In my case they block by blocking all traffic except for specific types, which are all run through proxies. There are no non-proxied connections allowed between the intranet and the Internet.
Which, I have to admit, is probably a good idea for security, even if it annoys the hell out of me when I want to SSH home to check my email.
9 hours of teacher-supervised driving, 40 hours of parent-supervised driving, 10 of which must be at night. Teacher will do some night, some highway, some city. Fortunately, almost all public high schools integrate driver's ed into the curriculum (matched with a required health/sex ed course) which means that it winds up being free to the student to get the teacher training.
After the training, you get to take a written and road test, which are roughly equivalent to the German ones according to a German expat friend of mine.
And, much like Germany... no one can fucking drive.
A nav system is a lot nicer than a map. It can actually plan a route. If its designed to grab updates over a cell network, it can adjust for traffic and construction, something a map will *never* be able to do half as well, even with human help. The good ones have voice prompts that tell you in advance, much like a human passenger who knew where they were going would, "right turn in a half mile... get in right lane... right turn in 100 feet... turn right" and then adjust the route when you (inevitably) miss the off ramp.
If you can't read a map or plan a route, just buy a GPS and keep it your car.
Uhm... no offense, but, doing that is better than a built-in navigation system *how*?
There are cool things that should be in cars but are not. Like a proximity sensor when you are backing up. Or the BMW ajust your mirrors when you are backing up. Or a panic button that will connect you to your service provider, like mercedes.
Proximity sensor: being added to cars, as is adaptive cruise control that uses a forward prox sensor to automatically maintain following distance from the car ahead of you. As to the panic button... OnStar.
I cannot WAIT for cars to be smart enough to drive themselves, because almost all people (and I would include myself in this) drive like shit. Let the machines have control, let the penis-rodders have tracks they can take their substitutes out on to race on weekends and then get drunk in a bar talking about the "good ole days" before their computer-controlled SUV deposits their binge-drinking ass back in their trailer for the weekend.
Multiple networks. Even CAN defines specs for several different schemes, and GM (for one) advocates using multiple CAN networks in a single vehicle; a high speed network for safety-critical devices, a medium data rate network for entertainment systems, and a low data rate (single wire - the others are two wire) network for modules that only need to communicate a couple times per second. 1394 and CAN are not specs that can be mingled.
Give it a few years; within 10 years, I'm expecting the majority of car lights (including headlamps and taillamps) to be LED-based. The advantages are just way too many to resist; the only downside right now is cost (and, to a certain extent, white LED brightness when speaking of headlamps) and cost is dropping rapidly.
That said, the idea is still dumb because the clusters of light-pipes would be more hassle than mounting the LEDs remotely and powering them; you don't need a single wire per LED, just 2 or 3 wires per cluster (depending on whether switching is local or remote). Light pipes would force you to require more LEDs (transmission losses), plus you do need to be able to run almost all lights simultaneously (both turn signals for hazards, taillamps for brake depression, headlamps for night... there're situations where all of the cars lights would need to be on at once) which means that you can't use less LEDs anyway.
Another benefit would be that optical fiber is mostly immune to the extremely large noise issues in your average car; EMI becomes much less of a concern, at least in terms of the wires. Still have to worry about it on the boards, though.
International adoptions often result in adoption of children of color, though that usage is not quite what is usually meant by the domestic agencies (where it pretty much means black and hispanic kids; SE asian kids, who are the most common international adoptees, are not exactly numerous in domestic system). At any rate, I hope you didn't interpret it as my playing the race card against your friends/acquaintances - talking about adoption is pretty much impossible without acknowledging the racial issues involved, is all. No offense meant, and hopefully none taken.
My point, to some extent, is that burdening the system with more infants is just going to drop teen adoption rates even lower than they already are; this is no good because teens are both the hardest to place and the hardest to raise in a foster care system. Further, adding infants to the system in no way means they *will* be adopted. Although statistics show a half million are currently "seeking to adopt" (1995, the data is poor), only 200,000 have taken any real steps towards doing so. That level of demand has stayed pretty constant over at least the last 20 years. Again, lots of abortions, not that many adoptions; not even that many prospective adoptions.
