That is, the same area as a 30" LCD of the same aspect ratio.
If you're talking about the new diagonal measurement if you put them side by side, it depends on the aspect ratio of the 21" LCDs, and which way you put them next to each other.
The US Department of Energy has by statute ultimate responsibility for the disposal of spent nuclear fuels. The point and timing of Department of Energy custody of such waste is an active subject for the court system and for negotiations between power generators and the Department. Nuclear fuel disposal costs are funded by a surcharge on the cost of nuclear fuels. Presently this charge is 0.1 cents/kWh of power generated.
From Nuclear Power and the Environment, a DOE EIA paper. The paper also correctly notes that whether the disposal price is set adequetely high is open to debate.
I think you might want to check into that a bit. The closest you're going to find is Articles XV and XIX:
Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Article XIX.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I don't see anything about taxation in there (the 'no taxation without representation' thing was a common refrain before the revolutionary war; it's not contained in the constitution). I also don't see any mention of not infringing the right to vote based on age or criminal history. Want to give me a cite? Thanks.
In other terms: if you spot check 2500 URL's per month, you will catch at least one invalid URL each month, 99.98% of the time.
This isn't true. The base rate of 'false URLs' matters. e.g. if all 11 million URLs are valid, checking 2500 urls finds you an invalid URL 0% of the time. If all are invalid, checking 1 finds you an invalid URL 100% of the time. If half are invalid, checking 1 finds you an invalid url 50% of the time, checking 2 finds you at least one invalid url 75% of the time, etc, or checking 12 finds you at least one invalid one 99.976% of the time.
You should take them to small claims court. In many states, the limit for what you can recover is up to $5000; filing is easy and you don't need a lawyer.. and you have little downside.
The space shuttle currently gets about $750m/yr spent on it, half of that is general and applied research (i.e., some applies only to the shuttle, some applies to rocketry in general), the other half operations, and even if you assume that the shuttle is *twice* as expensive to operate as other launch vehicles (an overestimate), you're looking at a surcharge to the public of under $200m-$600m/yr (depending on how much of the research money you count). Shuttle development, spread over its expected lifespan, totals about $1b/yr (also in modern dollars).
Uh, you sir, are on drugs.
In fiscal year 1996, NASA spent about $3.2 billion of its $14.3-billion budget for shuttle production and operations.
My understanding is it's even significantly worse now, but this is the only link I could find in under 30 seconds to smack you down. There are significant other expenses to NASA from manned spaceflight other than production and operations, as well, that can be tied to the shuttle design directly or indirectly.
What is currently a very small risk could become a not-so-small risk if the number of mountain lions (or big cats in general) dramatically increases. If it becomes a significant risk, such as it is in some areas in which humans coexist with megafauna, that would be undesirable. Mitigating the risk by avoiding the risky activity is never the right answer.
Off I go to play russian roulette and to sleep with that hooker with AIDS. Be back later.
True, but when a drive dies, which is your major concern, the cost of replacement or the amount of time you'll spend recovering from its death (restoring files, etc., or simply kissing them all good-bye.)
To restate his point (which there is some truth in):
A manufacturer who chooses to warrant the drives for a long period of time probably makes 'better' drives in MTBF and expected lifespan; they have more of a financial incentive to do so than a manufacturer who does not have a long warranty. Therefore, if you buy a drive from a manufacturer with a long warranty, you may have a lower risk of having to spend time recovering from its death during a reasonable deployment lifetime.
Gotta justify your tuition to MIT? Anyone can take the professional engineer exams, just like you can take the Bar exam w/o having a JD first (like Frank Abagnale). (I worked with a state traffic engineer [yes, he passed the Professional Engineer exam... Hi, Ed) who's BS was in geography, not civil engineering).
Licensure laws vary from state to state and are exclusively under the control of the individual state legislatures. But generally, the licensure laws for professional engineers require graduation from an accredited engineering curriculum followed by approximately four years of responsible engineering experience, and finally the successful completion of a written exam. Some states may waive the written exam on the basis of education and experience, but the trend is toward an examination requirement.
Though many states allow non-engineering graduates to take the exam on the basis of a long term of work experience in engineering.
When my cable went to 4Mbit, they increased the upstream to 512Kbit. When I'm downloading at a full 4Mbit via http, I'm almost completely saturating the 512Kbit upstream. So they didn't increase my upstream because they were just feeling nice, they did it because they had to, so the downstream would scale upwards.
As another poster pointed out, you must be smoking crack. Even if you send some massive 72 byte acknowledgement (tons of IP options) per 1500 byte packet down, that's a ratio of 1:20, or perhaps 200kilobits of acknowledgements up. In practice you shouldn't be sending nearly this much (because of delayed ACK and similar factors).
