"Even if everything he said was true, that doesn't make it a good idea to associate with radical anti-war groups and testify in Congress with poorly-checked facts"
I'll certainly agree with the part about poorly-checked facts. I'm not sure that associating with radical anti-war groups is a bad thing. It certainly seems to have chuffed off a lot of people around here, though!
Great. Which facts have you relayed to me? You have shown me NONE of those things I asked for.
Kerry admitted machine-gunning civilians? Could you point me to a transcript of such an admission? And if the "real reason" SBVFT don't like Kerry is his comments about the war, fine. But what we hear isn't "Kerry's a liar, we didn't do that stuff he said back 30 years ago", we hear, "Kerry's a liar, and so is the official US Navy record, and all those people he claimed to have saved - he didn't earn those medals" There's a credibility gap here.
Show me
1) evidence that Kerry's medals were unjustified. 2) evidence that POWs wouldn't have been tortured if Kerry hadn't given his interview. 3) evidence about Bush's military service. 4) evidence that My Lai was an isolated incident. That Kerry made up those stories he relayed to Congress. EVIDENCE, not flat denials.
I'm perfectly willing to accept web links to reputable sites.
Those are the things that I asked for facts about in my previous post, and you responded "I have. You choose to ignore the facts and the truth". But you haven't. You've given me rhetoric.
"I have. You ignore the facts, then tell everyone to state the facts like you are some intellectual superior. Got any? HELLO?" No, sir. You've offered your opinions as fact, with no support whatsoever. If I have to describe to you the difference between a fact and an opinion, then it would appear that being your intellectual superior is no great distinction.
I take it, then, that you are suggesting that My Lai WAS an isolated incident? That Kerry was lying when he relayed stories of repeated atrocities by American soldiers?
So, apparently, John Kerry told the world that the quoted officer served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Khan's, routinely committing war crimes. WASN'T THAT TRUE?
I'm frankly unimpressed by feelings of "betrayal", *if* those betrayed happened to have done what Kerry said they did. If a soldier who raped, murdered, and burned civilians at My Lai or one of the innumerable other similar tragedies is insulted that Kerry tattled on him, tough shit. The soldiers who engaged in such atrocities shouldn't be telling me how awful Kerry was for telling the truth, they should be IN JAIL. None of them are.
Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
If you wish to tell me about truth, then show me some. Show me that My Lai only happened there, and nowhere else. Show me that John Kerry was unjustifiedly awarded all those medals. Show me that POWs were tortured because of Kerry, and for no other reason. Show me that George Bush went AWOL during his Air National Guard service, or that he was conscientious about meeting his military obligations. Rhetoric does not impress me. Facts do.
I'm not picking a side here, I'm repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) asking people who make assertions here to support them. None do. You included. Facts? HELLO?
OK, can somebody PLEASE set out in black and white what Kerry said, and what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth believe about it?
What a couple of people in this discussion have suggested is that the SBVFT ads, which expressly deny that Kerry earned his medals for valorous conduct, are the result of POW's being tortured while Kerry's post-service interview describing American-committed atrocities was being played aloud - which makes no fucking sense to me. It sounds as if SBVFT are calling Kerry a liar because he spoke the truth. WTF?
Exactly which truth are the swifties voicing, IYHO? What is it that (IYHO) Kerry supporters think Kerry should be allowed to express an opinion about, but the SBVFT shouldn't? Can anyone here actually describe, in specific, what the issues really are? All I hear is dislike, but not why.
You, sir, speak in glittering generalities but offer nothing of substance.
I still don't understand what it was that Kerry did that you think is wrong.
Was he supposed to cover up what he had heard reported (and presumably had seen)? Would that have stopped torture of POWs? If you were an American prison guard, and knew that some of your compatriots had been tortured and raped by the compatriots of a man in your custody, would you abuse that prisoner? (Think carefully about your answer, and check the news before you respond.)
And let's get the story straight, here. Are the Swifties saying Kerry didn't earn his medals because they saw him NOT doing what his Naval record says he did, or because they don't like the fact that they were tortured while listening to him talk about bad things that American soldiers had done?
I'm sorry, but every single argument you've offered has, at root, been emotional and not logical. Either Kerry lied, and no one told him about atrocities they'd committed (or those things never happened), or else he told the truth. Whether you WANTED the truth to be told does not affect whether it was the truth. Did those things happen? All bullshit aside, you and I both know that My Lai was not an isolated incident.
