Even if the material is unclassified, which is very likely considering the coverage so far, there is another set of laws that cover anything related to military specifications:
ITAR
The penalties for ITAR related violations can be almost as bad as those for sharing classified materials (which is treason).
Typical human has about 10k ohms resistance (varies depending on moisture / sex / part of body, etc). It takes about 10mA through the heart to kill. So 110 AC RMS voltage is easily lethal, and no problem at all for even the cheapest generator to maintain that power load (~1 Watt).
Feel free to experiment and/or google if you think I'm wrong.
If you are worrying about that, you are doing things very wrong. The utility is presumably supplying no voltage; hence the need for the generator, and if it was, the last thing you want to do is to use your generator on the same circuit as the utility power.
Not sure which would be worse, being completely in phase (which would double the voltage), or completely out of phase, which would (try to) create about a 320 peak to peak voltage between the utility supply and the generator (or vice-versa), and cause some great fireworks. Remember that single phase AC power (what you have at your house) is just a basic sinusoid (ideally, anyways), with some theta that indicates its 'phase'. All the math you can do with sinusoids is true for representing AC sources; you just need to remember that you don't have loss-less paths, infinite current sources, and 100% efficient supplies.
Most rad hardened CPUs are RISC (powerPC, SPARC), there are very few options for x86 based rad hardened CPUs. Mil-spec wise Intel is doing well with their newer stuff (dual-core, etc.), but none of it has made it to the rad hardened world yet.
The RAD750 is pretty much 'state of art', running at 166MHz.
Replacing an old 486 with one of these would require rewriting / compiling all the code running on them. Probably not enough of a performance gain in relation to the cost / risk of basically rewriting the code base from scratch.
I use tektronix scopes pretty much daily. Almost all of their new stuff, except for the very low end, is Windows based, which, besides the regular negative slashdot bias against windows, can be a real pain when you work in a closed lab with special security rules. Windows (and Unix) boxes are severely tied down in most security sensitive situations, and these scopes either require you to run as admin, or as a non-admin you lose a lot of functionality.
One of our brilliant IT security folks installed a program called Device-Lock on my Tek scope the other day. This was configured to completely disabled all I/O (except mouse/keyboard) on the scope, which is kind of funny considering the purpose of a scope. We got this fixed, after a long and entertaining conversation with security.
This issue doesn't apply to the submitter most likely, but anyone else reading and looking for advice, take into account rules regarding OS security at your work / school when looking at a new scope. Frequently I will look for one of the older scopes running proprietary OSes (like the old HPs) to avoid the hassle entirely.
To answer your original question, you really need to define requirements before your start picking out scopes. It's like buying a vehicle with your only criteria being it's color.
I was a relatively early adopter of Firefox, I liked it because of the multiform support, tabbed browsing, etc. I have a triple boot system, with Vista RC2, XP, and Mandriva - and Firefox 2.0 has been crashing/hanging within minutes of any browsing session, with no discrimination for the platform I am on. Needless to say, previous versions didn't have the issue. I have a psychical aversion to downgrading (I'm American, we aren't trained for that kind of thing), but I guess I will have to go back to 1.5 soon. I have also found myself using IE or opera when I am doing something that I really don't want to lose.
I'm a EE, and I know enough coding to break stuff, and piss off the CS dept., but I have no desire whatsoever to debug a browser. With that in mind, I've seen, as have the rest of you here at/., a major push to get everyone possible using FOSS.
So here's my point - The community can't have it both ways with FOSS:
1: Either this type of software should only be used by those who have the ability and/or desire to fix what is or could become broken
or 2: the community, having pushed the use of FOSS into the less-technical world, should take responsibility for what they have created and promoted.
The reality right now is that the 'community' seems to want both - they want the market share - and they are very quick to run away when a product doesn't work as advertised - and don't try to say that Firefox in particular isn't advertised. Try searching for 'Firefox 2.0' crashes...Basically every response will lead you here.
Since Firefox really is the poster child of the FOSS movement, they need to be very careful not to make Microsoft's case for them.
If there are aliens on remote planets, it seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that they are at the same technological level that we are (either higher or lower), and since all of the pseudo-science / probability people say that there is an enormous chance that there is in fact life on other planets, it follows that if there is life 'out there', some of the civilizations must be extremely advanced compared to ours.
In that case, it is hard to believe that they are not aware of us. This is where you need to put on your tin foil hat. If they are aware of us, and have not contacted us, they clearly do not want us to contact them / be aware of them. If they have technology vastly superior to ours, isn't it possible they could filter out any signs of their existance - or even 'fine tune' our perceptions of the universe beyond removing just signs of their own existence?
Slashdot Mirror
(It would take an unusual person to even find the opt-in, let alone volunteer for a degraded experience knowingly.)
You must not have visited some of the same websites that I have.
