = log a + log b)

C and D are plain log scales, where one decade is the length of the rule. They're sort of the default scales to use.

Multiplication is commutative, so you put either number on either scale. The important thing is that the distance from the left index of the scale is proportional to the log of the number (reading the scale as 1 to 10), so you want to arrange the scales to add the lengths corresponding to your numbers such that the lengths add up. (Or so that you subtract the length of the divisor from the dividend, if you're dividing).

You can get by without the approximation if you're willing to set up the multiplication, see that the product is out there in thin air, then move the slide to put the right index where you originally put the left index. (3 times 5: on the d scale find 3 and put the left index of the C scale there; opposite 5 on the C scale read nothing because there's no D scale there; try again using the right index of the C scale, which is the same thing as having another copy of the D scale out there to the right where the air was).

A and B are each 2 copies of a log scale. You can absolutely use the left side of A and B for your numbers to multiply, and the product will always be on the scale.

People normally use(d?) C and D because the precision is better and because the rest of the scales (like the trig and log-log) are constructed to work with them.

> why aren't the owners looking for them there?

Some people live far enough from Alabama that it's inconvenient to visit the store every couple of days to check.

Except not. The MAC-layer identity in LTE is the RNTI, which is temporarily assigned by each cell before the mobile transmits any sort of unique ID.

At least in LTE, the IMEI isn't a necessary part of connection setup. The network identifies the user seeking to connect by a temporary identifier if one of those is allocated or by the IMSI if that's all the user has. After the network and user pass a mutual authentication procedure, the core network may optionally ask for IMEI.

The identifiers actually used over the air are the IMSI (normally written once at the SIM factory and never changed, used as a fallback if no other identity is available), the TMSI (assigned by the core network when the user attaches, can be reassigned at every attach, service request (return from idle to active state), or mobility event that the core knows about), and RNTI (assigned by each cell, changes at each handover, used to address each downlink transmission to the mobile and I think included in the CRC in each uplink transmission from the mobile).

If you just receive a random transmission off the air, you can get the RNTI; if you receive an initial signaling message to the core network you'll get the current TMSI if assigned; you'll see the IMSI only in case of a new SIM or a SIM where the core network has forgotten who it assigned that TMSI to.

There are also some temporary identifiers between the cell and the core network allocated when the cell starts talking to a mobile and released when the mobile goes idle, but these never reach the mobile.

The core knows the IMSI and optionally IMEI of everyone connected. In normal operation, each cell only knows some temporary identifiers (it has the opportunity to record IMSI if the mobile sends it, but the mobile doesn't normally do that).

All the details are available from 3gpp.org, and I can be more specific about which section of which doc if anyone actually cares.

> mentioning lawsuits brought upon them that the company won

Perhaps something like "Please follow the safety rules. If you don't follow them and you hurt yourself, you won't get a huge payday, just bad injuries that your brought on yourself"?

This one was called Aztec and Manx C, depending on what part you looked at. It lacked bit field struct members and I think a couple of other features but don't remember now.

I learned Zilog first and agree with you. I had to keep an 8080 manual handy for a while to make any sense out of that compiler output.

Good(?) times.

Have a section of callback pointers and check against the bounds of the section? G++ uses this mechanism for static constructors, but it's general purpose (Linux uses it to collect lists of drivers to initialize, for instance, with macros like IRQCHIP_DECLARE that populate a section for each type of entity, which then gets scanned at boot time).

You would need a linker script to collect the callbacks into a section and provide a symbol for the end, and define variables something like

int (my_sort_callback_ptr)(void , void *) __attribute__((section, "sort_callbacks"))=my_sort_comparator;

You would, of course, use a macro for that.

I was once blessed with a z80 c compiler, hosted on msdos but targeting cp/m (maybe it was ported for use with embedded targets). Its output was 8080 assembler with the odd db here and there when it wanted to emit a z80 instruction. It shipped with a perfectly good z80 assembler, mind; the compiler just emitted 8080 mnemonics because reasons.

By default, the system optimizes for speed and doesn't ensure that seller A's customers get the units sent by seller A and B's customers get those sent by B. This means that in a discussion about provenance of specific units, this is a distinction without a difference (or alternatively, all units of a product are in one area, which isn't necessarily physically contiguous in space).

That used to belong to a company selling a proprietary implementation of X11 a while back (I want to say MetroLink? They had ads in the Linux print magazines at the time).

In the US at last check, bitmap fonts weren't subject to copyright. Also, the X11 fonts I've looked at had a license string something like "these glyphs are unencumbered".

It's easy to make a file that both a valid image and a valid zip file, because zip readers start from the end-of-central-directory at EOF and most other things start from a header at the start of the file. Many such images included a winrar icon.

There might have also been some steganographic images, but I know for sure I saw several of the image+archive kind around then.

If the plugs differ and both are the straight blade type, it's because something relevant to safety differs, probably which wires are present (white neutral or green safety ground) and/or the current rating.

You can get in trouble if the welder expects a safety ground or neutral intended to carry current that you don't have (neither is safe substitute for the other). You can get in trouble if you connect the welder to a circuit that can deliver more current than it's designed for and something fails (it was designed to fail safely assuming that the circuit is limited to X amps by a fuse or breaker).

If the dryer outlet has all the wires the welder wants (and some extra) and the same current rating, an adapter that connects the desired wires and ignore the rest should be safe as long as it's made from big enough wire.

Only if you use conversion within the language: void *p=0;

If you said memset(&p, 0, sizeof(p)) then that's not guaranteed to work on all implementations.

If it starts xn-- then it's punycode, and the prefix was apparently chosen because it didn't occur in any actual DNS labels.