Some scary statistics: "After aging out of foster care, 27% of males and 10% of females were incarcerated within 12 to 18 months. 50% were unemployed, 37% had not finished high school, 33% received public assistance, and 19% of females had given birth to children." Even if the incoming infants were adopted, they're likely to displace at least some possible teen adoptions. The outcomes for teens coming out of foster care are pretty poor, as you can see. While adoption numbers in a "rape/incest/life of mother only" abortion environment would undoubtedly rise, so would foster care numbers, and probably higher; the increased supply of 'desirable' adoptions would be only partially covered by the increased number of infant adoptions, some of which would be counter-balanced by a corresponding teen adoption which wouldn't happen. Most problems, and most abuses, are due to or happen to older children in the foster care system. That's the problem, not that the infants would be difficult to adopt, but that an easy supply of them would make it damn near impossible to get the kids who are difficult to serve adopted. Taking care of an infant is a lot easier, in some ways, than taking care of a 12 year old.
Well, this is where I'd disagree: specifying a nominal value plus tolerance implies that while anything within tolerance is okay, the nominal is the ideal. Contrasting, specifying range + tolerance (which to my understanding is the US method) says - anything in the range is equally good, but you have some tolerance outside of the range.
(Race will be used somewhat accusingly in this; I make no apology for it, just a warning.)
A large part of the problem is in who people are willing to adopt; there's little shortage of people willing to adopt infant white children, and thus there's a shortage of infant white children to be placed. But there's not a lot of desire to adopt black and hispanic teens, and the system has plenty of those.
The families you were acquainted with - were they willing to adopt a teen? Someone of color? Not to be pessimistic, but I'd have to assume not, especially to the question of a teen. Further, domestic agencies know all too well exactly how bad foster families can sometimes be - they do tend to check families out more thoroughly than international and private agencies do. This takes time, but the time is taken to prevent the kind of abuses that can destroy the system. I'm not at all saying those sorts of abuses are common, but they do occur, and the domestic agencies try their best to avoid placing an adoptive child in a situation that will go badly.
The adoption system is underfunded and maybe not as efficient as it could be if it was properly supported, but the main reason there are such long waits is not the system, but the people who want adoptions. 64% of adoptions from domestic agencies are to a foster family, a family that's already shown willingness to take in older/cross-racial children. That percentage rises as the age of the child rises. That suggests to me that most adopting parents (and other statistics, on the number of prospective adoptive parents who are doing it as an alternate method of reproduction bear this out) want an infant; essentially, they want the end result of a pregnancy. They're not interested in older kids, they're not interested in kids that won't look like them (look into statistics on cross-racial adoption). Blaming the adoption system for the fact that many parents aren't willing to take what the system needs to place is unfair.
Ouch. I hadn't even noticed that it was labeled "Americans" and not women. My fault, even if the data does more or less seem to be equivalent based on that other chart.
Given all the other data, especially those that indicate most people favor illegalizing elective abortions...
Not sure where you got that, though. If you look at this graphic, you'll see that 68% feel that it shouldn't legislated. I interpret 'between woman and doctor' as not meaning 'don't legislate it', which is arguable. However, it matches well with this graph, which has a 65% answer to "should not interfere". If you look at this graphic, you get the lovely contradiction of 57% "only under certain circumstances" as well as 43% "should be generally available". The problems, as Public Agenda points out are mainly in the fact that slight wording differences can draw large disparities in responses, and many people differentiate between what they feel is 'right' and what they feel should be legal.
But I'm with you - the numbers are pretty easy to make say anything you want them to say. Lies, damn lies, and polls.
