I considered the Z-80 a big upgrade from the 8080 simply because the assembly syntax discerned type from the operands like the later 8086; I hated having separate mnemonics for this on the 8080. The dedicated index registers and their addressing modes were nice as well. I considered the 8086 a further improvement over the Z-80.
We have seen too many incidents of outrageous police conduct lately and it surely indicates that a lot more outrageous police conduct takes place.
A lot more takes place than is shown and this was even more the case in the past. This is reporting bias; the level of outrageous police conduct has changed much less then the increase in video evidence showing it.
As a practical matter the program was not unlawful if nobody with responsibility took action against it; the legislative branch did not refuse to fund it, the executive branch did not prosecute anybody responsible for it, and the judicial branch did not apply any 4th amendment remedies. There is plenty of blame to cover all of the Republicans and the Democrats including those who spoke against it but did not do enough to stop it. Talk is cheap.
I agree that Robertson are better in general than Philips but they were designed for different applications and are not direct replacements for each other. Philips is designed to cam-out which prevents over tightening during assembly.
I like hex drive and Torx which both support angled drivers but Robertson is just as good in that respect.
The less expensive LiFePO4 batteries seem to be a better choice for stationary applications than the lithium cobalt batteries Tesla is making. They do not have as high an energy density but have a longer cycle life. Flooded cell lead acid batteries should be less expensive than sealed lead acid batteries and are what I have considered.
The difference in environment has some effect however PbSO4 batteries in cars are starter batteries which are significantly different then the PbSO4 batteries used in traction and stationary applications. The later batteries last significantly longer even when used as direct replacements for starter batteries.
Even if we accept that the accused officers did violate their suspect's rights, and they did search excessively without a warrant, and they did threaten him, they've been indicted for it.
It is noteworthy in this case because it is the exception and not the rule. It will be an even larger exception if it goes to trial or they plead guilty.
Some of the testimony before Congress about FBI abuses a couple years ago justified these types of actions during interrogation by saying they saw Jack Bauer doing it on 24 so they figured that is how it is done.
Thirdly, we haven't even proved that a single photon is a wave. We have shown that a stream of light particles acts as a wave, through the double slit experiment, but not an individual photon.
The double slit experiment works fine with one photon at a time. If you do not measure which path the photon takes, then each photon takes both paths and interferes with itself.
Actually tech workers should get paid as much as lawyers. Stop giving away the jobs to shit indian and we can get some money for all.
You are licensed by The State to practice law (this was not always the case) which conveniently limits competition and prevents outsourcing. Of course these same lawyers passed these laws for our (their) own good and have every incentive to make law as simple (complex) as possible.
We will not have to worry about the trap of spending too much money on "wonder weapons" at this rate because we will only be able to afford one of them.
With DC, you can put solar power directly into the distribution grid without conversion inefficiencies and phase synchronization issues.
You still have the same system wide frequency compensation and phase margin (not related to AC phase) problems which overshadow AC phase matching.
Not only is solid state DC voltage conversion more power efficient than passive transformers, you do not run into nasty polarity and phase issues, which can be huge infrastructure liabilities.
DC is only more efficient when long distance high voltage transmission lines are used. DC allows a higher voltage to be used without excessive current and radiative losses. The transmission line itself takes a lot less metal for the conductors.
For distribution AC has the advantages of better arc interruption, easy passive impedance matching via transformers, and easy passive isolated current sensing. Ever notice how a given switch, circuit breaker, or fuse has a much lower DC than AC voltage rating? This has implications for high voltage DC connectors as well.
While high efficiency motors can make better use of DC, that excludes all other AC motors which are too small to make that economical and motors are pretty efficient already so there is not much to be gained there.
Sure, you can demand a trial, but if you do, we're going to throw every possible charge at you in a grossly disproportionate manner, in a trial you're probably not likely to win, especially if you're poor.
One reason they stacked charges is that at least previously (I am not sure when of if this changed), sentencing was often based on charges instead of convictions.
If you want to get rid of plea bargaining you're better off getting rid of the vast majority of vice crimes.
Or force all trials, even down to "civil citations", to go to a jury which determines the facts and make the state pay instead of allowing it to use "fees" extracted from the defendant. As it is, defendants pay the state so the state can try them. This would allow the real cost of the legal system to be measured and soon enough the state would decide to concentrate on the crimes which really matter.
Also treat civil forfeiture as the crime that it is.
who faced up to 35 years in prison for an act of civil disobedience... he was offered a 6 month sentence if he would plead guilty. 35 years was the "street value" of his sentence.
I have watched this process in court and there is nothing to bind the judge to any agreement with the prosecutor which the prosecutor can change at any time anyway. It is very much like a contract of adhesion where it is take it or leave it and they can alter the deal after it is made.
U-Verse did a great job flipping that switch where I am. IPv6 is both enabled and disabled on their router but they also now block protocol 41 (and they did so before enabling their broken IPv6) so my existing IPv6 tunnels which ran for years without problems are now useless. I managed to find a customer service transcript where AT&T says that they deliberately block third party IPv6 because of security and because otherwise their users would be able to get static IP addresses without paying for them.
