So, in order to argue with me you are taking the quote completely out of the context it was used in the original post I replied to?
The context it was used n was quite clear. That you've chosen to deliberately take it out of the context in which it was said (in response to another post) indicates you are either back pedaling or were simply looking for an argument. That you have no other reply than "but I meant something else because he meant something else!" when the original meaning was clear is specious.
So.. A persons rights are only valid if they agree with you, and because I took the quote as posted, in context (and not the context you apply to it), I no longer deserve to live in this country?
*laughing*
Ahhhh... One does have to admire the hypocrisy.
The claim you make that I said anything about where you "deserved" to live is a strawman. I made no such statement. I simply offered the possibility that you might find another system more to your liking. Likewise, I also made no claims or statements pertaining to your rights or their validity. Another strawman.
You're entitled, of course, I just believe it is insanely shortsighted.
Your examples however, are absurd.
1st: Bismark and Pol Pot also did not believe in a peer jury or a modern criminal justice system. Thankfully, we do.
The odds that we will cause an innocent to suffer are thus greatly reduced from the likes of Bismark and Pol Pot.
2nd: Let *any* guilty (found as such by a jury of their peers) persons go free, on the grounds that there might be some small chance they *may* be innocent puts at risk other innocents. Countless innocents if you go with Good ol' Benjy's "100's".
We have a criminal justice system for a reason. It is not perfect, but it is a *far* cry from Benjy's quote, Bismark, or Pol Pot.
I'll take our current system over any of the above, thankyouverymuch.:)
Ok. I'll try to get you to understand this one last time because I hate to see someone so misinformed, and since you haven't devolved to ad hominem attacks, maybe you'll actually listen.
What you're not getting here is that we *have* and *are living under* a judicial system (when things work as they should) that takes Bens' quote as a cornerstone of jurisprudence. That's a major reason *why* there's a presumption of innocence, trial by a jury of peers, and our modern justice system with its' other protections that you laud so highly. Without the principles and ideas embodied in that quote, none of that would exist.
"Guilty", in the context of the quote, refers to those that have committed a crime for which they go unpunished, or those who, though guilty of committing a crime, are found guilty by lapse of due process to which they are entitled or other miscarriage of the enforcement and prosecution of the laws under which we live in accordance with the rights affirmed in the COTUS and the BOR.
Essentially, it boils down to the fact that it is better that guilty persons go free who would otherwise be imprisoned, if to convict and imprison them would require violating the rights so affirmed to all in the COTUS and BOR. Otherwise, if it's OK to violate *this* persons' rights because, well, he's really really bad, then it's simply a matter of defining-down to reach the stage where the government may violate anyones' rights for most any reason or no reason at all.
If that's the kind of system you desire, there are plenty of places in the world still where individuals have no rights. You're welcome to live there. Don't attempt to remove *our* rights in some misguided attempt to "get ALL the bad-guys".
The quote I replied to had no such reasoning behind it.
"Better ten guilty persons escape"
Keyword: Escape. They've been found guilty. In the context of the posts prior to that, the only logical assumption was that the poster intended nothing more or less than the release of all who have been found guilty, as an innocent may be among them.
Such a suggestion is ludicrous, no mater how you spin it.
You can agree or disagree with it, but it's a principle closely tied to the presumption of innocence in the US judiciary system. Benjamin Franklin was reported to have stated it as "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Bismarck and Pol Pot are said to have believed the opposite. I'll take good ol' Bens' version, thanks all the same.
I don't know, is it similar to the term for a person that installs electrical wiring incorrectly because he never actually studied for an electricians license?
Pug
Hate to break it to you, but in the three states where I worked as an electrician and a plumber, all you had to do to be licensed was know someone in the business who knew someone on the licensing board, and have the cash for the fee. Only about a quarter, maybe less, of the licensed plumbers and electricians I worked with/for ever actually studied for or took an exam, and of those that did, nearly all just crammed for a couple weeks to simply pass the test by rote.
And union electricians and plumbers? Ha! I wouldn't let a union electrician set up an electric train set of mine, or a union plumber use a plunger on my toilet. They'd screw it up while charging me triple what I could have it done for elsewhere by someone that actually took pride in their work because they'd lose their job if they did shoddy work, unlike the union bozos who'd have to cause mass deaths to have any chance of being fired.
You mean the guy who was a licensed plumber, but then bought into a business where he takes on a managerial role and sends out other fully licensed plumbers? He doesn't need a license because he's no longer doing the work.
How *dare* you attempt to impugn the liberal practice of "shoot the messenger"!? He *allowed* the Messiah an opportunity to say something that revealed his true thoughts and beliefs!! Burning at the stake is too good for such a heretic!!
Your logic (I know it's a stretch to even call it that) falls flat when those 10 guilty persons set free cause suffering to countless other innocents; such that could have been prevented but for the suffering of that one innocent.
We all suffer for the individual and the individual suffers for all. That's called society. Deal with it.
