I suppose it varies. I am a non-EU citizen who lives in the EU, so most of the time I come to the UK on EU flights. Situations like the one you describe happen, but more often than not you actually have three planefuls of EU citizens crawling through the control while the handful of people who do need a visa breeze through. Although obviously you will have more non-EU people at Heathrow than at Liverpool.
Are you a British or Irish citizen? Then you can do it, because of the Common Travel Area (Irish border authorities do conduct random checks, though). It is, however, strictly speaking illegal for somebody holding only a British visa to cross into the Republic, or vice versa.
Switzerland abolished border controls (and started issuing Schengen visas) only a few years ago (in 2008 if memory serves). Also, there may be no border control (=they don't check your entry permits if you're coming from a Schengen country), but customs isn't going anywhere.
I don't know whether this is in fact true for the Lua community, but surely this is not necessarily true in general. MOP is not part of CLOS as defined by the standard, but that doesn't seem to create horrible problems (especially with Closer)
Wait, what? Are you saying barcodes aren't used in the US? Here in Norway at least all major handling agents issue boarding passes with barcodes, so you can board a (domestic or intra-Scandinavian) flight without interacting with anybody human except the security agents just by scanning the barcode at the gate. No idea if it's also used for security purposes, though.
The ticket has a barcode, but it's usually scanned by the airline before you board the plane. The TSA checker just looks at your ticket and your id, no computers involved.
And presumably the passenger's name is encoded in the barcode, which I guess is why the OP suggests printing the original ticket with the name of the friend that bought it instead of just using the "forged" ticket at the gate. Though I'd also guess that the airline employees who scan the ticket at the gate almost never check that the name on the ticket matches the one displayed on their screen when they scan the barcode, so you'd probably be fine using the forged one.
I think what you're describing is somewhat different: temporarily changing context is like a let block. So for instance in CL you can rebind standard-output to a different stream using let, but then you have to do the legwork to ensure that everything is cleaned up if something goes wrong, while with-open-file or with-output-to-stream will do part of that work.
While it is always nice to have harder proof than is usual in the humanities and to a lesser degree social sciences, I feel mildly irritated by the coverage which presents this as a "discovery" by clever tech people. These facts are pretty basic in sociolinguistics, the study of discourse, psychology of language etc., as amply acknowledged in the paper itself.
Not to be snarky, but that's what reviewers do: help with good stuff, reject bad stuff. Academia works the same way. Even if you think it's a racket, this is far from unique to Apress.
I don't think that's the case. The purpose of a technical reviewer is to do fact checking on the technical aspects of the writing. If the writing itself is bad, it never should have gotten that far.
I find it very hard to believe that many American employers hire foreigners, with all the paperwork that entails, unless they are persuaded that the foreigner in question is indeed better than the Americans in their pool (modulo wages, but there's a wage floor for H1B, and in any case it's a question of value).
This is completely untrue, I get the feeling you haven't worked a place that has many H1B employees. All I can say is it has been quite obvious that some H1B employees were not quite as sharp as their American counterparts at some places I have worked (not saying all H1B workers, but some). Sure, some are good, but they are not all hired because they have a better skillset and are better overall than their American counterparts, this is rather ridiculous.
The post points out that the station-by-turnout data are weighted, so the "very small precinct" argument does not fly (and why would all the very small stations all have numbers of votes that are multiples of five)? In addition, why don't we get anything remotely like the same effect in Sweden, where large parts of the country are also very sparsely populated,?
Polling stations abroad are counted in the same way as polling stations in Russia. The "traveller" votes were a prime mechanism for ballot stuffing.