I am NOT suggesting that John Kerry is the third coming of Christ, nor am I suggesting that he's the corporeal form of Gozer the Destructor (if anyone, Clinton looked more like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man than Kerry does). What I'm saying is that you haven't described anything bad that he did. What you've said is that you don't like him, that you wish he hadn't told what we now know to be a fairly accurate account of American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam, and that he shouldn't be president because he told the truth when it was difficult to do so. I have yet to see any quote in which he implied or stated that all US soldiers were monsters, or that all US citizens condoned such awful behavior. Your suggestion that he did so is (according to what I'M aware of) an exaggeration and a twisting of the truth, an emotionally-loaded way of describing his statements.
Honestly, I still can't follow your logic. Why shouldn't Kerry be President?
It makes me wonder, though. Those of use who were too young to go to Vietnam hear the stories of the horrors (similar to those described by Kerry, and of others) and of how they didn't want to be there. It seems like to me, from my perspective, that the statements attributed to Kerry weren't a betrayal, but rather were an act of saying what others could not, to people who would listen to him but not to others.
If it was so bad, and they didn't want to be there, then why is it a betrayal to say how bad it is? This is, of course, an "outside, looking in" sort of question. Still doesn't answer my main question: if Americans were committing atrocities, and Kerry repeats the tales of atrocities - how is he the asshole? Isn't it the soldiers doing the nasties who are the assholes? Or the leaders ordering the nasties? This is the connection that grandparent poster failed to make for me.
I'm guessing, assuming that the stories Kerry related were true, that GWB is easier to forgive because he was doing what the vets wanted to do, and Kerry pointed out exactly how they were doing what they knew they shouldn't be doing. Displaced anger, and guilt. Just guesses, though.
Not that it matters. Either way, we're electing a politician. Thanks for the rational response.
I don't understand your point. How does repeating stories of atrocities being committed by American soldiers relate to Americans being prisoners of war?
Is it that you believe that those atrocities didn't happen?
Is it that you believe that despite American soldiers committing atrocities, all Americans should deny those events occurred until American POW's come home?
Are you just saying nasty things about Kerry because you don't like him?
Please, explain to me, in a logical and easy to understand way, what exactly you believe is bad about that quote from Kerry. Also, if you could, explain to me exactly what you meant when you said Kerry was "full of shit". To what statements were you referring, and is there any evidence that his statements were lies?
Hmmm... but let's look at the purpose of those laws. Speeding, for example. Sure, it's possible to be going fast enough so that you could (e.g.) hit a dog without being able to avoid him. Does that mean that we should never, ever, ever allow an automobile to exceed 15 MPH?
Of course not. I'm sure you already see the fallacy inherent in your comparison: situationally appropriate regulations. I think people who drive 40 MPH on campus, especially on the first day of fall classes, ought to be JAILED right then - for driving too fast. I think people who drive 40 MPH on the interstate, especially in the left lane, ought to be cited and heavily fined - for driving too slowly. If your dog jumps out in front of a car on the interstate, it's the dog's fault (or the owner's) when he dies and causes a 50-car pileup, not the driver's, regardless of whether that driver was speeding.
Many speed limits (soapbox ON) are set for reasons which are NOT safety-oriented, but revenue-oriented. Many a small town in Florida, e.g., pays for all civic functions, nice patrol cruisers, etc., by operating speed traps. Those are laws, but it's the enaction and enforcement of those laws which hurts people.
I don't know why people wouldn't think stealing cable was wrong. I think those who do it know it's wrong, but do it anyway.
Rolling stops are traffic infractions. No one's house gets raided for that.
Let me make one last point, one which you may not like: if most people in the U.S. don't want a given law around, then that law SHOULD be abolished. That's how democracy works. Distilled to its most basic, democracy is a process whereby the majority takes things away from the minority. If the people who want to keep their constitutionally-protected rights are the minority, the majority WILL take them away. If the minority are the corporations who have spent the last several decades screwing musicians (RIAA), the majority WILL disseminate their product electronically. And sooner or later, if democracy works as it is intended, the laws preventing that will be repealed. Is that morally right or wrong? That's a different question indeed. Our government is not about legislating morality, it's about legislating what the majority WANT.
And your point is what, exactly? This isn't *common* use, it's a bunch of ignorant yahoos on Slashdot getting two dissimilar substances confused. And that's just the stupid editors! The only reason ANYBODY cares about this story is because Hemos and crew keep (deliberately, I suspect) posting stories which refer to alumina, but use aluminum in the headlines to make the dipshits who think Star Trek science has any connection to reality all excited and make people like you goad people like me into pointing out how ignorant the whole thing is.
