All the 5th prevents is the government forcing a confession out of you.
If you plead the 5th, the court and the jury are quite legally allowed to accept that as an admission of some form of guilt - hence why refusing to take a blood alchohol test is grounds for losing your license.
That is also why DA's will frequently give amnesty to a defendant - by saying "OK, nothing you say on matter X can be used against you" your 5th amendment rights no longer attach. So the government can say "OK, you can no longer take the fifth about what you and Joey did, since it cannot be used to incriminate YOU. If you fail to answer these questions, you will be found in contempt and locked up until you comply."
If x negative, then ASSERT. If the program was compiled with -DNDEBUG, the assert will compile away into nothing, and X will be negated, allowing some sane response. But if the program is build normally, then ASSERT a failure rather than masking the problem.
And you probably weren't careful enough in copying the code, and got bit by failing to change the >'s into >'s and the <'s into <'s.
Of course I was greatly simplifying the idea, but oft-times a value that prints as 1.0 is not really 1.0.
And it's commonly accepted that comparing floats for equality is BAD - one compares for >= or <=, but not != or ==. If one needs to test for equality, one checks fabs( (a-b)/fmax(a,b)) < epsilon, where epsilon is chosen based upon the problem domain.
I think the problem is not so much the "black box" mindset, but rather the perfect black box mindset.
Being an EE who now does software design myself, I try to decompose a problem into smaller problems, and decompose the solution into smaller parts. However, I don't make the mistake of thinking that my smaller parts are each perfect - I try to ask "Now, if component X malfunctions, what effects will it have on this higher level assembly Y?"
The problem is that many time CS folks are not taught that the system can be imperfect, so by exclusion they believe it to be perfect - one plus one will always come back two, disk writes will always succeed if there is enough space for them, and so on. Folks are not taught that sometimes 1.0 + 1.0 != 2.0 (rounding errors), that disks sometimes fail (sector not found - abort, retry, cancel), and so on.
In Circuits 1, an EE-to-be is taught the idea of the perfect op-amp - infinite gain, infinite bandwidth, infinite possible output voltage, infinite input impedance. He is taught to use this model to analyze a circuit.
He is then IMMEDIATELY taught that the model is BS, and starts to add to it - finite input impedance, finite gain, finite bandwidth, finite offset voltage, finite output impedance. The EE-to-be is taught to apply those non-ideal behaviors when needed, and taught to judge when they can be ignored.
Sometimes I think the best thing in the world would be if CS and EEs had to work with robotics as part of their job. When they have to deal with sticky steppers, dust-clogged optics, and misfiring soleniods they will learn to be a bit more paranoid.
You are confusing jargon with obfuscation and pompostiy.
Just as a doctor might refer to a "minor lac" (minor laceration - a small tear) or a DSP guy might refer to an IIR (infinite impulse response - a class of digital filter) or a lawyer to a "writ of habeus corpus" (literally "present the body" or "let me see my client dammit") in order to save time when discussing their trade, an IT person might refer to "a distro" or "a hotfix" when discussing their trade with another IT person.
However, there is a great difference between using jargon with speaking with a fellow practicioner, and using buzzwords you ill-comprehend yourself to obfuscate your meaning and hide that you have little to say.
For a PHB to say "From this point in time and moving forward, we must productize this feature to garner mindshare and provide perceived value-add to our installbase" rather than "We need to make this something people want so we can sell it" is just a way for the PHB to sound more intelligent than he is.
A true professional, when addressing someone outside his field, will use jargon only when unavoidable, and will define the terms he uses as best as he can. For example, what made Dr. Carl Sagan such a great science presenter was his ability to avoid the jargon of science and speak simply.
Considering the statistics, the odds of an NRA member committing murder (vs. shooting someone in self defense) are an order of magnitude lower than the general population's probability of commiting murder, it is a risk I am willing to take.