Adoption-wise, we were indeed talking about different worlds, but I do not believe you're correct when you talk of pre-arranged adoptions. My point is that a fair number of 'economic' abortions, if not performed, would result in children in the child services system. If you can arrange an adoption rather than an abortion, that's your choice - I personally think its a bad idea, because it reduces the chance of a prospective adoptive parent adopting a child already in the system - but there are nowhere near enough adoptive parents in this country to adopt all children who would have been aborted, even if you just exclude the 'economic' and 'reasonless' (i.e. "I just didn't want a kid") abortions. There are roughly 50,000 adoptions per year from the public care system (year 2000 number, it has grown since then) in the US, where adoption is defined as "not placed back with birth parent/family". There were around 1.3 *million* abortions in 2000; this number has dropped since then, but not much. 95% of those are done as a means of birth control - 'economic' or 'reasonless' abortions, in other words. Where would those children go? While I won't argue that all of them, or even many of them, would end up in foster care, if even 5% wound up in foster care, the system would have to absorb a 10% increase in total children, and a large problem in that the inflow rate (which is currently roughly equal to the outflow rate) would increase by 20%, without any likelihood of a corresponding increase in the outflow rate.
While people may hold up "the kid will be adopted prior to birth", I don't see any reason to believe that would be true in a significant number of cases. Again, having worked in the Detroit child services system for a while, and having family who still do, just about anything is better than increasing the numbers of children in the system.
I have nothing against adoptive parents; I admire them. I didn't intend the remark to be insulting to those who are loving and dedicated enough to take a child into their homes; especially the ones who take the most damaged products of our child care system.
I hate the system. Especially, especially, foster care. Spend some time dealing with the Detroit foster care system, and you will too. The things those kids go through, mainly before being placed into the system, but also while they're in it, are quite simply fucked up. Anything that results in fewer children being in that system, including abortions for economic reasons, is a good thing.
You get charged (this is not *always* true) for power used. Basically, you get charged for actual power, and the power utility ignores your reactive power use. What reactive power is, is power that is drawn during one half-cycle (inductor/capacitor charge) and returned in the next (inductor/capacitor discharge).
Basically, the power company doesn't charge you for it because you 'give back' the power to the grid. That's why it has zero effect on efficiency - it's only temporarily delivered to the load. Since the power isn't used by the load, either to deliver work or to be dissipated as heat, it isn't used in the calculations for efficiency (defined as useful power divided by total power delivered to load).
For an AC circuit, the current drawn through the wire does not correlate to the power draw as P=VI, except instantaneously, when V and I are given as peak values. For simple loads, it works as Pav=Vrms*Irms. Just going with that, we get a factor of.707 for each RMS, yielding Pav = 115*10*.707 = 813 (only one RMS, as line voltage is already RMS, but assuming their current figure is a peak value). Add to this the efficiency of 75% at full load, and we get 609W output. If we also included the correction for power factor, we'd note that the apparent power draw would be up to a factor of 1.33 (1/.75) higher than the actual draw which efficiency is calculated from - as they give a typical of.85, I will take.75 (10% for most unfavorable is pretty much an educated guess, considering how little I know about their specific design, but based on other switching supplies I've helped design is probably fair). This gives us an actual power delivered of 456W - in other words, they're probably slightly overdelivering in terms of power and slightly overestimating input draw for safety reasons (that number is probably used to spec thickness of some of the wires inside of the supply).
Math, no text:
Pload = 420W (supply is more likely to overdeliver than underdeliver - call it a 5% overage) Preq = Pload / eff = 420/.75 = 560W Pwall = Preq / pf = 560W/.75 = 747W Pav = Vrms * Irms 747 = 115 * Irms Irms = 6.5A Ipk = Irms/.707 = 9.18A
Again, a little bit of wiggle room for safety reasons, round up, and you've got your 10A.
Note: power factor deals with reactive loading, which means that while the power going through the wire increases, the power *consumed* does not. This is why PF has zero effect on efficiency, but a low PF can require much thicker wiring.
From my perspective of designing things to run off line voltage, you can't assume 230 (115, here) +/-5% - you have to assume the 110-120 'nominal' range, plus a tolerance for local conditions. I've seen as low as 103 and as high as 129 on my lines.
So while there may be a 'nominal standardised voltage', in practice the nominal standard is for a range, which the power grid then creates a certain amount of error from. The power company will accept anything from 110-120 as normal in the US, thus, that is the nominal standard.