As download speed increases (and with it, the bandwidth-delay product), the relative proportion of ACKs decreases yet further.
Why can't the camera do say 5 exposures centered on the "correct" shutter-time, so that if "correct" is 1/50s it'll take 1/250 1/100 1/50 1/25 and 1/15 ?
Check your camera manual. It's called AEB in your camera I believe (auto-exposure bracketing). Though I think you only get 3 exposures.
It's a first approximation based on pessimistic assumptions. It assumes the car always uses 70 amps of electricity; obviously this can't be true or the 70A alternator would never be able to charge the battery. Also, the 70 amp alternator is only rated as such at relatively high RPMs, and under typical driving will provide considerably less. Also, the 70 amp alternator needs to charge the battery under worst case load-- that is, at night, with the windshield wipers and fans on, driving in stop and go traffic. The wiring resistance you mention is insignificant and most of it applies whether discharging from the battery or using the alternator. In other words, assuming a 70A constant draw from the battery in the absence of the alternator is extraordinarily pessimistic.
The A-Hr rating of the battery is based on a particular discharge rate (for car batteries, I believe it is C/1; for the AGM batteries and Li-Ions I use in my designs C/20 or C/30 is usually specified). That is, you can discharge it at a uniform current for one hour and get the rated power out. So the capacity will be slightly less than the specified capacity if we really are consuming 70A constantly (which, as noted above, is fallacious). If we're drawing 45A, though, you'll get an hour before reaching the specified cutoff voltage at which the battery is assumed to have no further capacity (and a little bit of time below 11.5V beyond that). Assuming 45A is very reasonable based on the above and the sample pessimistic power budget I did in the parent post (which came up with a calculated draw of about 35A).
Even if you're drawing power at a rate greater than C/1, you will still get a very large portion of the battery capacity. It is true that car batteries are not designed for deep discharge and that repeatedly discharging them is bad for the battery; that being said, I got away with driving without a functional alternator for a week, charging my car's battery each night.
I've been lead design engineer for plenty of battery powered systems and have done plenty of power budgets before. What's the basis for your statements? If you want to bet, I'd be happy to put a shunt resistor between the battery of my old Saturn and the onboard equipment, and the onboard equipment, and disconnect the alternator to measure current draw. I can also provide nice discharge/capacity graphs if that would be helpful.
Hey kids! I've made it great distances on a car with a failed alternator-- in fact, for a brief period when I didn't have the time to get mine fixed I just charged the battery nightly.
Let's compute a quick power budget and figure out just how wrong you are!
Ignition: 30-45 watts (sorry, I don't have a good source for this now but I'm pretty sure it's correct). Fuel pump: 80-100 watts. Injectors: 6 watts * 6 cylinders (max)=36W Computers: Not much. Less than 30W. Daytime lights/etc: 100W. Fudge factor for additional draw: 100W TOTAL ~420W
So say you take a typical 45A-Hr battery, with a nominal 550 Watt-hours. 550W-hr / 360W = 1.5 hours. So to only make it 10 miles, you'd need to be driving about 7 MPH. I usually drive faster than that, but your mileage may vary. (And of course, these numbers are for a brand new battery, so an older battery will do somewhat worse).
One more way to do the math. Many cars ship with 70A alternator. Assuming the car always draws 70A (not possible, because then the battery would never get charged), then the battery will provide over its rated discharge voltage for 38 minutes.
HD video-conferencing. Two different manufacturers demonstrated such products which means that we'll probably have interoperability soon. After seeing the massive pricing estimates for such products, I couldn't help but think that I should try my hand at my own HD product (a Mac Mini, some H.264, a pinch of AAC and the glue that is H.323 or SIP).
The poster wants to put together a H.264 HD video conferencing solution. He wants to encode and decode video simultaneously at HD resolutions on a mac mini. In other words: it's not going to happen.
The person you replied to clearly understood this.
Oh great, somebody who subscribes to Keyne's Law (the flipped version of Say's Law), a.k.a. "demand creates its own supply."
I think Keyne's law is very appropriate here. It seems you're forgetting that the marginal cost of sending a picture to another person is extremely low. In addition, I believe it is false to say that the suppliers of child pornography are more centralized than the people demanding it.
It's a losing battle to prevent child pornography distribution on the internet. I also agree that the suppliers of child pornography are more culpable than the distributers and users of it, and this is a truth that our legal system recognizes in the way the penalties are structured for the respective offenses. However, a lot of social ills can be prevented by going after the consumers and marketplaces involved.
