When something comes from the factory with capacitors that aren't good enough, you can replace them with capacitors which may be better but still not be good enough, hence my failure to perceive your level of expertise.
That, and apparently you've got much better Radio Shacks in your area than any in any of the places where I have lived.
Approval voting lets you assign a 1 or a 0 to each candidate. (Voting for them = 1, leaving their check box blank = 0)
My plan lets you assign a 1, a 0, or a -1 to each candidate, and requires at least one candidate to have a net total greater than 0 for anybody to win, and bans all candidates from the first election from running in the second election, should a second election be required because no candidate in the first election got a net total greater than 0.
You cannot have a right to vote if you do not have a right to not vote, therefore a 2 state method (Yes = 1, abstain = 0) is not the same as a 3 state method (Yes =1, abstain =0, No = -1). 0 is not equal to -1, mathematically or morally.
My plan allows you to actively vote against someone, which is a form of expression that differs from a passive abstention, and it requires the winning candidate to have gotten more approvals than disapprovals.
The way you vote "None of the Above" in my scheme is to vote "No" on all of them.
Your "No" vote is like a negative 1.
Someone else's "Yes" vote for the same candidate is like a positive 1.
Add them algebraically.
If none of the candidates get a net total greater than zero, nobody wins the election, a new election is scheduled, and no one who was a candidate in the first one is eligible to run in the second one.
Batch job voting, like "None of the above" or straight ticket voting, would not be allowed.
I'd settle for being able to vote "Yes" or "No" (or abstain) on each candidate.
Subract all of a candidates "No" votes from their "Yes" votes. The candidate who has the largest total above zero wins.
If none of them net above zero, you hold another election, but none of them are eligible to run again.
That way you can vote for Carter *and* Anderson or GHW Bush *and* Perot or Gore *and* Nader or GW Bush *and* Pat Buchanan, and not feel that you "threw away" your vote for Anderson or Perot or Buchanan or Nader.
To put it another way: the Dems are Miller, the Repubs are Bud.
As someone smarter than I am put it here on Slashdot a few years ago, "The Republicans are the party of evil and the Democrats are the party of stupid".
My corollary to that is that bi-partisan is when they get together to do something that's both.
"Ooooh.. Logic is so HARD! Why don't we all just vote Democrat and rest our brains?"
And apparently being able to tell a noun from an adjective is too hard as well. Especially when the intent is to use the noun, not as an identifier, but as an epithet.
I wouldn't count on that Radio Shack cap being a whole lot better or long-lived, in that application, than the one with which you replaced it.
And if one of the original ones went bad, it's probably just a matter of time before another or three do the same.
Typically the caps that go bad in those monitors, TiVo power supplies, and computer motherboards, among other things, are being used in switching power circuits, and need to be Low-ESR, high temperature tolerant versions, i.e., better rated than what you find in the drawer at the "Let me sell you a cell phone" store.
lcdalternatives sells cap kits made up for lots of different model LCD displays at reasonable prices. You go to their site and plug in your make and model. I'm writing this on a monitor someone down the street left out for the trashman thanks to a cap kit from them.
As for these new screens filling the landfills less, that's somewhat offset by their tendency to head there a lot sooner than the older gear.
And then broadcasters discovered that compression made their station subjectively louder and stand out from the competition when tuning across the dial...
Limiting and compression are two different things.
Limiting, in broadcasting, exists to prevent overmodulation.
Overmodulation causes the signal to spread beyond the particular chunk of spectrum allocated by license to the particular station.
Overmodulation is therefore, de facto, against FCC regulations, and that's why radio stations buy limiters to put into their audio chain, rather than risk relying on someone at the control board "riding gain", although when excessive gain hits the limiter, the limiter's action distorts the audio so that, despite still being "legal", it's less pleasant to listen to, so they still need someone or something riding gain.
The FCC does not require broadcasters to compress.
Compression moves the floor of the dynamic range up closer to the ceiling imposed by limiting.
This makes the audio appear "louder", and "more lively", which makes it more likely (or did, back when) that the station will catch your ear as you tune across the dial.
Promo copies used to be "adjusted" by the record companies to compensate for the audio shortcomings of AM radio and the environment in which it was often listened to.
When you say you don't use Windows Explorer, are you referring to the internet browser or the thing that replaced File Manager when Windows went from 3.1 to 95?
And if the latter, what did you use instead to see what file was where on your hard drive(s)?
Well, actually that song was written by Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, although it was their band "Candy Store Prophets" that played it for the album, since The Monkees were busy being actors filming a weekly TV series.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't care if you are rich or poor.
The stupid though should be prevented from voting at all costs.
Tempted as I am to agree, I'll continue instead to insist on your right to vote not being abridged.
When something comes from the factory with capacitors that aren't good enough, you can replace them with capacitors which may be better but still not be good enough, hence my failure to perceive your level of expertise.
That, and apparently you've got much better Radio Shacks in your area than any in any of the places where I have lived.
Approval voting lets you assign a 1 or a 0 to each candidate. (Voting for them = 1, leaving their check box blank = 0)
My plan lets you assign a 1, a 0, or a -1 to each candidate, and requires at least one candidate to have a net total greater than 0 for anybody to win, and bans all candidates from the first election from running in the second election, should a second election be required because no candidate in the first election got a net total greater than 0.
