Sorry, I misremembered, and then managed to not clue in when the Google pointed me to the sarin attack articles. Anyway - the point is still, that even as a Western European-descended person I can see that terror attacks are not the exclusive domain of Islam based cults.
Your goggles are on too tight... you don't have to look very far back in time to find the IRA and other Christian groups doing their thing. Remember also the Tokyo ricin attacks? That was some local cult. How about David Koresh and Jim Jones?
If this is done, then also put the moderation history behind a clickthrough access such that you have to be logged in AND select the access button in order to see the moderators. In this way, the folks who reviewed my moderation history can be known to me... if abuse starts you ought to be able to see who's been looking you up.
I remember watching the launch and aftermath on the Dinnie's Den (the campus bar) big screen TV. Thinking back now, the weeks immediately following included an off-colour lost-and-found ad in the campus newspaper, which was then turned into an awesome (but still inappropriate) prank on its editors by some students with whom I may or may not have been associated.
It just gets better...
"The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit."
Huh? I keep trying to interpret that.
I think all companies should "take the well off" and "adventurous on suborbital jaunts'
That's not so bad. You need to read it as The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit.
"the well off" and "adventurous" refer to people. "suborbital jaunts" is what they'd be taking part in.
Yeah, I recall getting similar feedback from others at the time (regarding this particular editor).
I understand the system and the reason for preferring summaries of "reliable sources" over "independent truth", but it was (and is) really frustrating that this particular guy was absolutely against making any changes to the article largely because it had achieved "featured article" status at some point, under his purview. It was, in fact, that FA status that made Tiger folks pay attention to the article and realize it was full of errors. The editor would not accept any sources (in popular press or otherwise) other than the ones he'd decided were "most reliable", which essentially makes it un-fixable within the Wikipedia rules.
What you describe is called an "appeal to authority", it is a logical fallacy.
Point taken. The issue with the particular page I have a vested interest in, is that it mostly concerns hard facts for which there is documentation in the form of build records, inter-company correspondence, as well as the physical evidence of features on cars that I've seen, touched, and owned. For a variety of reasons, the authors of the books used as reference on the Wiki page did not have access to all the documentation that is now known to exist, at the time they published their books; but, due to the arcane machinations of Wikipedia, even those authors are not currently able to refute themselves in the eyes of the editors and get the pages fixed... evidently the only "authority" are the Wikipedia editors, which is just as wrong.
I understand the Wikipedia use of the word "reliable" and it's unfortunate they adopted an approach where an oft-repeated story by a coffee-table-book author can obliterate facts that were learned only through years of careful research by niche enthusiasts.
If Jimmy had created a way for expert information to be included (with appropriate justification from non-mainstream references), rather than just depending on regurgitated mainstream dreck, then Wikipedia would not be the lowest common denominator that it is, and maybe he would not have such a hard time getting donations to keep it going.
Wikipedia wants to reflect the mainstream press and most reliable sources..
The problem is that "reliable" is only as good as the background knowledge of the editor on the particular topic being discussed, and his/her willingness to be objective in the light of new information.
I completely appreciate the need to vet any contribution, but the system puts too much power in the hands of the established editor, to reject the addition of new references that may provide a counter viewpoint to what is currently on the page. Even a new analysis of the merits of the posted references (eg. saying "I added up all the production numbers posted by references X, Y, and Z, and I can arrive at a different conclusion from what is posted"), can be disallowed as being independent research, where in fact it is exactly the same process that the original editor used.
Totally wrong, because the right of not being micro-offended should more directly point at the editors, not the new contributors. In fact, if Wikipedia doesn't want to become completely irrelevant it will need to recognize that new folks would probably only go to the trouble of trying to add or change content, if there was a problem with the existing content. The main problem with Wikipedia is that it is too strongly founded with the idea of being a meta-encyclopedia and to not allow the exposition of independent research.
That's thin ice because of the requirement of verifiable sources. If you are an expert and have access to obscure sources (eg. club publications that are not widely available) or personal knowledge, that actual knowledge must not be allowed to taint the previously published tripe because the "tripe" is a "verifiable reference" and your actual knowledge is not.
Exactly this. The requirement for "reliable references" and their method of vetting references (i.e., must be published in mass media or some equivalent) and the on-purpose rejection of "personal research" allow the perpetuation of inaccurate history even though current research may have turned up additional data that overturns the "common knowledge" of the day. A couple of years ago several of us actual Sunbeam Tiger owners had a discussion with the "editor" of the ST Wikipedia page, to attempt to present a viewpoint that adheres more closely to actual fact as opposed to some of the popular apochryphal tales that were put in print by some prolific automotive press writers. No go, because two of the editors had decided between them, without consultation of anyone that might have actual hands-on knowledge, that they had it "right" and therefore any counter viewpoint was without merit, regardless of how obvious the error was. Even attempts to go up the chain of authority had little success because of the established status of the editor in question.