It's like saying, "Hey! I just discovered bread which can transmit signals over long distances! It's called 'whole wheat' bread, and it's got this stuff called 'fiber' which channels and conducts light!"
I mean, let's face it: there's nothing new about transparent alumina. It's called sapphire, unless it's full of chromium and turns red, in which case it's called ruby. It's not metallic; it's not a conductor, nor is it strong, or flexible like aluminum. Sapphire is much harder than aluminum, and *much* more transparent (hence the difference). It's useful for almost exactly none of the things that aluminum is useful for, and vice versa.
Bison are at least edible like buffalo, and look like buffalo, and probably smell like buffalo. The difference only matters to other bison, and a few nitpicky biologists. All of your examples are typified by things which are similar, and in each case the difference is truly academic. This case matters to people here on Slashdot, because it means some dumbass has gotten them all worked up about the transparent aluminum case they're gonna get Mommy to buy 'em for their next birthday. Or, in reality, not.
And no, I'm not a chemist or a metallurgist. I'm a lightning researcher, ffs. This isn't specialized minutiae. It should be especially clear to those who read the article the first two times it was posted.
No, it makes the term "transparent alumina" valid. The term 'Aluminum' refers to an element, whereas alumina refers to a compound of aluminum. If you refer to the properties of aluminum (or aluminium, if it makes this easier for you), you are (or at least will be understood by others to be) referring to the properties of a quantity of essentially pure aluminum, which is transparent under no condition.
Therefore, the term "transparent aluminum" is incorrect. Sorry.
I will gladly agree that an EE doesn't necessarily need to know how to solder (despite being required to take Senior Design), nor do they have to know the resistor color code (ahem! Senior Design); however, knowing the difference between shielding and insulation is, in fact, crucial, especially in anything involving signal propagation; so is being able to design a simple inverting op-amp configuration. If you don't know the basics, you can't use the high-level stuff. Perhaps you can be a DSP engineer or something similar; that's no longer EE, that's CS IMHO.
However, your point is well taken. I believe in engineering as applied science, and that may put me in a minority. However, let's not skip over my main point either - people may have had 4+ years of education, but these days that does NOT mean (sadly) that they actually learned what they were supposed to have learned. Hence, certification is necessary.
Well, lessee. As a former computer repair tech, I don't really have a problem with requiring some sort of certification. However, I would insist that the certification require more than making sure the check cleared.
I'm also a PhD student in EE, with master's and bachelor's degrees under my belt already. I've been a TA, mentored several teams of undergrads through engineering projects, and helped supervise some undergrads and grads at our research site. Believe me, AC, we ABSOLUTELY need certification of engineers. I've seen some people get BSEE's who couldn't solder a connection to save their mom's life, can't read the resistor color code, don't know the difference between shielding and insulation, and haven't the faintest idea what the gain equation for an inverting op-amp might look like.
Honestly, I think many of the problems you experienced are due to paradigm shift. You've used Windows for a long time now, you expect (even subconsciously) that most things will work the same.
As an example, the default browser thing. There isn't one. Several programs and/or desktop systems might have a place where you can set, e.g. the default browser for all KDE apps - but that doesn't do anything for GAIM. If you wish to argue that it OUGHT to work that way, I won't argue it with you.
Drag 'n' drop works differently in different situations. Again, perhaps a flaw in the whole Gnome/KDE/Windowmaker/foo multiple desktop thing. Point is, there are many things which work differently. You may prefer the Windows way, believe that all of those choices made in Redmond are the correct ones; cool. However, you can't describe your issues as being "Linux is difficult"; only that "Linux doesn't work like Windows".
Might I ask if your network guru was a Unix guy, or a windows guy?
You're right, of course; there has to be a diode in each direction. It's been a while since I did mine. I recall having used a small switching diode for the reverse in mine, but you could easily get away with a pair of back-to-back LEDs in parallel. You definitely don't want large reverse biases on an LED, it'll get unhappy.
A few points to note, realizing that not many posters around here are EE's:
1) LED's are not voltage mode devices. There IS a typical voltage drop associated with an LED, but it can vary appreciably between devices. One sets the operational point of an LED by controlling the current through it, and allowing the voltage to settle to whatever value it wants. Typically, one would want to see around 30 mA through a normal T1-3/4 LED. Depending on the chemistry of the LED, this could result in a voltage anywhere between 1.5V and 3 or 4V. This, as I said, will vary somewhat between different LED's of the identical type. If you try to set the voltage, you'll get wildly varying currents and a lot of dead LEDs.