Also, what are the general per-capita murder rates in Scotland - not just the gun death rates, but also murders including blunt objects, knives, bombs, poison, etc.? Compare those to the overall murder rate in the US.
Most murders are committed with weapons other than guns, even in the US. And in states where conceiled carry is lawful and commonplace, both the gun homicide rate and the non-gun homicide rate are significantly lower than states where conceiled carry is uncommon (or unlawful).
I could point you to the NRA's website and ask you to do some research there to get a more balanced view of the matter, but then you will probably say that the NRA is biased. The fact that The Gun Control Network is equally biased in the other direction has probably not occurred to you.
According to the best cosmological theory we have now:
The universe came into being. At first, there was but one force. As the universe grew larger and colder, aspects of that one force that were hidden became apparent - these are the forces we know of now: gravity, electroweak, strong nuclear.
Consider:
Trillions of years from now, the universe is much larger and colder. Aspects of the four forces we know of now become apparent, creating new forces.
Who is to say that in a google of years, there won't be some lifeform that will look back and say (translating to English) "We aren't sure what happened in the first trillion years, but after that, the 27 forces of nature we know of began to manefest themselves..."
Who is to say that there was not some lifeform living at the first 10e-32 second that was looking forward and saying (translating into English) "One day, seconds from now, all life as we know it will cease, and the universe will be far too cold to support life."
SPOILER WARNING - if you have not read the so-called "sequels" to RwR, and you do not wish to have the surprise spoiled for you, read no further. However, the advice "read no further" can far better be applied to the sequels themselves.
In RwR, the sense of wonder was everywhere - here's this BIG HONKING SHIP, build by somebody for some reason we don't know. All we can know is that whoever they are, they put a lot of work into this ship. You felt awed.
Fast forward through the sequels - the ship was Created By The Hand Of God HimSelf as part of A Grand Experiment To Celibrate His Greatness. To me, that takes the wonder out of it - for mortal beings to build Rama would be impressive, for God to miracle it into existance is trivial. All the wonder went out of it, right there.
Furthurmore, the "three-ness" of Rama was intrinsic to the first story - the folks who build Rama did everything in threes, with trilateral symmetry. Why? What does it mean?
Nothing, we find out in the sequels. It was just made that way for the purposes of the experiment.
No, if you are given the choice between reading the sequels or ramming red hot forks into your eyes.... Make sure they are at least red-hot - that way the pain doesn't last as long.
I keep saying this, hoping to convince others and thus to start us moving in the right direction.
A reusable orbital delivery system makes about as much sense as reusable toilet paper - yes it is possible, but the cost to make it reusable far exceeds the savings. Every kilo you boost to orbit costs about ten kilos in fuel. Therefore, adding any weight that is not payload is extremely wasteful. If you add one kilo to make something "reusable", that is a kilo of payload you give up.
The rocket engines on the shuttle are very complex - turbopumps, combustion chambers, cyrogenic fuels. The solid rocket boosters are MUCH simpler - why did NASA not use just them? Simple - solid rockets are not throttleable - one lit off, they make as much thrust as they want to, and while you can to an extent control that thrust by how you design them, there will be unavoidable variations in thrust from unit to unit. You cannot get several of them balanced out - in the shuttle, the main engines are used to balance the load out by shifting their thrust to make up for variances.
However, we have for some time known how to build hybrid rocket - solid fuel, liquid oxidizer. These rockets are throttleable and can be made restartable.
Imagine this: We start making hybrid rockets, roughly the size of the shuttle's SRB's. They are NOT designed for reuse (if they can be made reuseable without weight penalty great, but otherwise fugetaboutit).
For normal, unmanned payloads, you use 1 or more of these rockets (one for smaller payloads like a comsat, up to five or more for big chunks of the ISS). If they go foom on launch it is unfortunate but not catastrophic.
