Triple pane really doesn't do that much for sound deadening according to the Canadian Building Digest. Tripple panes with dissimilar glass thickness works better,
But having a different type of glass on the inside works much better.
Typically they use laminated glass for the soundproufing inner pane, with glas laminated to plastic pane which dampens transmitted vibration. There are commercial windows available for this. These solutions seldom work where you intend to open the window to let in a breeze.
If you don't want to buy entirely new windows there are simple and less costly interior add-on panes. This preserves the ability to open the window.
Headphones don't block noise and turning them up to block noise will damage your hearing.
Amazon.com has ear protectors and they will help.
Actually some headphones do block noise, by having a mic and playing the reverse sound (180 degrees out of phase). But in any event, living with headphones on is not an answer.
The sound is coming thru the windows. Even dual pane windows won't help, they simply act as a drum. Three pane windows help some.
What is needed is a dual pane window where the panes are not parallel. Tipping the top of the outer pane outward de-tunes the drum, and reduces sound transmission by quite a bit. The further you can tip it the better is works.
It has the additional effect of cutting insolation, while actually increasing insulation.
Any good galzier could do this for you and there are starting to be some commercial models available, but custom built is the best way to achieve this.
Slowly the intelligence community is coming around to admit that they were caught completely flat footed, and admitting what the Libyan President Mohammed Magarief said is really the truth.
In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube. He noted that the assault happened on Sept. 11 and that the video had been available for months before that.
"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," he said. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."
I cannot find the right words to say how much this offends me. There are plenty of other places to get carbon that does not mean driving up the cost of food for everyone else, especially in poorer countries, like what has happened with corn/maize.
-- BMO
Meh, we just plant more beets or cane. There's no shortage of sugar in the world, so its not like you are taking food out of people's mouth.
In these countries, traditional healthy diets, made up of grains, beans, vegetables, fresh fruit and animal products are being replaced by more processed and junk foods high in saturated fats, salt and sugar.
Batteries may turn out to be the best use for excess sugar, since the alternative would be eating it.
As has been accepted by everyone except the fawning liberal press, the embasy attack and the rioting in general had been planned for months to coincide with the annaversery of 9/11.
This is simply putting this guy under a microsocope and finding something, anything, to jail him with. He is a political prisioner. If not alledged parole violation, it would have been spitting on the sidewalk. You can bet this didn't originate with local authorities.
Meet the new Putin, darker skinned than the old Putin.
If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.
And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.
Yes, they can try inside their own borders, Like Iran. But even Iran knows better than to order a company with nothing but a sales office in Iran how to act all over the world.
Brazil can block Google at their borders. Just like Iran. We probably stop buying Airplanes from Brazil. Meh!
Are brazillian companies run in such a way that it is normal to expect a Janitor at a Sales office to be able to over rule the head office?
If A US judge decided to hold a secretary of Embraer's US office hostage until the parent company nuckeled under to some unreasonable demand would Brazillians shrug? Or would they be burning the flag at the embasy gates.
Why the the double standard when it comes to this type of behavior?
the physical location of the data centers doesn't dictate that.
Yes, it does. Brazil's citizens sought information from the US, or maybe the closer Chili datacenters. The US, and US companies are under no obligation to prevent those citizens of Brazil from seeking data anywhere on the net. If all Google traffic to Brazil went thru a Google Datacenter, then Barzil might have a claim.
You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is. If Brazil wants to block Brazil at their border they can do that (at their peril).
Its a preemptive troll I suppose, in an (apparently futile) attempt to head off the inevitable flood of "me-too" posts of useless information. It was bound to fail of course, with over 580 postings already (as of this writing), each of them useless, self congradulatory, feel-good posts and the vast majority to be read by nobody. Ever.
I wager the thread hits a thousand posts, of which the only person reading most of them will have been the author.
Do you think that little shell corportion allows Brazil to dictate what is on Google Servers all over the world?