The difference you're missing here is that 10 *individuals*, even if guilty and sure to cause harm, have a limited ability to cause society harm as they have only the power to compel others on a limited basis as individuals, whereas government has, for all practical purposes, unlimited ability to compel through force of arms & law, and hence the power to cause nearly unlimited harm to society and the individuals within it.
A bit of a side issue but I actually wrote a paper for one of my english classes for college that addressed this problem. They teach that you should write clearly and consisely and then immediately following that say "and it must be a minimum of X00 words or Y pages". So even if you can get your point across clearly in 200 words you are stuck writing a 500 word essay. The paper I wrote was the first paper of the class, a little intro thing and background in writing. 500 word minimum. I titled the paper "Off by One" and wrote on the subject of the insane rules of grammar, format, punctuation, etc we are held to for writing while being told to write clearly and consisely and that the greatest writers like Shakespeare and friends all broke all the damned rules and made words up. It was exactly 499 words.
Ah.
A D- 'insufficient length' on the essay then, I take it?:P
Seriously though, many teachers I've had the misfortune of having classes under wouldn't have gotten it, and would've rendered precisely such a grade, or even an 'F'. If you came out better, hurrah and bravo on your luck in the teacher-lottery.
This is not to say there aren't many great teachers who truly care about teaching, are brilliant, and leave one the better their entire lives for having had the benefit of their instruction. Unfortunately, these types of teachers seem to be ever-more rare as time goes on.
More on-topic, the federal government should be more fully-funding the USPTO so they may employ sufficient manpower and infrastructure. It seems very counter-intuitive even for the government to, on the one hand, be encouraging the move away from a more manufacturing-based economy to one based more on so-called "intellectual property", without providing sufficient infrastructure (a well-funded USPTO) to handle the load. It's curious that of all the bloated, over-funded, pork-barrel agencies and useless bureaucracies, that the USPTO is treated funding-wise as the US governments' red-headed stepchild regardless of which party is in power.
The electoral success of the Republican party in the US and the Conservatives in the UK show that it is better to be mean than smart.
So by that logic, would the victory of Obama, and the Democratic Party generally, in the recent US election show that it's better to be mean AND a smart liar?
Parent gets modded "Insightful" for obvious and flagrant flamebait/troll post, I reply with logical retort, and *I* get modded "Flamebait"!?!?
Yeah.
How open-minded, tolerant, inclusive, and "liberal". That'll sure persuade people to your side.
Funny how people who call themselves "liberal" are always the first to want to silence anyone and/or any opinion or view that they disagree with.
The electoral success of the Republican party in the US and the Conservatives in the UK show that it is better to be mean than smart.
So by that logic, would the victory of Obama, and the Democratic Party generally, in the recent US election show that it's better to be mean AND a smart liar?
What you're talking about isn't jamming then, but what amounts to an EMP to the circuits. They are two different things. What you describe would likely destroy the equipment or require it to be repaired. Also, it would require the microwave to be pointed more or less directly at the receiver. A jammer would only need to be in the general area. It also would have a much lower chance of causing the operator harm.
It's not destructive unless the receiver front-end is very poorly designed *and* you're transmitting very very close to it physically with very high power. What's happening is you'd basically be causing the receivers' front-end to overload with signal destroying its' sensitivity, and causing the receivers' AGC circuit to all but shut down the front-ends' gain in an attempt to compensate.
This is a well-known effect to anyone that's used a CB radio. If you're going down the road talking to someone a mile or so ahead or behind and the semi-truck in the next lane to you transmits on another channel, you won't be hearing the party you're talking to.
Generally speaking, a receivers' front-end is relatively broad-banded to operate over the frequency range of the receiver. Individual frequency selection and channel bandwidth filtering usually doesn't occur until a number of stages further on after the received signal is amplified and mixed down, often more than once, to an intermediate (IF) frequency.
"Jamming" is a subjective term and basically means intentional interference. There are many ways to engage in "jamming", and this method is one. If one coupled the signal generated by the magnetron from its' waveguide to a 'spike' type omni-directional antenna, no "pointing" would be required although the transmitter would either need to be much closer to the "target" receiver or greatly increased in power to achieve the same field strength.
I was thinking that missing spider, after being exposed to radiation from solar flares while in a hard vacuum, finally returned to earth. And it's mad.
And don't forget, it has tools too.
Tools?
Great! See if it can fix that '77 Chevette rusting in your backyard!
As to the Microwave Oven, well, the problem is that microwaves transmit on one specific frequency, not the entire band. With 802.11, you have three non-overlaping frequencies (1,6,11) and so there is no way the microwave can take out them all. This is presuming that the microwave is even in the ch 1-11 frequency block and not outside of it by 100khz or so. All of 802.11 only uses up 83khz.
Just because the jammer is not on the exact frequency does not mean it won't work. A strong signal somewhere near the operating frequency of a receiver will cause the receivers' front-end to overload, and/or AGC to kick in to reduce the receivers' front-end gain to the point it cannot receive the intended signal.
