Will these fast CPUs run where ambient air temp is 100F (37C)? Why is the min/max ambient operating temp never specified anywhere on CPUs?
This is because you can put the same processor into a well designed system, that provides adequate airflow that keeps a processor well within operating specifications. NOTE: These are typically not created with "off the shelf" parts. They consist of design work by a (or more likely a team of) thermal design engineer(s).
OR
You can install that same processor into a off the shelf case that provides piss-poor airflow, not because the case has no ventalation, but because the moron that put the motherboard (I still call them planarboards when I think to myself) in the case routed his ribbon cables whever they lie. The person that uses this system will experience heat related problems. And being equally unqualified to diagnose the problem, blames the chip! "Dammit! This chip is a space heater!" "No, the runs fine, the system was designed by a moron that thinks that the ability to use a screwdriver makes him a design engineer!"
(sorry for the rant)
If you purcahse a commercial name brand system, they will tell you the maximum ambient room temperature that they warrant the system to operate in.
Though for all intents and purposes, it *is* truth. I have no problem considering it a law.
Scholars like you had no problem considering it a "law" that everything was made up of 4 elements: Earth, Wind, Fire and Water.
Then after a bit, we figured out that wasn't right., but these same scholars that now knew much better than to believe that everything is built from these 4 elements had no problem with the "law" that stated that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe.
You must beware of theories that become "law" just because enought people believe in it, that's bad science.
No, what they did, was deleted evolution as a "fact" and instead, started teaching it as one of the theories that are generally believed in, including creationism, since neither of these theories can be proven or disproven, they are both taught.
Then they "deleted" (to use your term) the questions on the exams that asked about how humans came into existence, when the only corect answer has to do soley with evolution.
** Schools are for teaching scientific theories,**
Here is the rub. Evolution isn't being taught as a theory, it's being taught as fact.
What creationists want is to have other, equally unprovable or un-disprovable theories taught, and to ensure that the mandatory tests do not penalize those that choose to believe one of the unprovable or un-disprovable theories over another.
Isn't it odd that Darwin didn't believe in evolution before he died?
Again, the problem arises because there is no law on the books regulating the police from using this particular technology from scanning houses in a casual manner. There won't be a law unless one gets passed, or a judge determines that use of this technology falls under the term "unreasonable". That judgement can only come after this technology has been used in a manner that brings a lawsuit.
Of course, there can be local police force policy regulating the use of this technology, but I for one would not be happy with my privacy being assured by a 'policy' of my local police force.
Perform the same calculation on the population of the entire contry, and I feel that the ratio of bad:good is higher in the law enforcement subset. (I'll perform the study if anyone want to give me a sufficent grant)
We were talking about tools that the police can use (abuse) against the citizenry.
The police have proven time and again that they are corruptible, and that given an oppurtunity, some will flat out disregard the general populance's rights. I'm not just talking about the right to privacy, but other rights.
I suppose that you also would feel that the benifits of 'confessions' obtained through police beatings would outweigh any concerns you might have. Or I suppose that you would feel the benifits of requiring every defendant take the stand and provide testimony in trial outweigh the concerns you might have. I suppose that is because you feel that you or your family will never be in a situation where these scenarios become concerns of yours.
I pray that you are never accused with an unfounded allegation.
they want to catch people who are speeding. I cant see why you have a problem with that.
I really don't care too much about catching speeding one way or the other. I'm just disputing the assertion that the police would rather 'eat donuts' that point radar guns at people that are not necessarily doing anything illegal.
Selective enforcment of laws is part of the reason that people don't follow laws. If you know that you won't be pulled over for going ~9MPH over the limit, you will go ahead and break the law by goung ~9MPH over the limit.
If you know that chances are high that you won't get caught at all, and the punishment isn't that great anyway if you do get caught, the likelihood of breaking the law increases.
I pretty much guarantee you that if you knew that if you went so much a 1MPH over the limit, that you would receive a fine, that you would pay much more attention to the spedometer, and less attention to the relative speed of traffic around you.
What I'm talking about is photo radar (the technology is improving, and the systems are getting cheaper for the city to purchase) Red light photo systems (to be implemeted soon here) and the like.
These systems are not a threat to your privacy however, as you have no expectation of privacy driving down the road. I do have an expectation of privacy in my home. Heck, these systems aren't even a threat to your freedom, as the asct that you are commiting is already illegal.
I also doubt that the courts would allow it to be used in drive-by manner.
The only way the courts can stop this from happening, is if it happens, and then if someone brings a lawsuit as a result. In America, you can't bring a lawsuit if you haven't been harmed yet.
