Just about any component after the transformer will work fine, frequency independent, minus things like oscillators, radio crystals, etc. resistors DGAF, caps DGAF as long as you match or are lower than its rated voltage, diodes are voltage drops and DGAF about frequency...
Do you even basic electronics?
Just about anything apartment-wise after the 80s uses split phase 240RMS/277 typical peak.
I just finished building and wiring up a full hydroponics building. You get ~277V, split-phase, and in reality, it's higher than that, because it's 120VRMS and upwards of 170V peak, so you're looking at a potential spread of 340V or more.
"There really isn't any such thing as 110V or 230V in the USA/Canada,"
From a technical standpoint, yes. From a practical standpoint, not really. RMS is good enough. Trust me, if the electronics we have were not that robust, they'd have been fried long ago. Hooray for tolerances.
No matter who you are, what your personality is, etc there will always be some people out there that don't like you, won't hire you, or otherwise throw negativity your way even if you've done absolutely nothing to earn their hate.
Very true. So when that happens to me, is that because of the matriarchy trying to keep my manliness in check?
Your reaction is what I've noticed most women get if they even gently bring something up. It's 100% complete denial and blame the messenger.
What I can't figure out is why?
Because that's what we do when people are wrong?
I've noticed when people bring up the idea that the holocaust never happened, they get 100% complete denial and blame the messenger. Hrm
True, this behavior may be a small group of bad apples, but by denying the problem exists at all you're enabling those bad apples to continue doing what they do.
Nobody is denying that the problem exists. That's the kind of absurd strawman that always ends up derailing these discussions. What people are telling you is that:
1. Everyone gets harassed at some point. You don't see me going around talking about what an unsafe environment comicon is just because some chick grabbed my ass.
2. Problems caused by a small subset of individuals should be dealt with INDIVIDUALLY, rather than by writing long-winded articles about how the whole system is horrible. Only an idiot attacks an entire community over the actions of a few individuals. We usually call that "bigotry".
Seriously, why can't we just admit women catch a lot of shit just for being women in tech?
Because it's insignificant. I've caught more flack for having a slow connection than most women catch for being women. I've seen far more men bending over backwards to help "women in tech" than I've seen trying to tear them down. Men tend to be far more cruel and destructive towards each other than they do with women. If harassment in the tech community is a problem then it's a problem for everyone, and it's absolutely ridiculous to single out women as being some special class of victim.
I tend to agree with you, in general. However, I do think it is disingenuous to name a company "Girlfight" in a clear attempt to cash in on their sexuality, then contribute to an article complaining about it.
That's feminism for you in a nutshell. The "skepchick" website rose to fame in no small part thanks to putting out a (artistic-ish) nude calendar of their members, and encouraging male adoration. Then once they had enough of a following, they decided it was now misogynistic for men to comment on their appearance or think of them in a sexual way. Lots of women have gained prominence by using their sexuality to their advantage, only to later go on long-winded rants about how nobody should be "objectifying" them.
You realize that there's more difference between your average man and your average woman than between your average NFL linebacker and your average man, right?
Oh, geeze, don't let a feminist hear you say that! Every time someone suggests women maybe aren't suitable to being firefighters or combat soldiers, the wymins go apeshit.
You do realize how commonly women are raped and abused by men, and how they might happen to be more sensitive to the implicit or explicit threats of violence from someone that they're highly unlikely to be able to fight off?
According to the newest stats, not really that much more often than men are abused or raped by women. Domestic violence cases split almost 50/50. Sexual violence victims are still mostly women, but men come in very close behind now that we've stopped defining "rape" in a way that makes it impossible for women to be rapists.
And men being abused by men
Difference is, men don't try to justify freaking out and overreacting by pointing to statistics. And neither do most women, for that matter; the ones who do are just a very loud minority.
Apparently on RTF, it says that the inventor retains IP rights.
IN that case.. never mind.
A million dollars would be chump change.
