well, no, because a 30A circuit is a 30A circuit whether it's radial or ring, the breaker is the same rating. Generally, 2.5mm^2 Twin & Earth cable is used on ring mains as this is suitable for short runs (ie homes), for longer runs or where a single appliance (eg a cooker or a shower) occupies the circuit due to power demand, 4mm cable is used. 2.5mm cable is normally rated for 240V@20A but because of the setup the circuit is rated at 40A, the ring main is fused at 30A. In any case, the maximum permitted power load on any single ring main circuit is 4.5KW (though as mentioned some shower units which require their own circuits anyway, rate at upwards of 9KWhence are served with a dedicated pair of lines directly from the distribution bus). This accounts for the fact that even though the cable is thinner than the total load capacity of the circuit, a cut anywhere on the circuit is less likely as long as the limits are observed, to cause the embedded cable to heat to the point of ignition. Regulation 433-02-04 of BS 7671 requires that the installed load is distributed around the ring such that no part of the cable exceeds its capacity.
Respectfully, the BS 1363 plugs and sockets are widely considered to be the safest in the world. The earth pin, for instance, on the plug is thicker and longer and rotated 90 degrees with respect the other two pins. This creates a key and the earth pin is *always* the first to make a connection. The earth connector on the socket has a shield latch which covers the live and neutral conductors until a plug is inserted. With a correctly wired plug and socket, it is absolutely impossible to connect live to neutral, live to earth, neutral to earth, etc. There is no such thing as a two-pin BS1363 plug, the earth pin (even a full plastic sheath) is absolutely required to release the conductors.
The BS1363 standard for domestic electrical wiring also specifies the use of ring mains for appliance wiring to sockets, as opposed to radial wiring which is prone to single-point failure not to mention a fire hazard.
Based off of a sample size of 1. Nice generalization.
Hey! That's one better than some of the climate change theories!
not a single one of which are based on any actual observations.
Case in point: CO2 makes up far less than one percent of the atmosphere, yet the AGW crowd would have us believe that the oceans are dying and the plants are suffocating due to indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels and cutting down of forests. Problem with their claims is that CO2 levels are leveled and at a 15-million-year low (source: NOAA/multiple Antarctic ice core surveys). Yes, deforestation is a problem, because deforestation destabilises the topsoil. We only have two inches of topsoil left. The deserts in Africa have quintupled in size since the Industrial Revolution because the paper lobby wants more wood to make paper, and trees take years to mature. Once they're gone, it is very difficult to a: reestablish woods and b: maintain the topsoil. Result? without trees to stabilise the soil and as windbreaks, aerosion is a massive problem across vast tracts of land, and the sand advances. Back to CO2 and the ridiculous claim that plants suffocate on it: plants rely on CO2 to such an extent that as an example, I have a chemical plant in my greenhouse that produces CO2 which actually encourages plants to grow - I have a five week old pumpkin plant that is six feet tall and has a mainstem thicker than my thumb.
I've done this thought experiment and ended up disappearing into my own bellybutton.
An observer standing at the edge of *your* observable universe (13someodd billion light years away from your space) would also see 13 billion light years in any direction. Drawing a straight line between you and him and carrying it 13 billion light years to the far edge of his observable universe and an observer there would also see thirteen billion light years in any direction. Assuming the straight line is in fact straight as the literal definition goes (ie it never meets itself), then the universe is demonstrably infinite by a simple rinse and repeat.
the 2CV6 could run at 40mph on three wheels. Of course, that's assuming it was pointing down a hill with a tailwind at the moment the wheel fell off...
'cos if the power goes (yeah OK they *might* have backup generators but a tank of diesel can only last so long), then those things will fly round in a circle until they run out of fuel, then crash.
Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. The convention also defines weapons which are not to be considered to be incendiary weapons. Examples are: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.
source: Wikipedia/UNCCCW
Because WP is used in illumination rounds and tracers, all you have to say is that the munition is primarily for illumination purposes and it doesn't matter how severe the secondary effect of being an accelerant is, it doesn't fall into the Convention definition of an incendiary, because tracers and lights are completely legal.