Finally, I believe you've presented a false dichotomy-- attacking the supply and demand side are not mutually exclusive, and use substantially different law enforcement mechanisms and resources such that effort cannot be readily deployed from one to the other.
If you surround it with a large mass of a good neutron reflector, it can be a fair bit less (4 kg or so). That doesn't get you a super lightweight weapon though, because the reflector weighs a lot more than the plutonium you're eliminating (for obvious reasons).
The critical mass is the mass at which the mean number of neutron interactions per neutron causes more neutrons to be released. A sphere is optimal (because the average distance travelled through the mass is greatest). A reflector lowers the critical mass by reflecting a certain percentage of neutrons back towards the fissile material, but adds no energy-releasing interactions on its own-- thus, it has to weigh significantly more than the amount of mass of fissile material its is replacing. Of course, the reflector can be made of a much easier to come by material than fissile material, and can also serve to hold the structure of the bomb together during detonation.
The W-54 "Davy Crockett" at 24kg (and about 6kg of fissile material) is very, very close to the smallest practical atomic fission warhead.
It takes less than 2 lbs of plutonium to make a nuke.
This is flat out wrong. Typical advanced weapons use 2 to 4 kg of weapons grade plutonium (4-9 lbs), but this is accomplished by using a large amount of U-238 as a shield (e.g. a 30cm shield). A 30 cm radius shell of U-238 is um, kinda heavy. The shield reflects neutrons, lowering the size of a critical mass (below the ~10kg of spherical Pu-239 without a shield). This is ignoring all the sophisticated (but somewhat heavy) technology involved with the implosion system of such a "lightweight" nuke.
The parent has a good point: having a copper connection over which current can flow over the shield has the possibility of introducing ground loops and thus noise into your receiver's system. Sure, the data gets to the receiver fine, but the quality of the receiver's amplification and analog to digital conversion is impeded by the noise on the ground.
Are ground loops a big/likely problem? I don't think so, but it is one less problem you can run into.
Slashdot Mirror
More like 30" worth of LCD.
21 * sqrt(2) = 29.6984848
That is, the same area as a 30" LCD of the same aspect ratio.
If you're talking about the new diagonal measurement if you put them side by side, it depends on the aspect ratio of the 21" LCDs, and which way you put them next to each other.
Like it already is, you mean?
The US Department of Energy has by statute ultimate responsibility for the disposal of spent nuclear fuels. The point and timing of Department of Energy custody of such waste is an active subject for the court system and for negotiations between power generators and the Department. Nuclear fuel disposal costs are funded by a surcharge on the cost of nuclear fuels. Presently this charge is 0.1 cents/kWh of power generated.
From Nuclear Power and the Environment, a DOE EIA paper. The paper also correctly notes that whether the disposal price is set adequetely high is open to debate.
Where does it say that? ;)
I think you might want to check into that a bit. The closest you're going to find is Articles XV and XIX:
Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Article XIX.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
I don't see anything about taxation in there (the 'no taxation without representation' thing was a common refrain before the revolutionary war; it's not contained in the constitution). I also don't see any mention of not infringing the right to vote based on age or criminal history. Want to give me a cite? Thanks.
A quibble:
In other terms: if you spot check 2500 URL's per month, you will catch at least one invalid URL each month, 99.98% of the time.
This isn't true. The base rate of 'false URLs' matters. e.g. if all 11 million URLs are valid, checking 2500 urls finds you an invalid URL 0% of the time. If all are invalid, checking 1 finds you an invalid URL 100% of the time. If half are invalid, checking 1 finds you an invalid url 50% of the time, checking 2 finds you at least one invalid url 75% of the time, etc, or checking 12 finds you at least one invalid one 99.976% of the time.
You should take them to small claims court. In many states, the limit for what you can recover is up to $5000; filing is easy and you don't need a lawyer.. and you have little downside.
Uh, you sir, are on drugs.
- Space Shuttle: NASA Must Reduce Costs Further, GAO
My understanding is it's even significantly worse now, but this is the only link I could find in under 30 seconds to smack you down. There are significant other expenses to NASA from manned spaceflight other than production and operations, as well, that can be tied to the shuttle design directly or indirectly.
// is now a blessed part of C thanks to C99.
Based on the coordinates, Ortiz saw something interesting, and since no one claimed to have seen that interesting something yet, Ortiz made the claim.
And didn't cite his source-- one of the fundamental tenets of scientific protocol.
Thanks to various treaties, our stupid patents must be honored by other countries (mostly European). Think about it!
Wrong. Would you like to try again or offer a source to support your assertion?