This is pretty close in price to that denon crap, but worth the money:
http://www.tensolite.com/v2/productFiles/HiPerfCable_NETflight.pdf
Even if the material is unclassified, which is very likely considering the coverage so far, there is another set of laws that cover anything related to military specifications: ITAR
The penalties for ITAR related violations can be almost as bad as those for sharing classified materials (which is treason).
Typical human has about 10k ohms resistance (varies depending on moisture / sex / part of body, etc). It takes about 10mA through the heart to kill. So 110 AC RMS voltage is easily lethal, and no problem at all for even the cheapest generator to maintain that power load (~1 Watt).
Feel free to experiment and/or google if you think I'm wrong.
If you are worrying about that, you are doing things very wrong. The utility is presumably supplying no voltage; hence the need for the generator, and if it was, the last thing you want to do is to use your generator on the same circuit as the utility power.
Not sure which would be worse, being completely in phase (which would double the voltage), or completely out of phase, which would (try to) create about a 320 peak to peak voltage between the utility supply and the generator (or vice-versa), and cause some great fireworks. Remember that single phase AC power (what you have at your house) is just a basic sinusoid (ideally, anyways), with some theta that indicates its 'phase'. All the math you can do with sinusoids is true for representing AC sources; you just need to remember that you don't have loss-less paths, infinite current sources, and 100% efficient supplies.
Most rad hardened CPUs are RISC (powerPC, SPARC), there are very few options for x86 based rad hardened CPUs. Mil-spec wise Intel is doing well with their newer stuff (dual-core, etc.), but none of it has made it to the rad hardened world yet. The RAD750 is pretty much 'state of art', running at 166MHz.
Replacing an old 486 with one of these would require rewriting / compiling all the code running on them. Probably not enough of a performance gain in relation to the cost / risk of basically rewriting the code base from scratch.
I use tektronix scopes pretty much daily. Almost all of their new stuff, except for the very low end, is Windows based, which, besides the regular negative slashdot bias against windows, can be a real pain when you work in a closed lab with special security rules. Windows (and Unix) boxes are severely tied down in most security sensitive situations, and these scopes either require you to run as admin, or as a non-admin you lose a lot of functionality.
One of our brilliant IT security folks installed a program called Device-Lock on my Tek scope the other day. This was configured to completely disabled all I/O (except mouse/keyboard) on the scope, which is kind of funny considering the purpose of a scope. We got this fixed, after a long and entertaining conversation with security.
This issue doesn't apply to the submitter most likely, but anyone else reading and looking for advice, take into account rules regarding OS security at your work / school when looking at a new scope. Frequently I will look for one of the older scopes running proprietary OSes (like the old HPs) to avoid the hassle entirely. To answer your original question, you really need to define requirements before your start picking out scopes. It's like buying a vehicle with your only criteria being it's color.
There was a story on NPR last week about a CalTech professor writing an economics text book and releasing it under CC license: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/09/05/05
Its nice to see that the 'hooked on phonics' kids are growing up and posting on slashdot
I was a relatively early adopter of Firefox, I liked it because of the multiform support, tabbed browsing, etc. I have a triple boot system, with Vista RC2, XP, and Mandriva - and Firefox 2.0 has been crashing/hanging within minutes of any browsing session, with no discrimination for the platform I am on. Needless to say, previous versions didn't have the issue. I have a psychical aversion to downgrading (I'm American, we aren't trained for that kind of thing), but I guess I will have to go back to 1.5 soon. I have also found myself using IE or opera when I am doing something that I really don't want to lose.
/., a major push to get everyone possible using FOSS.
So here's my point - The community can't have it both ways with FOSS:
I'm a EE, and I know enough coding to break stuff, and piss off the CS dept., but I have no desire whatsoever to debug a browser. With that in mind, I've seen, as have the rest of you here at
1: Either this type of software should only be used by those who have the ability and/or desire to fix what is or could become broken
or
2: the community, having pushed the use of FOSS into the less-technical world, should take responsibility for what they have created and promoted.
The reality right now is that the 'community' seems to want both - they want the market share - and they are very quick to run away when a product doesn't work as advertised - and don't try to say that Firefox in particular isn't advertised. Try searching for 'Firefox 2.0' crashes...Basically every response will lead you here.
Since Firefox really is the poster child of the FOSS movement, they need to be very careful not to make Microsoft's case for them.
google cash => gash
I have 6 invites. mailto: jnault_at_gmail.com
If there are aliens on remote planets, it seems to me that it is extremely unlikely that they are at the same technological level that we are (either higher or lower), and since all of the pseudo-science / probability people say that there is an enormous chance that there is in fact life on other planets, it follows that if there is life 'out there', some of the civilizations must be extremely advanced compared to ours.
In that case, it is hard to believe that they are not aware of us. This is where you need to put on your tin foil hat. If they are aware of us, and have not contacted us, they clearly do not want us to contact them / be aware of them. If they have technology vastly superior to ours, isn't it possible they could filter out any signs of their existance - or even 'fine tune' our perceptions of the universe beyond removing just signs of their own existence?