For manned missions, we launch a MUCH SMALLER vehicle, big enough for the (astro|cosmo)nauts and not much else (if they need a big experiment, you launch it as an ummanned launch). Because the launch vehicle is much smaller, you don't need as many of these boosters. You can therefore inspect the HELL out of the ones you use.
Since you are making the boosters by the truckload, you can quickly get the economies of scale to bring the cost down. This argument was also used for the shuttle, but since the shuttle is such a complicated bird this promise never materialized. I assert that BDB's (big dumb boosters) would be able to achive this goal.
Also, since these boosters are standard parts, you could farm them out to several companies (hell, GPL the damn design!) This would allow for competition, as well as innovation. We could even allow them to be build in other countries (e.g. Russia). How about getting a degree of commonality between the Russian space program and the US?
Finally, given the fact that you could use a non-cryogenic oxidizer, you could relatively safely ship these things into orbit, thus allowing (lunar|Mars) missions to use them to provide the delta-V to leave orbit.
NASA keeps focusing on "sexy" technologies like SCRAMjets and such, and those are find as research projects. But for workhorse applications, why not K.I.S.S.?
Big Dumb Boosters. Beat that into NASA, beat that into your Congresscritter, beat that into the National Space Society and the Planetary Society, beat that into your fellow/.'ser and K5'ers.
You missed my point - my point was that instead of buying this expensive system and hooking it up to your PC, why not buy a standard stereo system and hook it up to your PC.
For the money, you could buy a far better normal stereo system than you could buy this system.
I'd like to ask a simple and possibly silly question:
Why not just go to a normal stereo store, and buy a normal stereo?
More PC speaker sets are designed to be small enough to not dominate your desk, as the idea is that your PC is not your primary music/movie station. This monster will require you to definitely change your layout for maximum effect.
So if I am going to make my PC be my media hub, why not just buy a normal stereo system, and be done with it?
Sure, a system like this might make sense if you are in a space limited environment like an apartment in a city, or a dorm.
First, I used the word "boil" rather than "increases the vapor pressure of the electrolyte" to keep my post simple. But raising the temp of the cap does increase the vapor pressure due to water vapor just the same.
Second, I can most assuredly guarantee that the electrolyte in a cap is corrosive - I have seen boards where cap failure has resulted in traces being dissolved away with my own eyes. It may not be as corrosive as NaOH, but it is corrosive.
All capacitors have what is called an equivelent series resistance, or ESR (great: now we have 2 TLAs that are overloaded in context: RMS and ESR... )
The ESR only matters when there is a current flow through the device - a static voltage does not create (much of ) a static current flow - that is rather the definition of a capacitor. So if you are putting a DC voltage across the device all is well.
However, if what you are putting across the device is NOT DC, but rather DC with an AC component on top of it, then there will be a current flow as the capacitor tries to hold the voltage constant (again, that's rather the point).
However, due to the ESR, some of that current will cause heating of the device (power = I*I*R).
In caps with the good electrolytic, nothing much happens. In caps with the bad electrolytic, the electrolytic breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen, as well as boiling into steam. Pressure builds, and eventually the cap leaks. Since the other stuff in the electrolytic is caustic, your PC board traces rot away.
Now, at low ripple currents, this does not happen very fast, and any cap will have a long lifespan. However, as you approach the limit of the cap, the heating becomes the dominant factor, and the cap will cook itself fairly quickly.
That's where that 4000 hours comes from - that is not the cap running with a few tens of milliamps of current ripple across it, that is the cap getting amperes of current rammed down its throat, and running very hot.
That's also why you use tantalum caps wherever possible - tant's don't have an electrolyte, they use a very spongy tantalum slug with lots of surface area. They don't have quite the capacitance per unit volume that electrolytics have, but they don't leak, either. (but they do blow up real good (sic) when you exceed their rated voltage!)
There are probably some engineers who work only for the money...
No. You had it right in the previous sentence:
Engineers like to make things.