Gee, if that works for Brazil, why won't it work for the US? After all, every significant company of size is encorporated in the US as well as its home country.
So your Pass the buck is the only true course. I'm sure that is exactly what the hapless Google employee did. He has no control over datacenters. He's probably a marketing droid.
But Brazil decided to take hostages any way.
So next time you travle to Brazil you can expect to be held accountable for anything your employer might do anywhere in the world.
If the US did this, you would be championing the company and condemning the US for trying to extend its laws to other countries.
It's not like the Brazilian court is trying to hide something with this order that now it will be 10x public, you know?
I don't like most of limitations to free speech, but you know, I also don't like transnationals corporations acting like they are above the law of the (several) countries they operate.
A court order in Brazil gave an order, and google was in contempt, don't like it? change the law or don't operate there.
Hints: Google works on the internet. The internet works everywhere (Except Iran, apparently). Google has no datacenters in Brazil.
So Brazil was trying to enforce ITS laws in OTHER countries, something everyone here is quick to condem when the US does it. Failing to force the US to change its laws, Brazil takes hostages.
Very Valid point. If I was paying for this, I'd be pretty upset. (I am paying for it, just not with money).
The filters were in-hand already, and there was little point in dropping them. Warn agains incompatibilities where necessary, but why drop them all together.?
They can still import these old formats, but can no longer turn around and export them in the same format.
That might make sense if they were adding a ton of functionality to documents in Google Docs, but it has always seemed to me to be a pretty limited subset of what even the Older MS Office suites could do.
I can't imagine Microsoft has totally clean hands in this decision. They may have yanked any licenses Google had for the export functionality. Forces office suite upgrades.
But since you think it is, why don't you save everybody some time and tally the end-points for us all. Because that's the only way this thread gets read. Nobody is wading thru a bunch of me-too posts.
Who runs one distro at a time anyway? I have four or five installed in virtual machines. I've had as many as 3 running in production servers on physical hardware.
Does another post of untabulated me-too replys really provide any meaningful data? Of course not.
I suggest this response:
Fill it out in painstaking detail, state your reasons and justification for each switch, Thump chest vigorously at the end each rant section, Get it all out of your system, then click the Cancel button.
Who runs one distro at a time anyway? I have four or five installed in virtual machines. I've had as many as 3 running in production servers on physical hardware.
Does another post of untabulated me-too replys really provide any meaningful data? Of course not.
I suggest this response:
Fill it out in painstaking detail, state your reasons and justification for each switch, Thump chest vigorously at the end each rant section, Get it all out of your system, then click the Cancel button.
The point is that big media used copyright laws to goad big government into taking world scale action, including armed response, arrest, seisure, all in response to a little phrase in the law about "defending their copyright".
Can you imagine what might happen if you gave an Electric Power utility the right to counter attack rather than simply taking their plant control systems off of the public network?
Can you assure me you can write legislation authorizing counter attacks that will never result in more loss of freedom, more abuse of authority? Can you assure me that If I write a blog complaining about brownouts and post a link to the Power Companies complaints page, that I won't have jack booted thugs arriving at my door step simply because other people went to that page and complained also? Can you write legislation that will not be stretched to point of labeling encryption a munition?
The issue here is infrastructure serving entire cities and states, not some web site that goes down meaning you have to drive to your bank rather than banking on line. A thousand bullets hitting the wall of a fortress does nothing. 50 million hitting the wall in the same place may make a little hole after awhile.
But the minute I unplug the router and take my oil refinery off the public network, all those "dangerous packets" go nowhere. Exxon does not need counter attack authority. Anyone thinking they do is a very dangerous person.
But just as when you locked door isn't enough, governmental police power should be available to apprehend the culpret, if nothing else than to prevent our heighborhoods from becoming running gun battles. This discussion is about allowing power company goons bash down your door in swat gear carying M16s because you 14 yearold hacker son was in the basement shutting down trubines with his iPad.
