vb.net barcode recognition PEARLS in .NET

Get Denso QR Bar Code in .NET PEARLS

public ChrPair(char c, char c2) { First = c; Second = c2; } } class MultipleFroms { static void Main() { char[] chrs = { 'A', 'B', 'C' }; char[] chrs2 = { 'X', 'Y', 'Z' }; // Notice that the first from iterates over chrs and // the second from iterates over chrs2. var pairs = from ch1 in chrs from ch2 in chrs2 select new ChrPair(ch1, ch2); Console.WriteLine("All combinations of ABC with XYZ: "); foreach(var p in pairs) Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", p.First, p.Second); } }

Remember that Cisco s implementation of HDLC is proprietary: the frame header has a proprietary Type field. Know how to troubleshoot problems with HDLC interfaces: mismatch in encapsulation types, Cisco and non-Cisco devices, misconfigured IP addressing, and missed keepalive responses this statement also applies to the section on configuring PPP. Remember that when you execute the show runningconfig command, if no encapsulation command is displayed in the configuration for a synchronous serial interface, the default encapsulation is HDLC.

There can be more than one constraint associated with a type parameter. When this is the case, use a comma-separated list of constraints. In this list, the first constraint must be class or struct (if present) or the base class (if one is specified). It is illegal to specify both a class or struct constraint and a base class constraint. Next in the list must be any interface constraints. The new( ) constraint must be last. For example, this is a valid declaration.

A. Deck slab, haunch, girders, parapet, median barrier, sidewalk, railing, sign panel supports Four extreme events may be described as follows: Three load combinations for ood conditions and scour Water impact on pier and superstructure Settlement of pier or abutment from soil erosion under footings Increased axial stress in piles due to reduced embedment length from soil erosion. Two seismic load combinations in transverse and longitudinal directions Two vehicle collision impacts on superstructure and on pier Vessel collision impact on piers located in navigational channel.

// Display parameters. ParameterInfo[] pi = m.GetParameters(); for(int i=0; i < pi.Length; i++) { Console.Write(pi[i].ParameterType.Name + " " + pi[i].Name); if(i+1 < pi.Length) Console.Write(", "); }

Fig. 4.35 Mounting Con gurations (Balmar)

18

While the second oil shock of 1979 and the ensuing shortage further spurred electric vehicle development onward, the oil shock glut of 1986 and events leading up to it nearly shut development down. While the larger internal combustion automobile manufacturers were whipsawed their crash programs of the late 1970s were now bringing lighter, smaller cars to market that (temporarily at least) no one wanted the independent electric vehicle manufacturers were simply wiped out. With oil and gasoline prices again approaching their 1970s levels, everyone lost interest in EVs, and the capital coffers of the smaller EV manufacturers were simply not large enough to weather the storm. Even research programs were affected. From mid1983 until the early 1990s, it was as if everything having to do with EVs suddenly fell into a black hole there were no manufacturers, no books, not even many magazine articles. The EV survivors were the prototype builders and converters, the parts suppliers (who typically had other lines of business such as batteries, motors, and electrical components), and EV associations, although their membership ranks thinned somewhat. Four trends (see Figure 3-7) highlight EV development during this third wave: Low levels of activity at GM, Ford, and Chrysler The best independent manufacturers arrive and then depart Low levels of activity overseas Continuation of individuals converting existing internal combustion vehicles In retrospect, given all the other problems the big three had to deal with during this period, it s amazing that electric vehicle programs survived at all. But survive they did, to emerge triumphant in the 1990s. The GM Bedford van project became the GM Griffon van the G-Van. With a broad base of participation from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Chloride EV Systems, and Southern California Edison, the General Motors G-Van, actually an OEM aftermarket conversion by Vehma International of Canada, was widely tested for fleet use. While it was humorous to read numerous complaints about the G-Van s 53 mph top speed, 60-mile range, and 0 to 30 mph in 12 seconds acceleration, one has to wonder how many report readers correctly associated this data with G-Van s 8,120-lb. weight, 36 batteries, and huge frontal area. Ford s direction was to continue to build on its sodium-sulfur battery and integrated propulsion system technology using government funding. Teamed with General Electric, Ford s ETX-I program adapted sodium-sulfur batteries and an integrated AC induction motor propulsion system to a front-wheel drive LN7 automobile test bed. The follow-on Ford/GE ETX-II program utilized sodium-sulfur batteries and a permanent magnet synchronous motor propulsion system in a rear-wheel-drive Aerostar van. Meanwhile Chrysler, under the sponsorship of the EPRI, used their standard Caravan/Voyager minivan platform, a GE DC solid-state motor, and 30 Eagle Picher NIF 200 6-volt nickeliron batteries to achieve 65 mph and a 120-mile range in their 6,200-lb. TEVan.

Figure 7-7

9