What is currently a very small risk could become a not-so-small risk if the number of mountain lions (or big cats in general) dramatically increases. If it becomes a significant risk, such as it is in some areas in which humans coexist with megafauna, that would be undesirable. Mitigating the risk by avoiding the risky activity is never the right answer.
Off I go to play russian roulette and to sleep with that hooker with AIDS. Be back later.
True, but when a drive dies, which is your major concern, the cost of replacement or the amount of time you'll spend recovering from its death (restoring files, etc., or simply kissing them all good-bye.)
To restate his point (which there is some truth in):
A manufacturer who chooses to warrant the drives for a long period of time probably makes 'better' drives in MTBF and expected lifespan; they have more of a financial incentive to do so than a manufacturer who does not have a long warranty. Therefore, if you buy a drive from a manufacturer with a long warranty, you may have a lower risk of having to spend time recovering from its death during a reasonable deployment lifetime.
Gotta justify your tuition to MIT? Anyone can take the professional engineer exams, just like you can take the Bar exam w/o having a JD first (like Frank Abagnale). (I worked with a state traffic engineer [yes, he passed the Professional Engineer exam... Hi, Ed) who's BS was in geography, not civil engineering).
From the National Society of Professional Engineers:
Licensure laws vary from state to state and are exclusively under the control of the individual state legislatures. But generally, the licensure laws for professional engineers require graduation from an accredited engineering curriculum followed by approximately four years of responsible engineering experience, and finally the successful completion of a written exam. Some states may waive the written exam on the basis of education and experience, but the trend is toward an examination requirement.
Though many states allow non-engineering graduates to take the exam on the basis of a long term of work experience in engineering.
When my cable went to 4Mbit, they increased the upstream to 512Kbit. When I'm downloading at a full 4Mbit via http, I'm almost completely saturating the 512Kbit upstream. So they didn't increase my upstream because they were just feeling nice, they did it because they had to, so the downstream would scale upwards.
As another poster pointed out, you must be smoking crack. Even if you send some massive 72 byte acknowledgement (tons of IP options) per 1500 byte packet down, that's a ratio of 1:20, or perhaps 200kilobits of acknowledgements up. In practice you shouldn't be sending nearly this much (because of delayed ACK and similar factors).
As download speed increases (and with it, the bandwidth-delay product), the relative proportion of ACKs decreases yet further.
Why can't the camera do say 5 exposures centered on the "correct" shutter-time, so that if "correct" is 1/50s it'll take 1/250 1/100 1/50 1/25 and 1/15 ?
Check your camera manual. It's called AEB in your camera I believe (auto-exposure bracketing). Though I think you only get 3 exposures.
False. There are plenty of protocols and systems which use little-endian byte order; SMB is a well-known example.
I call a typical European payroll tax rate of 25% (compared to 14% in the US) a huge hidden tax.
It's a first approximation based on pessimistic assumptions. It assumes the car always uses 70 amps of electricity; obviously this can't be true or the 70A alternator would never be able to charge the battery. Also, the 70 amp alternator is only rated as such at relatively high RPMs, and under typical driving will provide considerably less. Also, the 70 amp alternator needs to charge the battery under worst case load-- that is, at night, with the windshield wipers and fans on, driving in stop and go traffic. The wiring resistance you mention is insignificant and most of it applies whether discharging from the battery or using the alternator. In other words, assuming a 70A constant draw from the battery in the absence of the alternator is extraordinarily pessimistic.
The A-Hr rating of the battery is based on a particular discharge rate (for car batteries, I believe it is C/1; for the AGM batteries and Li-Ions I use in my designs C/20 or C/30 is usually specified). That is, you can discharge it at a uniform current for one hour and get the rated power out. So the capacity will be slightly less than the specified capacity if we really are consuming 70A constantly (which, as noted above, is fallacious). If we're drawing 45A, though, you'll get an hour before reaching the specified cutoff voltage at which the battery is assumed to have no further capacity (and a little bit of time below 11.5V beyond that). Assuming 45A is very reasonable based on the above and the sample pessimistic power budget I did in the parent post (which came up with a calculated draw of about 35A).
Even if you're drawing power at a rate greater than C/1, you will still get a very large portion of the battery capacity. It is true that car batteries are not designed for deep discharge and that repeatedly discharging them is bad for the battery; that being said, I got away with driving without a functional alternator for a week, charging my car's battery each night.
I've been lead design engineer for plenty of battery powered systems and have done plenty of power budgets before. What's the basis for your statements? If you want to bet, I'd be happy to put a shunt resistor between the battery of my old Saturn and the onboard equipment, and the onboard equipment, and disconnect the alternator to measure current draw. I can also provide nice discharge/capacity graphs if that would be helpful.