Just as local police serve as a (supposidly) impartial refferee between victim and perpetrator, there has to be a way for private industry to bring legal charges, via the government, rather than flash bang charges via hired thugs.
The threat before 9/11 was well known, not only by our own people, but by other mid-east countries that tried to warn us, and even tried to hand over Bin Laden. Clinton was too busy getting BJs by Lewinsky to even worry about what everyone was telling him. After all, two previous bomb attempts on World Trade were merely petty criminals, right?
Means and methods were not discovered until after the fact, but they were there and these particular terrorists were already being watched. One was already in jail.
There was plenty of impending threats leading up to 9/11, but then, as now, nobody in government is taking it seriously.
the network being attacked should have the right of self-defense
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it. A packet is not a bullet. Don't equate the two metaphorically.
When you start giving people attack authorization in an effort to curb ping floods you are asking for the same type of unfettered authority that big media used to go after Kim Dotcom. You will rue the day such a provision became the law of the land.
Slashdot Mirror
It made a huge difference here, presumably because we came from almost all single pane.
Wow, who the hell would build single pane in Winnipeg? Pre-war Old house I assume?
Triple pane really doesn't do that much for sound deadening according to the Canadian Building Digest.
Tripple panes with dissimilar glass thickness works better,
But having a different type of glass on the inside works much better.
Typically they use laminated glass for the soundproufing inner pane, with glas laminated to plastic pane which dampens transmitted vibration.
There are commercial windows available for this. These solutions seldom work where you intend to open the window to let in a breeze.
If you don't want to buy entirely new windows there are simple and less costly interior add-on panes. This preserves the ability to open the window.
Headphones don't block noise and turning them up to block noise will damage your hearing.
Amazon.com has ear protectors and they will help.
Actually some headphones do block noise, by having a mic and playing the reverse sound (180 degrees out of phase).
But in any event, living with headphones on is not an answer.
The sound is coming thru the windows. Even dual pane windows won't help, they simply act as a drum.
Three pane windows help some.
What is needed is a dual pane window where the panes are not parallel. Tipping the top of the outer
pane outward de-tunes the drum, and reduces sound transmission by quite a bit. The further you can tip it
the better is works.
It has the additional effect of cutting insolation, while actually increasing insulation.
Any good galzier could do this for you and there are starting to be some commercial models available,
but custom built is the best way to achieve this.
Yes, some people will deny reality if if reflects badly on Obama, even after the truth is known and the administration is backpeddeling:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/spy-chief-defends-obama-administrations-accounts-of-benghazi-attack-cites-shifting-intelligence/2012/09/28/b16cc996-09a3-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya-determined-to-be-terrorism-tied-to-al-qaeda/2012/09/27/8a298f98-08d8-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_story.html
Slowly the intelligence community is coming around to admit that they were caught completely flat footed, and admitting what the Libyan President Mohammed Magarief said is really the truth.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/26/14105135-libyan-president-to-nbc-anti-islam-film-had-nothing-to-do-with-us-consulate-attack?lite
In an exclusive interview with NBC News' Ann Curry, President Mohamed Magarief discounted claims that the attack was in response to a movie produced in California and available on YouTube. He noted that the assault happened on Sept. 11 and that the video had been available for months before that.
"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," he said. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."
... or another form of power is a sin.
I cannot find the right words to say how much this offends me. There are plenty of other places to get carbon that does not mean driving up the cost of food for everyone else, especially in poorer countries, like what has happened with corn/maize.
--
BMO
Meh, we just plant more beets or cane.
There's no shortage of sugar in the world, so its not like you are taking food out of people's mouth.
Further, US style high-surgar diets being exported to poor countries is very harmful.
In these countries, traditional healthy diets, made up of grains, beans, vegetables, fresh fruit and animal products are being replaced by more processed and junk foods high in saturated fats, salt and sugar.
Batteries may turn out to be the best use for excess sugar, since the alternative would be eating it.
