Not a problem, do what police radars already do. Don't measure the doppler shift, instead combine the waves of light with light of a fixed and known frequency. Then, you measure the beat frequency.
You can always use the 'strace' program to try to figure things out. Try a 'strace ls' command to see what system calls are made. But you're right, it's a hard way to get information that is so simple for the programmer to print out.
If you can configure something, don't do it in an environment variable. If you must, make sure that the program doesn't mysteriously break when someone tries to run it from a different account. Print out a message or something.
Put those configurations into a configuration file. And if that config file doesn't exist, have the program automatically write or suggest a configuration that should work out of the box.
example: A long time ago, Java wouldn't work unless you had a CLASSPATH set. You needed to set it to get to the classes that almost every Java program required. Later versions would automatically figure out the proper classpath from the executable path, and would run even if you didn't have a CLASSPATH variable set.
Well, looky here. I've got my very own fanboy, following me around. Must be that guy who put me on his enemy list because I was talking shit about AOL.
Completely unbelievable. Nobody would call Win 95 "my precious."
Entry from my weblog, over a year old.
on
42-Volt Autos
·
· Score: 1
Friday, 05 April, 2002. 01:26:41 PM
Cars are going to have 42 volt electrical systems in the future. The reason for that is the growing demands on the electrical systems by electric components. Wiring harnesses in high end cars can have over 2000 meters of wire in them, up from 75 meters typical in the 1950's. Power demands have grown by 100 watts a year for the past 5 year, and are currently at about 2000 watts. In 1970, that figure was only 500 watts. In 10 years, cars will use 10000 watts. For a 14 volt electrical system, that translates into a total current drain of 714 amps. Because of Ohm's law, increasing the voltage will decrease the current, allowing smaller and cheaper wires to be used. There's still some details to be managed. For example, will there be a single 42 volt alternator and 42 volt battery, or will there be dual alternators at 12 and 36 volts. What about dual batteries? There will also be many alternative fuel vehicles, and some of those will be electric, probably requiring a separate electrical system.
The Flat Earth Society is all a huge joke. They don't really believe the Earth is flat. Their goal is to make everyone believe that they think the Earth is flat.
Of course, they will deny this. It'd spoil all the fun.
This one time I started writing a program. I built my makefile, put COPYING into the directory, and even made a test program that printed out hello world. Then I got tired of it. I lost the source code a couple years ago. I think it was on a disk that I mistakenly threw away.
OK, my other response was a little too snippy. I just got out of a meeting that went for an hour too long because someone wanted to argue about nitpicky definitions.
I accept your definition of boundary. It is correct. I can understand that you would object to it because I can get pretty cranky when people use the word 'definition' when they really mean 'declaration' referring to a C++ program.
And there you go again bringing a bunch of math into it. I mentioned before that at no time was I trying to be mathematically rigorous. Short answers are necessarily lacking in details.
So if you want to win based on nit-picky details, then fine. You win.
Now, the argument about the uniform density of the atmosphere is an interesting one. I think you're right that it would get less dense as you go upwards. That's how all atmospheres are.
But specifically, I think the conditions to produce a mirage-like distortion in the Venera photos don't exist because the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the temperature of the ground, because of the insulating cloud cover. That would also prevent direct heating of the ground.
I'm rereading this to see where the disconnect is:
You said in part: And therefore, since this didn't occur in the Venusian atmosphere, the atmosphere can't cause the lensing effect
And I said in part: The atmosphere around the camera, and the ground, and in between, is going to be all the same pressure, and temperature.
So, to re-iterate one more time yet again: You said my claim was that that light was crossing no boundaries in the atmosphere. I agreed, saying that the atmosphere was constant.
As far as I can see, we are saying the same thing.
Sorry to dump three different responses to you, you only need to reply to one. And I double checked your website. Looks like Mike is your brother (Chris is another). So is your name Wolf, or is that a nick?
You're using a very mathematical definition of a boundary. You are assuming that there is such a thing as a zero width boundary. In real life there is no such thing.
So, if you are going to get pedantic about the fact that I used the term boundary, then I can get pedantic about the fact that you haven't specified how narrow your narrow boundaries really are.
Are you arguing with me simply because you have set the size of your hypothetical boundary width to be N - 1, where N is the size of my hypothetical boundary width?
There you go, Old Wolf. A defense, and in this article, an attack.
I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I was wrong elsewhere in the thread (in fact you posted directly to my own correction) and there was no indication that I was attempting to suppress the correct information, was there?
I've already described what I meant my boundary. I was not referring to a boundary that was described only by a step function. I'm also talking about a continuous change in material OR refractive index. I made that clear a while back. Basically, light has to travel from one refractive index to another to refract. I don't care what kind of function describes the transition.
Anyway, how does the distinction have anything at all to do with the Venera pictures?
And on the point of the constant medium of the atmosphere, I am making that claim. If you want to discuss that, it might be more interesting than the ant-fucking that we are currently engaged in.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a problem, do what police radars already do. Don't measure the doppler shift, instead combine the waves of light with light of a fixed and known frequency. Then, you measure the beat frequency.
You can always use the 'strace' program to try to figure things out. Try a 'strace ls' command to see what system calls are made. But you're right, it's a hard way to get information that is so simple for the programmer to print out.
If you can configure something, don't do it in an environment variable. If you must, make sure that the program doesn't mysteriously break when someone tries to run it from a different account. Print out a message or something.