How many streets will the police 'patrol' before they are caught and this practice (if it ever occurs) is challenged? How long after the challenge will the police be barred from using this technology in this manner? How will a challenge in one state hold water in another? Sure, you might get a district court to ban this practice for an entire district, but until the Federal Supreme Court bans this practice, it may happen quite legaly in some states.
Here in Arizona, the law is still on the books. It's called (I'm not making this up folks) "The Crime Against Nature" This law makes it illegal to have sex in any way other than primary sexual organ to primary sexual organ.
Yep, you heard it, oral sex is illegal, anal sex is illegal, yes even mutual masturbation is illegal in the "Grand Canyon State"
BTW: It is also illegal to "Cohabatate" with a person of the opposite sex that is not a primary or secondary relative. Yes, it is illegal to have a roommate that is of the opposite sex that is not a relative.
We currently have a state legislator that is trying to have these laws repealed. He's not having too much luck. It's probibly because he's a homosexual Mormon republican. (he's currently being investigated by the Navy for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for coming out of the closet and then reporting for duty when his reserve unit was called for active duty for Kosovo. (Boy, I get off topic)
thats the thing, you can't make it that one group of people control it and nobody else gets to use it. if some start using it, others will want access to it. either nobody uses it or all use it. anything else won't work.
That's the way it's supposed to work, but it dosen't. I bet that your local police has weaponry that you are not allowed by law to possess. I guarantee you that the military does.
Some people think that the 'well regulated militia' in the 2nd amendment is there with the purpose to defend the country from invaders. Well, that's only half of it. When you join the military, you swear to defend against enemies forign and domestic. Why should the 'well regulated militia' be prepared only to defend afainst enemys only from forign lands?
(gee, you thought this was a discusdsion about x ray vision)
really, cops would rather eat donuts than use radar to mess with innocent peeps.
Really? Can you explain why those pastry loving law enforcment officials are always pointing radar guns at me when I'm driving down the road? Heck, in the next town over, they have photo radar stations on trailers that will point the radar at you and then take a picture of you if you are speeding. You are ticketed through the mail, no officer needed.
Well, with a nude woman, her primary sexual organ is not readily visible if she is disrobed from the waist down. Sure, you see some pubic hair, but that is just hair.
The situation is very different for a man disrobed from the waist down. Unless he has an abnormally large amount of pubic hair, his primary sexual organ is in plain view.
That, my friends is the main differance between male and female frontal nudity. Remember, breasts are a secondary sexual organ for females.
One can not stop the rules of survival of the fittest, so why do we keep coming up with laws to protect people from their own choices.
If your stupid choices impact me (in the case of a falling airplane, the impact could be quite literal) then both of us need to be protected from your stupidity.
Slashdot Mirror
This is because you can put the same processor into a well designed system, that provides adequate airflow that keeps a processor well within operating specifications. NOTE: These are typically not created with "off the shelf" parts. They consist of design work by a (or more likely a team of) thermal design engineer(s).
OR
You can install that same processor into a off the shelf case that provides piss-poor airflow, not because the case has no ventalation, but because the moron that put the motherboard (I still call them planarboards when I think to myself) in the case routed his ribbon cables whever they lie. The person that uses this system will experience heat related problems. And being equally unqualified to diagnose the problem, blames the chip! "Dammit! This chip is a space heater!" "No, the runs fine, the system was designed by a moron that thinks that the ability to use a screwdriver makes him a design engineer!"
(sorry for the rant)
If you purcahse a commercial name brand system, they will tell you the maximum ambient room temperature that they warrant the system to operate in.
grin
I would concede that your cat shows traits, but not emotions.
Scholars like you had no problem considering it a "law" that everything was made up of 4 elements: Earth, Wind, Fire and Water.
Then after a bit, we figured out that wasn't right., but these same scholars that now knew much better than to believe that everything is built from these 4 elements had no problem with the "law" that stated that the earth was flat, and the center of the universe.
You must beware of theories that become "law" just because enought people believe in it, that's bad science.
No, what they did, was deleted evolution as a "fact" and instead, started teaching it as one of the theories that are generally believed in, including creationism, since neither of these theories can be proven or disproven, they are both taught.
Then they "deleted" (to use your term) the questions on the exams that asked about how humans came into existence, when the only corect answer has to do soley with evolution.
Here is the rub. Evolution isn't being taught as a theory, it's being taught as fact.
What creationists want is to have other, equally unprovable or un-disprovable theories taught, and to ensure that the mandatory tests do not penalize those that choose to believe one of the unprovable or un-disprovable theories over another.