As evidenced by the other comments here, plenty of us have no idea who he is. He's certainly not "get recognized in an airport" famous.
I agree with that. I'll note also that other than the book I bought at RS 'way back in 1980 or '81, I hadn't heard much of him in the intervening 30-plus years. Good to know, though, that he has stayed in the electronics amateur/enthusiast space and is still doing somewhat relevant publishing on the Web and elsewhere.
I think that for those that were in the hardware side of circuits and computers in the pre-electronic-databook era, there are a bunch of authors whose work was instrumental in conveying the experimentalist ethic. Forrest Mims is such an author but there's also Jim Williams, Bob Pease, and a number of others. I would not have recognized any of them in an airport but the names would certainly trigger an "oh, that guy" response.
Hand in YOUR ID. A real nerd wouldn't need a book to teach anyone about Boolean logic.
Hey AC, do YOUR kids believe anything you say if it's not written down somewhere else?
...My first computer was a ZX-81, and my geek card is probably stuffed inside an extended-functions slot on the HP-41CV I used to get through school. Now get off my lawn.
Hand in your 5 digit Slashdot ID... I pulled out my heavily earmarked copy of his "Engineer's Notebook" for my kids a few months ago to illustrate Boolean logic. I can see where the average Joe wouldn't know of him but if you were into early personal computers and the electronics hobby, especially in North America, it would have been hard to avoid Radio Shack and hard to miss his book(s) on display.
I built a 68000 based single board computer using parts from Motorola's M68000 development kit (or whatever that was called - it included a M68000, M68010, M68008, a couple of other 68k family peripherals, and a ream of documentation) as part of my master's thesis. Did a two-sided PCB with photoresist boards and hand-drilled and wired vias. The big difference then and now is the size of memory you can get in a single device - I was using 16K or 32K EPROMs and static RAM devices because that was pretty much the largest device available at the time (at reasonable cost, anyway - like $25 per chip).
In your case if you're going forward with the full M68000 plan then I'd push forward with a real PCB. Those solderless breadboards really have horrible pin-to-pin capacitance and the inductance of all your wiring is going to give you nightmares. Nowadays you can lay out a board using free or cheapware tools and get a local shop to fab it (or you can do your own etching for the true back-to-the-80's experience) and you'll have something that's robust and repeatable.
Good luck!
One interview tactic I've used in the past (not with phone interviews) is to get the applicant to talk about some project they did, then dig into their understanding of the problem they were trying to solve until we hit bottom. This can make each interview pretty unique because not everyone thought the same thing was hard. And, every interview ends up with the applicant having to say "... I don't know", and there is no right answer. I'm sure that with enough effort, an HR contracting firm could game that process too, but it would take a while and it's still easy to punch outside of their envelope.
The cheaters and rote-regurgitators (just made that word up...) have effectively devalued all Indian scholarship. When you look at the questions posted on the various technical LinkedIn groups by Indian "engineers", it's immediately obvious that despite their "education" and job titles, they actually don't know anything and they don't even know how to go about learning something about what they don't know. Their attitude, overwhelmingly, is "I'm trying to do this thing, please give me the exact solution".
Absolutely correct. Most electric cars (if you're keen, check out www.diyelectriccar.com) run at least 72V in a series string of at least 20 lithium-ion cells, and some run over 250V. Charging is done using a state-of-the-art high frequency AC/DC switching power supply with power factor correction, so that charging efficiency is maximized. For any given power transfer, double the voltage means half the amps, and that cuts the resistive power losses to 1/4, so it's always worthwhile to maximize the operating voltage within the bounds of the electronics (and safety considerations).
Most electric cars run at least one series string of cells so that each cell will see the same charging (and discharging) current. There are 'battery monitor systems' that monitor the terminal voltage of each cell so that you can detect if one cell is reaching its capacity limit in either direction... that's when you're done charging or driving. The trick with series strings is to know that the cells are at least nominally identical in capacity and internal impedance; then, to set them each to the same state (either zero state of charge or fully charged; and then to connect them all, and drive or charge until you hit the other limit on state of charge. If you work within the limits, you will be able to do series charging and discharge with no damage, and you'll get a long life out of the cells.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I misremembered, and then managed to not clue in when the Google pointed me to the sarin attack articles. Anyway - the point is still, that even as a Western European-descended person I can see that terror attacks are not the exclusive domain of Islam based cults.