2) Stringing together LEDs in series to get something approaching 120V drop is a good idea, but you still have to limit the current. Leaving a few volts between the nominal operational voltage of your LED string and the nominal supply voltage is a good idea, because you can then use an active (or passive) current limitation scheme which operates within that voltage gap. The simplest way is with a single resistor, sized such that R= (Vsupply-VLEDS)/ILEDS. This is subject to variation due to device mismatch, temp variation, etc, and dissipates some power in the resistor. Another way to do this, which allows for the LED to be operated from a much higher voltage than it's rated for, is to use a series capacitor. The determination of proper capacitor size is a bit more tricky, but you can successfully run a single LED from a 120V supply. The indicator in my waterbed heater has run this way for a couple of years now. Nice part is that the capacitor does NOT dissipate any power as heat. Enough of them might screw up your power factor enough to piss off the power company, though:-)
Important messages to take home from this: you can't set LED operating point from the voltage across it, at least not safely and reliably; you can operate LEDs from 120VAC using a capacitor as the gain setting element, which is appreciably cheaper than using a transformer.
"Professor Schubert says he has found a way to raise the efficiency of LEDs to 99%. No, that's not what he says. The reflector is 99% efficient, not the LED. This reflector just means that some of the light emitted by the LED, which otherwise might be absorbed by the LED substrate or other structure and converted to waste heat, is now being reflected back out as usable light. This new technology does nothing to improve the quantum efficiency of the LED itself. It's an important and useful technology, sure, but it is NOT a 99% efficient LED.
Well, you can't expect me to realize that you're the same guy each time if you post AC. Sorry. If you think I'm trying to avoid you becuase you 'got' me, you're completely mistaken.
Now, I hadn't seen that you've clarified TWICE or more that you're referring to overall length of all conductors in the system. I saw something like that once, but I honestly didn't think you were serious. I mean, the skin effect gives us an effective increase in the effective impedance and self-inductance of the wire... but you're talking about the length of the wire in completely inductive structures. The overall phase shift and power loss in the signal due to voice coil inductance and winding capacitance is several orders of magnitude greater than the microscopic level due to skin effect. Same thing for transformers.
And exactly what difference in impedance are you referring to? It's not as if the voice coil of the speaker sees a 1 M source impedance or anything; ditto with the transformer secondary in a tube amplifier. The primary may see a source impedance of some kilohms, it's true. However, the previously-mentioned transformer inductance is several orders of magnitude higher than that caused by skin effect. It's rare indeed to find a tube output transformer which tests anywhere close to flat at 25 kHz, and that's not because of skin effect. It's because of the primary inductance. Tube output transformers need large primary inductances for good low frequency performance, but of course this starts to affect HF performance...
In fact, shouldn't operating in high-impedance circuits REDUCE the effects of skin effect? After all, power loss is proportional to I^2*R, and the higher impedance circuits you refer to operate at MUCH lower current levels. The wire impedance, with or without skin effect, is several orders of magnitude smaller than source or load impedances. They're called circuits intentionally, right? They go in a circle? Impedance in the circuit is the sum of the impedances around the circle. If you've got a source impedance of 1M, a load impedance of 1M, it doesn't matter whether the connecting wire's impedance is.005 ohms or.006 ohms.
Then you have the fact that internal interconnections are usually made with smaller wire, and so the ratio of skin depth to wire thickness is more favorable...
I mean, it's nice that people take this all into account, but the overall effect is actually worst in those speaker cables, and it's totally inaudible there. I'd be glad to see a derivation which refutes my statements in a rigorous way. I'd also like to redirect you to this link whih may be of some interest.
Maybe is not audible, but we cannot say is not detected on the neuronal level.:)
I think we can safely say that it is not detected at the mechanical level. I haven't yet said that neurons are insensitive to temporal variations in the incoming spike train. I think 50 ns is smaller than can be resolved, but that's unsupported opinion, not fact. However, I strongly believe that the mechanical transducers in the cochlea are incapable of discerning a phase shift of 50 ns at 25 kHz. The hairs simply cannot resonate that quickly. However, I'm not an expert in audiophysiology, either. I could be wrong. But 50 ns is way fast, way fast.
Slashdot Mirror
"Even if everything he said was true, that doesn't make it a good idea to associate with radical anti-war groups and testify in Congress with poorly-checked facts"
I'll certainly agree with the part about poorly-checked facts. I'm not sure that associating with radical anti-war groups is a bad thing. It certainly seems to have chuffed off a lot of people around here, though!
Thanks for the rationality in your response, BTW.
Great. Which facts have you relayed to me? You have shown me NONE of those things I asked for.