Somebody who paints, but cares not how what they paint looks, and only cares about the money is not an artist, even though they may call themselves an artist.
Somebody who designs things, but cares not how their designs work, and only cares about the money is not an engineer, even though they may call themselves an engineer.
Engineering is a calling - you either are called or you are not. If you are not called, if you are not driven to design, to create, then you are not an engineer no matter what you would label yourself.
Just as true artists create their art even if they are not paid for it, true engineers create their art even if they are not paid for it.
Free Software is just one expression of this. The geek who helps you wire your house for (sound|Ethernet), the guy who helps you fix your car free of charge, the guy who gives you tips on how to mitre a doorframe at Home Depot are other expressions of this.
Ben Franklin gave away the design of his stove. George Washington Carver would give you full plans for any of his inventions for the cost of a self-addressed stamped envelope. They were engineers.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, normally I don't respond to trolls, but since this was a gun con-troll, I made an exception.
the.site.with.no.name - be a good Spagetti Western homage site.
theyve.given.me.a.number.and.taken.away.my.name - The Prisoner and Secret Agent Man homage site.
went.through.the.desert.on.a.horse.with.no.name - fan site for the band America.
a.policeman.knew.my.name - Site for The Who.
All the 5th prevents is the government forcing a confession out of you.
If you plead the 5th, the court and the jury are quite legally allowed to accept that as an admission of some form of guilt - hence why refusing to take a blood alchohol test is grounds for losing your license.
That is also why DA's will frequently give amnesty to a defendant - by saying "OK, nothing you say on matter X can be used against you" your 5th amendment rights no longer attach. So the government can say "OK, you can no longer take the fifth about what you and Joey did, since it cannot be used to incriminate YOU. If you fail to answer these questions, you will be found in contempt and locked up until you comply."
Exactly - what I want is this:
If x greater than or equal zero, all is well.
If x negative, then ASSERT. If the program was compiled with -DNDEBUG, the assert will compile away into nothing, and X will be negated, allowing some sane response. But if the program is build normally, then ASSERT a failure rather than masking the problem.
And you probably weren't careful enough in copying the code, and got bit by failing to change the >'s into >'s and the <'s into <'s.
Proper defensive programming means not only handling errors from within, but LOGGING them as well.
...
...
I wouldn't want this:
float sqrt(float x)
{
if (x < 0.0) x = -x;
}
I'd want this:
float sqrt(float x)
{
if (x < 0.0)
{
ASSERT(x >= 0);
x = -x;
}
}
Of course I was greatly simplifying the idea, but oft-times a value that prints as 1.0 is not really 1.0.
And it's commonly accepted that comparing floats for equality is BAD - one compares for >= or <=, but not != or ==. If one needs to test for equality, one checks fabs( (a-b)/fmax(a,b)) < epsilon, where epsilon is chosen based upon the problem domain.
I think the problem is not so much the "black box" mindset, but rather the perfect black box mindset.
Being an EE who now does software design myself, I try to decompose a problem into smaller problems, and decompose the solution into smaller parts. However, I don't make the mistake of thinking that my smaller parts are each perfect - I try to ask "Now, if component X malfunctions, what effects will it have on this higher level assembly Y?"
The problem is that many time CS folks are not taught that the system can be imperfect, so by exclusion they believe it to be perfect - one plus one will always come back two, disk writes will always succeed if there is enough space for them, and so on. Folks are not taught that sometimes 1.0 + 1.0 != 2.0 (rounding errors), that disks sometimes fail (sector not found - abort, retry, cancel), and so on.
In Circuits 1, an EE-to-be is taught the idea of the perfect op-amp - infinite gain, infinite bandwidth, infinite possible output voltage, infinite input impedance. He is taught to use this model to analyze a circuit.
He is then IMMEDIATELY taught that the model is BS, and starts to add to it - finite input impedance, finite gain, finite bandwidth, finite offset voltage, finite output impedance. The EE-to-be is taught to apply those non-ideal behaviors when needed, and taught to judge when they can be ignored.
