Why not? People have been trying to do that for quite some time. That's what book reviews are all about, right? So they've gotten better. Of course, there are probably those who would go with "well, I liked it somewhat, but not enough to pay for it." On the flip side, more exposure in many cases means more purchases as well.
The idea that every time someone reads / watches / listens to something the author should get paid is horribly antiquated. The idea that authors should get compensated for their work is not. Who cares if the dollars don't quite match the readership, if the new model increases both?
If your goal is minimal time involvement in someone else's computer, you absolutely are doing it wrong. Setting up Ubuntu will be quicker and require less maintenance. Also, are you seriously suggesting disabling Windows update on an internet-connected computer that gets maintenance once a year? If so, you're insane, considering the frequency of security holes. Remember, this is for a user who won't be running it manually, and if they were it wouldn't have any decision-making benefit over doing it automatically.
The problem with that is that there are plenty of cases where a company would like to modify an existing design to meet the government contract. Fewer in aerospace than elsewhere perhaps, but they're still present. Do you require them to open up the whole thing? If so, that means you're likely to get charged more. If not, drawing the line of what gets opened and what doesn't is somewhere between very difficult and impossible (read: expensive). I don't completely disagree with you, but the position does have its problems.
Corporate bankruptcy protection makes a lot of sense. I should be able to create a company and get investors, and protect them from losing more than their investment. Otherwise investors become very scarce for any project that's not obviously going to work, which is a bad thing. Lots of new companies fail, and that is a fine way for the world to operate.
The concept that a corporation can behave in an illegal manner without any of its employees / owners having done something illegal, however, makes no sense to me. By all means, make that part of the corporate veil weaker.
As long as lenders are aware of the existence the liability limitations, they can lend accordingly. I see no problem with liability limitations for financial matters, only criminal ones.
Some of us are of the opinion that the current situation was created neither by too much regulation nor too little, but rather by *bad* regulation. The fix for bad regulation is not more bad regulation, but better regulation. Furthermore, if you believe that the government has demonstrated an inability to produce good regulation, you should seriously consider whether less than ideal quantities of regulation are better than a set of bad regulations.
Last I checked, you could smoke your pot unmolested if you moved to Amsterdam. Of course, I can easily understand deciding it's simpler to just not get caught.
As others have mentioned, it is indeed a 3.5kV part. The patent discusses some very high dielectric constant materials, and a way to get them to actually perform near the lab performance numbers of a single crystal. The PET matrix is there to help with the voltage rating. This isn't a normal supercap in construction; calling it such is a little odd technically. It's really just a very high breakdown voltage, very high dielectric constant ceramic cap.
Also, modern supercaps don't leak all that much. They'll happily keep a backup clock running for a month or more, with lifetime well approximated by voltage change = current drawn * time / capacitance. At least, that's my experience; I've never had a need to directly measure the leakage rates.
You can do that with a good battery pack, too. The Tesla does so, in fact (as do most hybrids). The only real requirement is that the power converter be capable of running backwards, which isn't all that hard if it's a design requirement. Some extra power capacity in the batteries helps, since most cars can brake faster than they can accelerate, and you don't want to charge the batteries too fast. Fortunately, in this application the batteries are designed around capacity, and have lots of extra power capability available.
The EEStor device isn't really a supercap, in that it's not like normal supercaps in either construction or operation. It's "merely" a ceramic cap with a very high dielectric constant and very high breakdown voltage. The model they discuss is 30F in 280lb -- hardly competitive with the little tiny 1F supercaps you can buy cheap. Except that it runs at 3.5kV rather then 5.5V.
Also, you can buy more conventional supercaps with very low ESR these days. For example, Cooper Bussman makes a supercap that's 100F at 2.5V, with a 20mOhm ESR. Available at Digikey for $26.
And there are nonreligious nonprofits that have large budgets and asset growth. I can certainly see deciding that there should be no such thing as a tax exempt nonprofit, but I don't really see a reason to pick on churches.