Your goggles are on too tight... you don't have to look very far back in time to find the IRA and other Christian groups doing their thing. Remember also the Tokyo ricin attacks? That was some local cult. How about David Koresh and Jim Jones?
If this is done, then also put the moderation history behind a clickthrough access such that you have to be logged in AND select the access button in order to see the moderators. In this way, the folks who reviewed my moderation history can be known to me... if abuse starts you ought to be able to see who's been looking you up.
I remember watching the launch and aftermath on the Dinnie's Den (the campus bar) big screen TV. Thinking back now, the weeks immediately following included an off-colour lost-and-found ad in the campus newspaper, which was then turned into an awesome (but still inappropriate) prank on its editors by some students with whom I may or may not have been associated.
It just gets better... "The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit."
Huh? I keep trying to interpret that.
I think all companies should "take the well off" and "adventurous on suborbital jaunts'
That's not so bad. You need to read it as The company has taken another step toward its goal of taking the well off and adventurous on suborbital jaunts for fun and profit.
"the well off" and "adventurous" refer to people. "suborbital jaunts" is what they'd be taking part in.
I understand the system and the reason for preferring summaries of "reliable sources" over "independent truth", but it was (and is) really frustrating that this particular guy was absolutely against making any changes to the article largely because it had achieved "featured article" status at some point, under his purview. It was, in fact, that FA status that made Tiger folks pay attention to the article and realize it was full of errors. The editor would not accept any sources (in popular press or otherwise) other than the ones he'd decided were "most reliable", which essentially makes it un-fixable within the Wikipedia rules.
What you describe is called an "appeal to authority", it is a logical fallacy.
Point taken. The issue with the particular page I have a vested interest in, is that it mostly concerns hard facts for which there is documentation in the form of build records, inter-company correspondence, as well as the physical evidence of features on cars that I've seen, touched, and owned. For a variety of reasons, the authors of the books used as reference on the Wiki page did not have access to all the documentation that is now known to exist, at the time they published their books; but, due to the arcane machinations of Wikipedia, even those authors are not currently able to refute themselves in the eyes of the editors and get the pages fixed... evidently the only "authority" are the Wikipedia editors, which is just as wrong.
Nope, I was just going by the continuous barrage of give-to-us popups.
In case you haven't seen it yet: See Comet Catalina tomorrow morning before dawn
I'd post this as a story but it would probably go front-page on the 2nd.
Would have been helpful to post this, um, yesterday?
I understand the Wikipedia use of the word "reliable" and it's unfortunate they adopted an approach where an oft-repeated story by a coffee-table-book author can obliterate facts that were learned only through years of careful research by niche enthusiasts.
If Jimmy had created a way for expert information to be included (with appropriate justification from non-mainstream references), rather than just depending on regurgitated mainstream dreck, then Wikipedia would not be the lowest common denominator that it is, and maybe he would not have such a hard time getting donations to keep it going.
Wikipedia wants to reflect the mainstream press and most reliable sources..
The problem is that "reliable" is only as good as the background knowledge of the editor on the particular topic being discussed, and his/her willingness to be objective in the light of new information.
I completely appreciate the need to vet any contribution, but the system puts too much power in the hands of the established editor, to reject the addition of new references that may provide a counter viewpoint to what is currently on the page. Even a new analysis of the merits of the posted references (eg. saying "I added up all the production numbers posted by references X, Y, and Z, and I can arrive at a different conclusion from what is posted"), can be disallowed as being independent research, where in fact it is exactly the same process that the original editor used.
Totally wrong, because the right of not being micro-offended should more directly point at the editors, not the new contributors. In fact, if Wikipedia doesn't want to become completely irrelevant it will need to recognize that new folks would probably only go to the trouble of trying to add or change content, if there was a problem with the existing content. The main problem with Wikipedia is that it is too strongly founded with the idea of being a meta-encyclopedia and to not allow the exposition of independent research.
That's thin ice because of the requirement of verifiable sources. If you are an expert and have access to obscure sources (eg. club publications that are not widely available) or personal knowledge, that actual knowledge must not be allowed to taint the previously published tripe because the "tripe" is a "verifiable reference" and your actual knowledge is not.