If you're running devices that need a kW you're already at a reasonable size for your device, and you can build a lot of cheap, larger inverters for what it would cost to build this small one.
You could also probably build the powered devices to run off 12V for less than what this inverter would cost.
Is what is keeping AC power from the hinterlands this is intended to serve really the size of the inverter, or is it more likely the cost?
Last I checked, there's that thing called fair use that actually allows educational non-profit use of copyrighted works, so you can get off your moral high horse.
No. Fair use considerations include whether the use was for an educational purpose, but "educational purpose" is not sufficient to show fair use. I cannot copy, for example, a college textbook in its entirety and hand it out to my students because even though it is an "educational purpose", it does not meet the other criteria for fair use. Two criteria that this would fail would be the "excerpts" and "for critical review". Thus, I could copy a page of a textbook in a graphics arts class for the purpose of commenting on the formatting and layout style, but copying a book on graphics arts and using it as a text would not be "fair use".
Copying an image in its entirety for the purpose of using it as content in my own work would not be "fair use".
Note that I most certainly did not say that those who disagree with me are probably brain-dead. I said that if the examples I gave weren't enough to elucidate my point that:
You were trying to drive into me your point that I hadn't said anything to the contrary about. Yes, calling people "brain-dead" because they don't accept your point is insulting and non-productive.
I asserted that symmetric bandwidth was important to our society in a variety of ways,
In response to a comment that didn't say otherwise.
Are you feeling a bit stressed today?
You cannot drop the insulting attitude even after it is pointed out to you and you pretend that you didn't mean it in the first place.
"Right to work" actually is an anti-union term. It doesn't mean that the worker has a right to a job, it means only that the worker cannot be required to join a union at the job site.
And the terms don't have to be "enforceable" in the legal sense, all they have to do is scare away any subcontractor companies from hiring the pariah. See "chilling effect".
Not necessarily (think about it!), but in any event, it is far from clear that minimum wage actually gives more people more money.
Counter examples (actual, real-life, counter-examples supported by data) would be interesting to read.
You can, of course, add the money received by those people who benefit from the minimum wage laws to the total money available to spend. However, businesses pass increased costs on to consumers, or go out of business.
Or they could, shock, horror, take less in profit.
In effect, people's net purchasing power goes down. Instead of helping the people you want to help, you end up hurting them.
Purchasing power isn't going down because labour is getting more expensive, it's going down because labour is steadily getting paid less and less because capital is taking more and more.
The only place the continual downward pressure on wages ends is a tiny proportion of wealthy people who own everything and a huge proportion of people of subsistence incomes. When hardly anyone has any disposable income, where do you think economic activity is going to happen ?
Thus, merely "increasing" economic activity is not a valid goal: to be beneficial to society the economic activity has to be healthy activity, not the production of shoddy products. This can only be the case if we don't cause a net reduction in people's buying power (which is what minimum wage laws tend to do).
Again, evidence to support this claim would be useful.
In reality, countries with higher incomes at the lower-end, rather than the rock-bottom incomes you are advocating, are the countries that have the higher quality goods you are insisting they will not.
No this is done by welfare laws (of which there are a plethora).
No, welfare is there as a safety net for people who are unable to work. Since neoliberalism took over the western world and maintaining a certain level of unemployment became a policy goal (to reduce worker bargaining power and suppress their wages), it has become a necessity for millions of people ready, able and willing to work but who cannot find anyone to work for.
What you are talking about is a universal basic income, which would need to be set at a similar level to minimum wage to meet that objective.
Well, if Hamas didn't use hospitals, mosques, and playgrounds as rocket launch sites then there might be less to complain about when Israel bombs their rocket launch sites.
But then Hamas wouldn't have all those photos of dead and injured children to propagandize via the world's newsmedia.
"Reduction In Force".
Companies like to use that term instead of "Mass Layoffs". They think it sounds nicer.
Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach
