You have got to be drunk. Science is repeatable. No agenda can change that. In order to believe that isn't true, you have to be implementing an agenda of denial.
The tube is a dual triode, basically two tubes in the same package. It's got one or two cathodes, likely a common heater filament, two grids and two plates. The input signals go to the grids and the output signals are taken from the plates. Common cathodes would be fine, they'd both be connected to the same supply anyway. A common filament is an advantage, because it ensures the cathode(s) get the same heat, since thermodynamics plays a significant role in tube operation.
The "25 years" number we heard in the '70s was based on journalistic math. I.e., how much did we know existed divided by how fast were we using it. Ever since it's people saying "they've been telling us for N years that there are only 25 years of oil left". Dumb.
API understands exploration (their members only employ most of the geologists on the planet), and has reasonable estimates of undiscovered reserves. The "refilling" of certain deposits in Central or South America is geologically specific and hasn't been observed in any of the other tens of thousands of holes we've drilled around the world, so don't bet on its blowing the curve. 30 years since you first heard that underwrought stat, the industry knows how much there is and has a 95% confidence level for how much there should be left to discover.
They're less certain about consumption levels (which depend on the gross economy and the development of alternatives) but have a reasonable estimate.
Combine reserves and consumption, and ignore the fact that impending scarcity will necessarily reduce consumption by increasing the price and forcing either the use of alternatives or the omitting of any energy use (i.e., forced poverty), and you get that the oil will run out somewhere in the next 20-50 years.
That website up there a few parent-posts has graphs I've never seen before, but which fall in line with this simple estimate from the API's reserve and consumption estimates--and account for alternative substitution.
Enjoy your SUV now, but plan to teach your grandkids how to drive an electric vehicle or ride a horse.
The fact that the American Petroleum Institute's own estimates of discovered and undiscovered reserves, and probable consumption increase rates, show pretty much exactly what that website showed, just makes me all the more certain.
Not unreasonable, and it would still be in force, given that FAQs originated on Usenet about 15 years ago. But I'm pretty sure the originator has in the past specifically proclaimed public domain. I just don't remember the details. And it could be possible that the organizing principle came from his earlier experience.
Interference is not noise if you simultaneously decode all signals and delete the ones you don't want (e.g. superheterodyning to elide all but the bandpass from the wideband antenna input).
But that does not change the fact that you need some means of differentiating one signal from the others. That means creates accesses. In any given system there is a finite density of accesses. The system may change (due to newer equipment creating the ability to make finer-grained accesses) and Reed implied (unclearly) that the crux of his argument is that the system always changes, but that just means that the FCC needs to regulate the accesses differntly within each iteration of the system.
Right now, the FCC only has power over radio-frequency division, and we leave it to corporate interests to apportion other types of accesses created by their proprietary technology. (In the case of the Internet, we let the IANA do the numbers and the domain registrar do the text, and have somehow been conned into letting the feckless ICANN have the numbers and the malicious Verisign have the text).
The FCC should have it all under its wing. They've been organizing channel regulation nationally and internationally for nearly a century.
What they shouldn't be doing is censoring the speech that transits those channels. The language access is still the province of the speaker.
There are not an unlimited number of channels, though there are more now than when the FCC was created.
Modern signalling often reuses bandwith by dividing a channel into accesses* on some other dimension (code-division, time-division, etc, spatial-division, etc). But those divisions are limited within their own scope in ways similar to the bandwidth limits of radio-frequency division, and should be regulated in exactly the same way to prevent overlap and interference.
--Blair
* - A channel is a communications connection medium. An access is an individual division of a parameter differentiating channels. E.g., channel 538 could use frequency access 7, time access 4, code accesses 3-9, and so on.
while webcasters argued that the proposed rates were way too high, the RIAA argued that they were way too low.
That made something click, here.
It seems to me that, rather than getting the producer and consumer together to negotiate a fair-market price, the RIAA lobbied to get the government to impose a price.
For how long has the music economy been socialist? Is our intolerance of the RIAA limited to its bullying and selfishness, or can it be extended to this attempt to corrupt the freedom of commerce itself?
The "reference" driver that came with my Ti4600 was a mess. I downloaded the one on nvidia website, and it was already 4 revs later, and has been stable ever since.
So while it seems to work okay (I can't confirm whether it's contributed to a crash or three), it's not true that nVidia are unassailable when it comes to driver bugs.
The economic value of the open source development model is that directed validation is unnecessary.
The code is released, and the horde of developers does trial-by-fire validation for you. They run it in real-world usage and report bugs itinerantly for others to fix or sign-off on.
That's not feasible for programs where using the code means implementing it in an embedded system responsible for safety. The downloaders won't have the hardware to test it on, and putting it in use to test it misses the point of validating it.
But it's not as though the validation systems in use today are much better. Simulators and debugger-controlled code exercisers create sort of a chicken-and-egg problem. Recursive review decreases the probability of certain kinds of errors, but not to nil.
I opened a hotmail account, and opted out of all forms of spam.
But Microsoft itself sent me spam.
