If you were to rectify the signal, you'd end up using a diode. An LED *IS* a diode. To use the LED on a regular 120V 60Hz line, you just use a large enough current limiting resistor.
I thought at first that the voltage would still send the diode into breakdown, but in practice it works. In the application I've seen it used, the lights work forever.
LEDs and incandescents 'flash' at 60Hz, unless you rectify and filter the input, which you wouldn't because the parts would cost more than the bulb itself.
I'd say that's pretty subjective. Personally, I believe that since I pay a lot of money for cable TV, I've 'paid my dues' with respect to gaining access to the media. I don't believe that advertisers have any moral right for me to watch their ads, and I can easily show that nobody in the entire chain loses money as a result of my downloading a TV show I've paid for access for, to watch at another time and place.
Within my ethic, then, I am acting in a perfectly ethical manner. I'm simply attaining content I've paid for from another source, using an internet connection I've paid for. Since, in my ethic, I am not obliged to watch advertising just becuase some company paid for it, downloading TV shows is completely ethical for me.
This is certainly a special case. You're not at war with a nation, you're at war, more or less, with a group of armed civilians. What laws does the US have to follow in such a case? If there are none, then perhaps the US doesn't have the moral authority to go around killing armed civilians until they make some.
To be fair, there's so many lies from so many sources, trying to find an objective truth is a full-time job. Take the question "Were WMDs found in Iraq?". The answer is, not the WMDs that were promised, not the massive stockpiles and the laboratories, not the nuclear weapons, but there were some short-range chemical and biological warheads found. Depending on which side is arguing, this translates to a variety of attitudes, from "We found the WMDs and the war was completely and utterly justified!" to "We never found a single WMD in Iraq, just lots of puppies who were filled with love."
At some point, I personally just gave up. It's impossible to get the facts, and from there, it's impossible to make any rational decisions regarding the current state of affairs. I know history, which is slightly less problematic, but I can't know today.
I hate to say it, but he may be right: One of the two factions is going to have to be destroyed for the fighting to stop. If there was a third path, it would have been discovered some time in the past 25 years.
It's unfortunate that the Jews want Israel for religious reasons. I'm sure there are plenty of places on earth that would happily give up a few dozen square kilomteres so the Jews could have a homeland in a place that wasn't filled with people who want to blow them up.
Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government. About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war. Today, Iran is supposedly next on the hitlist in the 'war on terror'.
If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!
History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.
Actually, the dealerships buy the ferraris. They're the ones that actually pay for it, so the engineers would get their money. Also, in this example, the dealerships don't need to sell their cars to individuals. They make their money by selling advertising at stoplights. Since the standardized metrics used to estimate the number of people watching aren't affected by piracy, the only people who are hurt are the advertisers.
Don't hold your breath on me crying a river for advertisers who get slightly less exposure than they thought.
Yes, you can easily make Windows 2000 just as good as Windows XP. I just like the built-in stuff because it's one less thing in the world I have to worry about when I'm putting together a new system.
I went a different path. I realized that nobody mattered, that their little struggles didn't matter, that my little struggles didn't matter, that I was stuck wasting my life in an unreal world until the law released me.
Life is a war, and in war, a wise strategist will win the victory first, then fight the battle.
I'd forgotten about that. I use a corporate copy of XP Pro. I use it because Microsoft stupidly decided that I ought to ask for permission to keep using my licensed copy of XP home.
From the sounds of things, XP SP2 may be the last Microsoft OS for me.
Windows XP Service Pack 2 wins because of the built-in firewall and improved Internet Explorer 6 which was more immune to spyware. Today, it wins even more because it has Internet Explorer 7.
There was no reason to upgrade to Windows XP before Service Pack 2. They were mostly retarded features like an updated design that everyone in the know just returned to classic mode.
You should find a place to back up your data, then slam all the drives other than your main one into one big partition. It'll be easier in the long run, and if your drives are about the same size, it'll be ridiculously fast, too.
I can't help but think that if you need a faster machine with more memory to run it at the same speed, it's not functionally more efficient (where efficiency is the (current computing power used / least theoretical computing power used) * 100 to get a percentage of efficiency). If I install a V8 in my car, it might feel a lot smoother, but I know full well it's sucking down more gas to get me to the same speeds and keep me there.