Hell, NATO have been getting away using that excuse in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia for years...
A pea-sized rock (or an errant bolt) travelling retrograde* in the same orbit as the ISS would be a mission-ender. Even one crossing at a very shallow angle would close so fast that by the time anyone spotted it, it would be too late.
Also bear in mind that the impactor that left a mile-wide hole in Arizona was only the size of a Greyhound bus.
The one that killed the dinosaurs was the size of Manhattan and left a crater 127 miles wide.
The object that exploded over Siberia in 1908 flattened 80 million trees and left fist sized fragments of itself over hundreds of square miles.
*at the altitude and speed the ISS orbits, mutual closing speed with a retrograde object of any mass would be around the 34,200mph mark. Or, around the same speed as an asteroid on terminal trajectory. It wouldn't be so much a hole, more an explosive impact.
The problem with most terminal equipment is not so much location, but the quality of the antenna used. Most phones these days have absolutely pitiful antennas which is alleviated somewhat by the use of a flat copper helix stuck on the back of the battery. Or, in the case of such phones as the iPhone, which do not come with removable covers never mind removable batteries, stuck to the back of the case.
there's a video somewhere as well which expands on the press statement as read on stage by Drummond, I think it's on the full uncut version of "Fuck The Millennium" under the name "Blacksmoke" (runs around 20 minutes and is mostly extremely caustic jazz)
zeroing a drive is no guarantee of security. In fact, it won't stand up to much more than a casual analysis. The DoD specification is a 3-pass method involving zeroing, populating with 1's and then populating with randoms. Now you're in electron microscopy territory to recover *anything*.
The absolute *minimum* I would in fact recommend if you're intent on making life difficult for any would-be data snooper is dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda. I would also take the hard drive and zero it with a *different* kernel than the one it was originally written with (for Windows or Mac, use Linux, for Linux use a BSD kernel, for instance). There are utilities which have their own custom kernels which will do the job on any drive, for example Ultra-X (which in fact exceeds DoD 5520.22-M requirements by a wide margin). I like margins, I've been using Ultra-X for years now.
Fair Use is pretty well defined, in a nutshell you can use 30 consecutive seconds of audio before it becomes an infringement, or the entire track in the case of a narrative or analysis of the track. Clips? This is where it gets interesting; if I use multiple fades and play a track through, am I infringing? I would say not, others might disagree.
On the other hand, I've used a track with no fades, from the first bar to the last, as a theme for a Youtube video. UMG put in a DMCA complaint, my response was that as far as I was concerned, the only person who had any right to complain if he felt the need was Scott Stapp, the individual who wrote the song. I contacted Scott Stapp through his agent, he wrote back himself and pretty much said "I've seen the video, I like it, you go for it."
Big label publishers can go fuck themselves. I'll engage with the artist, not the museum.
Oh, little tip for anyone wanting to use an instrumental background: The KLF back catalogue is all Public Domain, has been since 1993. Some great stuff in there, and you can use any DMCA notices that come as a result to lay harassment charges against the labels.
that would be sensible I think (why did you post AC?), because lifting the fuel required for a trip like this, from Earth, would be ridiculous... better to harvest raw materials for fuel from someplace with a shallower gravity well (like the Moon, they just found permanent water ice in the polar craters - bonus!) and launch the big leg of the mission from low orbit there. Advantages: no atmosphere to deal with, you can orbit as low as you like - you can buzz the mountains. Launching from low orbit (not static launch site - orbit) is the most fuel efficient way to go. For that matter, build the mission in low Lunar orbit, fuel it up from Lunar ground stations maybe using robotic shuttles then you're good to go, you wouldn't even have to send any humans up there until the spacecraft is fully ready and fueled.
the price (money terms) of putting something in orbit does not decrease the more you throw up there, nor does it as time goes on, nor does it as more efficient engines are developed.