So I complained. They said to try opting-out again. I did. It happened again. They said to try blocking the sending address (staff@hotmail.com, iirc). I did. It happened again.
Then I realized: it wasn't an email, at least not a normal one. The "Reply-To" buttons were disabled. They were placing this advertisement in my inbox rather than mailing it to me. They went around all forms of filtering and blocking to do it.
I complained, got a boilerplate answer telling me to try blocking, and complained again, and got another boilerplate answer telling me to try blocking.
Then I stopped logging in. I'd never used the account for anything other than correspondence with MSN staff about the problem. Now I can't log in. Must've expired so hard it won't even let me in to sell me resubscription. Good. But I have no illusion that it means they didn't save my name to sell to direct-mail morons.
Good thing I didn't use a real address or phone number.
Now, if it's a vacuum, it's got no air in it. And if it's got no air in it, you're not cooling air with it, so you're not cooling your room with it.
You'll have to set up a circulation system that brings a fluid in contact with the cooler and pumps it to a big heat-exchanger which (ta-daaaaaa!) is going to drop your net efficiency by a ton.
Saying "one square inch will cool a refrigerator at 80% efficiency" for this thing is like saying "a one-square-millimeter aperture in a compressor will cool a refrigerator at 80% efficiency"...
--Blair "You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game."
Re:All's fair in love and warez.
on
Enigma
·
· Score: 2
More clueless moderators.
Must be clueless moderator week on/.
Only 44 more karma points to go before you've wanked me to 0.
Slashdot Mirror
You have got to be drunk. Science is repeatable. No agenda can change that. In order to believe that isn't true, you have to be implementing an agenda of denial.
--Blair
It's lower down on the page.
The tube is a dual triode, basically two tubes in the same package. It's got one or two cathodes, likely a common heater filament, two grids and two plates. The input signals go to the grids and the output signals are taken from the plates. Common cathodes would be fine, they'd both be connected to the same supply anyway. A common filament is an advantage, because it ensures the cathode(s) get the same heat, since thermodynamics plays a significant role in tube operation.
Answer your question?
--Blair
"Reading is fundamental."
In order to believe that, you need to ignore how science works.
Science isn't a political process. Ignoring science is.
--Blair
FOAD. Even worse.
Today, I am in Arizona. Tomorrow, Mongolia.
Set coordinates to enemy's house, set up website showing it as headquarters of CIA counter-terrorism unit.
Kerboom.
How many hosts implement their coordinates in their info any more?
5%? 10%?
80% omit it because admins are lazy, and 10% omit it for security reasons.
So Google just gave an award to a tool with half the batting average of a bad baseball player.
--Blair
The "25 years" number we heard in the '70s was based on journalistic math. I.e., how much did we know existed divided by how fast were we using it. Ever since it's people saying "they've been telling us for N years that there are only 25 years of oil left". Dumb.
API understands exploration (their members only employ most of the geologists on the planet), and has reasonable estimates of undiscovered reserves. The "refilling" of certain deposits in Central or South America is geologically specific and hasn't been observed in any of the other tens of thousands of holes we've drilled around the world, so don't bet on its blowing the curve. 30 years since you first heard that underwrought stat, the industry knows how much there is and has a 95% confidence level for how much there should be left to discover.
They're less certain about consumption levels (which depend on the gross economy and the development of alternatives) but have a reasonable estimate.
Combine reserves and consumption, and ignore the fact that impending scarcity will necessarily reduce consumption by increasing the price and forcing either the use of alternatives or the omitting of any energy use (i.e., forced poverty), and you get that the oil will run out somewhere in the next 20-50 years.
That website up there a few parent-posts has graphs I've never seen before, but which fall in line with this simple estimate from the API's reserve and consumption estimates--and account for alternative substitution.
Enjoy your SUV now, but plan to teach your grandkids how to drive an electric vehicle or ride a horse.
--Blair
What Carmack actually said is,
"The GeForce 4 Ti is the best card you can buy."
So I'm wondering if we aren't being spammed by ATI marketing here.
--Blair
Sprint Broadband Direct, who don't accept new customers, recently raised my rate by five bucks a month.
It would have been ten, but I refused the Earthlink account.
--Blair
They had data to back up their claims.
You say "always" and give no references.
I'm buying their story, not yours.
The fact that the American Petroleum Institute's own estimates of discovered and undiscovered reserves, and probable consumption increase rates, show pretty much exactly what that website showed, just makes me all the more certain.
--Blair
I hope you're all happy.
--Blair
What a bogus comparison.
PC2100 is old news, and 1066 RDRAM is just being released.
The proper comparison would have been against PC3200, or PC2700 at least.
N.B., I've been using PC2700 in my machine for two months. PC3200 is about 33% more expensive.
--Blair
>And what of the great expanse of alleged junk? Does nature have a signal-to-noise ratio approaching that of USENET?
Nature's is either a little lower or much higher, depending on how much of living matter you consider "signal".
--Blair
"See, here is where having Steven Jay Gould around would help..."