They are quoted in output power, yes. Otherwise it would be a meaningless figure.
The ATX12V spec requires efficiency be greater than 60% under all conditions, and greater than 70% under moderate or high loading (PSUs are generally more efficient when loaded). For cheap supplies and pre-ATX12V computers, 60-70% seems to be the range for switchmode supplies, while 70-80% seems to be the range for more modern supplies.
Based strictly on my personal experience, most of those who advocate easy access to abortion don't advocate it for those reasons. Of course, I grew up in a fairly liberal city, and now live in another one.
And having worked with this country's foster care/adoption system, I can only say this: anything that results in fewer children being in those situations, *including* abortions for economic reasons, can only be considered a good thing.
You cannot get that information from that page. Only the Gender category breaks the information down by sex. If you're calling 42% "around 50%"... I'm sorry, but that's not valid. You're deliberately trying to underplay the fact that according to one of those charts 57%, and the other 73%, of women favor at least some restrictions on the availability of abortion. That's a significantly different picture than the veritable even split your "around 50%" suggests.
Look at the graph for the pro-choice question - it shows 47% of women identify as pro-choice. I call that around 50%, yes.
I don't even feel like responding to the rest of your post, if you won't even look at the data.
PC power supplies are typically very inefficient, so at full load it would draw around 1200W.
I'd be curious to know where you got that figure, as switch-mode supplies (the kind PCs use) are typically fairly efficient, at least compared to linear supplies.
Good switch-mode supplies can have 90+% efficiencies, and even poor ones should do a lot better than the 33% efficiency you're quoting.
Slashdot Mirror
Just make sure you send enough of them that they can have satisfying LAN games.
In my case they block by blocking all traffic except for specific types, which are all run through proxies. There are no non-proxied connections allowed between the intranet and the Internet.
Which, I have to admit, is probably a good idea for security, even if it annoys the hell out of me when I want to SSH home to check my email.
Push pooling, eh...
Do not trust the pusher robot. He will push you into the pool.
US driving school rules where I grew up:
9 hours of teacher-supervised driving, 40 hours of parent-supervised driving, 10 of which must be at night. Teacher will do some night, some highway, some city. Fortunately, almost all public high schools integrate driver's ed into the curriculum (matched with a required health/sex ed course) which means that it winds up being free to the student to get the teacher training.
After the training, you get to take a written and road test, which are roughly equivalent to the German ones according to a German expat friend of mine.
And, much like Germany... no one can fucking drive.
A nav system is a lot nicer than a map. It can actually plan a route. If its designed to grab updates over a cell network, it can adjust for traffic and construction, something a map will *never* be able to do half as well, even with human help. The good ones have voice prompts that tell you in advance, much like a human passenger who knew where they were going would, "right turn in a half mile... get in right lane... right turn in 100 feet... turn right" and then adjust the route when you (inevitably) miss the off ramp.
If you can't read a map or plan a route, just buy a GPS and keep it your car.
Uhm... no offense, but, doing that is better than a built-in navigation system *how*?
There are cool things that should be in cars but are not. Like a proximity sensor when you are backing up. Or the BMW ajust your mirrors when you are backing up. Or a panic button that will connect you to your service provider, like mercedes.
Proximity sensor: being added to cars, as is adaptive cruise control that uses a forward prox sensor to automatically maintain following distance from the car ahead of you. As to the panic button... OnStar.
I cannot WAIT for cars to be smart enough to drive themselves, because almost all people (and I would include myself in this) drive like shit. Let the machines have control, let the penis-rodders have tracks they can take their substitutes out on to race on weekends and then get drunk in a bar talking about the "good ole days" before their computer-controlled SUV deposits their binge-drinking ass back in their trailer for the weekend.
Multiple networks. Even CAN defines specs for several different schemes, and GM (for one) advocates using multiple CAN networks in a single vehicle; a high speed network for safety-critical devices, a medium data rate network for entertainment systems, and a low data rate (single wire - the others are two wire) network for modules that only need to communicate a couple times per second. 1394 and CAN are not specs that can be mingled.