There are plenty of nonreligious tax-exempt nonprofits. If you wanted to have an organization of atheists (or simply religion-neutral) that did similar things to a church, it wouldn't be hard to get tax exempt status. The government is just as happy to subsidize atheist softball leagues as church softball leagues.
Even as an atheist, churches getting tax-exempt status is something I have trouble objecting to.
All of those are reasons to allow the investigation to proceed, rather than quash it. If there is no wrongdoing, then fine, but this is suspicious enough that investigation seems reasonable.
Corruption in government should be investigated and cleaned up, even on small scales. If you leave it alone, it will fester. And yes, using government resources for political gain is corruption.
The amplifiers in question are linear amplifiers. A linear amplifier has maximum efficiency for a resistive load. A properly impedance matched antenna appears resistive at its design frequency. An improperly matched one has a reactive impedance component (and an elevated VSWR to go with it). The reactive nature of the load decreases the efficiency of the amplifier. Whether you want to say the power is reflected back into the amplifier or never leaves it in the first place is a matter of semantics. Of course the amplifiers still work; any amplifier you'd use for a cell phone or a VHF antenna or any other purpose will tolerate a certain amount of impedance mismatch. As long as the mismatch is within spec, the only problem will be reduced efficiency.
Definitely bad journalism. The culprit isn't wire resistance, it's reactance. The impedance mismatch at the junctions from amplifier to circuit board to connector to cable to antenna all create reflections and thus standing waves. The power that goes into those standing waves is reflected back into the amplifier, where it is dissipated as heat. The result is that you need (in his example) a 38mW amplifier in order to get 3.3mW of radiated power out of the antenna.
What his invention does is create a near-field transmission to the antenna directly from the amplifier output, without all that intervening cable and PCB trace and such. Near-field antennas can be efficient at *much* smaller sizes, so you can put one on the chip. It's counterintuitive to me that you could get lower losses that way, but that's what he's claiming. Multi-GHz radio waves (microwaves) behave in weird ways, and I'm not an RF engineer...
I've never heard Dubai speak of how they plan to handle potential hostility from extremists. It wont be long before what happened in India finds its way to Dubai
Perhaps their plan is to not interfere with other countries.
Re:Herbal medicine has limited value
on
Trick or Treatment
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Right, because clearly becoming an alcoholic is the solution for how to be a productive member of society.
Oh, I agree completely that the survey is worthless. But this is/., so I was being a bit pedantic. The quote the GP used didn't say that the respondents were picked by the government -- but it still gives plenty of reason to conclude the survey is likely to be seriously flawed at best.
We don't take the side of freedom and liberty because we value it over stable government. We take the side of freedom and liberty because we understand that not only can you have it along with a stable government, but it appears to be required for long term stability and peaceful rule. Pretending that one must choose between them is a false dichotomy (though I can see how it would be an appealing one when an oppressive regime is the one that finally creates order out of chaos).
Your quote says the people conducting the survey or the survey questions are filtered, not the respondents. That's certainly bad enough, but it's not *quite* hand-picking the survey responses they feel like getting.
No, but I don't think they're entirely relative, either. For example, I think slander and libel laws are reasonable limits on speech. I could see different communities reaching different, legitimate conclusions about what precisely those laws should cover. I believe that there are many valid viewpoints, but also many less valid or completely invalid ones.
You mean like copper? Regeneratively cooled rocket engines use copper chambers quite commonly, in an environment far harsher. As long as the cold side has enough coolant flow, the whole chamber (or in this case pipe) stays cool. There's a boundary layer of cooler gas or rock between the copper and the hot stuff that is where most of the temperature difference lies.
For efficiency in a generator, though, you want the highest fluid temperature you can get. Copper would limit the temperature, so you'd probably go for some sort of nickel based superalloy, which would permit operation at temperatures around 1000C.
Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way.
Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry if it makes you feel awkward to take a stand on basic human rights, but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.
Then again, I rather suspect you knew all that. I suppose I've been trolled.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not? People have been trying to do that for quite some time. That's what book reviews are all about, right? So they've gotten better. Of course, there are probably those who would go with "well, I liked it somewhat, but not enough to pay for it." On the flip side, more exposure in many cases means more purchases as well.
