the definition of a "branch" has nothing to do with a circuit element. It is a "path that connects two nodes." ie, a wire.
Two "nodes" with no circuit element between them are just one and the same node (see what your electrical science bok says about the definition of a node). So no, a wire isn't a branch, it's a node.
I have to make a correction to my earlier statement: the most general form of Kirchhoff's current law is that "the algebraic sum of all currents entering a 'closed surface' is zero," where a closed surface can include basically anything you want it to include. However, my issue with the original post was how it said "the current in a branch is zero," which is obviously untrue since wires can carry current.
3. The algebraic sum of all currents in a branch is zero.
Duhh, no. What you're saying is totally silly. It would mean that there's no current being carried in any wire anywhere. What you mean is "the algebraic sum of all currents into a node is zero." I suspect you're just hazy on the definition of a branch (FYI: a branch is a circuit element -- such as a resistor -- and the wires connected to it.)
You are right however that you can't get more power out than you put in; in fact you were too general -- the total average (real) power supplied has to equal the total average power consumed and, as well, the total reactive power supplied has to equal the total reactive power consumed. What the grandparent was saying about the phase difference between theta-v and theta-i is only relevant as a coefficient (the power factor, defined as the cosine of the phase difference) when you're considering how much of the complex power supplied does work worth anything (VARs don't run motors).
I speak Hebrew and Aramaic and have studied the orginal texts in more detail than I care to say (legacy of an Orthodox Jewish upbringing) and I can tell you quite honestly that it actually does say all those things you say are impossible (e.g. Methushelach's age), with not much room for artistic interpretation. Such license is taken anyways, even by Jewish commentators, but none of them deny the literal truth of the text. (And, incidentally, the ASV is an excellent translation of the Hebrew, and the much-maligned King James is pretty damn (heh) good too.)
I just got a new interview with him in my email from edge.org, where he speculates on multiple universes, alternative formulations of physics and the Matrix (hehe). It's here, for all of youse enjoyments. (N.B. RealPlayer format)
Actually *doing* the stunts is way more realistic that looking like you're doing it. I quote from Roger Ebert: begin quote: Q. In your review of "Shanghai Knights," you say "The whole point is that [Jackie Chan] does his own stunts, and the audience knows it." I'm curious what you think of Chan's recent admission that this is no longer true--he does use a stuntman for stunts that he does not feel safe doing.
Geoffrey Romer,
Claremont, Calif.
A. We may be up against an urban legend. The authoritative Web site jackiechankids.com says that Chan has never done all of his own stunts, and never claimed that he did, although he sometimes just smiled when others made that statement.
Why doesn't he do his own stunts? The reply: "He'd be stupid to do all the stunts in all his movies. And as Jackie has said many times, 'I may be crazy but I'm not stupid.' Jackie began his career in the movies as a stuntman and did many dangerous things that no one else would do because he was trying to make a name for himself. After he established himself as a well-regarded stuntman, he no longer had to do it all to prove anything to anyone. So he began to do as much as he wanted to do. In the old days, that meant nearly all the stunts.... As he got older, he began to use stunt doubles for several reasons. The studios... sometimes insisted that he use stunt doubles so that their star wouldn't be put in any danger. He also began to be more careful about his own body. Doctors warned him about doing things that might cause permanent damage." end quote.
That was a great movie. I was fortunate enough to see it at the world premiere at the Montreal 'Fantasia' Asian Film Festival a year ago. Dreamworks deserves congratulations for picking this up.
Actually, I never had any trouble doing that myself. It's surprising how quickly you adapt. (I believe there was a slashdot article a couple weeks back about some glasses that invert your vision, people adapt very quickly.)
Dude, this guy's probably spent so many years honing his 1337 sk1llz on Street Fighter that he could take any punk ass that tries to take him down... or at least, he thinks he can...;)
...the only way to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn. I've read that the ideal way is actually to calculate the average amount of calories you use per day and intake about 50-100 less than this. I never did anything so complicated as counting calories, just ate less, but I lost like 60 pounds and kept them off. What worked for me was none of this carb/protein/fat bullshit, but just eating less (specifically, skipping lunch)... I've found that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and the less the better... I know this flies in the face of conventional dieting "wisdom", but I've known too many people that use more conventional diets like low-fat or Atkins and they just don't work as well as mine.