The idea of the Eden Project was to try and create an entirely enclosed, self-sufficient environment designed to support up to a dozen humans. Apart from the air leaks, the odd contaminants (at least one of which prompted immediate evacuation because it released highly toxic gases), mass plant die-off which caused the oxygen levels to crash, and odd nutrition imbalances which required medical intervention, it was largely successful. They ran in to problems they hadn't even thought of. Once they had a fairly comprehensive list of problems and solutions, they figured out that for each human crew member on any sort of Mars or Europa mission, they would need enough food and oxygen to last them the entire trip because they could not rely on hydro or airponics to provide. Water no problem, we've had mechanical filters for that for years. As long as you don't mind drinking your own recycled piss for a dozen years.
So from that, they figured that each human crew member would need something like five tons of consumables per mission-year. For a crew of a dozen, that's 60,000kg+ of food and oxygen to get into orbit. Plus the fuel to lift it and the containers they're in, plus the fuel to lift the fuel... on a twelve year mission that's 720 tons of consumables, plus container modules, plus fuel, plus the total weight of the launcher and fuel to lift that... numbers soon get ridiculous.
The Apollo program used 3,000 tons (6.5 million pounds) of launcher to lift 120 tons of payload (CSM and LEM, plus astronauts plus 3 days of food, water and oxygen (consumables)) for a Lunar mission that lasted but a week. Most (about 92%) of that mass was fuel, 90% of which was expended just getting the fucking thing off the ground. How big is the Europa mission launcher needing to be if launched from the bottom of Earth's gravity well?
Slashdot Mirror
well, no, because a 30A circuit is a 30A circuit whether it's radial or ring, the breaker is the same rating. Generally, 2.5mm^2 Twin & Earth cable is used on ring mains as this is suitable for short runs (ie homes), for longer runs or where a single appliance (eg a cooker or a shower) occupies the circuit due to power demand, 4mm cable is used. 2.5mm cable is normally rated for 240V@20A but because of the setup the circuit is rated at 40A, the ring main is fused at 30A. In any case, the maximum permitted power load on any single ring main circuit is 4.5KW (though as mentioned some shower units which require their own circuits anyway, rate at upwards of 9KWhence are served with a dedicated pair of lines directly from the distribution bus). This accounts for the fact that even though the cable is thinner than the total load capacity of the circuit, a cut anywhere on the circuit is less likely as long as the limits are observed, to cause the embedded cable to heat to the point of ignition. Regulation 433-02-04 of BS 7671 requires that the installed load is distributed around the ring such that no part of the cable exceeds its capacity.
(citations inline)
Respectfully, the BS 1363 plugs and sockets are widely considered to be the safest in the world. The earth pin, for instance, on the plug is thicker and longer and rotated 90 degrees with respect the other two pins. This creates a key and the earth pin is *always* the first to make a connection. The earth connector on the socket has a shield latch which covers the live and neutral conductors until a plug is inserted. With a correctly wired plug and socket, it is absolutely impossible to connect live to neutral, live to earth, neutral to earth, etc. There is no such thing as a two-pin BS1363 plug, the earth pin (even a full plastic sheath) is absolutely required to release the conductors.
The BS1363 standard for domestic electrical wiring also specifies the use of ring mains for appliance wiring to sockets, as opposed to radial wiring which is prone to single-point failure not to mention a fire hazard.
Based off of a sample size of 1. Nice generalization.
Hey! That's one better than some of the climate change theories!
not a single one of which are based on any actual observations.