Sometimes I think the best thing in the world would be if CS and EEs had to work with robotics as part of their job. When they have to deal with sticky steppers, dust-clogged optics, and misfiring soleniods they will learn to be a bit more paranoid.
Now they don't even call it "Human Resources" - they call it HR.
They've removed even the Human part of it. You are just a single letter.
I just wonder how long until they rename it "MeatWare Exploitation"
You are confusing jargon with obfuscation and pompostiy.
Just as a doctor might refer to a "minor lac" (minor laceration - a small tear) or a DSP guy might refer to an IIR (infinite impulse response - a class of digital filter) or a lawyer to a "writ of habeus corpus" (literally "present the body" or "let me see my client dammit") in order to save time when discussing their trade, an IT person might refer to "a distro" or "a hotfix" when discussing their trade with another IT person.
However, there is a great difference between using jargon with speaking with a fellow practicioner, and using buzzwords you ill-comprehend yourself to obfuscate your meaning and hide that you have little to say.
For a PHB to say "From this point in time and moving forward, we must productize this feature to garner mindshare and provide perceived value-add to our installbase" rather than "We need to make this something people want so we can sell it" is just a way for the PHB to sound more intelligent than he is.
A true professional, when addressing someone outside his field, will use jargon only when unavoidable, and will define the terms he uses as best as he can. For example, what made Dr. Carl Sagan such a great science presenter was his ability to avoid the jargon of science and speak simply.
As the aphorism sayth: Eschew Obfuscation!
Considering the statistics, the odds of an NRA member committing murder (vs. shooting someone in self defense) are an order of magnitude lower than the general population's probability of commiting murder, it is a risk I am willing to take.
Also, what are the general per-capita murder rates in Scotland - not just the gun death rates, but also murders including blunt objects, knives, bombs, poison, etc.? Compare those to the overall murder rate in the US.
Most murders are committed with weapons other than guns, even in the US. And in states where conceiled carry is lawful and commonplace, both the gun homicide rate and the non-gun homicide rate are significantly lower than states where conceiled carry is uncommon (or unlawful).
I could point you to the NRA's website and ask you to do some research there to get a more balanced view of the matter, but then you will probably say that the NRA is biased. The fact that The Gun Control Network is equally biased in the other direction has probably not occurred to you.
According to the best cosmological theory we have now:
The universe came into being. At first, there was but one force. As the universe grew larger and colder, aspects of that one force that were hidden became apparent - these are the forces we know of now: gravity, electroweak, strong nuclear.
Consider:
Trillions of years from now, the universe is much larger and colder. Aspects of the four forces we know of now become apparent, creating new forces.
Who is to say that in a google of years, there won't be some lifeform that will look back and say (translating to English) "We aren't sure what happened in the first trillion years, but after that, the 27 forces of nature we know of began to manefest themselves..."
Who is to say that there was not some lifeform living at the first 10e-32 second that was looking forward and saying (translating into English) "One day, seconds from now, all life as we know it will cease, and the universe will be far too cold to support life."
I'm a single guy, no dependants. I just had to update all my benefits info at work - if I die, who gets my employer-supplied insurance money.
So how would I go about making the FSF a beneficiary? You might want to put that info on the web site.
Right now, the only organization I have listed is the NRA - they make it pretty easy to set this sort of thing up.
SPOILER WARNING - if you have not read the so-called "sequels" to RwR, and you do not wish to have the surprise spoiled for you, read no further. However, the advice "read no further" can far better be applied to the sequels themselves.
In RwR, the sense of wonder was everywhere - here's this BIG HONKING SHIP, build by somebody for some reason we don't know. All we can know is that whoever they are, they put a lot of work into this ship. You felt awed.
