No, the problem is that they need to be linear. You can use class C for FM (and therefore GMSK) because you're running at full carrier power continuously. For 3G, you need a linear amp because QAM has potentially got a variable carrier level. There are tricks you can do to get round this (envelope restoration) which could be what TFA is on about, but it's slashdotted.
Up here at 57 degrees north, we try to design power lines that don't run through the bits with trees on them. We did have an issue last year out where I live where a large tree fell and clobbered a transformer in a substation, which took out the power for pretty much a whole day.
I think the point is more to demonstrate that they won't stand meekly by and wait for Israel to finish the Palestinian pogroms and start herding Iranians into ghettos.
Don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to only ever watch highbrow drama. Stick on a couple of eps of The A Team or the Dukes of Hazzard, and have some gratuitous sillyness for a while.
You can empirically test for what others tell you is Dawkins, observe the actions of something that is purportedly Dawkins and communicate with what you believe is Dawkins. You can't prove any of that is actually *true* though.
So you agree that because there's a lack of proof that Richard Dawkins exists, it's very likely that he doesn't and is in fact a figment of the deluded and silly "minds" of the Dawkins believers?
It's easy to discern what's true - the Dawkins believers have no more proof than the God believers.
Although, one shred of proof might be that God probably wouldn't be so offensively smug. Dawkins just comes across like the worst kind of Southern Baptist preacher.
I'll reply to you, because you're the only non-AC.
Where's your evidence? You've got evidence that someone who claims to be Richard Dawkins exists, but I can go and find any bum in the park who will claim to be God or Richard Dawkins or anyone else, if you give them enough lighter fuel to huff. So, if I bring some guy along who smells a little bit like butane but claims to be God, will you accept that?
You can say he exists, but that doesn't make it true. You can publish words that you claim he wrote, and pictures you claim are of him, and that's great.
You still cannot prove that he exists. Dawkins is just another "Russell's Teapot".
One of the great things about the Internet is now we have easy access to stuff like the teletext spec - stuff that was always public, just really hard to find. And when you did find it, most of it was in Dutch.
Anyway, scanning from 100Hz to 2GHz in 20ms really isn't going to happen, because there's just no way to generate a sensible sweep that quickly. You're either going to miss massive chunks, or scan slowly. There are a lot of tricks you can use (DDS, "magic number" synthesis) to speed up the lockup time but it's nontrivial to scan any wide bandwidth like that.
I'm not sure why seeing DC to light on one screen would be terribly useful, anyway. How wide would a single SSB or NBFM transmission be on that scale?
Slashdot Mirror
... the guy can do what he likes, right? He's not breaking any law or harming anyone.
No, the problem is that they need to be linear. You can use class C for FM (and therefore GMSK) because you're running at full carrier power continuously. For 3G, you need a linear amp because QAM has potentially got a variable carrier level. There are tricks you can do to get round this (envelope restoration) which could be what TFA is on about, but it's slashdotted.
So how do you make the airliner smaller, and still be an airliner?
If you had 100% efficient solar panel, you'd have to make a solar panel the size of a small town to capture enough energy to power a passenger jet.
Yeah, over here the only petrol cars you see on the road are 20 years old or more (like mine) or tiny little 600cc econoboxes.
Are they quite old cars? I didn't think anyone still made cars with petrol engines. The only petrol vehicles I've got are at least 25 years old.
An adequate supply of CAT5 (or CAT6, really, it's getting cheap enough) and mains sockets in every room.
I'd also look at ecological heat and power measures - wind and solar power, solid-fuel stove and a ground-source heat pump.
Up here at 57 degrees north, we try to design power lines that don't run through the bits with trees on them. We did have an issue last year out where I live where a large tree fell and clobbered a transformer in a substation, which took out the power for pretty much a whole day.
Diesel goes bad over *decades*, rather than months, and if you want to get rid of it just chuck it in your car and let that burn it.
This is what I don't get - why would the power go off just because it's a little bit windy? Don't you guys know how to put up power lines?
Even better, get rid of the silly petrol engines and use diesel. It's too heavy to evaporate.
Why not? It's all well-documented stuff...
"cut out their terror"? Or stop defending their homes from the relentless expansion of Israeli lebensraum?
I think the point is more to demonstrate that they won't stand meekly by and wait for Israel to finish the Palestinian pogroms and start herding Iranians into ghettos.
... and if we use it at that rate, soon all of the Earth's water will be gone forever!
Don't fall into the trap of thinking you have to only ever watch highbrow drama. Stick on a couple of eps of The A Team or the Dukes of Hazzard, and have some gratuitous sillyness for a while.
You can empirically test for what others tell you is Dawkins, observe the actions of something that is purportedly Dawkins and communicate with what you believe is Dawkins. You can't prove any of that is actually *true* though.
Fuck 'em.
So you agree that because there's a lack of proof that Richard Dawkins exists, it's very likely that he doesn't and is in fact a figment of the deluded and silly "minds" of the Dawkins believers?
It's easy to discern what's true - the Dawkins believers have no more proof than the God believers.
Although, one shred of proof might be that God probably wouldn't be so offensively smug. Dawkins just comes across like the worst kind of Southern Baptist preacher.
I'll reply to you, because you're the only non-AC.
Where's your evidence? You've got evidence that someone who claims to be Richard Dawkins exists, but I can go and find any bum in the park who will claim to be God or Richard Dawkins or anyone else, if you give them enough lighter fuel to huff. So, if I bring some guy along who smells a little bit like butane but claims to be God, will you accept that?
You can say he exists, but that doesn't make it true. You can publish words that you claim he wrote, and pictures you claim are of him, and that's great.
You still cannot prove that he exists. Dawkins is just another "Russell's Teapot".
One of the great things about the Internet is now we have easy access to stuff like the teletext spec - stuff that was always public, just really hard to find. And when you did find it, most of it was in Dutch.
Get an amateur radio licence, and build your own encoder:
http://www.qsl.net/zl1vfo/teletext.htm
Oops, hit post instead of preview.
Anyway, scanning from 100Hz to 2GHz in 20ms really isn't going to happen, because there's just no way to generate a sensible sweep that quickly. You're either going to miss massive chunks, or scan slowly. There are a lot of tricks you can use (DDS, "magic number" synthesis) to speed up the lockup time but it's nontrivial to scan any wide bandwidth like that.
I'm not sure why seeing DC to light on one screen would be terribly useful, anyway. How wide would a single SSB or NBFM transmission be on that scale?