transit – Arriving from Myanmar by Finnair via Helsinki to Geneva Airport. British passport is it permitted to go directly to France, second residence?

Work contract completed after 5 years in Yangon. Want to travel from Myanmar by Finnair via Helsinki to Geneva Airport. British passport is it permitted to go directly to France, second residence? We have no residence in the UK. Our main residence is in central asia and I cannot get a visa as borders closed indefinately.

macos – ‘Operation not permitted’ copying from SMB Share as root under Catalina

I have a script that copies a file from our server to the local machine.

date
id -un
pwd

# mount Server volume (where db backups are kept) and unzip to desktop
mkdir /Volumes/Server_auto
/sbin/mount -t smbfs //Username:pass@Server/General /Volumes/Server_auto

cp -f /Volumes/Server_auto/Backups/Web/db_6_1500.zip ./db.zip

I can sudo this script from the terminal and it runs without a hitch. It has been running for several years from cron without a hitch, it’s only after updating to Catalina that the problems have started.
Initially the script itself was being blocked, but giving cron Full Disk Access fixed this. However the copy operation always fails with ‘Operation not permitted’.
id -un reports user as root both in the cron job and when using sudo from Terminal.

I have tried

  • adding cp to the Full Disk Access list
  • ensuring that the copied file is deleted before the copy event (so there are no copy-and-replace issues)
  • making the destination folder world-writable (everyone read/write)
  • moving the job to a plist file

Everything works just fine except for the copy operation – this identical under cron or plist jobs.
This slowly driving me crazy. The exact same sequence of operations, when run manually as root, succeed every time.

Any ideas?

ubuntu – Ufw blocks connections on the transmission port that are permitted in rules

I recently started using ufw (more precisely gufw) in Ubuntu. First I activated it so that incoming connections are denied while outgoing connections are allowed (i.e. Ufw standard configuration). With this configuration I can use Firefox as well as the transfer without any problems.

To harden Ubuntu, I decided to block both incoming and outgoing connections and added rules that allow outgoing connections on ports 80 (tcp), 443 (tcp) and 53 (udp). After that, Firefox continued to work without any problems, but the transfer didn't work at all.

When surfing the internet for a solution, I came up with a recurring option: Allow outbound connections on port 51413 (both TCP and UDP), which is the default transmission port (I disabled the option to change the port to a random one at startup).

I tried transmission again (after reloading ufw) and no peers were found (tracker connection error). Note that it would work if I allow all outgoing connections in ufw (default configuration).

When I checked /var/log/ufw.log, I also noticed that ufw, when I blocked all outbound connections and added the rules above, seemed to block connections to the source port (SPT) 51413. I don't understand why this happens I have already added a rule that allows connections from this particular port.

Comments would be very helpful.

Issue of sudo ufw status verbose::

Status: active
Logging: on (low)
Default: deny (incoming), deny (outgoing), disabled (routed)
New profiles: skip

To                         Action      From
-----                      ------      -----
80/tcp                     ALLOW OUT   Anywhere                  
443/tcp                    ALLOW OUT   Anywhere                  
192.168.0.1 53/udp         ALLOW OUT   Anywhere                  
51413/tcp                  ALLOW OUT   Anywhere                  
51413/udp                  ALLOW OUT   Anywhere                  
53/udp                     ALLOW OUT   Anywhere                  
80/tcp (v6)                ALLOW OUT   Anywhere (v6)             
443/tcp (v6)               ALLOW OUT   Anywhere (v6)             
51413/tcp (v6)             ALLOW OUT   Anywhere (v6)             
51413/udp (v6)             ALLOW OUT   Anywhere (v6)             
53/udp (v6)                ALLOW OUT   Anywhere (v6)

Issue of sudo netstat -tulpen | grep transmission::

tcp        0      0 0.0.0.0:51413           0.0.0.0:*               LISTENING    1000      6787/transmission-g
tcp6       0      0 :::51413                :::*                    LISTENING    1000      6787/transmission-g
udp        0      0 0.0.0.0:49353           0.0.0.0:*                            1000      6787/transmission-g
udp        0      0 0.0.0.0:51413           0.0.0.0:*                            1000      6787/transmission-g

Syslog ufw line:

(UFW BLOCK) IN= OUT= SRC= DST= LEN=122 TOS=0x00 PREC=0x00 TTL=64 ID= DF PROTO=UDP SPT=51413 DPT=64959 LEN=102

Linux – After upgrading from 5, the Samba4 share (Zentyal 6.1 server) cannot be written to. Reading is permitted

Good Morning,
I can't write to all my Samba shares on all my clients (Windows 7 and Windows 10), even if the users in the domain are accepted and the permissions have been retained.
The shares are connected on a NAS, ISCSI.
The line in my / etc / fstab is:

UUID = 98baebe4-ede3-4bed-a9e8-ff129f3988f4 / mnt / fileserver ext4 _netdev, user_xattr, acl, default value 0 0

By the time I was at Zentyal 5, everything was fine.
The error reported by the client is: "No authorization to perform the operation"

I can read the files with all users.
Where's the Samba protocol for that?

Thanks a lot.