As for the overall efficiency, I don't use an operating system for anything, really. I could use Windows, or Linux, or BeOS or OS/2 Warp for all it matters, because I don't use my PC that way. At work, I turn on autocad and outlook(The latter just as a mail client, so I could easily and happily use evolution or something elsewhere) and I draw up the diagrams for the control loops I'm working on. I wrote a program in BASIC to automatically resolve diagram numbers to filenames so I don't need to muck around with files and folders, and I've disabled swap so I can blast through
Because at this point, for most people changing to Linux isn't really a 'facts' issue. The facts are that any competent computer user is likely using a bunch of apps whose birthplace was Linux anyway, driver support in Linux is such that for the majority of users it would be amazing if they had to get a single driver, and a modern, free distribution works just fine for regular users. The reasons not to change are fairly irrational, such as an irrational hatred of change.
And reading it, it's even worse. I haven't really looked much at vista, but this is 3 pages of nothing. I knew about most of this months before Vista was released. How the hell did this get on the front page of Slashdot?
"In a few weeks I hope that all the main rigs here at the PC Doc HQ will be running Vista and that XP (along with Windows 2000 will be relegated to test machines and VMware installs)."
If this person can't even keep his sentence context straight, why the hell would I take anything he has to say about high technology seriously?
Fuck that. I can do whatever I want now that I've got a real job. I'm union, so I can tell my boss and co-workers to go fuck themselves if I want, and I won't get fired as long as my work is good.
High school was shit. It was the worst of both worlds. On one hand, you've got this lawless environment where you can get the shit kicked out of you by some fatass with an inferiority complex, and on the other you've got zero tolerance rules that tell you to take it or you're expelled, and on a third hand (where'd that come from?), zero tolerance doesn't count if that fatass has an influential or difficult to deal with parent.
Read ZeroIntelligence.net for more information on what you claim represents the 'real world'. You'll realize how wrong you are.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were to rectify the signal, you'd end up using a diode. An LED *IS* a diode. To use the LED on a regular 120V 60Hz line, you just use a large enough current limiting resistor.
I thought at first that the voltage would still send the diode into breakdown, but in practice it works. In the application I've seen it used, the lights work forever.
LEDs and incandescents 'flash' at 60Hz, unless you rectify and filter the input, which you wouldn't because the parts would cost more than the bulb itself.
Please go on. I'd love to hear your reasoning.
"The unethical"?
I'd say that's pretty subjective. Personally, I believe that since I pay a lot of money for cable TV, I've 'paid my dues' with respect to gaining access to the media. I don't believe that advertisers have any moral right for me to watch their ads, and I can easily show that nobody in the entire chain loses money as a result of my downloading a TV show I've paid for access for, to watch at another time and place.
Within my ethic, then, I am acting in a perfectly ethical manner. I'm simply attaining content I've paid for from another source, using an internet connection I've paid for. Since, in my ethic, I am not obliged to watch advertising just becuase some company paid for it, downloading TV shows is completely ethical for me.
This is certainly a special case. You're not at war with a nation, you're at war, more or less, with a group of armed civilians. What laws does the US have to follow in such a case? If there are none, then perhaps the US doesn't have the moral authority to go around killing armed civilians until they make some.
To be fair, there's so many lies from so many sources, trying to find an objective truth is a full-time job. Take the question "Were WMDs found in Iraq?". The answer is, not the WMDs that were promised, not the massive stockpiles and the laboratories, not the nuclear weapons, but there were some short-range chemical and biological warheads found. Depending on which side is arguing, this translates to a variety of attitudes, from "We found the WMDs and the war was completely and utterly justified!" to "We never found a single WMD in Iraq, just lots of puppies who were filled with love."
At some point, I personally just gave up. It's impossible to get the facts, and from there, it's impossible to make any rational decisions regarding the current state of affairs. I know history, which is slightly less problematic, but I can't know today.
That's right! "WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. THEY'RE A LITTLE NORTH, A LITTLE SOUTH, A LITTLE EAST, AND A LITTLE WEST OF BAGHDAD."
Oh. Right. I forgot, it was these guys. Maybe the Americans should stick to something they're good at, like.....Running up massive debts?
I hate to say it, but he may be right: One of the two factions is going to have to be destroyed for the fighting to stop. If there was a third path, it would have been discovered some time in the past 25 years.
It's unfortunate that the Jews want Israel for religious reasons. I'm sure there are plenty of places on earth that would happily give up a few dozen square kilomteres so the Jews could have a homeland in a place that wasn't filled with people who want to blow them up.
Remember the history between Iran and the United States. About 50 years ago, the US went out and knocked out a 'too left' democratic government. About 25 years ago, the US gave weapons to Iraq to attack Iran, supporting a decade-long war. Today, Iran is supposedly next on the hitlist in the 'war on terror'.