Not unreasonable, and it would still be in force, given that FAQs originated on Usenet about 15 years ago. But I'm pretty sure the originator has in the past specifically proclaimed public domain. I just don't remember the details. And it could be possible that the organizing principle came from his earlier experience.
--Blair
Interference is not noise if you simultaneously decode all signals and delete the ones you don't want (e.g. superheterodyning to elide all but the bandpass from the wideband antenna input).
But that does not change the fact that you need some means of differentiating one signal from the others. That means creates accesses. In any given system there is a finite density of accesses. The system may change (due to newer equipment creating the ability to make finer-grained accesses) and Reed implied (unclearly) that the crux of his argument is that the system always changes, but that just means that the FCC needs to regulate the accesses differntly within each iteration of the system.
Right now, the FCC only has power over radio-frequency division, and we leave it to corporate interests to apportion other types of accesses created by their proprietary technology. (In the case of the Internet, we let the IANA do the numbers and the domain registrar do the text, and have somehow been conned into letting the feckless ICANN have the numbers and the malicious Verisign have the text).
The FCC should have it all under its wing. They've been organizing channel regulation nationally and internationally for nearly a century.
What they shouldn't be doing is censoring the speech that transits those channels. The language access is still the province of the speaker.
--Blair
There are not an unlimited number of channels, though there are more now than when the FCC was created.
Modern signalling often reuses bandwith by dividing a channel into accesses* on some other dimension (code-division, time-division, etc, spatial-division, etc). But those divisions are limited within their own scope in ways similar to the bandwidth limits of radio-frequency division, and should be regulated in exactly the same way to prevent overlap and interference.
--Blair
* - A channel is a communications connection medium. An access is an individual division of a parameter differentiating channels. E.g., channel 538 could use frequency access 7, time access 4, code accesses 3-9, and so on.
Something in Hollywood that doesn't smell right?
Just another day.
--Blair
while webcasters argued that the proposed rates were way too high, the RIAA argued that they were way too low.
That made something click, here.
It seems to me that, rather than getting the producer and consumer together to negotiate a fair-market price, the RIAA lobbied to get the government to impose a price.
For how long has the music economy been socialist? Is our intolerance of the RIAA limited to its bullying and selfishness, or can it be extended to this attempt to corrupt the freedom of commerce itself?
--Blair
Contrivially.
Contraventionally.
Counterintergalactically.
Contraptoplotdevicekludgically.
--Blair
"I'm making it up as I go along."
-Indy
No, I stayed here.
Go ahead. Reboot your computer.
I dare you.
--Blair
were used to make AOL's drink coasters?
--Blair
The "reference" driver that came with my Ti4600 was a mess. I downloaded the one on nvidia website, and it was already 4 revs later, and has been stable ever since.
So while it seems to work okay (I can't confirm whether it's contributed to a crash or three), it's not true that nVidia are unassailable when it comes to driver bugs.
The economic value of the open source development model is that directed validation is unnecessary.
The code is released, and the horde of developers does trial-by-fire validation for you. They run it in real-world usage and report bugs itinerantly for others to fix or sign-off on.
That's not feasible for programs where using the code means implementing it in an embedded system responsible for safety. The downloaders won't have the hardware to test it on, and putting it in use to test it misses the point of validating it.
But it's not as though the validation systems in use today are much better. Simulators and debugger-controlled code exercisers create sort of a chicken-and-egg problem. Recursive review decreases the probability of certain kinds of errors, but not to nil.
--Blair
I opened a hotmail account, and opted out of all forms of spam.
But Microsoft itself sent me spam.
So I complained. They said to try opting-out again. I did. It happened again. They said to try blocking the sending address (staff@hotmail.com, iirc). I did. It happened again.
Then I realized: it wasn't an email, at least not a normal one. The "Reply-To" buttons were disabled. They were placing this advertisement in my inbox rather than mailing it to me. They went around all forms of filtering and blocking to do it.
I complained, got a boilerplate answer telling me to try blocking, and complained again, and got another boilerplate answer telling me to try blocking.
Then I stopped logging in. I'd never used the account for anything other than correspondence with MSN staff about the problem. Now I can't log in. Must've expired so hard it won't even let me in to sell me resubscription. Good. But I have no illusion that it means they didn't save my name to sell to direct-mail morons.
Good thing I didn't use a real address or phone number.
--Blair
Extra huge damn hint with a no-way Jose' on top:
vacuum diode
Now, if it's a vacuum, it's got no air in it. And if it's got no air in it, you're not cooling air with it, so you're not cooling your room with it.
You'll have to set up a circulation system that brings a fluid in contact with the cooler and pumps it to a big heat-exchanger which (ta-daaaaaa!) is going to drop your net efficiency by a ton.
Saying "one square inch will cool a refrigerator at 80% efficiency" for this thing is like saying "a one-square-millimeter aperture in a compressor will cool a refrigerator at 80% efficiency"...
--Blair
"You can't win, you can't break even, and you can't quit the game."
More clueless moderators.
/.
Must be clueless moderator week on
Only 44 more karma points to go before you've wanked me to 0.
--Blair