Give it a few years; within 10 years, I'm expecting the majority of car lights (including headlamps and taillamps) to be LED-based. The advantages are just way too many to resist; the only downside right now is cost (and, to a certain extent, white LED brightness when speaking of headlamps) and cost is dropping rapidly.
That said, the idea is still dumb because the clusters of light-pipes would be more hassle than mounting the LEDs remotely and powering them; you don't need a single wire per LED, just 2 or 3 wires per cluster (depending on whether switching is local or remote). Light pipes would force you to require more LEDs (transmission losses), plus you do need to be able to run almost all lights simultaneously (both turn signals for hazards, taillamps for brake depression, headlamps for night... there're situations where all of the cars lights would need to be on at once) which means that you can't use less LEDs anyway.
Cars are also filled with all kinds of nasty electromagnetic fields, which copper cabling hates.
Pick your poison.
(also, if you use proper connectors, optical cabling doesn't mind vibration all that much)
Another benefit would be that optical fiber is mostly immune to the extremely large noise issues in your average car; EMI becomes much less of a concern, at least in terms of the wires. Still have to worry about it on the boards, though.
International adoptions often result in adoption of children of color, though that usage is not quite what is usually meant by the domestic agencies (where it pretty much means black and hispanic kids; SE asian kids, who are the most common international adoptees, are not exactly numerous in domestic system). At any rate, I hope you didn't interpret it as my playing the race card against your friends/acquaintances - talking about adoption is pretty much impossible without acknowledging the racial issues involved, is all. No offense meant, and hopefully none taken.
My point, to some extent, is that burdening the system with more infants is just going to drop teen adoption rates even lower than they already are; this is no good because teens are both the hardest to place and the hardest to raise in a foster care system. Further, adding infants to the system in no way means they *will* be adopted. Although statistics show a half million are currently "seeking to adopt" (1995, the data is poor), only 200,000 have taken any real steps towards doing so. That level of demand has stayed pretty constant over at least the last 20 years. Again, lots of abortions, not that many adoptions; not even that many prospective adoptions.
Some scary statistics: "After aging out of foster care, 27% of males and 10% of females were incarcerated within 12 to 18 months. 50% were unemployed, 37% had not finished high school, 33% received public assistance, and 19% of females had given birth to children." Even if the incoming infants were adopted, they're likely to displace at least some possible teen adoptions. The outcomes for teens coming out of foster care are pretty poor, as you can see. While adoption numbers in a "rape/incest/life of mother only" abortion environment would undoubtedly rise, so would foster care numbers, and probably higher; the increased supply of 'desirable' adoptions would be only partially covered by the increased number of infant adoptions, some of which would be counter-balanced by a corresponding teen adoption which wouldn't happen. Most problems, and most abuses, are due to or happen to older children in the foster care system. That's the problem, not that the infants would be difficult to adopt, but that an easy supply of them would make it damn near impossible to get the kids who are difficult to serve adopted. Taking care of an infant is a lot easier, in some ways, than taking care of a 12 year old.
Well, this is where I'd disagree: specifying a nominal value plus tolerance implies that while anything within tolerance is okay, the nominal is the ideal. Contrasting, specifying range + tolerance (which to my understanding is the US method) says - anything in the range is equally good, but you have some tolerance outside of the range.
Not quite the same thing.
(Race will be used somewhat accusingly in this; I make no apology for it, just a warning.)
A large part of the problem is in who people are willing to adopt; there's little shortage of people willing to adopt infant white children, and thus there's a shortage of infant white children to be placed. But there's not a lot of desire to adopt black and hispanic teens, and the system has plenty of those.
The families you were acquainted with - were they willing to adopt a teen? Someone of color? Not to be pessimistic, but I'd have to assume not, especially to the question of a teen. Further, domestic agencies know all too well exactly how bad foster families can sometimes be - they do tend to check families out more thoroughly than international and private agencies do. This takes time, but the time is taken to prevent the kind of abuses that can destroy the system. I'm not at all saying those sorts of abuses are common, but they do occur, and the domestic agencies try their best to avoid placing an adoptive child in a situation that will go badly.