The idea that every time someone reads / watches / listens to something the author should get paid is horribly antiquated. The idea that authors should get compensated for their work is not. Who cares if the dollars don't quite match the readership, if the new model increases both?
If your goal is minimal time involvement in someone else's computer, you absolutely are doing it wrong. Setting up Ubuntu will be quicker and require less maintenance. Also, are you seriously suggesting disabling Windows update on an internet-connected computer that gets maintenance once a year? If so, you're insane, considering the frequency of security holes. Remember, this is for a user who won't be running it manually, and if they were it wouldn't have any decision-making benefit over doing it automatically.
The problem with that is that there are plenty of cases where a company would like to modify an existing design to meet the government contract. Fewer in aerospace than elsewhere perhaps, but they're still present. Do you require them to open up the whole thing? If so, that means you're likely to get charged more. If not, drawing the line of what gets opened and what doesn't is somewhere between very difficult and impossible (read: expensive). I don't completely disagree with you, but the position does have its problems.
Corporate bankruptcy protection makes a lot of sense. I should be able to create a company and get investors, and protect them from losing more than their investment. Otherwise investors become very scarce for any project that's not obviously going to work, which is a bad thing. Lots of new companies fail, and that is a fine way for the world to operate.
The concept that a corporation can behave in an illegal manner without any of its employees / owners having done something illegal, however, makes no sense to me. By all means, make that part of the corporate veil weaker.
As long as lenders are aware of the existence the liability limitations, they can lend accordingly. I see no problem with liability limitations for financial matters, only criminal ones.
Some of us are of the opinion that the current situation was created neither by too much regulation nor too little, but rather by *bad* regulation. The fix for bad regulation is not more bad regulation, but better regulation. Furthermore, if you believe that the government has demonstrated an inability to produce good regulation, you should seriously consider whether less than ideal quantities of regulation are better than a set of bad regulations.
Last I checked, you could smoke your pot unmolested if you moved to Amsterdam. Of course, I can easily understand deciding it's simpler to just not get caught.
As others have mentioned, it is indeed a 3.5kV part. The patent discusses some very high dielectric constant materials, and a way to get them to actually perform near the lab performance numbers of a single crystal. The PET matrix is there to help with the voltage rating. This isn't a normal supercap in construction; calling it such is a little odd technically. It's really just a very high breakdown voltage, very high dielectric constant ceramic cap.
Also, modern supercaps don't leak all that much. They'll happily keep a backup clock running for a month or more, with lifetime well approximated by voltage change = current drawn * time / capacitance. At least, that's my experience; I've never had a need to directly measure the leakage rates.
You can do that with a good battery pack, too. The Tesla does so, in fact (as do most hybrids). The only real requirement is that the power converter be capable of running backwards, which isn't all that hard if it's a design requirement. Some extra power capacity in the batteries helps, since most cars can brake faster than they can accelerate, and you don't want to charge the batteries too fast. Fortunately, in this application the batteries are designed around capacity, and have lots of extra power capability available.
The EEStor device isn't really a supercap, in that it's not like normal supercaps in either construction or operation. It's "merely" a ceramic cap with a very high dielectric constant and very high breakdown voltage. The model they discuss is 30F in 280lb -- hardly competitive with the little tiny 1F supercaps you can buy cheap. Except that it runs at 3.5kV rather then 5.5V.
Also, you can buy more conventional supercaps with very low ESR these days. For example, Cooper Bussman makes a supercap that's 100F at 2.5V, with a 20mOhm ESR. Available at Digikey for $26.
And there are nonreligious nonprofits that have large budgets and asset growth. I can certainly see deciding that there should be no such thing as a tax exempt nonprofit, but I don't really see a reason to pick on churches.
There are plenty of nonreligious tax-exempt nonprofits. If you wanted to have an organization of atheists (or simply religion-neutral) that did similar things to a church, it wouldn't be hard to get tax exempt status. The government is just as happy to subsidize atheist softball leagues as church softball leagues.