Kerry admitted machine-gunning civilians? Could you point me to a transcript of such an admission? And if the "real reason" SBVFT don't like Kerry is his comments about the war, fine. But what we hear isn't "Kerry's a liar, we didn't do that stuff he said back 30 years ago", we hear, "Kerry's a liar, and so is the official US Navy record, and all those people he claimed to have saved - he didn't earn those medals" There's a credibility gap here.
Show me
1) evidence that Kerry's medals were unjustified.
2) evidence that POWs wouldn't have been tortured if Kerry hadn't given his interview.
3) evidence about Bush's military service.
4) evidence that My Lai was an isolated incident. That Kerry made up those stories he relayed to Congress. EVIDENCE, not flat denials.
I'm perfectly willing to accept web links to reputable sites.
Those are the things that I asked for facts about in my previous post, and you responded "I have. You choose to ignore the facts and the truth". But you haven't. You've given me rhetoric.
"I have. You ignore the facts, then tell everyone to state the facts like you are some intellectual superior. Got any? HELLO?" No, sir. You've offered your opinions as fact, with no support whatsoever. If I have to describe to you the difference between a fact and an opinion, then it would appear that being your intellectual superior is no great distinction.
"Liberals like to mod the truth down."
I take it, then, that you are suggesting that My Lai WAS an isolated incident? That Kerry was lying when he relayed stories of repeated atrocities by American soldiers?
So, apparently, John Kerry told the world that the quoted officer served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Khan's, routinely committing war crimes. WASN'T THAT TRUE?
I'm frankly unimpressed by feelings of "betrayal", *if* those betrayed happened to have done what Kerry said they did. If a soldier who raped, murdered, and burned civilians at My Lai or one of the innumerable other similar tragedies is insulted that Kerry tattled on him, tough shit. The soldiers who engaged in such atrocities shouldn't be telling me how awful Kerry was for telling the truth, they should be IN JAIL. None of them are.
Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
If you wish to tell me about truth, then show me some. Show me that My Lai only happened there, and nowhere else. Show me that John Kerry was unjustifiedly awarded all those medals. Show me that POWs were tortured because of Kerry, and for no other reason. Show me that George Bush went AWOL during his Air National Guard service, or that he was conscientious about meeting his military obligations. Rhetoric does not impress me. Facts do.
I'm not picking a side here, I'm repeatedly (REPEATEDLY) asking people who make assertions here to support them. None do. You included. Facts? HELLO?
"it"?
OK, can somebody PLEASE set out in black and white what Kerry said, and what the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth believe about it?
What a couple of people in this discussion have suggested is that the SBVFT ads, which expressly deny that Kerry earned his medals for valorous conduct, are the result of POW's being tortured while Kerry's post-service interview describing American-committed atrocities was being played aloud - which makes no fucking sense to me. It sounds as if SBVFT are calling Kerry a liar because he spoke the truth. WTF?
Exactly which truth are the swifties voicing, IYHO? What is it that (IYHO) Kerry supporters think Kerry should be allowed to express an opinion about, but the SBVFT shouldn't? Can anyone here actually describe, in specific, what the issues really are? All I hear is dislike, but not why.
You, sir, speak in glittering generalities but offer nothing of substance.
I still don't understand what it was that Kerry did that you think is wrong.
Was he supposed to cover up what he had heard reported (and presumably had seen)? Would that have stopped torture of POWs? If you were an American prison guard, and knew that some of your compatriots had been tortured and raped by the compatriots of a man in your custody, would you abuse that prisoner? (Think carefully about your answer, and check the news before you respond.)
And let's get the story straight, here. Are the Swifties saying Kerry didn't earn his medals because they saw him NOT doing what his Naval record says he did, or because they don't like the fact that they were tortured while listening to him talk about bad things that American soldiers had done?
I'm sorry, but every single argument you've offered has, at root, been emotional and not logical. Either Kerry lied, and no one told him about atrocities they'd committed (or those things never happened), or else he told the truth. Whether you WANTED the truth to be told does not affect whether it was the truth. Did those things happen? All bullshit aside, you and I both know that My Lai was not an isolated incident.
I am NOT suggesting that John Kerry is the third coming of Christ, nor am I suggesting that he's the corporeal form of Gozer the Destructor (if anyone, Clinton looked more like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man than Kerry does). What I'm saying is that you haven't described anything bad that he did. What you've said is that you don't like him, that you wish he hadn't told what we now know to be a fairly accurate account of American soldiers' behavior in Vietnam, and that he shouldn't be president because he told the truth when it was difficult to do so. I have yet to see any quote in which he implied or stated that all US soldiers were monsters, or that all US citizens condoned such awful behavior. Your suggestion that he did so is (according to what I'M aware of) an exaggeration and a twisting of the truth, an emotionally-loaded way of describing his statements.