If I were Iranian, I'd be pissed off at the Americans too! I'd be sitting there going "They're out to get us! They're terrorists and fascists!" too! I'd be working on getting the only weapon in the world powerful enough to get the US to stay it's hand too!
History: It doesn't repeat, but it does rhyme. If you refuse to learn about history, then you've got no foundation to build solid beliefs upon.
Actually, the dealerships buy the ferraris. They're the ones that actually pay for it, so the engineers would get their money. Also, in this example, the dealerships don't need to sell their cars to individuals. They make their money by selling advertising at stoplights. Since the standardized metrics used to estimate the number of people watching aren't affected by piracy, the only people who are hurt are the advertisers.
Don't hold your breath on me crying a river for advertisers who get slightly less exposure than they thought.
Yes, you can easily make Windows 2000 just as good as Windows XP. I just like the built-in stuff because it's one less thing in the world I have to worry about when I'm putting together a new system.
I went a different path. I realized that nobody mattered, that their little struggles didn't matter, that my little struggles didn't matter, that I was stuck wasting my life in an unreal world until the law released me.
Life is a war, and in war, a wise strategist will win the victory first, then fight the battle.
I had a Toshiba Satellite for a few years, and it too would know it was unplugged and would switch to low power mode -- Under Windows 2000.
I'd forgotten about that. I use a corporate copy of XP Pro. I use it because Microsoft stupidly decided that I ought to ask for permission to keep using my licensed copy of XP home.
From the sounds of things, XP SP2 may be the last Microsoft OS for me.
Windows XP Service Pack 2 wins because of the built-in firewall and improved Internet Explorer 6 which was more immune to spyware. Today, it wins even more because it has Internet Explorer 7.
There was no reason to upgrade to Windows XP before Service Pack 2. They were mostly retarded features like an updated design that everyone in the know just returned to classic mode.
You should find a place to back up your data, then slam all the drives other than your main one into one big partition. It'll be easier in the long run, and if your drives are about the same size, it'll be ridiculously fast, too.
They don't count because they become Windows 98SE installs so quickly, as God intended.
I can't help but think that if you need a faster machine with more memory to run it at the same speed, it's not functionally more efficient (where efficiency is the (current computing power used / least theoretical computing power used) * 100 to get a percentage of efficiency). If I install a V8 in my car, it might feel a lot smoother, but I know full well it's sucking down more gas to get me to the same speeds and keep me there.
As for the overall efficiency, I don't use an operating system for anything, really. I could use Windows, or Linux, or BeOS or OS/2 Warp for all it matters, because I don't use my PC that way. At work, I turn on autocad and outlook(The latter just as a mail client, so I could easily and happily use evolution or something elsewhere) and I draw up the diagrams for the control loops I'm working on. I wrote a program in BASIC to automatically resolve diagram numbers to filenames so I don't need to muck around with files and folders, and I've disabled swap so I can blast through
Because at this point, for most people changing to Linux isn't really a 'facts' issue. The facts are that any competent computer user is likely using a bunch of apps whose birthplace was Linux anyway, driver support in Linux is such that for the majority of users it would be amazing if they had to get a single driver, and a modern, free distribution works just fine for regular users. The reasons not to change are fairly irrational, such as an irrational hatred of change.
It's pitiful, but dir /s /b is so much faster than windows search in XP, that I'd expect that it wouldn't be hard to fix.
"Hey sony-san, what were you developed under?"
"Windosu Ecksupee-san desu!"
Ow. Truth. It hurts.
What he MEANT is that you're going to want Vista to run all those really cool games from 1996 based on the BUILD engine. Duke Nukem 3d rocks!
And reading it, it's even worse. I haven't really looked much at vista, but this is 3 pages of nothing. I knew about most of this months before Vista was released. How the hell did this get on the front page of Slashdot?
"In a few weeks I hope that all the main rigs here at the PC Doc HQ will be running Vista and that XP (along with Windows 2000 will be relegated to test machines and VMware installs)."
If this person can't even keep his sentence context straight, why the hell would I take anything he has to say about high technology seriously?
Fuck that. I can do whatever I want now that I've got a real job. I'm union, so I can tell my boss and co-workers to go fuck themselves if I want, and I won't get fired as long as my work is good.
High school was shit. It was the worst of both worlds. On one hand, you've got this lawless environment where you can get the shit kicked out of you by some fatass with an inferiority complex, and on the other you've got zero tolerance rules that tell you to take it or you're expelled, and on a third hand (where'd that come from?), zero tolerance doesn't count if that fatass has an influential or difficult to deal with parent.
Read ZeroIntelligence.net for more information on what you claim represents the 'real world'. You'll realize how wrong you are.