Database – Make sure that the room number of a course section with a certain restriction is within the permitted rooms for this course

In the following situation, I have difficulty making restrictions. This is a hypothetical scenario for practicing the DB design.

Imagine a rule in a school that says Courses some are taken firmly Rooms, e.g: Mathematics course can only be taken in rooms 101, 102 and 110 Course can have many Sections, So I have to make sure none Section of Mathematics course is only taken in the specified Rooms,

Now I'm doing one Course-Room Take relationship through the PK of both Course and Room, The Section The relation is created by the PK of Course and adding the Section Number with it.

For storing the Rooms of Sections, a relation Section-Room created. The Section-Room The table should only contain rows that match that Course-Room Relationship. How can I limit this from that relationship Course-Room Relationship?


A sample ERD is created here: https://dbdiagram.io/d/5e4433459e76504e0ef15e24

The schema as DBML is subsequently inserted as a backup.

// Store info about a Course
Table course {
  course_pk int (pk) 
  course_code varchar(13) (not null, unique)
  course_name varchar(200) (not null)
}

Table room {
  room_pk int (pk)
  room_no int
}

Table section {
  section_pk int (pk)
  course_id int
  section int
}
Ref: section.course_id > course.course_pk

Table course_room {
  course_room_pk int (pk)
  course_id int
  room_id int
}
Ref: course_room.course_id > course.course_pk
Ref: course_room.room_id > room.room_pk

Portugal Customs – goods in quantities exceeding the permitted quantities

I am a Brazilian with a Portuguese residence permit.

I will visit my hometown in the state of Rio Grande do Sul and would like to bring some kind of tea (chimarrĂ£o tea). Since I have some slots in my luggage, I would like to bring 12 kg of tea. I consume almost 2 kg a month, so I will drink tea for 6 months. The tea is not illegal and can be bought in Portugal, but it is so expensive.

I check this page and it says that I can not bring any goods in larger quantities than those allowed. However, I have not found what amounts are allowed (I found only for alcohol). I know that in Brazil usually the amount than 12.

What is the permitted quantity in Portugal?

Drop-down list – Date drop-down list. The display in non-chronological order is permitted

It depends on your users but is probably a bad idea.

If the list is sorted in ascending or descending order, a user can find out what's happening, and he knows where to look for the year he's interested in, and jumps right there.

If the list is sorted according to another attribute that is not visible or of which the user is not yet aware, it must scan each line to see if it is the year that matters to it, and this takes a lot longer Interact with something.

Based on your question, it is possible that the years are subordinate to the intended use case. Instead of looking up what happened in 1997, you might want to see what happened in the best against the worst year. Different sorting might make this easier, but you should still see this data in the list to prevent it from being a mystery to your users.

$1.5M - 1997
$1.3M - 2017
$1.2M - 2014
$1.0M - 2001
etc.

You should do some testing to see if your users need to navigate more frequently to a specific year or an abstract target such as "busy".

Probability – Permitted transition matrices for irreducible aperiodic reversible homogeneous Markov chain with known stationary distribution

Consider a stationary finite state space Markov chain that is:

  1. not reducible,
  2. aperiodic,
  3. reversible.

To let $ pi $ be the unique stationary distribution of the chain. What is known about the family of transition matrices $ mathcal {P} $ compatible with $ pi $ beyond Kolmorogov's criterion and for all $ P in mathcal {P} $ we have $ lim_ {n rightarrow infty} P ^ n = vec {1} pi $ ?

Unicode – Python UnicodeEncodeError: The codec & # 39; utf-8 & # 39; can the character & # 39;; udcfd & # 39; Do not code in position 2104: Replacement characters are not permitted

I've tried to fix bugs listed below for other reasons, but I could not be reached.

UnicodeEncodeError: The codec utf-8 can not encode the character & # 39 ;, udcfd & quot; in position 2104: substitute character not allowed "

Why am I taking this mistake.
I assumed it is related to some path problem as the system can not find the file etc.

I use Anaconda 3.5.0 64bit
(Base) Python 3.6.2
(Tensorflow1) Python 3.7.0

I'm running the codes for the generate_tfrecord.py file step by step and the error is shown below

def main (_):
writer = tf.python_io.TFRecordWriter (FLAGS.output_path)
path = os.path.join (os.getcwd (), FLAGS.image_dir)
examples = pd.read_csv (FLAGS.csv_input)
grouped = split (examples, & # 39; filename & # 39;)
for group in group:
tf_example = create_tf_example (group, path)
writer.write (tf_example.SerializeToString ())

writer.close ()
output_path = os.path.join (os.getcwd (), FLAGS.output_path)
print (& # 39; TFRecords successfully created: {} & # 39;. format (output_path))

if Surname == & # 39;Main& # ;: 39
tf.app.run ()

Security – Allowed or Permitted Blockchain? For what is the PoS better suited?

Since in Proof of pledge (PoS) There is no mining process according to the functionality of approved and without permission Block Chains, For which type is PoS better suited?

In other words, is a PoS-based publicly not allowed Blockchain as safe on PoW basis publicly not allowed Block chain? Or do we have to do that? restrict the approval for the validation of the transactions to a limited permissible and known examiners (i.e. privately approved Block Chain)?

If you need additional explanations for further explanation, please let me know to expand the question.