Fast forward through the sequels - the ship was Created By The Hand Of God HimSelf as part of A Grand Experiment To Celibrate His Greatness. To me, that takes the wonder out of it - for mortal beings to build Rama would be impressive, for God to miracle it into existance is trivial. All the wonder went out of it, right there.
Furthurmore, the "three-ness" of Rama was intrinsic to the first story - the folks who build Rama did everything in threes, with trilateral symmetry. Why? What does it mean?
Nothing, we find out in the sequels. It was just made that way for the purposes of the experiment.
No, if you are given the choice between reading the sequels or ramming red hot forks into your eyes.... Make sure they are at least red-hot - that way the pain doesn't last as long.
I keep saying this, hoping to convince others and thus to start us moving in the right direction.
/.'ser and K5'ers.
A reusable orbital delivery system makes about as much sense as reusable toilet paper - yes it is possible, but the cost to make it reusable far exceeds the savings. Every kilo you boost to orbit costs about ten kilos in fuel. Therefore, adding any weight that is not payload is extremely wasteful. If you add one kilo to make something "reusable", that is a kilo of payload you give up.
The rocket engines on the shuttle are very complex - turbopumps, combustion chambers, cyrogenic fuels. The solid rocket boosters are MUCH simpler - why did NASA not use just them? Simple - solid rockets are not throttleable - one lit off, they make as much thrust as they want to, and while you can to an extent control that thrust by how you design them, there will be unavoidable variations in thrust from unit to unit. You cannot get several of them balanced out - in the shuttle, the main engines are used to balance the load out by shifting their thrust to make up for variances.
However, we have for some time known how to build hybrid rocket - solid fuel, liquid oxidizer. These rockets are throttleable and can be made restartable.
Imagine this: We start making hybrid rockets, roughly the size of the shuttle's SRB's. They are NOT designed for reuse (if they can be made reuseable without weight penalty great, but otherwise fugetaboutit).
For normal, unmanned payloads, you use 1 or more of these rockets (one for smaller payloads like a comsat, up to five or more for big chunks of the ISS). If they go foom on launch it is unfortunate but not catastrophic.
For manned missions, we launch a MUCH SMALLER vehicle, big enough for the (astro|cosmo)nauts and not much else (if they need a big experiment, you launch it as an ummanned launch). Because the launch vehicle is much smaller, you don't need as many of these boosters. You can therefore inspect the HELL out of the ones you use.
Since you are making the boosters by the truckload, you can quickly get the economies of scale to bring the cost down. This argument was also used for the shuttle, but since the shuttle is such a complicated bird this promise never materialized. I assert that BDB's (big dumb boosters) would be able to achive this goal.
Also, since these boosters are standard parts, you could farm them out to several companies (hell, GPL the damn design!) This would allow for competition, as well as innovation. We could even allow them to be build in other countries (e.g. Russia). How about getting a degree of commonality between the Russian space program and the US?
Finally, given the fact that you could use a non-cryogenic oxidizer, you could relatively safely ship these things into orbit, thus allowing (lunar|Mars) missions to use them to provide the delta-V to leave orbit.
NASA keeps focusing on "sexy" technologies like SCRAMjets and such, and those are find as research projects. But for workhorse applications, why not K.I.S.S.?
Big Dumb Boosters. Beat that into NASA, beat that into your Congresscritter, beat that into the National Space Society and the Planetary Society, beat that into your fellow
The cost of this system is MORE than comparable stereos purchased from a stereo store!
That's the part I don't get - why spend MORE money to get LESS?
You missed my point - my point was that instead of buying this expensive system and hooking it up to your PC, why not buy a standard stereo system and hook it up to your PC.
For the money, you could buy a far better normal stereo system than you could buy this system.
I'd like to ask a simple and possibly silly question:
Why not just go to a normal stereo store, and buy a normal stereo?
More PC speaker sets are designed to be small enough to not dominate your desk, as the idea is that your PC is not your primary music/movie station. This monster will require you to definitely change your layout for maximum effect.