As has been accepted by everyone except the fawning liberal press, the embasy attack and the rioting in general had been planned for months to coincide with the annaversery of 9/11.
This is simply putting this guy under a microsocope and finding something, anything, to jail him with. He is a political prisioner. If not alledged parole violation, it would have been spitting on the sidewalk. You can bet this didn't originate with local authorities.
Meet the new Putin, darker skinned than the old Putin.
Nothing at all.
If the US government passes a law that sets price caps, then Gasprom would have to either obey them, or leave the US. What is so strange about that.
And I don't see any kind of a conflict with the statement about Internet not being under the control of any one government. If a government wants to control the Internet inside it's own borders it can certainly try.
Yes, they can try inside their own borders, Like Iran.
But even Iran knows better than to order a company with nothing but a sales office in Iran how to act all over the world.
Brazil can block Google at their borders. Just like Iran.
We probably stop buying Airplanes from Brazil. Meh!
He didn't comply because he couldn't comply.
Are brazillian companies run in such a way that it is normal to expect a Janitor at a Sales office to be able to over rule the head office?
If A US judge decided to hold a secretary of Embraer's US office hostage until the parent company nuckeled under to some unreasonable demand would Brazillians shrug? Or would they be burning the flag at the embasy gates.
Why the the double standard when it comes to this type of behavior?
the physical location of the data centers doesn't dictate that.
Yes, it does.
Brazil's citizens sought information from the US, or maybe the closer Chili datacenters. The US, and US companies are under no obligation to prevent those citizens of Brazil from seeking data anywhere on the net. If all Google traffic to Brazil went thru a Google Datacenter, then Barzil might have a claim.
You may be content to allow Brazil or perhaps Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right to dictate to the world what information might be shown, but nobody else is. If Brazil wants to block Brazil at their border they can do that (at their peril).
Its a preemptive troll I suppose, in an (apparently futile) attempt to head off the inevitable flood of "me-too" posts of useless information.
It was bound to fail of course, with over 580 postings already (as of this writing), each of them useless, self congradulatory, feel-good posts and the vast majority to be read by nobody. Ever.
I wager the thread hits a thousand posts, of which the only person reading most of them will have been the author.
Gazprom, the Russian State owned Gas producer has a registration in Texas, and an office there.
So does that mean the US law extends to Gasprom, and we can dictate price caps to them?
How bout a little consistancy from you?
Back on August 11 you posted
I understand OP point of view but with something as global as the Internet why should one government or another regulate it?
So what?
Do you think that little shell corportion allows Brazil to dictate what is on Google Servers all over the world?
Gee, if that works for Brazil, why won't it work for the US? After all, every significant company of size
is encorporated in the US as well as its home country.
Google has no data centers in Brazil.
So your Pass the buck is the only true course. I'm sure that is exactly what the hapless Google employee did.
He has no control over datacenters. He's probably a marketing droid.
But Brazil decided to take hostages any way.
So next time you travle to Brazil you can expect to be held accountable for anything your employer might do
anywhere in the world.
If the US did this, you would be championing the company and condemning the US for trying to extend its
laws to other countries.
It's not like the Brazilian court is trying to hide something with this order that now it will be 10x public, you know?
I don't like most of limitations to free speech, but you know, I also don't like transnationals corporations acting like they are above the law of the (several) countries they operate.
A court order in Brazil gave an order, and google was in contempt, don't like it? change the law or don't operate there.
Hints:
Google works on the internet. The internet works everywhere (Except Iran, apparently).
Google has no datacenters in Brazil.
So Brazil was trying to enforce ITS laws in OTHER countries, something everyone here is quick to condem when the US does it.
Failing to force the US to change its laws, Brazil takes hostages.
Exactly. Like I said, who uses only one distro?
Maybe some kid it his parents basement some place.
ever heard of PDF?
Pretty hard to modify for people that work collaboritivly.
Very Valid point.
If I was paying for this, I'd be pretty upset. (I am paying for it, just not with money).