Exactly this. The requirement for "reliable references" and their method of vetting references (i.e., must be published in mass media or some equivalent) and the on-purpose rejection of "personal research" allow the perpetuation of inaccurate history even though current research may have turned up additional data that overturns the "common knowledge" of the day. A couple of years ago several of us actual Sunbeam Tiger owners had a discussion with the "editor" of the ST Wikipedia page, to attempt to present a viewpoint that adheres more closely to actual fact as opposed to some of the popular apochryphal tales that were put in print by some prolific automotive press writers. No go, because two of the editors had decided between them, without consultation of anyone that might have actual hands-on knowledge, that they had it "right" and therefore any counter viewpoint was without merit, regardless of how obvious the error was. Even attempts to go up the chain of authority had little success because of the established status of the editor in question.
As evidenced by the other comments here, plenty of us have no idea who he is. He's certainly not "get recognized in an airport" famous.
I agree with that. I'll note also that other than the book I bought at RS 'way back in 1980 or '81, I hadn't heard much of him in the intervening 30-plus years. Good to know, though, that he has stayed in the electronics amateur/enthusiast space and is still doing somewhat relevant publishing on the Web and elsewhere. I think that for those that were in the hardware side of circuits and computers in the pre-electronic-databook era, there are a bunch of authors whose work was instrumental in conveying the experimentalist ethic. Forrest Mims is such an author but there's also Jim Williams, Bob Pease, and a number of others. I would not have recognized any of them in an airport but the names would certainly trigger an "oh, that guy" response.
Hand in YOUR ID. A real nerd wouldn't need a book to teach anyone about Boolean logic.
Hey AC, do YOUR kids believe anything you say if it's not written down somewhere else?
Hand in your 5 digit Slashdot ID... I pulled out my heavily earmarked copy of his "Engineer's Notebook" for my kids a few months ago to illustrate Boolean logic. I can see where the average Joe wouldn't know of him but if you were into early personal computers and the electronics hobby, especially in North America, it would have been hard to avoid Radio Shack and hard to miss his book(s) on display.
Two names that would be examples (other than myself ;) )
Linus Torvalds
Theo de Raadt
I built a 68000 based single board computer using parts from Motorola's M68000 development kit (or whatever that was called - it included a M68000, M68010, M68008, a couple of other 68k family peripherals, and a ream of documentation) as part of my master's thesis. Did a two-sided PCB with photoresist boards and hand-drilled and wired vias. The big difference then and now is the size of memory you can get in a single device - I was using 16K or 32K EPROMs and static RAM devices because that was pretty much the largest device available at the time (at reasonable cost, anyway - like $25 per chip). In your case if you're going forward with the full M68000 plan then I'd push forward with a real PCB. Those solderless breadboards really have horrible pin-to-pin capacitance and the inductance of all your wiring is going to give you nightmares. Nowadays you can lay out a board using free or cheapware tools and get a local shop to fab it (or you can do your own etching for the true back-to-the-80's experience) and you'll have something that's robust and repeatable. Good luck!
One interview tactic I've used in the past (not with phone interviews) is to get the applicant to talk about some project they did, then dig into their understanding of the problem they were trying to solve until we hit bottom. This can make each interview pretty unique because not everyone thought the same thing was hard. And, every interview ends up with the applicant having to say "... I don't know", and there is no right answer. I'm sure that with enough effort, an HR contracting firm could game that process too, but it would take a while and it's still easy to punch outside of their envelope.
The cheaters and rote-regurgitators (just made that word up...) have effectively devalued all Indian scholarship. When you look at the questions posted on the various technical LinkedIn groups by Indian "engineers", it's immediately obvious that despite their "education" and job titles, they actually don't know anything and they don't even know how to go about learning something about what they don't know. Their attitude, overwhelmingly, is "I'm trying to do this thing, please give me the exact solution".
Absolutely correct. Most electric cars (if you're keen, check out www.diyelectriccar.com) run at least 72V in a series string of at least 20 lithium-ion cells, and some run over 250V. Charging is done using a state-of-the-art high frequency AC/DC switching power supply with power factor correction, so that charging efficiency is maximized. For any given power transfer, double the voltage means half the amps, and that cuts the resistive power losses to 1/4, so it's always worthwhile to maximize the operating voltage within the bounds of the electronics (and safety considerations).
Most electric cars run at least one series string of cells so that each cell will see the same charging (and discharging) current. There are 'battery monitor systems' that monitor the terminal voltage of each cell so that you can detect if one cell is reaching its capacity limit in either direction... that's when you're done charging or driving. The trick with series strings is to know that the cells are at least nominally identical in capacity and internal impedance; then, to set them each to the same state (either zero state of charge or fully charged; and then to connect them all, and drive or charge until you hit the other limit on state of charge. If you work within the limits, you will be able to do series charging and discharge with no damage, and you'll get a long life out of the cells.