So if I am going to make my PC be my media hub, why not just buy a normal stereo system, and be done with it?
Sure, a system like this might make sense if you are in a space limited environment like an apartment in a city, or a dorm.
I've heard of wearing your heart on your sleeve, but this is ridiculous.
First, I used the word "boil" rather than "increases the vapor pressure of the electrolyte" to keep my post simple. But raising the temp of the cap does increase the vapor pressure due to water vapor just the same.
Second, I can most assuredly guarantee that the electrolyte in a cap is corrosive - I have seen boards where cap failure has resulted in traces being dissolved away with my own eyes. It may not be as corrosive as NaOH, but it is corrosive.
....And easier filtering of RFI, and easier PFC, and ....
I figured anybody who needed my little primer didn't need any more complexity.
Some of the new quarter-brick DC-DC converter modules are simply unreal in the densities they give.
I worked with folks on a project that used about forty half-brick supplies to make an array capable of delivering several KW at 24VDC. Lots of fun.
Are the voices in this gal's head so loud they disturb her co-workers?
Because that is about the ONLY reason I can come up with for this behavior.
If this gal is a mother, I would report her to SRS before she does the same to one of her kids!
The issue with electrolytic capacitors is this:
All capacitors have what is called an equivelent series resistance, or ESR (great: now we have 2 TLAs that are overloaded in context: RMS and ESR... )
The ESR only matters when there is a current flow through the device - a static voltage does not create (much of ) a static current flow - that is rather the definition of a capacitor. So if you are putting a DC voltage across the device all is well.
However, if what you are putting across the device is NOT DC, but rather DC with an AC component on top of it, then there will be a current flow as the capacitor tries to hold the voltage constant (again, that's rather the point).
However, due to the ESR, some of that current will cause heating of the device (power = I*I*R).
In caps with the good electrolytic, nothing much happens. In caps with the bad electrolytic, the electrolytic breaks down into hydrogen and oxygen, as well as boiling into steam. Pressure builds, and eventually the cap leaks. Since the other stuff in the electrolytic is caustic, your PC board traces rot away.
Now, at low ripple currents, this does not happen very fast, and any cap will have a long lifespan. However, as you approach the limit of the cap, the heating becomes the dominant factor, and the cap will cook itself fairly quickly.
That's where that 4000 hours comes from - that is not the cap running with a few tens of milliamps of current ripple across it, that is the cap getting amperes of current rammed down its throat, and running very hot.
That's also why you use tantalum caps wherever possible - tant's don't have an electrolyte, they use a very spongy tantalum slug with lots of surface area. They don't have quite the capacitance per unit volume that electrolytics have, but they don't leak, either. (but they do blow up real good (sic) when you exceed their rated voltage!)
No. You had it right in the previous sentence:
Somebody who paints, but cares not how what they paint looks, and only cares about the money is not an artist, even though they may call themselves an artist.
Somebody who designs things, but cares not how their designs work, and only cares about the money is not an engineer, even though they may call themselves an engineer.
Engineering is a calling - you either are called or you are not. If you are not called, if you are not driven to design, to create, then you are not an engineer no matter what you would label yourself.
Just as true artists create their art even if they are not paid for it, true engineers create their art even if they are not paid for it.
Free Software is just one expression of this. The geek who helps you wire your house for (sound|Ethernet), the guy who helps you fix your car free of charge, the guy who gives you tips on how to mitre a doorframe at Home Depot are other expressions of this.
Ben Franklin gave away the design of his stove. George Washington Carver would give you full plans for any of his inventions for the cost of a self-addressed stamped envelope. They were engineers.
The URLs ares
freedesktop.org and www.freedesktop.org
not freedesktop.com and www.freedesktop.com
which seem to be placeholders for a domain squatter.
You can get an address at spamcop.net, read it from anywhere, AND get spam filtering, for about $20/year.