Hey kids! I've made it great distances on a car with a failed alternator-- in fact, for a brief period when I didn't have the time to get mine fixed I just charged the battery nightly.
Let's compute a quick power budget and figure out just how wrong you are!
Ignition: 30-45 watts (sorry, I don't have a good source for this now but I'm pretty sure it's correct).
Fuel pump: 80-100 watts.
Injectors: 6 watts * 6 cylinders (max)=36W
Computers: Not much. Less than 30W.
Daytime lights/etc: 100W.
Fudge factor for additional draw: 100W
TOTAL ~420W
So say you take a typical 45A-Hr battery, with a nominal 550 Watt-hours. 550W-hr / 360W = 1.5 hours. So to only make it 10 miles, you'd need to be driving about 7 MPH. I usually drive faster than that, but your mileage may vary. (And of course, these numbers are for a brand new battery, so an older battery will do somewhat worse).
One more way to do the math. Many cars ship with 70A alternator. Assuming the car always draws 70A (not possible, because then the battery would never get charged), then the battery will provide over its rated discharge voltage for 38 minutes.
From the article summary:
HD video-conferencing. Two different manufacturers demonstrated such products which means that we'll probably have interoperability soon. After seeing the massive pricing estimates for such products, I couldn't help but think that I should try my hand at my own HD product (a Mac Mini, some H.264, a pinch of AAC and the glue that is H.323 or SIP).
The poster wants to put together a H.264 HD video conferencing solution. He wants to encode and decode video simultaneously at HD resolutions on a mac mini. In other words: it's not going to happen.
The person you replied to clearly understood this.
Oh great, somebody who subscribes to Keyne's Law (the flipped version of Say's Law), a.k.a. "demand creates its own supply."
I think Keyne's law is very appropriate here. It seems you're forgetting that the marginal cost of sending a picture to another person is extremely low. In addition, I believe it is false to say that the suppliers of child pornography are more centralized than the people demanding it.
It's a losing battle to prevent child pornography distribution on the internet. I also agree that the suppliers of child pornography are more culpable than the distributers and users of it, and this is a truth that our legal system recognizes in the way the penalties are structured for the respective offenses. However, a lot of social ills can be prevented by going after the consumers and marketplaces involved.
Finally, I believe you've presented a false dichotomy-- attacking the supply and demand side are not mutually exclusive, and use substantially different law enforcement mechanisms and resources such that effort cannot be readily deployed from one to the other.
No, a plutonium critical mass is about 10kg.
If you surround it with a large mass of a good neutron reflector, it can be a fair bit less (4 kg or so). That doesn't get you a super lightweight weapon though, because the reflector weighs a lot more than the plutonium you're eliminating (for obvious reasons).
The critical mass is the mass at which the mean number of neutron interactions per neutron causes more neutrons to be released. A sphere is optimal (because the average distance travelled through the mass is greatest). A reflector lowers the critical mass by reflecting a certain percentage of neutrons back towards the fissile material, but adds no energy-releasing interactions on its own-- thus, it has to weigh significantly more than the amount of mass of fissile material its is replacing. Of course, the reflector can be made of a much easier to come by material than fissile material, and can also serve to hold the structure of the bomb together during detonation.
The W-54 "Davy Crockett" at 24kg (and about 6kg of fissile material) is very, very close to the smallest practical atomic fission warhead.
It takes less than 2 lbs of plutonium to make a nuke.
This is flat out wrong. Typical advanced weapons use 2 to 4 kg of weapons grade plutonium (4-9 lbs), but this is accomplished by using a large amount of U-238 as a shield (e.g. a 30cm shield). A 30 cm radius shell of U-238 is um, kinda heavy. The shield reflects neutrons, lowering the size of a critical mass (below the ~10kg of spherical Pu-239 without a shield). This is ignoring all the sophisticated (but somewhat heavy) technology involved with the implosion system of such a "lightweight" nuke.
Oh, and you made a grammer error:
Oh, and you made a grammar-- er, I mean, speling eror.
The parent has a good point: having a copper connection over which current can flow over the shield has the possibility of introducing ground loops and thus noise into your receiver's system. Sure, the data gets to the receiver fine, but the quality of the receiver's amplification and analog to digital conversion is impeded by the noise on the ground.
Are ground loops a big/likely problem? I don't think so, but it is one less problem you can run into.
There are several cases of airliners ditching without complete loss of life.
An Ethiopian Airlines 767, for instance, where 52 of 175 survived,
Scroll down to see a 737 looking very intact after ditching on a river. 60 crew and passengers, 1 died (of drowning in the river).