Isn't it odd that Darwin didn't believe in evolution before he died?
Of course, there can be local police force policy regulating the use of this technology, but I for one would not be happy with my privacy being assured by a 'policy' of my local police force.
Perform the same calculation on the population of the entire contry, and I feel that the ratio of bad:good is higher in the law enforcement subset. (I'll perform the study if anyone want to give me a sufficent grant)
The police have proven time and again that they are corruptible, and that given an oppurtunity, some will flat out disregard the general populance's rights. I'm not just talking about the right to privacy, but other rights.
I suppose that you also would feel that the benifits of 'confessions' obtained through police beatings would outweigh any concerns you might have. Or I suppose that you would feel the benifits of requiring every defendant take the stand and provide testimony in trial outweigh the concerns you might have. I suppose that is because you feel that you or your family will never be in a situation where these scenarios become concerns of yours.
I pray that you are never accused with an unfounded allegation.
I really don't care too much about catching speeding one way or the other. I'm just disputing the assertion that the police would rather 'eat donuts' that point radar guns at people that are not necessarily doing anything illegal.
Selective enforcment of laws is part of the reason that people don't follow laws. If you know that you won't be pulled over for going ~9MPH over the limit, you will go ahead and break the law by goung ~9MPH over the limit.
If you know that chances are high that you won't get caught at all, and the punishment isn't that great anyway if you do get caught, the likelihood of breaking the law increases.
I pretty much guarantee you that if you knew that if you went so much a 1MPH over the limit, that you would receive a fine, that you would pay much more attention to the spedometer, and less attention to the relative speed of traffic around you.
What I'm talking about is photo radar (the technology is improving, and the systems are getting cheaper for the city to purchase) Red light photo systems (to be implemeted soon here) and the like.
These systems are not a threat to your privacy however, as you have no expectation of privacy driving down the road. I do have an expectation of privacy in my home. Heck, these systems aren't even a threat to your freedom, as the asct that you are commiting is already illegal.
The only way the courts can stop this from happening, is if it happens, and then if someone brings a lawsuit as a result. In America, you can't bring a lawsuit if you haven't been harmed yet.
How many streets will the police 'patrol' before they are caught and this practice (if it ever occurs) is challenged? How long after the challenge will the police be barred from using this technology in this manner? How will a challenge in one state hold water in another? Sure, you might get a district court to ban this practice for an entire district, but until the Federal Supreme Court bans this practice, it may happen quite legaly in some states.
Yep, you heard it, oral sex is illegal, anal sex is illegal, yes even mutual masturbation is illegal in the "Grand Canyon State"
BTW: It is also illegal to "Cohabatate" with a person of the opposite sex that is not a primary or secondary relative. Yes, it is illegal to have a roommate that is of the opposite sex that is not a relative.
We currently have a state legislator that is trying to have these laws repealed. He's not having too much luck. It's probibly because he's a homosexual Mormon republican. (he's currently being investigated by the Navy for violating the "don't ask, don't tell" policy for coming out of the closet and then reporting for duty when his reserve unit was called for active duty for Kosovo. (Boy, I get off topic)
That's the way it's supposed to work, but it dosen't. I bet that your local police has weaponry that you are not allowed by law to possess. I guarantee you that the military does.
Some people think that the 'well regulated militia' in the 2nd amendment is there with the purpose to defend the country from invaders. Well, that's only half of it. When you join the military, you swear to defend against enemies forign and domestic. Why should the 'well regulated militia' be prepared only to defend afainst enemys only from forign lands?
(gee, you thought this was a discusdsion about x ray vision)
Really?
Can you explain why those pastry loving law enforcment officials are always pointing radar guns at me when I'm driving down the road?
Heck, in the next town over, they have photo radar stations on trailers that will point the radar at you and then take a picture of you if you are speeding. You are ticketed through the mail, no officer needed.
Well, with a nude woman, her primary sexual organ is not readily visible if she is disrobed from the waist down. Sure, you see some pubic hair, but that is just hair.
The situation is very different for a man disrobed from the waist down. Unless he has an abnormally large amount of pubic hair, his primary sexual organ is in plain view.
That, my friends is the main differance between male and female frontal nudity. Remember, breasts are a secondary sexual organ for females.
One can not stop the rules of survival of the fittest, so why do we keep coming up with laws to protect people from their own choices.
If your stupid choices impact me (in the case of a falling airplane, the impact could be quite literal) then both of us need to be protected from your stupidity.