The filters were in-hand already, and there was little point in dropping them.
Warn agains incompatibilities where necessary, but why drop them all together.?
They can still import these old formats, but can no longer turn around and export them in the same format.
That might make sense if they were adding a ton of functionality to documents in Google Docs, but it has always
seemed to me to be a pretty limited subset of what even the Older MS Office suites could do.
I can't imagine Microsoft has totally clean hands in this decision. They may have yanked any licenses Google had
for the export functionality. Forces office suite upgrades.
That's just the point. It ISNT interesting.
But since you think it is, why don't you save everybody some time and tally the end-points for us all.
Because that's the only way this thread gets read.
Nobody is wading thru a bunch of me-too posts.
Come on, is this really necessary or meaningful?
Who runs one distro at a time anyway? I have four or five installed in virtual machines. I've had as many as 3 running in production servers on physical hardware.
Does another post of untabulated me-too replys really provide any meaningful data?
Of course not.
I suggest this response:
Fill it out in painstaking detail, state your reasons and justification for each switch,
Thump chest vigorously at the end each rant section,
Get it all out of your system,
then click the Cancel button.
The world will be a better place.
Come on, is this really necessary or meaningful?
Who runs one distro at a time anyway? I have four or five installed in virtual machines. I've had as many as 3 running in production servers on physical hardware.
Does another post of untabulated me-too replys really provide any meaningful data?
Of course not.
I suggest this response:
Fill it out in painstaking detail, state your reasons and justification for each switch,
Thump chest vigorously at the end each rant section,
Get it all out of your system,
then click the Cancel button.
The world will be a better place.
You've totally misse the point here.
The point is that big media used copyright laws to goad big government into taking world scale action, including armed response, arrest, seisure, all in response to a little phrase in the law about "defending their copyright".
Can you imagine what might happen if you gave an Electric Power utility the right to counter attack rather than simply taking their plant control systems off of the public network?
Can you assure me you can write legislation authorizing counter attacks that will never result in more loss of freedom, more abuse of authority? Can you assure me that If I write a blog complaining about brownouts and post a link to the Power Companies complaints page, that I won't have jack booted thugs arriving at my door step simply because other people went to that page and complained also? Can you write legislation that will not be stretched to point of labeling encryption a munition?
The issue here is infrastructure serving entire cities and states, not some web site that goes down meaning you have to drive to your bank rather than banking on line.
A thousand bullets hitting the wall of a fortress does nothing. 50 million hitting the wall in the same place may make a little hole after awhile.
But the minute I unplug the router and take my oil refinery off the public network, all those "dangerous packets" go nowhere.
Exxon does not need counter attack authority. Anyone thinking they do is a very dangerous person.
This.
But just as when you locked door isn't enough, governmental police power should be available to apprehend the culpret, if nothing else than to prevent our heighborhoods from becoming running gun battles. This discussion is about allowing power company goons bash down your door in swat gear carying M16s because you 14 yearold hacker son was in the basement shutting down trubines with his iPad.
Just as local police serve as a (supposidly) impartial refferee between victim and perpetrator, there has to be a way for private industry to bring legal charges, via the government, rather than flash bang charges via hired thugs.
The threat before 9/11 was well known, not only by our own people, but by other mid-east countries that tried to warn us, and even tried to hand over Bin Laden. Clinton was too busy getting BJs by Lewinsky to even worry about what everyone was telling him. After all, two previous bomb attempts on World Trade were merely petty criminals, right?
Means and methods were not discovered until after the fact, but they were there and these particular terrorists were already being watched. One was already in jail.
There was plenty of impending threats leading up to 9/11, but then, as now, nobody in government is taking it seriously.
the network being attacked should have the right of self-defense
Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.
A packet is not a bullet. Don't equate the two metaphorically.
When you start giving people attack authorization in an effort to curb ping floods you are asking for the same
type of unfettered authority that big media used to go after Kim Dotcom. You will rue the day such a
provision became the law of the land.