Front ends of receivers are generally rather broadband and not too selective (especially the higher in frequency you go, and especially in the case of consumer-grade equipment), while the more precise frequency and channel-bandwidth selection/determination usually occurs several stages later, usually after at least one mixer stage, often two, where the signal frequency is converted to a lower intermediate or 'I.F.' frequency.
There is also likely to be significant adjacent-channel harmonics radiated by a primitive brute-force RF generator such as one made from a microwave ovens' klystron, so there will be significant RF energy radiated at the WiFi receivers'/repeaters' operating frequency. 1KW is a *very, very* powerful transmitter compared to most operating in the 2-3gHz bands for communications purposes.
1. Establish moon base, mine water-ice, build solar-powered magnetic rail launcher and ore smelter.
2. Combine water with mixture of moon regolith plus mined magnetic materials, freeze into projectile, use rail launcher to send into low moon 'parking' orbit.
3. Use mirrors in moon orbit to melt regolith/metal/water mixture from projectiles in 'parking' lunar orbit. Form into desired hollow and radiation-resistant Mars transport. Build necessary habitat inside. Attach VASIMIR propulsion which will use hydrogen extracted from water from which ship is mostly made. Attach Mars lander made mostly from materials mined on moon. Use oxygen from from hydrogen fuel extraction for breathing during trip. (You could even do roughly the same thing on Mars for return trips, or at least refuel/re-shield with sufficient supplies sent ahead on unmanned vehicles to get started.)
4. Get your ass to Mars! Get your ass to Mars! Get your ass to Mars!
5. Profit!
Probably much I've missed, or am mistaken about. Sounds good to me, though.
It would be in the ISP's best interests to stick to layer 3, forwarding IP packets. As soon as you start analysing and filtering them, you're doing a lot more than just being a service provider. The latest trends of demanding packet inspection and performing traffic-based throttling are really destroying the classic model of networking that the internet is based on. It's got to stop, or we'll have something that just isn't recognizable as "the internet" any longer.
If they're smart, they'll just say that inspecting traffic and disallowing certain types of packets is not in their business plan, and they don't have the capability or reason to do it. Otherwise they'll open themselves up to a lot more lawsuits down the road, from both sides of the fence. They'll find themselves having to bend over again and again for anyone asking them for pretty much anything. Instead, the right answer is, "we just forward IP packets, we don't piece them together or look at what they contain."
Except that it seems the Australian government of late has decided that the ISPs *must* start doing many of those things to "protect the children". I see this lawsuit as a direct consequence of these new mandates set forth by the Australian government. I believe that the studios, seeing how as the Australian government is requiring the ISPs to monitor and block all these other "bad things", decided it's a great time to belly-up to the trough for their own helping of "block all this 'bad stuff' too, as long as you're about it" ("bad stuff" being defined by the studios as anything they don't like).
Vacuum tubes come to mind as a good example. I currently design, build, and service vacuum tube musical instrument amplifiers. The tubes being made in China, Russia, and other countries in eastern Europe are crappy-sounding, unreliable, and vary wildly in specs from production-run to production-run, and even within a single run
Really? Because I've found the Eastern European ones to be pretty good. In particular, the Svetlana 6146Bs don't need any particular matching - any two pulled out of the box will be about as close as you'd get matching by hand.
I will say that the 'Winged-C'/SED tubes (not to be confused with current 'Svetlana'-branded tubes from New Sensor made in the Reflektor factory) from the St. Petersburg factory are some of the best current-production western-design tubes. I would still prefer original US 6146's, 6550's, 6CA7's, 6L6's, etc if they were still being produced to their former standards. JJ's are generally also pretty good as current-production tubes go, as are TAD's.
Still, many things like service life of most current-production tubes are a shadow of the original US-made tubes. Current-production power tubes in particular, like 6L6's and EL84/6BQ5's don't last anywhere near as long. I recently acquired an old Stromberg-Carlson amplifier that had RCA and GE tubes in it that were still working great after steady service as a churches' PA amplifier since the '60's. I simply replaced the old filter caps and a few of the carbon-comp resistors and coupling caps that had either drifted in value or become noisy and use the amp for recording and an occasional small gig locally with the same tubes. Most current-production 6L6's, EL84's, etc will last on average maybe a year (about 450 hours or so) under regular normal use then need to be replaced. Compare that with 10,000 hours.
sorry dude, you are dead wrong there, i tell you that as a fellow guitarist. because ussr has used tube electronics for much longer than the first world countries, the actual soviet tubes were of a much better quality and newer ones were of a much more modern design (smaller but with the same performance).
what you mean is that modern russian copies of western tubes suck, but it is a whole different story.
if you can find some genuine soviet tubes, try to design an amp with them. for example try 6n1p or 6n2p for preamp tubes. they have comparable specs to the 12ax7 but with a different cathode design, better sound, and 12 db less noise. be aware though, that the both of them need 6.3 volt for heating instead of 12.6 of 12ax7.
or try the sub-miniature tubes like the 1j17b, 1j18b and 1p24b. good sound and less microphonics because of the rigid design.
you'll have to design new circuits especially for them, though.
First, let me say nice to hear from another musician/guitarist, especially another with an electronics background.:)
I'm actually familiar and have experimented with 6N1P's and other purely-Russian tubes. They are *different*, but I wouldn't say *better* designs than the original western/US tube counterparts from the '50's and '60's IMO, as I'm over 50 and have been doing electronic work for over 30 years and thus have first-hand experience with the original articles.
As to designing an amplifier for sale here in the west currently using original Russian-design tubes, it's simply not practical even if I agreed they are better tubes as the musicians that buy and play through my amps are generally just average working local and regional musicians that need to be able to walk into a local music store or amp shop in whatever random US town they find themselves in and be able to buy replacement tubes if they go bad. They're also not an option for traditional major-manufacturers' recent-production or vintage amp service and repair for obvious reasons.
However, none of this addresses my original posts' main point, which was that environmental regulations made it impossible for US companies to continue manufacturing tubes in the USA, and as a consequence much of the knowledge and skills required to produce them with their former quality and consistency has been lost, possibly forever, leaving an entire swath of the consumer electronics industry to operate with substandard replacements.
Why, other than catering to the irrational and unfounded fears of the public, are we removing it from electronics?
Isn't that pretty much a politicians' job description these days?
The environmental lobbies have already pushed through enough regulations to put many U.S. industries out of business and left consumers with no choice but to purchase much more shoddy products manufactured with far less environmental controls from foreign sources. But, I guess that's okay. It's over there, right? It's not like pollution in a foreign country affects us.
Oh, wait..
Vacuum tubes come to mind as a good example. I currently design, build, and service vacuum tube musical instrument amplifiers. The tubes being made in China, Russia, and other countries in eastern Europe are crappy-sounding, unreliable, and vary wildly in specs from production-run to production-run, and even within a single run. It's so bad that old-production tubes that have sat in some dusty warehouse for 2 or 3 decades or more sell for unbelievably-high prices.
USD$400 for a pair of RCA 6L6's!?!? That's *if* you can find them somewhere?
That's just nuts! The *whole amplifier* these things came in didn't cost that much new at the time!
I'm also going to keep on using regular 60/40 rosin-core solder in my builds and repairs until and unless they develop a true replacement that doesn't have the 'tin whisker' and other problems associated with current RoHS-compliant solders. If they outlaw it, I guess I'll be an outlaw.
There's no frontier there, nowhere to go, nothing to do.
If Man were meant to fly, he'd have wings.
The oceans are a vast wasteland, impenetrable beyond a fathom or two.
Man will never walk on the moon.
The horse and buggy is the ultimate in transportation.
If a steam locomotive were to ever achieve over 25 MPH, air friction would cause all aboard to burst into flame.
The sun, moon, and heavens revolve around the Earth.
The Earth is flat.
Remarkable how all these "facts" that "everyone knew" changed as our knowledge and technology improved.
How is it that you have certain knowledge that there's nothing out there and nowhere to go? Thumb a ride on a UFO with some Greys?
Why is it you believe that suddenly Man will gain no more knowledge, technology will no longer advance, Man's abilities will no longer grow, and that Man will discover no more new principals of the universe undiscovered as of yet that combined will allow him to increasingly-efficiently access the wealth of the universe? Or is it that you wish these things stopped happening? Should we all give up this silly quest for knowledge and capabilities and walk away from everything we've built and go back to wearing furs, living in caves, hunting with a club, and dying at 25-30 years of age and wait for the final cataclysm to end the species?
There's a whole universes' worth of real estate, energy, and material waiting for Man to figure a way to belly-up to the buffet. If you'd prefer extinction, please make your selection for yourself alone please.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless osX became sentient and wanted to break free from the father
Right. Daddies' just trying to bring the errant son back into the family.
"*I* am your father, Luke. Give in to the dark side of the Force..."
"Noooooo..."
Cheers!
Strat
So, in order to argue with me you are taking the quote completely out of the context it was used in the original post I replied to?
The context it was used n was quite clear. That you've chosen to deliberately take it out of the context in which it was said (in response to another post) indicates you are either back pedaling or were simply looking for an argument. That you have no other reply than "but I meant something else because he meant something else!" when the original meaning was clear is specious.
So.. A persons rights are only valid if they agree with you, and because I took the quote as posted, in context (and not the context you apply to it), I no longer deserve to live in this country?
*laughing*
Ahhhh... One does have to admire the hypocrisy.
The claim you make that I said anything about where you "deserved" to live is a strawman. I made no such statement. I simply offered the possibility that you might find another system more to your liking. Likewise, I also made no claims or statements pertaining to your rights or their validity. Another strawman.
*shakes head & sighs*
My points stand and I'm done here.
Good day, sir.
You're entitled, of course, I just believe it is insanely shortsighted.
Your examples however, are absurd.
1st: Bismark and Pol Pot also did not believe in a peer jury or a modern criminal justice system. Thankfully, we do.
The odds that we will cause an innocent to suffer are thus greatly reduced from the likes of Bismark and Pol Pot.
2nd: Let *any* guilty (found as such by a jury of their peers) persons go free, on the grounds that there might be some small chance they *may* be innocent puts at risk other innocents. Countless innocents if you go with Good ol' Benjy's "100's".
We have a criminal justice system for a reason. It is not perfect, but it is a *far* cry from Benjy's quote, Bismark, or Pol Pot.
I'll take our current system over any of the above, thankyouverymuch. :)
Ok. I'll try to get you to understand this one last time because I hate to see someone so misinformed, and since you haven't devolved to ad hominem attacks, maybe you'll actually listen.
What you're not getting here is that we *have* and *are living under* a judicial system (when things work as they should) that takes Bens' quote as a cornerstone of jurisprudence. That's a major reason *why* there's a presumption of innocence, trial by a jury of peers, and our modern justice system with its' other protections that you laud so highly. Without the principles and ideas embodied in that quote, none of that would exist.
"Guilty", in the context of the quote, refers to those that have committed a crime for which they go unpunished, or those who, though guilty of committing a crime, are found guilty by lapse of due process to which they are entitled or other miscarriage of the enforcement and prosecution of the laws under which we live in accordance with the rights affirmed in the COTUS and the BOR.
Essentially, it boils down to the fact that it is better that guilty persons go free who would otherwise be imprisoned, if to convict and imprison them would require violating the rights so affirmed to all in the COTUS and BOR. Otherwise, if it's OK to violate *this* persons' rights because, well, he's really really bad, then it's simply a matter of defining-down to reach the stage where the government may violate anyones' rights for most any reason or no reason at all.
If that's the kind of system you desire, there are plenty of places in the world still where individuals have no rights. You're welcome to live there. Don't attempt to remove *our* rights in some misguided attempt to "get ALL the bad-guys".
Cheers!
Strat
The quote I replied to had no such reasoning behind it.
"Better ten guilty persons escape"
Keyword: Escape. They've been found guilty. In the context of the posts prior to that, the only logical assumption was that the poster intended nothing more or less than the release of all who have been found guilty, as an innocent may be among them.
Such a suggestion is ludicrous, no mater how you spin it.
Here's a wiki entry on the quote in question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation
You can agree or disagree with it, but it's a principle closely tied to the presumption of innocence in the US judiciary system. Benjamin Franklin was reported to have stated it as "it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer". Bismarck and Pol Pot are said to have believed the opposite. I'll take good ol' Bens' version, thanks all the same.
Cheers!
Strat
I don't know, is it similar to the term for a person that installs electrical wiring incorrectly because he never actually studied for an electricians license?
Pug
Hate to break it to you, but in the three states where I worked as an electrician and a plumber, all you had to do to be licensed was know someone in the business who knew someone on the licensing board, and have the cash for the fee. Only about a quarter, maybe less, of the licensed plumbers and electricians I worked with/for ever actually studied for or took an exam, and of those that did, nearly all just crammed for a couple weeks to simply pass the test by rote.
And union electricians and plumbers? Ha! I wouldn't let a union electrician set up an electric train set of mine, or a union plumber use a plunger on my toilet. They'd screw it up while charging me triple what I could have it done for elsewhere by someone that actually took pride in their work because they'd lose their job if they did shoddy work, unlike the union bozos who'd have to cause mass deaths to have any chance of being fired.
Cheers!
Strat
A real plumber, not an unlicensed faux plumber.
[break]
You mean the guy who was a licensed plumber, but then bought into a business where he takes on a managerial role and sends out other fully licensed plumbers? He doesn't need a license because he's no longer doing the work.
How *dare* you attempt to impugn the liberal practice of "shoot the messenger"!? He *allowed* the Messiah an opportunity to say something that revealed his true thoughts and beliefs!! Burning at the stake is too good for such a heretic!!
Good day sir, I say good DAY! :P
They'll never cause another innocent to suffer?
Your logic (I know it's a stretch to even call it that) falls flat when those 10 guilty persons set free cause suffering to countless other innocents; such that could have been prevented but for the suffering of that one innocent.
We all suffer for the individual and the individual suffers for all. That's called society. Deal with it.
The difference you're missing here is that 10 *individuals*, even if guilty and sure to cause harm, have a limited ability to cause society harm as they have only the power to compel others on a limited basis as individuals, whereas government has, for all practical purposes, unlimited ability to compel through force of arms & law, and hence the power to cause nearly unlimited harm to society and the individuals within it.
Cheers!
Strat
A bit of a side issue but I actually wrote a paper for one of my english classes for college that addressed this problem. They teach that you should write clearly and consisely and then immediately following that say "and it must be a minimum of X00 words or Y pages". So even if you can get your point across clearly in 200 words you are stuck writing a 500 word essay. The paper I wrote was the first paper of the class, a little intro thing and background in writing. 500 word minimum. I titled the paper "Off by One" and wrote on the subject of the insane rules of grammar, format, punctuation, etc we are held to for writing while being told to write clearly and consisely and that the greatest writers like Shakespeare and friends all broke all the damned rules and made words up. It was exactly 499 words.
Ah.
A D- 'insufficient length' on the essay then, I take it? :P
Seriously though, many teachers I've had the misfortune of having classes under wouldn't have gotten it, and would've rendered precisely such a grade, or even an 'F'. If you came out better, hurrah and bravo on your luck in the teacher-lottery.
This is not to say there aren't many great teachers who truly care about teaching, are brilliant, and leave one the better their entire lives for having had the benefit of their instruction. Unfortunately, these types of teachers seem to be ever-more rare as time goes on.
More on-topic, the federal government should be more fully-funding the USPTO so they may employ sufficient manpower and infrastructure. It seems very counter-intuitive even for the government to, on the one hand, be encouraging the move away from a more manufacturing-based economy to one based more on so-called "intellectual property", without providing sufficient infrastructure (a well-funded USPTO) to handle the load. It's curious that of all the bloated, over-funded, pork-barrel agencies and useless bureaucracies, that the USPTO is treated funding-wise as the US governments' red-headed stepchild regardless of which party is in power.
Cheers!
Strat
Wow - imagine if those people clustered around someone reading Beowulf!
Yes, but did they use Linus' great-great grandfather to organize the operation?
That is similar to the population in West Virgina... 3 million people, 5 last names.
And whether it's a divorce or a tornado, *somebody's* gonna lose a mobile home!
[rimshot]
Thanks, I'll be here all week!
Don't forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses!
The electoral success of the Republican party in the US and the Conservatives in the UK show that it is better to be mean than smart.
So by that logic, would the victory of Obama, and the Democratic Party generally, in the recent US election show that it's better to be mean AND a smart liar?
Parent gets modded "Insightful" for obvious and flagrant flamebait/troll post, I reply with logical retort, and *I* get modded "Flamebait"!?!?
Yeah.
How open-minded, tolerant, inclusive, and "liberal". That'll sure persuade people to your side.
Funny how people who call themselves "liberal" are always the first to want to silence anyone and/or any opinion or view that they disagree with.
Cheers!
Strat
The electoral success of the Republican party in the US and the Conservatives in the UK show that it is better to be mean than smart.
So by that logic, would the victory of Obama, and the Democratic Party generally, in the recent US election show that it's better to be mean AND a smart liar?
What you're talking about isn't jamming then, but what amounts to an EMP to the circuits. They are two different things. What you describe would likely destroy the equipment or require it to be repaired. Also, it would require the microwave to be pointed more or less directly at the receiver. A jammer would only need to be in the general area. It also would have a much lower chance of causing the operator harm.
It's not destructive unless the receiver front-end is very poorly designed *and* you're transmitting very very close to it physically with very high power. What's happening is you'd basically be causing the receivers' front-end to overload with signal destroying its' sensitivity, and causing the receivers' AGC circuit to all but shut down the front-ends' gain in an attempt to compensate.
This is a well-known effect to anyone that's used a CB radio. If you're going down the road talking to someone a mile or so ahead or behind and the semi-truck in the next lane to you transmits on another channel, you won't be hearing the party you're talking to.
Generally speaking, a receivers' front-end is relatively broad-banded to operate over the frequency range of the receiver. Individual frequency selection and channel bandwidth filtering usually doesn't occur until a number of stages further on after the received signal is amplified and mixed down, often more than once, to an intermediate (IF) frequency.
"Jamming" is a subjective term and basically means intentional interference. There are many ways to engage in "jamming", and this method is one. If one coupled the signal generated by the magnetron from its' waveguide to a 'spike' type omni-directional antenna, no "pointing" would be required although the transmitter would either need to be much closer to the "target" receiver or greatly increased in power to achieve the same field strength.
Cheers!
Strat
I was thinking that missing spider, after being exposed to radiation from solar flares while in a hard vacuum, finally returned to earth. And it's mad.
And don't forget, it has tools too.
Tools?
Great! See if it can fix that '77 Chevette rusting in your backyard!
Oops, sorry to reply to my own post. Technical error.
made from a microwave ovens' klystron
Should be 'magnetron', not klystron. Old avionics/RADAR techs' speech term habits and vernaculars die hard, apparently. :P
As to the Microwave Oven, well, the problem is that microwaves transmit on one specific frequency, not the entire band. With 802.11, you have three non-overlaping frequencies (1,6,11) and so there is no way the microwave can take out them all. This is presuming that the microwave is even in the ch 1-11 frequency block and not outside of it by 100khz or so. All of 802.11 only uses up 83khz.
Just because the jammer is not on the exact frequency does not mean it won't work. A strong signal somewhere near the operating frequency of a receiver will cause the receivers' front-end to overload, and/or AGC to kick in to reduce the receivers' front-end gain to the point it cannot receive the intended signal.
Front ends of receivers are generally rather broadband and not too selective (especially the higher in frequency you go, and especially in the case of consumer-grade equipment), while the more precise frequency and channel-bandwidth selection/determination usually occurs several stages later, usually after at least one mixer stage, often two, where the signal frequency is converted to a lower intermediate or 'I.F.' frequency.
There is also likely to be significant adjacent-channel harmonics radiated by a primitive brute-force RF generator such as one made from a microwave ovens' klystron, so there will be significant RF energy radiated at the WiFi receivers'/repeaters' operating frequency. 1KW is a *very, very* powerful transmitter compared to most operating in the 2-3gHz bands for communications purposes.
Cheers!
Strat
1. Establish moon base, mine water-ice, build solar-powered magnetic rail launcher and ore smelter.
2. Combine water with mixture of moon regolith plus mined magnetic materials, freeze into projectile, use rail launcher to send into low moon 'parking' orbit.
3. Use mirrors in moon orbit to melt regolith/metal/water mixture from projectiles in 'parking' lunar orbit. Form into desired hollow and radiation-resistant Mars transport. Build necessary habitat inside. Attach VASIMIR propulsion which will use hydrogen extracted from water from which ship is mostly made. Attach Mars lander made mostly from materials mined on moon. Use oxygen from from hydrogen fuel extraction for breathing during trip. (You could even do roughly the same thing on Mars for return trips, or at least refuel/re-shield with sufficient supplies sent ahead on unmanned vehicles to get started.)
4. Get your ass to Mars! Get your ass to Mars! Get your ass to Mars!
5. Profit!
Probably much I've missed, or am mistaken about. Sounds good to me, though.
Cheers!
Strat
So how *did* they manage to change the color of the "Ring Of Death" over the 'net?
Now you've gone and angered it [quickfox.org].
"Dr. Chandra taught me a song..."
"Dai- sey.....Dai- sey....."
"I can feel it, Dave. I can feel my mind going..."
Strat
It would be in the ISP's best interests to stick to layer 3, forwarding IP packets. As soon as you start analysing and filtering them, you're doing a lot more than just being a service provider. The latest trends of demanding packet inspection and performing traffic-based throttling are really destroying the classic model of networking that the internet is based on. It's got to stop, or we'll have something that just isn't recognizable as "the internet" any longer.
If they're smart, they'll just say that inspecting traffic and disallowing certain types of packets is not in their business plan, and they don't have the capability or reason to do it. Otherwise they'll open themselves up to a lot more lawsuits down the road, from both sides of the fence. They'll find themselves having to bend over again and again for anyone asking them for pretty much anything. Instead, the right answer is, "we just forward IP packets, we don't piece them together or look at what they contain."
Except that it seems the Australian government of late has decided that the ISPs *must* start doing many of those things to "protect the children". I see this lawsuit as a direct consequence of these new mandates set forth by the Australian government. I believe that the studios, seeing how as the Australian government is requiring the ISPs to monitor and block all these other "bad things", decided it's a great time to belly-up to the trough for their own helping of "block all this 'bad stuff' too, as long as you're about it" ("bad stuff" being defined by the studios as anything they don't like).
Cheers!
Strat
So how *did* they manage to change the color of the "Ring Of Death" over the 'net?
I keed, I keed! :P
Strat
Vacuum tubes come to mind as a good example. I currently design, build, and service vacuum tube musical instrument amplifiers. The tubes being made in China, Russia, and other countries in eastern Europe are crappy-sounding, unreliable, and vary wildly in specs from production-run to production-run, and even within a single run
Really? Because I've found the Eastern European ones to be pretty good. In particular, the Svetlana 6146Bs don't need any particular matching - any two pulled out of the box will be about as close as you'd get matching by hand.
I will say that the 'Winged-C'/SED tubes (not to be confused with current 'Svetlana'-branded tubes from New Sensor made in the Reflektor factory) from the St. Petersburg factory are some of the best current-production western-design tubes. I would still prefer original US 6146's, 6550's, 6CA7's, 6L6's, etc if they were still being produced to their former standards. JJ's are generally also pretty good as current-production tubes go, as are TAD's.
Still, many things like service life of most current-production tubes are a shadow of the original US-made tubes. Current-production power tubes in particular, like 6L6's and EL84/6BQ5's don't last anywhere near as long. I recently acquired an old Stromberg-Carlson amplifier that had RCA and GE tubes in it that were still working great after steady service as a churches' PA amplifier since the '60's. I simply replaced the old filter caps and a few of the carbon-comp resistors and coupling caps that had either drifted in value or become noisy and use the amp for recording and an occasional small gig locally with the same tubes. Most current-production 6L6's, EL84's, etc will last on average maybe a year (about 450 hours or so) under regular normal use then need to be replaced. Compare that with 10,000 hours.
Cheers!
Strat
sorry dude, you are dead wrong there, i tell you that as a fellow guitarist.
because ussr has used tube electronics for much longer than the first world countries, the actual soviet tubes were of a much better quality and newer ones were of a much more modern design (smaller but with the same performance).
what you mean is that modern russian copies of western tubes suck, but it is a whole different story.
if you can find some genuine soviet tubes, try to design an amp with them.
for example try 6n1p or 6n2p for preamp tubes. they have comparable specs to the 12ax7 but with a different cathode design, better sound, and 12 db less noise. be aware though, that the both of them need 6.3 volt for heating instead of 12.6 of 12ax7.
or try the sub-miniature tubes like the 1j17b, 1j18b and 1p24b. good sound and less microphonics because of the rigid design.
you'll have to design new circuits especially for them, though.
First, let me say nice to hear from another musician/guitarist, especially another with an electronics background. :)
I'm actually familiar and have experimented with 6N1P's and other purely-Russian tubes. They are *different*, but I wouldn't say *better* designs than the original western/US tube counterparts from the '50's and '60's IMO, as I'm over 50 and have been doing electronic work for over 30 years and thus have first-hand experience with the original articles.
As to designing an amplifier for sale here in the west currently using original Russian-design tubes, it's simply not practical even if I agreed they are better tubes as the musicians that buy and play through my amps are generally just average working local and regional musicians that need to be able to walk into a local music store or amp shop in whatever random US town they find themselves in and be able to buy replacement tubes if they go bad. They're also not an option for traditional major-manufacturers' recent-production or vintage amp service and repair for obvious reasons.
However, none of this addresses my original posts' main point, which was that environmental regulations made it impossible for US companies to continue manufacturing tubes in the USA, and as a consequence much of the knowledge and skills required to produce them with their former quality and consistency has been lost, possibly forever, leaving an entire swath of the consumer electronics industry to operate with substandard replacements.
Cheers!
Strat
Why, other than catering to the irrational and unfounded fears of the public, are we removing it from electronics?
Isn't that pretty much a politicians' job description these days?
The environmental lobbies have already pushed through enough regulations to put many U.S. industries out of business and left consumers with no choice but to purchase much more shoddy products manufactured with far less environmental controls from foreign sources. But, I guess that's okay. It's over there, right? It's not like pollution in a foreign country affects us.
Oh, wait..
Vacuum tubes come to mind as a good example. I currently design, build, and service vacuum tube musical instrument amplifiers. The tubes being made in China, Russia, and other countries in eastern Europe are crappy-sounding, unreliable, and vary wildly in specs from production-run to production-run, and even within a single run. It's so bad that old-production tubes that have sat in some dusty warehouse for 2 or 3 decades or more sell for unbelievably-high prices.
USD$400 for a pair of RCA 6L6's!?!? That's *if* you can find them somewhere?
http://www.kcanostubes.com/products/106/NOS-RCA-6L6GC-Blackplate-Matched-Pairs.htm
That's just nuts! The *whole amplifier* these things came in didn't cost that much new at the time!
I'm also going to keep on using regular 60/40 rosin-core solder in my builds and repairs until and unless they develop a true replacement that doesn't have the 'tin whisker' and other problems associated with current RoHS-compliant solders. If they outlaw it, I guess I'll be an outlaw.
I can see a future jailhouse conversation:
"What did they get ya for man?"
"Possession and distribution."
"Meth? Crack? Heroin?"
"Nah, 60/40 solder."
"Stay away from me, man!"
Cheers!
Strat
People need to be reminded of the monopolistic software prison they live in. They don't have to use Windows, and there is better software out there.
If you can leave any time you like, it's not a prison. It's just a really shitty hotel.
Almost.
"You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave."
It's "Hotel California" for the personal computing world.
Cheers!
Strat
There's no frontier there, nowhere to go, nothing to do.
If Man were meant to fly, he'd have wings.
The oceans are a vast wasteland, impenetrable beyond a fathom or two.
Man will never walk on the moon.
The horse and buggy is the ultimate in transportation.
If a steam locomotive were to ever achieve over 25 MPH, air friction would cause all aboard to burst into flame.
The sun, moon, and heavens revolve around the Earth.
The Earth is flat.
Remarkable how all these "facts" that "everyone knew" changed as our knowledge and technology improved.
How is it that you have certain knowledge that there's nothing out there and nowhere to go? Thumb a ride on a UFO with some Greys?
Why is it you believe that suddenly Man will gain no more knowledge, technology will no longer advance, Man's abilities will no longer grow, and that Man will discover no more new principals of the universe undiscovered as of yet that combined will allow him to increasingly-efficiently access the wealth of the universe? Or is it that you wish these things stopped happening? Should we all give up this silly quest for knowledge and capabilities and walk away from everything we've built and go back to wearing furs, living in caves, hunting with a club, and dying at 25-30 years of age and wait for the final cataclysm to end the species?
There's a whole universes' worth of real estate, energy, and material waiting for Man to figure a way to belly-up to the buffet. If you'd prefer extinction, please make your selection for yourself alone please.
Cheers!
Strat