Case in point: CO2 makes up far less than one percent of the atmosphere, yet the AGW crowd would have us believe that the oceans are dying and the plants are suffocating due to indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels and cutting down of forests. Problem with their claims is that CO2 levels are leveled and at a 15-million-year low (source: NOAA/multiple Antarctic ice core surveys). Yes, deforestation is a problem, because deforestation destabilises the topsoil. We only have two inches of topsoil left. The deserts in Africa have quintupled in size since the Industrial Revolution because the paper lobby wants more wood to make paper, and trees take years to mature. Once they're gone, it is very difficult to a: reestablish woods and b: maintain the topsoil. Result? without trees to stabilise the soil and as windbreaks, aerosion is a massive problem across vast tracts of land, and the sand advances. Back to CO2 and the ridiculous claim that plants suffocate on it: plants rely on CO2 to such an extent that as an example, I have a chemical plant in my greenhouse that produces CO2 which actually encourages plants to grow - I have a five week old pumpkin plant that is six feet tall and has a mainstem thicker than my thumb.
I've done this thought experiment and ended up disappearing into my own bellybutton.
An observer standing at the edge of *your* observable universe (13someodd billion light years away from your space) would also see 13 billion light years in any direction. Drawing a straight line between you and him and carrying it 13 billion light years to the far edge of his observable universe and an observer there would also see thirteen billion light years in any direction. Assuming the straight line is in fact straight as the literal definition goes (ie it never meets itself), then the universe is demonstrably infinite by a simple rinse and repeat.
the 2CV6 could run at 40mph on three wheels. Of course, that's assuming it was pointing down a hill with a tailwind at the moment the wheel fell off...
can it be Reaper drones instead?
'cos if the power goes (yeah OK they *might* have backup generators but a tank of diesel can only last so long), then those things will fly round in a circle until they run out of fuel, then crash.
Said nobody ever.
argue that with a lawyer. Oh, wait.
I've already cited the Law in another thread. The UN Convention on Chemical Weapons.
welease wodger first, though!
but he was only too happy to accept the money, huh...
not when you refer to the munitions as "illumination rounds" or "tracers" it isn't.
Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. The convention also defines weapons which are not to be considered to be incendiary weapons. Examples are: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect.
source: Wikipedia/UNCCCW
Because WP is used in illumination rounds and tracers, all you have to say is that the munition is primarily for illumination purposes and it doesn't matter how severe the secondary effect of being an accelerant is, it doesn't fall into the Convention definition of an incendiary, because tracers and lights are completely legal.
Hell, NATO have been getting away using that excuse in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia for years...
It's almost as if they were already there...
A pea-sized rock (or an errant bolt) travelling retrograde* in the same orbit as the ISS would be a mission-ender. Even one crossing at a very shallow angle would close so fast that by the time anyone spotted it, it would be too late.
Also bear in mind that the impactor that left a mile-wide hole in Arizona was only the size of a Greyhound bus.
The one that killed the dinosaurs was the size of Manhattan and left a crater 127 miles wide.
The object that exploded over Siberia in 1908 flattened 80 million trees and left fist sized fragments of itself over hundreds of square miles.
*at the altitude and speed the ISS orbits, mutual closing speed with a retrograde object of any mass would be around the 34,200mph mark. Or, around the same speed as an asteroid on terminal trajectory. It wouldn't be so much a hole, more an explosive impact.
The problem with most terminal equipment is not so much location, but the quality of the antenna used. Most phones these days have absolutely pitiful antennas which is alleviated somewhat by the use of a flat copper helix stuck on the back of the battery. Or, in the case of such phones as the iPhone, which do not come with removable covers never mind removable batteries, stuck to the back of the case.
http://www.libraryofmu.org/display-resource.php?id=315
there's a video somewhere as well which expands on the press statement as read on stage by Drummond, I think it's on the full uncut version of "Fuck The Millennium" under the name "Blacksmoke" (runs around 20 minutes and is mostly extremely caustic jazz)
ELS looks interesting... how many book titles have ever been printed? Pick one, that's your primer.
STFU, now they're going to start arresting six year old little girls with Hello Kitty motifs on their carry-on...
zeroing a drive is no guarantee of security. In fact, it won't stand up to much more than a casual analysis. The DoD specification is a 3-pass method involving zeroing, populating with 1's and then populating with randoms. Now you're in electron microscopy territory to recover *anything*.
The absolute *minimum* I would in fact recommend if you're intent on making life difficult for any would-be data snooper is dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/sda. I would also take the hard drive and zero it with a *different* kernel than the one it was originally written with (for Windows or Mac, use Linux, for Linux use a BSD kernel, for instance). There are utilities which have their own custom kernels which will do the job on any drive, for example Ultra-X (which in fact exceeds DoD 5520.22-M requirements by a wide margin). I like margins, I've been using Ultra-X for years now.
Fair Use is pretty well defined, in a nutshell you can use 30 consecutive seconds of audio before it becomes an infringement, or the entire track in the case of a narrative or analysis of the track. Clips? This is where it gets interesting; if I use multiple fades and play a track through, am I infringing? I would say not, others might disagree.
On the other hand, I've used a track with no fades, from the first bar to the last, as a theme for a Youtube video. UMG put in a DMCA complaint, my response was that as far as I was concerned, the only person who had any right to complain if he felt the need was Scott Stapp, the individual who wrote the song. I contacted Scott Stapp through his agent, he wrote back himself and pretty much said "I've seen the video, I like it, you go for it."
Big label publishers can go fuck themselves. I'll engage with the artist, not the museum.
Oh, little tip for anyone wanting to use an instrumental background: The KLF back catalogue is all Public Domain, has been since 1993. Some great stuff in there, and you can use any DMCA notices that come as a result to lay harassment charges against the labels.
we did, a while ago, when Lars Ulrich claimed that most young people who had ever heard a Metallica track had downloaded it from a bootleg site.
that would be sensible I think (why did you post AC?), because lifting the fuel required for a trip like this, from Earth, would be ridiculous... better to harvest raw materials for fuel from someplace with a shallower gravity well (like the Moon, they just found permanent water ice in the polar craters - bonus!) and launch the big leg of the mission from low orbit there. Advantages: no atmosphere to deal with, you can orbit as low as you like - you can buzz the mountains. Launching from low orbit (not static launch site - orbit) is the most fuel efficient way to go. For that matter, build the mission in low Lunar orbit, fuel it up from Lunar ground stations maybe using robotic shuttles then you're good to go, you wouldn't even have to send any humans up there until the spacecraft is fully ready and fueled.
the price (money terms) of putting something in orbit does not decrease the more you throw up there, nor does it as time goes on, nor does it as more efficient engines are developed.
The idea of the Eden Project was to try and create an entirely enclosed, self-sufficient environment designed to support up to a dozen humans. Apart from the air leaks, the odd contaminants (at least one of which prompted immediate evacuation because it released highly toxic gases), mass plant die-off which caused the oxygen levels to crash, and odd nutrition imbalances which required medical intervention, it was largely successful. They ran in to problems they hadn't even thought of. Once they had a fairly comprehensive list of problems and solutions, they figured out that for each human crew member on any sort of Mars or Europa mission, they would need enough food and oxygen to last them the entire trip because they could not rely on hydro or airponics to provide. Water no problem, we've had mechanical filters for that for years. As long as you don't mind drinking your own recycled piss for a dozen years.
So from that, they figured that each human crew member would need something like five tons of consumables per mission-year. For a crew of a dozen, that's 60,000kg+ of food and oxygen to get into orbit. Plus the fuel to lift it and the containers they're in, plus the fuel to lift the fuel... on a twelve year mission that's 720 tons of consumables, plus container modules, plus fuel, plus the total weight of the launcher and fuel to lift that... numbers soon get ridiculous.
The Apollo program used 3,000 tons (6.5 million pounds) of launcher to lift 120 tons of payload (CSM and LEM, plus astronauts plus 3 days of food, water and oxygen (consumables)) for a Lunar mission that lasted but a week. Most (about 92%) of that mass was fuel, 90% of which was expended just getting the fucking thing off the ground. How big is the Europa mission launcher needing to be if launched from the bottom of Earth's gravity well?
piss the NSA off: use Huawei.
I'm glad I still have my V3. Had it since 2003 and not once have I had any complaint to make about it!