Just a small clarification: You're right that we refer to our numerals as "Arabic," but in fact they are Indian in origin, and were brought to the West by Arab traders (as were numerous other inventions, such as chess). I googled up a source for your edification, too (New Scientist).
This reminds me of the Suse technique of not actually providing installation images but providing something they call the "Live-Evaluation" cd... What it does is run the OS, with a minimum of configuration, off the CD.. nice for testing an OS withour installing, but I have my reservations - for example, you can't use the CD drive, and the lack of installation images is a real pain for actually installing the distro. I must say, it's nice if NetBSD does this, but only if they also keep providing actual installation images.
Always knew it was no coincidence those galaxies look like shurikens. It's those damn supra-galactic space ninjas, that's what it is. Somebody should do something about them, they'll hurt somebody.
Not everybody has an I, Cringely Slashbox (disclaimer: I do), and I don't think it should become a default either (for non-logged-in users) for several reasons: first, because it's fairly large, and people shouldn't have to have a huge chunk of something they don't necessarily want there on their page; second, Cringely is not an OSDN property and as such should not be put as a default top-level link. This is aside from the extremely good point raised by another poster that people such as ourselves get to comment on stories but not on Slashboxes:)
It really seems to me like the "Google Sets" feature recently made available at Google Labs is an implementation of Zhenlei Cai's submission(although the details are extremely sketchy in the Google announcement). If this is true, I wonder why they couldn't implement the winning idea too?
You bleeding idiot. You invent numbers with no proof or semifactual basis and expect a literate and logical community to believe your baseless accusations? Fuck off.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
the definition of a "branch" has nothing to do with a circuit element. It is a "path that connects two nodes." ie, a wire.
Two "nodes" with no circuit element between them are just one and the same node (see what your electrical science bok says about the definition of a node). So no, a wire isn't a branch, it's a node.
I have to make a correction to my earlier statement: the most general form of Kirchhoff's current law is that "the algebraic sum of all currents entering a 'closed surface' is zero," where a closed surface can include basically anything you want it to include. However, my issue with the original post was how it said "the current in a branch is zero," which is obviously untrue since wires can carry current.
3. The algebraic sum of all currents in a branch is zero.
Duhh, no. What you're saying is totally silly. It would mean that there's no current being carried in any wire anywhere. What you mean is "the algebraic sum of all currents into a node is zero." I suspect you're just hazy on the definition of a branch (FYI: a branch is a circuit element -- such as a resistor -- and the wires connected to it.)
You are right however that you can't get more power out than you put in; in fact you were too general -- the total average (real) power supplied has to equal the total average power consumed and, as well, the total reactive power supplied has to equal the total reactive power consumed. What the grandparent was saying about the phase difference between theta-v and theta-i is only relevant as a coefficient (the power factor, defined as the cosine of the phase difference) when you're considering how much of the complex power supplied does work worth anything (VARs don't run motors).
How is the parent post offtopic? I found it interesting and relevant..
I now return your to your regurlarly scheduled lives.
I speak Hebrew and Aramaic and have studied the orginal texts in more detail than I care to say (legacy of an Orthodox Jewish upbringing) and I can tell you quite honestly that it actually does say all those things you say are impossible (e.g. Methushelach's age), with not much room for artistic interpretation. Such license is taken anyways, even by Jewish commentators, but none of them deny the literal truth of the text. (And, incidentally, the ASV is an excellent translation of the Hebrew, and the much-maligned King James is pretty damn (heh) good too.)
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.
Dude, there WAS no Islam 1400 years ago. Check out a Muslim calendar.
When I saw this post I could only think to myself: "Pennsylvania has employed a child to block pornography?"
I just got a new interview with him in my email from edge.org, where he speculates on multiple universes, alternative formulations of physics and the Matrix (hehe). It's here, for all of youse enjoyments. (N.B. RealPlayer format)
I guess being held in high disregard would be having nobody really aware that you're there?