Honestly, I still can't follow your logic. Why shouldn't Kerry be President?
That makes some sense; thanks.
It makes me wonder, though. Those of use who were too young to go to Vietnam hear the stories of the horrors (similar to those described by Kerry, and of others) and of how they didn't want to be there. It seems like to me, from my perspective, that the statements attributed to Kerry weren't a betrayal, but rather were an act of saying what others could not, to people who would listen to him but not to others.
If it was so bad, and they didn't want to be there, then why is it a betrayal to say how bad it is? This is, of course, an "outside, looking in" sort of question. Still doesn't answer my main question: if Americans were committing atrocities, and Kerry repeats the tales of atrocities - how is he the asshole? Isn't it the soldiers doing the nasties who are the assholes? Or the leaders ordering the nasties? This is the connection that grandparent poster failed to make for me.
I'm guessing, assuming that the stories Kerry related were true, that GWB is easier to forgive because he was doing what the vets wanted to do, and Kerry pointed out exactly how they were doing what they knew they shouldn't be doing. Displaced anger, and guilt. Just guesses, though.
Not that it matters. Either way, we're electing a politician. Thanks for the rational response.
I don't understand your point. How does repeating stories of atrocities being committed by American soldiers relate to Americans being prisoners of war?
Is it that you believe that those atrocities didn't happen?
Is it that you believe that despite American soldiers committing atrocities, all Americans should deny those events occurred until American POW's come home?
Are you just saying nasty things about Kerry because you don't like him?
Please, explain to me, in a logical and easy to understand way, what exactly you believe is bad about that quote from Kerry. Also, if you could, explain to me exactly what you meant when you said Kerry was "full of shit". To what statements were you referring, and is there any evidence that his statements were lies?
...might be the silliest thing I've ever heard of. I like it.
Hmmm... but let's look at the purpose of those laws. Speeding, for example. Sure, it's possible to be going fast enough so that you could (e.g.) hit a dog without being able to avoid him. Does that mean that we should never, ever, ever allow an automobile to exceed 15 MPH?
Of course not. I'm sure you already see the fallacy inherent in your comparison: situationally appropriate regulations. I think people who drive 40 MPH on campus, especially on the first day of fall classes, ought to be JAILED right then - for driving too fast. I think people who drive 40 MPH on the interstate, especially in the left lane, ought to be cited and heavily fined - for driving too slowly. If your dog jumps out in front of a car on the interstate, it's the dog's fault (or the owner's) when he dies and causes a 50-car pileup, not the driver's, regardless of whether that driver was speeding.
Many speed limits (soapbox ON) are set for reasons which are NOT safety-oriented, but revenue-oriented. Many a small town in Florida, e.g., pays for all civic functions, nice patrol cruisers, etc., by operating speed traps. Those are laws, but it's the enaction and enforcement of those laws which hurts people.
I don't know why people wouldn't think stealing cable was wrong. I think those who do it know it's wrong, but do it anyway.
Rolling stops are traffic infractions. No one's house gets raided for that.
Let me make one last point, one which you may not like: if most people in the U.S. don't want a given law around, then that law SHOULD be abolished. That's how democracy works. Distilled to its most basic, democracy is a process whereby the majority takes things away from the minority. If the people who want to keep their constitutionally-protected rights are the minority, the majority WILL take them away. If the minority are the corporations who have spent the last several decades screwing musicians (RIAA), the majority WILL disseminate their product electronically. And sooner or later, if democracy works as it is intended, the laws preventing that will be repealed. Is that morally right or wrong? That's a different question indeed. Our government is not about legislating morality, it's about legislating what the majority WANT.
Of course, I could be wrong. Again.
+2, Funny.
Dear GOD, why - today, of all days - do I not have modpoints?
You, sir, have made my day.
And your point is what, exactly? This isn't *common* use, it's a bunch of ignorant yahoos on Slashdot getting two dissimilar substances confused. And that's just the stupid editors! The only reason ANYBODY cares about this story is because Hemos and crew keep (deliberately, I suspect) posting stories which refer to alumina, but use aluminum in the headlines to make the dipshits who think Star Trek science has any connection to reality all excited and make people like you goad people like me into pointing out how ignorant the whole thing is.