The adoption system is underfunded and maybe not as efficient as it could be if it was properly supported, but the main reason there are such long waits is not the system, but the people who want adoptions. 64% of adoptions from domestic agencies are to a foster family, a family that's already shown willingness to take in older/cross-racial children. That percentage rises as the age of the child rises. That suggests to me that most adopting parents (and other statistics, on the number of prospective adoptive parents who are doing it as an alternate method of reproduction bear this out) want an infant; essentially, they want the end result of a pregnancy. They're not interested in older kids, they're not interested in kids that won't look like them (look into statistics on cross-racial adoption). Blaming the adoption system for the fact that many parents aren't willing to take what the system needs to place is unfair.
Ouch. I hadn't even noticed that it was labeled "Americans" and not women. My fault, even if the data does more or less seem to be equivalent based on that other chart.
Given all the other data, especially those that indicate most people favor illegalizing elective abortions...
Not sure where you got that, though. If you look at this graphic, you'll see that 68% feel that it shouldn't legislated. I interpret 'between woman and doctor' as not meaning 'don't legislate it', which is arguable. However, it matches well with this graph, which has a 65% answer to "should not interfere". If you look at this graphic, you get the lovely contradiction of 57% "only under certain circumstances" as well as 43% "should be generally available". The problems, as Public Agenda points out are mainly in the fact that slight wording differences can draw large disparities in responses, and many people differentiate between what they feel is 'right' and what they feel should be legal.
But I'm with you - the numbers are pretty easy to make say anything you want them to say. Lies, damn lies, and polls.
Adoption-wise, we were indeed talking about different worlds, but I do not believe you're correct when you talk of pre-arranged adoptions. My point is that a fair number of 'economic' abortions, if not performed, would result in children in the child services system. If you can arrange an adoption rather than an abortion, that's your choice - I personally think its a bad idea, because it reduces the chance of a prospective adoptive parent adopting a child already in the system - but there are nowhere near enough adoptive parents in this country to adopt all children who would have been aborted, even if you just exclude the 'economic' and 'reasonless' (i.e. "I just didn't want a kid") abortions. There are roughly 50,000 adoptions per year from the public care system (year 2000 number, it has grown since then) in the US, where adoption is defined as "not placed back with birth parent/family". There were around 1.3 *million* abortions in 2000; this number has dropped since then, but not much. 95% of those are done as a means of birth control - 'economic' or 'reasonless' abortions, in other words. Where would those children go? While I won't argue that all of them, or even many of them, would end up in foster care, if even 5% wound up in foster care, the system would have to absorb a 10% increase in total children, and a large problem in that the inflow rate (which is currently roughly equal to the outflow rate) would increase by 20%, without any likelihood of a corresponding increase in the outflow rate.
While people may hold up "the kid will be adopted prior to birth", I don't see any reason to believe that would be true in a significant number of cases. Again, having worked in the Detroit child services system for a while, and having family who still do, just about anything is better than increasing the numbers of children in the system.
Sorry, it isn't at all obvious and I had a bookmark to the direct page so I didn't realize.
Direct link. Left hand graph.
I have nothing against adoptive parents; I admire them. I didn't intend the remark to be insulting to those who are loving and dedicated enough to take a child into their homes; especially the ones who take the most damaged products of our child care system.
I hate the system. Especially, especially, foster care. Spend some time dealing with the Detroit foster care system, and you will too. The things those kids go through, mainly before being placed into the system, but also while they're in it, are quite simply fucked up. Anything that results in fewer children being in that system, including abortions for economic reasons, is a good thing.
Ah, but here's the interesting thing - you don't.
You get charged (this is not *always* true) for power used. Basically, you get charged for actual power, and the power utility ignores your reactive power use. What reactive power is, is power that is drawn during one half-cycle (inductor/capacitor charge) and returned in the next (inductor/capacitor discharge).