You cannot have a right to vote if you do not have a right to not vote, therefore a 2 state method (Yes = 1, abstain = 0) is not the same as a 3 state method (Yes =1, abstain =0, No = -1). 0 is not equal to -1, mathematically or morally.
My plan allows you to actively vote against someone, which is a form of expression that differs from a passive abstention, and it requires the winning candidate to have gotten more approvals than disapprovals.
The way you vote "None of the Above" in my scheme is to vote "No" on all of them.
Your "No" vote is like a negative 1.
Someone else's "Yes" vote for the same candidate is like a positive 1.
Add them algebraically.
If none of the candidates get a net total greater than zero, nobody wins the election, a new election is scheduled, and no one who was a candidate in the first one is eligible to run in the second one.
Batch job voting, like "None of the above" or straight ticket voting, would not be allowed.
I'm confused.
I proposed a new way of voting.
You seem to have replied to complain about the way things are now.
Did you actually find what you considered a fault in my idea?
If so, what was it?
I'd settle for being able to vote "Yes" or "No" (or abstain) on each candidate.
Subract all of a candidates "No" votes from their "Yes" votes. The candidate who has the largest total above zero wins.
If none of them net above zero, you hold another election, but none of them are eligible to run again.
That way you can vote for Carter *and* Anderson or GHW Bush *and* Perot or Gore *and* Nader or GW Bush *and* Pat Buchanan, and not feel that you "threw away" your vote for Anderson or Perot or Buchanan or Nader.
To put it another way: the Dems are Miller, the Repubs are Bud.
As someone smarter than I am put it here on Slashdot a few years ago, "The Republicans are the party of evil and the Democrats are the party of stupid".
My corollary to that is that bi-partisan is when they get together to do something that's both.
60 watts of current?
I'm sure they actually meant 60 watts of voltage. ; - )
(or was it 60 amps of wattage?)
"Ooooh.. Logic is so HARD! Why don't we all just vote Democrat and rest our brains?"
And apparently being able to tell a noun from an adjective is too hard as well. Especially when the intent is to use the noun, not as an identifier, but as an epithet.
lcdalternatives probably has a cap kit already made up for your Westinghouse for $10 to $20.
(my only connection with them is having been a customer)
I wouldn't count on that Radio Shack cap being a whole lot better or long-lived, in that application, than the one with which you replaced it.
And if one of the original ones went bad, it's probably just a matter of time before another or three do the same.
Typically the caps that go bad in those monitors, TiVo power supplies, and computer motherboards, among other things, are being used in switching power circuits, and need to be Low-ESR, high temperature tolerant versions, i.e., better rated than what you find in the drawer at the "Let me sell you a cell phone" store.
lcdalternatives sells cap kits made up for lots of different model LCD displays at reasonable prices. You go to their site and plug in your make and model. I'm writing this on a monitor someone down the street left out for the trashman thanks to a cap kit from them.
As for these new screens filling the landfills less, that's somewhat offset by their tendency to head there a lot sooner than the older gear.
Replacing an Audimax *and* a Volumax with an Optimod does not make limiting and compression the same thing.
Beautifully succinct.
And then broadcasters discovered that compression made their station subjectively louder and stand out from the competition when tuning across the dial...
Limiting exists to prevent overmodulation, an FCC no-no.
Compression is what they do to be the loudest station on the dial.
Limiting and compression are two different things.
Limiting, in broadcasting, exists to prevent overmodulation.
Overmodulation causes the signal to spread beyond the particular chunk of spectrum allocated by license to the particular station.
Overmodulation is therefore, de facto, against FCC regulations, and that's why radio stations buy limiters to put into their audio chain, rather than risk relying on someone at the control board "riding gain", although when excessive gain hits the limiter, the limiter's action distorts the audio so that, despite still being "legal", it's less pleasant to listen to, so they still need someone or something riding gain.
The FCC does not require broadcasters to compress.
Compression moves the floor of the dynamic range up closer to the ceiling imposed by limiting.
This makes the audio appear "louder", and "more lively", which makes it more likely (or did, back when) that the station will catch your ear as you tune across the dial.
Promo copies used to be "adjusted" by the record companies to compensate for the audio shortcomings of AM radio and the environment in which it was often listened to.
Well played, sir, well played.
Were you aiming that link specifically at macs4all?
"O Thermal Ware"
Sung to the tune of "Oh Canada".
It would seem that there is a dearth of Shel Silverstein/Johnny Cash fans on /.
When you say you don't use Windows Explorer, are you referring to the internet browser or the thing that replaced File Manager when Windows went from 3.1 to 95?
And if the latter, what did you use instead to see what file was where on your hard drive(s)?
The reason you see walls that aren't flat and plumb with corners that are exactly 90 degrees is that you can't get decent framing lumber anymore.
You left out Tapioca Tundra. : - )
Well, actually that song was written by Tommy Boyce and Bobby Hart, although it was their band "Candy Store Prophets" that played it for the album, since The Monkees were busy being actors filming a weekly TV series.
Actually Michael Nesmith wrote several of their songs, as well as songs recorded by others.