Comment Re:My B.S. Detector is Going Off (Score 1) 76
Yep. A physicist trying to explain a balanced line to other physicists, without knowing the word for it.
Haldane would be spinning in his grave.
Yep. A physicist trying to explain a balanced line to other physicists, without knowing the word for it.
Haldane would be spinning in his grave.
That why solution like 6rd.
ISP can keep their current IPv4 gear, and just offer an IPv6 tunnel that the clients can use over the IPv4 infrastructure.
No need to immediately replace all the components, and meanwhile, IPv6 is already available.
You know what else solves the "not enough IP addresses" problem? NAT.
It's a short-term quick hack which might make some problem seem to disappear, but creates ton of other problems.
NAT creates layers of indirection, and NAT makes machines not directly addressable.
Require hole punching and the like even for very basic functionality (like VoIP).
The internet was envisioned as a distributed network with all being equal peers, but NAT is contributing to the current assymetry of having a few key content distributor and every body else being a passive consumer.
And it's a lot less of a change than switching to IPv6.
IPv6 here. No it's not that complicated, and can be made automated. (e.g.: you don't even need to setup DHCP. your router just hands out prefixes, and the devices on the net autonomously decide their address by appending their mac address).
With NAT, you'll end up needing to fumble with your router and open / redirect ports anyway, just to be sure that everything works as it should.
That the point at which end users like us need to be proactive.
Setup tunnels (like Sixxs and other similar IPv6 brokers), open tickets at your provider asking for 6rd support, etc.
If the end of the coil that is hanging is grounded (earthed), it becomes an autotransformer. As it's shown, it's a variable inductor and the disconnected end is irrelevant and has no meaningful physical effect at the frequency a spark transmitter could have reached.
This comment seems to get closer to what they actually mean in their scientific paper. But the article about it is garble and the paper might suffer from second-language issues, and a lack of familiarity with the terms used in RF engineering.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I happen have built more than one counterpoise.
The point they're missing is grounding of the "asymmetric" half of the antenna, and that's to keep a static charge from building in the antenna that'll zap through your electronics (or you) for safety reasons.
Sometimes. But you're missing what a Counterpoise does.
Damn, I wish I would have patented that and all its quantum magic...
I noticed that my vertical transmitting antenna often works better if I connect a horizontal wire about the same length as the antenna to ground at its base! The wire isn't connected to the transmitting side of the circuit at all! And how well it works varies depending on the length! Obviously there is some deus ex machina at work here...
Clearly you missed the bit where they invoked quantum mechanics, surely that explains away all the inaccuracies, like the fact you can already buy chip scale dielectric antennas
The thing that I really hate about Innovation Stories is that the reporter invariably doesn't understand what's going on, and invariably is easily convinced that The Obviiously Very Technical People have some very valuable invention.
Marconi's connection to the center tap of a coil with one end not connected worked by broken symmetry? Really? It wasn't just a method of tuning a coil to the correct reactance for a particular frequency?
They don't have nearly as much to offer if they can't do launches quickly. I'm sure they would make that a feature of their offering.
They can carry about 110kg to LEO, compared to the Falcon 9's 13150kg. That's 0.84% of the payload capacity. A launch is estimated to cost $4 900 000, compared to the Falcon 9's $61 200 000. That's 8.01%. That means cost per mass to orbit is nearly an order of magnitude worse.
Yes, this is a really small rocket. If you are a government or some other entity that needs to put something small in orbit right away, the USD$5 Million price might not deter you, even though you could potentially launch a lot of small satellites on a Falcon 9 for less.
And it's a missile affordable by most small countries, if your payload can handle the re-entry on its own. Uh-oh.
What if...
Instead of a stupid troll you were actually interested in the answers. Interested enough to either take some classes on the subject, or expend some effort educating yourself.
We live in an age where the vast majority of the world's information is available for little to no cost or effort, yet you actively choose to remain ignorant.
Step 1: Understand what science is. http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01
Step 2: Take a class or look it up. http://space.about.com/cs/astronomy101/a/astro101a.htm
Step 3: Keep digging
Nothing like releasing your review the day after units start shipping, ie when it's too late to find out the unit's faults.
Goddammit I hate embargos...the only reason they exist is to hide flaws and problems from people who could get a refund. Ray, stop being the industry's bitch. You have a ton of readers, tell gadget makers to pound sand if they tell you that you can't release a review before it ships.
fortune: No such file or directory