Basically, the power company doesn't charge you for it because you 'give back' the power to the grid. That's why it has zero effect on efficiency - it's only temporarily delivered to the load. Since the power isn't used by the load, either to deliver work or to be dissipated as heat, it isn't used in the calculations for efficiency (defined as useful power divided by total power delivered to load).
Hard to argue with that.
(from your linked page)
.707 for each RMS, yielding Pav = 115*10*.707 = 813 (only one RMS, as line voltage is already RMS, but assuming their current figure is a peak value). Add to this the efficiency of 75% at full load, and we get 609W output. If we also included the correction for power factor, we'd note that the apparent power draw would be up to a factor of 1.33 (1/.75) higher than the actual draw which efficiency is calculated from - as they give a typical of .85, I will take .75 (10% for most unfavorable is pretty much an educated guess, considering how little I know about their specific design, but based on other switching supplies I've helped design is probably fair). This gives us an actual power delivered of 456W - in other words, they're probably slightly overdelivering in terms of power and slightly overestimating input draw for safety reasons (that number is probably used to spec thickness of some of the wires inside of the supply).
Efficiency - 75% minimum @ 230VAC (Full Load)
Its about 3 lines down.
The 10A figure is likely as follows:
For an AC circuit, the current drawn through the wire does not correlate to the power draw as P=VI, except instantaneously, when V and I are given as peak values. For simple loads, it works as Pav=Vrms*Irms. Just going with that, we get a factor of
Math, no text:
Pload = 420W (supply is more likely to overdeliver than underdeliver - call it a 5% overage)
Preq = Pload / eff = 420/.75 = 560W
Pwall = Preq / pf = 560W/.75 = 747W
Pav = Vrms * Irms
747 = 115 * Irms
Irms = 6.5A
Ipk = Irms/.707 = 9.18A
Again, a little bit of wiggle room for safety reasons, round up, and you've got your 10A.
Note: power factor deals with reactive loading, which means that while the power going through the wire increases, the power *consumed* does not. This is why PF has zero effect on efficiency, but a low PF can require much thicker wiring.
From my perspective of designing things to run off line voltage, you can't assume 230 (115, here) +/-5% - you have to assume the 110-120 'nominal' range, plus a tolerance for local conditions. I've seen as low as 103 and as high as 129 on my lines.
So while there may be a 'nominal standardised voltage', in practice the nominal standard is for a range, which the power grid then creates a certain amount of error from. The power company will accept anything from 110-120 as normal in the US, thus, that is the nominal standard.
OK. I have three more letters, then:
Why?
They are quoted in output power, yes. Otherwise it would be a meaningless figure.
The ATX12V spec requires efficiency be greater than 60% under all conditions, and greater than 70% under moderate or high loading (PSUs are generally more efficient when loaded). For cheap supplies and pre-ATX12V computers, 60-70% seems to be the range for switchmode supplies, while 70-80% seems to be the range for more modern supplies.
Based strictly on my personal experience, most of those who advocate easy access to abortion don't advocate it for those reasons. Of course, I grew up in a fairly liberal city, and now live in another one.
And having worked with this country's foster care/adoption system, I can only say this: anything that results in fewer children being in those situations, *including* abortions for economic reasons, can only be considered a good thing.
You cannot get that information from that page. Only the Gender category breaks the information down by sex. If you're calling 42% "around 50%"... I'm sorry, but that's not valid. You're deliberately trying to underplay the fact that according to one of those charts 57%, and the other 73%, of women favor at least some restrictions on the availability of abortion. That's a significantly different picture than the veritable even split your "around 50%" suggests.
Look at the graph for the pro-choice question - it shows 47% of women identify as pro-choice. I call that around 50%, yes.
I don't even feel like responding to the rest of your post, if you won't even look at the data.
I have three letters for you:
K.
V.
M.
PC power supplies are typically very inefficient, so at full load it would draw around 1200W.
I'd be curious to know where you got that figure, as switch-mode supplies (the kind PCs use) are typically fairly efficient, at least compared to linear supplies.
Good switch-mode supplies can have 90+% efficiencies, and even poor ones should do a lot better than the 33% efficiency you're quoting.