It's like saying, "Hey! I just discovered bread which can transmit signals over long distances! It's called 'whole wheat' bread, and it's got this stuff called 'fiber' which channels and conducts light!"
I mean, let's face it: there's nothing new about transparent alumina. It's called sapphire, unless it's full of chromium and turns red, in which case it's called ruby. It's not metallic; it's not a conductor, nor is it strong, or flexible like aluminum. Sapphire is much harder than aluminum, and *much* more transparent (hence the difference). It's useful for almost exactly none of the things that aluminum is useful for, and vice versa.
Bison are at least edible like buffalo, and look like buffalo, and probably smell like buffalo. The difference only matters to other bison, and a few nitpicky biologists. All of your examples are typified by things which are similar, and in each case the difference is truly academic. This case matters to people here on Slashdot, because it means some dumbass has gotten them all worked up about the transparent aluminum case they're gonna get Mommy to buy 'em for their next birthday. Or, in reality, not.
And no, I'm not a chemist or a metallurgist. I'm a lightning researcher, ffs. This isn't specialized minutiae. It should be especially clear to those who read the article the first two times it was posted.
No, it makes the term "transparent alumina" valid. The term 'Aluminum' refers to an element, whereas alumina refers to a compound of aluminum. If you refer to the properties of aluminum (or aluminium, if it makes this easier for you), you are (or at least will be understood by others to be) referring to the properties of a quantity of essentially pure aluminum, which is transparent under no condition.
Therefore, the term "transparent aluminum" is incorrect. Sorry.
I will gladly agree that an EE doesn't necessarily need to know how to solder (despite being required to take Senior Design), nor do they have to know the resistor color code (ahem! Senior Design); however, knowing the difference between shielding and insulation is, in fact, crucial, especially in anything involving signal propagation; so is being able to design a simple inverting op-amp configuration. If you don't know the basics, you can't use the high-level stuff. Perhaps you can be a DSP engineer or something similar; that's no longer EE, that's CS IMHO.
However, your point is well taken. I believe in engineering as applied science, and that may put me in a minority. However, let's not skip over my main point either - people may have had 4+ years of education, but these days that does NOT mean (sadly) that they actually learned what they were supposed to have learned. Hence, certification is necessary.
Well, lessee. As a former computer repair tech, I don't really have a problem with requiring some sort of certification. However, I would insist that the certification require more than making sure the check cleared.
I'm also a PhD student in EE, with master's and bachelor's degrees under my belt already. I've been a TA, mentored several teams of undergrads through engineering projects, and helped supervise some undergrads and grads at our research site. Believe me, AC, we ABSOLUTELY need certification of engineers. I've seen some people get BSEE's who couldn't solder a connection to save their mom's life, can't read the resistor color code, don't know the difference between shielding and insulation, and haven't the faintest idea what the gain equation for an inverting op-amp might look like.
The two situations aren't similar at all.
Honestly, I think many of the problems you experienced are due to paradigm shift. You've used Windows for a long time now, you expect (even subconsciously) that most things will work the same.
As an example, the default browser thing. There isn't one. Several programs and/or desktop systems might have a place where you can set, e.g. the default browser for all KDE apps - but that doesn't do anything for GAIM. If you wish to argue that it OUGHT to work that way, I won't argue it with you.
Drag 'n' drop works differently in different situations. Again, perhaps a flaw in the whole Gnome/KDE/Windowmaker/foo multiple desktop thing. Point is, there are many things which work differently. You may prefer the Windows way, believe that all of those choices made in Redmond are the correct ones; cool. However, you can't describe your issues as being "Linux is difficult"; only that "Linux doesn't work like Windows".
Might I ask if your network guru was a Unix guy, or a windows guy?
Good luck; fight the good fight.
Exactly correct, I'd forgotten about the second LED in reverse parallel with the first. Been a while since I built that thing!
I also note that some guys on the web are also using a series R to limit inrush current on startup.
You're right, of course; there has to be a diode in each direction. It's been a while since I did mine. I recall having used a small switching diode for the reverse in mine, but you could easily get away with a pair of back-to-back LEDs in parallel. You definitely don't want large reverse biases on an LED, it'll get unhappy.
Ah, but the series capacitor is a capacitive load, which will change your power factor in the direction AWAY from the inducitve loads...
A few points to note, realizing that not many posters around here are EE's:
:-)
1) LED's are not voltage mode devices. There IS a typical voltage drop associated with an LED, but it can vary appreciably between devices. One sets the operational point of an LED by controlling the current through it, and allowing the voltage to settle to whatever value it wants. Typically, one would want to see around 30 mA through a normal T1-3/4 LED. Depending on the chemistry of the LED, this could result in a voltage anywhere between 1.5V and 3 or 4V. This, as I said, will vary somewhat between different LED's of the identical type. If you try to set the voltage, you'll get wildly varying currents and a lot of dead LEDs.