Even as an atheist, churches getting tax-exempt status is something I have trouble objecting to.
All of those are reasons to allow the investigation to proceed, rather than quash it. If there is no wrongdoing, then fine, but this is suspicious enough that investigation seems reasonable.
Corruption in government should be investigated and cleaned up, even on small scales. If you leave it alone, it will fester. And yes, using government resources for political gain is corruption.
The amplifiers in question are linear amplifiers. A linear amplifier has maximum efficiency for a resistive load. A properly impedance matched antenna appears resistive at its design frequency. An improperly matched one has a reactive impedance component (and an elevated VSWR to go with it). The reactive nature of the load decreases the efficiency of the amplifier. Whether you want to say the power is reflected back into the amplifier or never leaves it in the first place is a matter of semantics. Of course the amplifiers still work; any amplifier you'd use for a cell phone or a VHF antenna or any other purpose will tolerate a certain amount of impedance mismatch. As long as the mismatch is within spec, the only problem will be reduced efficiency.
Definitely bad journalism. The culprit isn't wire resistance, it's reactance. The impedance mismatch at the junctions from amplifier to circuit board to connector to cable to antenna all create reflections and thus standing waves. The power that goes into those standing waves is reflected back into the amplifier, where it is dissipated as heat. The result is that you need (in his example) a 38mW amplifier in order to get 3.3mW of radiated power out of the antenna.
What his invention does is create a near-field transmission to the antenna directly from the amplifier output, without all that intervening cable and PCB trace and such. Near-field antennas can be efficient at *much* smaller sizes, so you can put one on the chip. It's counterintuitive to me that you could get lower losses that way, but that's what he's claiming. Multi-GHz radio waves (microwaves) behave in weird ways, and I'm not an RF engineer...
I've never heard Dubai speak of how they plan to handle potential hostility from extremists. It wont be long before what happened in India finds its way to Dubai
Perhaps their plan is to not interfere with other countries.
Right, because clearly becoming an alcoholic is the solution for how to be a productive member of society.
Oh, I agree completely that the survey is worthless. But this is /., so I was being a bit pedantic. The quote the GP used didn't say that the respondents were picked by the government -- but it still gives plenty of reason to conclude the survey is likely to be seriously flawed at best.
We don't take the side of freedom and liberty because we value it over stable government. We take the side of freedom and liberty because we understand that not only can you have it along with a stable government, but it appears to be required for long term stability and peaceful rule. Pretending that one must choose between them is a false dichotomy (though I can see how it would be an appealing one when an oppressive regime is the one that finally creates order out of chaos).
Your quote says the people conducting the survey or the survey questions are filtered, not the respondents. That's certainly bad enough, but it's not *quite* hand-picking the survey responses they feel like getting.
No, but I don't think they're entirely relative, either. For example, I think slander and libel laws are reasonable limits on speech. I could see different communities reaching different, legitimate conclusions about what precisely those laws should cover. I believe that there are many valid viewpoints, but also many less valid or completely invalid ones.
You mean like copper? Regeneratively cooled rocket engines use copper chambers quite commonly, in an environment far harsher. As long as the cold side has enough coolant flow, the whole chamber (or in this case pipe) stays cool. There's a boundary layer of cooler gas or rock between the copper and the hot stuff that is where most of the temperature difference lies.
For efficiency in a generator, though, you want the highest fluid temperature you can get. Copper would limit the temperature, so you'd probably go for some sort of nickel based superalloy, which would permit operation at temperatures around 1000C.
Maybe the West is making too big of a deal over this, as many Chinese citizens seem to like it that way.
Many US citizens liked slavery, once. And not letting women vote. The fact that only a minority is being oppressed doesn't make it not oppression, and it doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry if it makes you feel awkward to take a stand on basic human rights, but when it comes to issues of rights and ethics, not all viewpoints are equally valid.
Then again, I rather suspect you knew all that. I suppose I've been trolled.
The charges might also have been dropped because offering them their own tent and then prosecuting them for using it could constitute entrapment.
0.0005%? You've seen 200,000 patients? Impressive.