Actually *doing* the stunts is way more realistic that looking like you're doing it.
... As he got older, he began to use stunt doubles for several reasons. The studios ... sometimes insisted that he use stunt doubles so that their star wouldn't be put in any danger. He also began to be more careful about his own body. Doctors warned him about doing things that might cause permanent damage."
I quote from Roger Ebert:
begin quote:
Q. In your review of "Shanghai Knights," you say "The whole point is that [Jackie Chan] does his own stunts, and the audience knows it." I'm curious what you think of Chan's recent admission that this is no longer true--he does use a stuntman for stunts that he does not feel safe doing.
Geoffrey Romer,
Claremont, Calif.
A. We may be up against an urban legend. The authoritative Web site jackiechankids.com says that Chan has never done all of his own stunts, and never claimed that he did, although he sometimes just smiled when others made that statement.
Why doesn't he do his own stunts? The reply: "He'd be stupid to do all the stunts in all his movies. And as Jackie has said many times, 'I may be crazy but I'm not stupid.' Jackie began his career in the movies as a stuntman and did many dangerous things that no one else would do because he was trying to make a name for himself. After he established himself as a well-regarded stuntman, he no longer had to do it all to prove anything to anyone. So he began to do as much as he wanted to do. In the old days, that meant nearly all the stunts.
end quote.
That was a great movie. I was fortunate enough to see it at the world premiere at the Montreal 'Fantasia' Asian Film Festival a year ago. Dreamworks deserves congratulations for picking this up.
That was the quickest /. effect I've ever seen - no page after only 3 posts!
Actually, I never had any trouble doing that myself. It's surprising how quickly you adapt. (I believe there was a slashdot article a couple weeks back about some glasses that invert your vision, people adapt very quickly.)
Beer. Lots of it.
Dude, this guy's probably spent so many years honing his 1337 sk1llz on Street Fighter that he could take any punk ass that tries to take him down... or at least, he thinks he can... ;)
...the only way to lose weight is to eat less calories than you burn. I've read that the ideal way is actually to calculate the average amount of calories you use per day and intake about 50-100 less than this. I never did anything so complicated as counting calories, just ate less, but I lost like 60 pounds and kept them off. What worked for me was none of this carb/protein/fat bullshit, but just eating less (specifically, skipping lunch)... I've found that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, and the less the better... I know this flies in the face of conventional dieting "wisdom", but I've known too many people that use more conventional diets like low-fat or Atkins and they just don't work as well as mine.
Just a small clarification: You're right that we refer to our numerals as "Arabic," but in fact they are Indian in origin, and were brought to the West by Arab traders (as were numerous other inventions, such as chess). I googled up a source for your edification, too (New Scientist).
This reminds me of the Suse technique of not actually providing installation images but providing something they call the "Live-Evaluation" cd... What it does is run the OS, with a minimum of configuration, off the CD.. nice for testing an OS withour installing, but I have my reservations - for example, you can't use the CD drive, and the lack of installation images is a real pain for actually installing the distro. I must say, it's nice if NetBSD does this, but only if they also keep providing actual installation images.
Giving a guy a rifle and a scope doesn't make you a sniper.
True dat. But it might make him a sniper.
:-)
Always knew it was no coincidence those galaxies look like shurikens. It's those damn supra-galactic space ninjas, that's what it is. Somebody should do something about them, they'll hurt somebody.
Not everybody has an I, Cringely Slashbox (disclaimer: I do), and I don't think it should become a default either (for non-logged-in users) for several reasons: first, because it's fairly large, and people shouldn't have to have a huge chunk of something they don't necessarily want there on their page; second, Cringely is not an OSDN property and as such should not be put as a default top-level link. This is aside from the extremely good point raised by another poster that people such as ourselves get to comment on stories but not on Slashboxes :)
It really seems to me like the "Google Sets" feature recently made available at Google Labs is an implementation of Zhenlei Cai's submission(although the details are extremely sketchy in the Google announcement). If this is true, I wonder why they couldn't implement the winning idea too?
You bleeding idiot. You invent numbers with no proof or semifactual basis and expect a literate and logical community to believe your baseless accusations? Fuck off.