You worry about handling load variations but you have a bunch of battery systems with grid tie inverters. Tell them when to turn on and pump power back to the grid (or at least reduce load), if there is a load spike. Problem maybe not quite solved, but certainly reduced.
This is a pretty uncommon configuration because of the expense. If you have a grid to tie to, then you do not need the batteries. For those that do have batteries, they would need to be paid by the utility for battery wear. Because of scale, it would be more economical for the utility to maintain their own balancing infrastructure.
Thanslation: "we're too stupid to do our jobs properly". Well, kids -- those are control systems. Engineering is pretty smart these days. Do your fucking homework: you're getting paid for that.
To be fair, it is not an easy problem economically. The impedance of the distribution grid is not zero so returning enough power at the endpoints of the distribution grid will cause the voltage to rise out of tolerance at other points. Correcting this requires either more wire to lower the impedance or active voltage regulation in the form of changing the transformer taps in real time. Both involve infrastructure upgrades which would not otherwise be necessary. Who is going to pay for that? If it is only the customers who are returning power to the grid, then batteries are going to look economical.
It is a political problem and not an engineering problem.
If they wanted people with solar installations to "cut them off", then they have a funny way of going about it by promulgating laws which require them to be connected or face having their home condemned.
Going off the grid is silly. The reason we have a grid in the first place is because it's much more efficient (specifically COST efficient) to have centralized production of power that doesn't easily cut off when something goes wrong.
The largest initial and ongoing costs are for the batteries; if they were cheap enough, it would be cost effective to go off of the grid. I doubt this will happen but I would not rule out politics making grid power expensive enough to make existing batteries cost effective.
If you want to go off grid on your own, go for it.
Conveniently this is unlawful in most places. You are required by law to have a grid connection.
I suspect that experiment won't last very long once you discover just how difficult it is to actually maintain a stable 120/220/230V 60/50HZ AC 24/7 that stays in phase. Most people really don't want to go back to third world style "power doesn't actually work 24/7 and you keep getting outages when something fails", and most of our home appliances are simply no longer designed for that sort of power input. They expect 24/7 reliable power.
This is the simple part. The only thing which will damage a well designed inverter system is lightning; they are very fault tolerant in other respects and I think you are overestimating the difficulty in producing reliable self generated AC power. The largest problem is simply running out of it because of inadequate battery storage.
There lies the rub. If you push to much of the burden out to homeowners they just might start going off the grid. A little in improvement in battery or other storage tech and it could happen.
At least in the US this will not happen because it is unlawful. The permit for residency requires a grid connection whether you use it or not. Without it, the house is condemned. Presumably this is because unless everybody within a specific area subscribes to the service, it will become uneconomical to provide.
The solution as I see it is to break the grid connection charge out from the power consumption charge. Everybody pays the former but only those who use more power than they return use the later.
There is no cost difference since typical power meters *are* bidirectional; they have no problem running backwards. What the power company typically will not do is pay the homeowner when the used power is negative because more was returned to the grid than was used and what they would prefer is two meters so they can effectively charge you to use your own power.
Second, end-node measurement. Power meters don't have to be designed to measure current both ways. That's an assumption made during manufacture. If you bought one of those nifty Kill-A-Watt meters and then ran current backwards, it would likely either not register it, OR register it still going forward. That's a serious problem for a power company. They can see reduced load using their existing system, they cannot see negative loads.
This depends on the power meter but even Kill-A-Watt meters can read out non-unity power factor produced by circulating currents from reactive loads so they *do* make the correct low level measurement. Whether they would show reverse power or not just depends on the programming for the display. Now that you bring it up, I may test mine which is easy enough to do but reading online it says they read and count the power correctly but do not show it as reverse.
Slashdot Mirror
I considered the Z-80 a big upgrade from the 8080 simply because the assembly syntax discerned type from the operands like the later 8086; I hated having separate mnemonics for this on the 8080. The dedicated index registers and their addressing modes were nice as well. I considered the 8086 a further improvement over the Z-80.
A lot more takes place than is shown and this was even more the case in the past. This is reporting bias; the level of outrageous police conduct has changed much less then the increase in video evidence showing it.
As a practical matter the program was not unlawful if nobody with responsibility took action against it; the legislative branch did not refuse to fund it, the executive branch did not prosecute anybody responsible for it, and the judicial branch did not apply any 4th amendment remedies. There is plenty of blame to cover all of the Republicans and the Democrats including those who spoke against it but did not do enough to stop it. Talk is cheap.
I agree that Robertson are better in general than Philips but they were designed for different applications and are not direct replacements for each other. Philips is designed to cam-out which prevents over tightening during assembly.
I like hex drive and Torx which both support angled drivers but Robertson is just as good in that respect.
The less expensive LiFePO4 batteries seem to be a better choice for stationary applications than the lithium cobalt batteries Tesla is making. They do not have as high an energy density but have a longer cycle life. Flooded cell lead acid batteries should be less expensive than sealed lead acid batteries and are what I have considered.