2) Stringing together LEDs in series to get something approaching 120V drop is a good idea, but you still have to limit the current. Leaving a few volts between the nominal operational voltage of your LED string and the nominal supply voltage is a good idea, because you can then use an active (or passive) current limitation scheme which operates within that voltage gap. The simplest way is with a single resistor, sized such that R= (Vsupply-VLEDS)/ILEDS. This is subject to variation due to device mismatch, temp variation, etc, and dissipates some power in the resistor. Another way to do this, which allows for the LED to be operated from a much higher voltage than it's rated for, is to use a series capacitor. The determination of proper capacitor size is a bit more tricky, but you can successfully run a single LED from a 120V supply. The indicator in my waterbed heater has run this way for a couple of years now. Nice part is that the capacitor does NOT dissipate any power as heat. Enough of them might screw up your power factor enough to piss off the power company, though
Important messages to take home from this: you can't set LED operating point from the voltage across it, at least not safely and reliably; you can operate LEDs from 120VAC using a capacitor as the gain setting element, which is appreciably cheaper than using a transformer.
"Professor Schubert says he has found a way to raise the efficiency of LEDs to 99%.
No, that's not what he says. The reflector is 99% efficient, not the LED. This reflector just means that some of the light emitted by the LED, which otherwise might be absorbed by the LED substrate or other structure and converted to waste heat, is now being reflected back out as usable light.
This new technology does nothing to improve the quantum efficiency of the LED itself. It's an important and useful technology, sure, but it is NOT a 99% efficient LED.
And thank YOU, for a reasoned and only moderately impassioned discussion - on Slashdot, of all places!
How did you read that?
Well, you can't expect me to realize that you're the same guy each time if you post AC. Sorry. If you think I'm trying to avoid you becuase you 'got' me, you're completely mistaken.
.005 ohms or .006 ohms.
Now, I hadn't seen that you've clarified TWICE or more that you're referring to overall length of all conductors in the system. I saw something like that once, but I honestly didn't think you were serious. I mean, the skin effect gives us an effective increase in the effective impedance and self-inductance of the wire... but you're talking about the length of the wire in completely inductive structures. The overall phase shift and power loss in the signal due to voice coil inductance and winding capacitance is several orders of magnitude greater than the microscopic level due to skin effect. Same thing for transformers.
And exactly what difference in impedance are you referring to? It's not as if the voice coil of the speaker sees a 1 M source impedance or anything; ditto with the transformer secondary in a tube amplifier. The primary may see a source impedance of some kilohms, it's true. However, the previously-mentioned transformer inductance is several orders of magnitude higher than that caused by skin effect. It's rare indeed to find a tube output transformer which tests anywhere close to flat at 25 kHz, and that's not because of skin effect. It's because of the primary inductance. Tube output transformers need large primary inductances for good low frequency performance, but of course this starts to affect HF performance...
In fact, shouldn't operating in high-impedance circuits REDUCE the effects of skin effect? After all, power loss is proportional to I^2*R, and the higher impedance circuits you refer to operate at MUCH lower current levels. The wire impedance, with or without skin effect, is several orders of magnitude smaller than source or load impedances. They're called circuits intentionally, right? They go in a circle? Impedance in the circuit is the sum of the impedances around the circle. If you've got a source impedance of 1M, a load impedance of 1M, it doesn't matter whether the connecting wire's impedance is
Then you have the fact that internal interconnections are usually made with smaller wire, and so the ratio of skin depth to wire thickness is more favorable...
I mean, it's nice that people take this all into account, but the overall effect is actually worst in those speaker cables, and it's totally inaudible there. I'd be glad to see a derivation which refutes my statements in a rigorous way. I'd also like to redirect you to this link whih may be of some interest.
Yup!
Maybe is not audible, but we cannot say is not detected on the neuronal level. :)
I think we can safely say that it is not detected at the mechanical level. I haven't yet said that neurons are insensitive to temporal variations in the incoming spike train. I think 50 ns is smaller than can be resolved, but that's unsupported opinion, not fact. However, I strongly believe that the mechanical transducers in the cochlea are incapable of discerning a phase shift of 50 ns at 25 kHz. The hairs simply cannot resonate that quickly. However, I'm not an expert in audiophysiology, either. I could be wrong. But 50 ns is way fast, way fast.