Put those configurations into a configuration file. And if that config file doesn't exist, have the program automatically write or suggest a configuration that should work out of the box.
example: A long time ago, Java wouldn't work unless you had a CLASSPATH set. You needed to set it to get to the classes that almost every Java program required. Later versions would automatically figure out the proper classpath from the executable path, and would run even if you didn't have a CLASSPATH variable set.
Well, looky here. I've got my very own fanboy, following me around. Must be that guy who put me on his enemy list because I was talking shit about AOL.
I agree with you completely, but there is one thing I must know first. Do you use vi or emacs?
What happens when an AC get's a clue? Nobody knows. It can't happen.
Where do I get it?
Oh I'm sorry, you'll have to come back in two weeks if you want bloody revolting.
So, how many nightspots are there in Laos?
Completely unbelievable. Nobody would call Win 95 "my precious."
Friday, 05 April, 2002. 01:26:41 PM
Cars are going to have 42 volt electrical systems in the future. The reason for that is the growing demands on the electrical systems by electric components. Wiring harnesses in high end cars can have over 2000 meters of wire in them, up from 75 meters typical in the 1950's. Power demands have grown by 100 watts a year for the past 5 year, and are currently at about 2000 watts. In 1970, that figure was only 500 watts. In 10 years, cars will use 10000 watts. For a 14 volt electrical system, that translates into a total current drain of 714 amps. Because of Ohm's law, increasing the voltage will decrease the current, allowing smaller and cheaper wires to be used. There's still some details to be managed. For example, will there be a single 42 volt alternator and 42 volt battery, or will there be dual alternators at 12 and 36 volts. What about dual batteries? There will also be many alternative fuel vehicles, and some of those will be electric, probably requiring a separate electrical system.
Spoiler:
The Flat Earth Society is all a huge joke. They don't really believe the Earth is flat. Their goal is to make everyone believe that they think the Earth is flat.
Of course, they will deny this. It'd spoil all the fun.
Beer googles. It doesn't make them look any better, but you can see if they ever got their mugshot on the Smoking Gun.
We would be eating trolls and spammers with the blessing of the authorities.
AOL never had glory. Glory was when Usenet had never seen a "me too", and barely had a dozen examples of the extremely annoying "LOL" or "ROTFLMAO".
AOL is to computer culture what Little Boy was to Hiroshima.
Brain and brain!!! What is brain???
This one time I started writing a program. I built my makefile, put COPYING into the directory, and even made a test program that printed out hello world. Then I got tired of it. I lost the source code a couple years ago. I think it was on a disk that I mistakenly threw away.
It was an open source failure.
Too bad Tramiel ran Atari like it was Iraq. He destroyed a great company.
OK, my other response was a little too snippy. I just got out of a meeting that went for an hour too long because someone wanted to argue about nitpicky definitions.
I accept your definition of boundary. It is correct. I can understand that you would object to it because I can get pretty cranky when people use the word 'definition' when they really mean 'declaration' referring to a C++ program.
And there you go again bringing a bunch of math into it. I mentioned before that at no time was I trying to be mathematically rigorous. Short answers are necessarily lacking in details.
So if you want to win based on nit-picky details, then fine. You win.
Now, the argument about the uniform density of the atmosphere is an interesting one. I think you're right that it would get less dense as you go upwards. That's how all atmospheres are.
But specifically, I think the conditions to produce a mirage-like distortion in the Venera photos don't exist because the atmosphere is in equilibrium with the temperature of the ground, because of the insulating cloud cover. That would also prevent direct heating of the ground.
Thank you very much, your explanation was very clear.
I'm rereading this to see where the disconnect is:
You said in part: And therefore, since this didn't occur in the Venusian atmosphere, the atmosphere can't cause the lensing effect
And I said in part: The atmosphere around the camera, and the ground, and in between, is going to be all the same pressure, and temperature.
So, to re-iterate one more time yet again: You said my claim was that that light was crossing no boundaries in the atmosphere. I agreed, saying that the atmosphere was constant.
As far as I can see, we are saying the same thing.
Sorry to dump three different responses to you, you only need to reply to one. And I double checked your website. Looks like Mike is your brother (Chris is another). So is your name Wolf, or is that a nick?
Another point for Old Wolf:
You're using a very mathematical definition of a boundary. You are assuming that there is such a thing as a zero width boundary. In real life there is no such thing.
So, if you are going to get pedantic about the fact that I used the term boundary, then I can get pedantic about the fact that you haven't specified how narrow your narrow boundaries really are.
Are you arguing with me simply because you have set the size of your hypothetical boundary width to be N - 1, where N is the size of my hypothetical boundary width?
There you go, Old Wolf. A defense, and in this article, an attack.
I'm not trying to confuse the issue. I was wrong elsewhere in the thread (in fact you posted directly to my own correction) and there was no indication that I was attempting to suppress the correct information, was there?
I've already described what I meant my boundary. I was not referring to a boundary that was described only by a step function. I'm also talking about a continuous change in material OR refractive index. I made that clear a while back. Basically, light has to travel from one refractive index to another to refract. I don't care what kind of function describes the transition.
Anyway, how does the distinction have anything at all to do with the Venera pictures?
And on the point of the constant medium of the atmosphere, I am making that claim. If you want to discuss that, it might be more interesting than the ant-fucking that we are currently engaged in.
The Pathfinder rover had an 8085 processor, not an 8080. But you're right about the Tandy 100, which also had an 8085 processor.