The difference in environment has some effect however PbSO4 batteries in cars are starter batteries which are significantly different then the PbSO4 batteries used in traction and stationary applications. The later batteries last significantly longer even when used as direct replacements for starter batteries.
It is noteworthy in this case because it is the exception and not the rule. It will be an even larger exception if it goes to trial or they plead guilty.
Some of the testimony before Congress about FBI abuses a couple years ago justified these types of actions during interrogation by saying they saw Jack Bauer doing it on 24 so they figured that is how it is done.
The double slit experiment works fine with one photon at a time. If you do not measure which path the photon takes, then each photon takes both paths and interferes with itself.
You are licensed by The State to practice law (this was not always the case) which conveniently limits competition and prevents outsourcing. Of course these same lawyers passed these laws for our (their) own good and have every incentive to make law as simple (complex) as possible.
We will not have to worry about the trap of spending too much money on "wonder weapons" at this rate because we will only be able to afford one of them.
You still have the same system wide frequency compensation and phase margin (not related to AC phase) problems which overshadow AC phase matching.
DC is only more efficient when long distance high voltage transmission lines are used. DC allows a higher voltage to be used without excessive current and radiative losses. The transmission line itself takes a lot less metal for the conductors.
For distribution AC has the advantages of better arc interruption, easy passive impedance matching via transformers, and easy passive isolated current sensing. Ever notice how a given switch, circuit breaker, or fuse has a much lower DC than AC voltage rating? This has implications for high voltage DC connectors as well.
While high efficiency motors can make better use of DC, that excludes all other AC motors which are too small to make that economical and motors are pretty efficient already so there is not much to be gained there.
One reason they stacked charges is that at least previously (I am not sure when of if this changed), sentencing was often based on charges instead of convictions.
Or force all trials, even down to "civil citations", to go to a jury which determines the facts and make the state pay instead of allowing it to use "fees" extracted from the defendant. As it is, defendants pay the state so the state can try them. This would allow the real cost of the legal system to be measured and soon enough the state would decide to concentrate on the crimes which really matter.
Also treat civil forfeiture as the crime that it is.
I have watched this process in court and there is nothing to bind the judge to any agreement with the prosecutor which the prosecutor can change at any time anyway. It is very much like a contract of adhesion where it is take it or leave it and they can alter the deal after it is made.
It worked. It is mission accomplished for the prosecutor.
That has not stopped TSA from setting up checkpoints for screening at train stations, bus stations, and subway stations.
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
U-Verse did a great job flipping that switch where I am. IPv6 is both enabled and disabled on their router but they also now block protocol 41 (and they did so before enabling their broken IPv6) so my existing IPv6 tunnels which ran for years without problems are now useless. I managed to find a customer service transcript where AT&T says that they deliberately block third party IPv6 because of security and because otherwise their users would be able to get static IP addresses without paying for them.
This is a pretty uncommon configuration because of the expense. If you have a grid to tie to, then you do not need the batteries. For those that do have batteries, they would need to be paid by the utility for battery wear. Because of scale, it would be more economical for the utility to maintain their own balancing infrastructure.
To be fair, it is not an easy problem economically. The impedance of the distribution grid is not zero so returning enough power at the endpoints of the distribution grid will cause the voltage to rise out of tolerance at other points. Correcting this requires either more wire to lower the impedance or active voltage regulation in the form of changing the transformer taps in real time. Both involve infrastructure upgrades which would not otherwise be necessary. Who is going to pay for that? If it is only the customers who are returning power to the grid, then batteries are going to look economical.
It is a political problem and not an engineering problem.
If they wanted people with solar installations to "cut them off", then they have a funny way of going about it by promulgating laws which require them to be connected or face having their home condemned.
The largest initial and ongoing costs are for the batteries; if they were cheap enough, it would be cost effective to go off of the grid. I doubt this will happen but I would not rule out politics making grid power expensive enough to make existing batteries cost effective.
Conveniently this is unlawful in most places. You are required by law to have a grid connection.
This is the simple part. The only thing which will damage a well designed inverter system is lightning; they are very fault tolerant in other respects and I think you are overestimating the difficulty in producing reliable self generated AC power. The largest problem is simply running out of it because of inadequate battery storage.
The politics are insurmountable however.
At least in the US this will not happen because it is unlawful. The permit for residency requires a grid connection whether you use it or not. Without it, the house is condemned. Presumably this is because unless everybody within a specific area subscribes to the service, it will become uneconomical to provide.
The solution as I see it is to break the grid connection charge out from the power consumption charge. Everybody pays the former but only those who use more power than they return use the later.
There is no cost difference since typical power meters *are* bidirectional; they have no problem running backwards. What the power company typically will not do is pay the homeowner when the used power is negative because more was returned to the grid than was used and what they would prefer is two meters so they can effectively charge you to use your own power.
This depends on the power meter but even Kill-A-Watt meters can read out non-unity power factor produced by circulating currents from reactive loads so they *do* make the correct low level measurement. Whether they would show reverse power or not just depends on the programming for the display. Now that you bring it up, I may test mine which is easy enough to do but reading online it says they read and count the power correctly but do not show it as reverse.