Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is probably why Valve are making SteamOS, so that the average computer user has minimal thinking required.Yeah, if that works out, it might push Linux forward quite significantly among non-technical users.
Debian is not stable.But of course it is, you just need to attackclone the grit repo pushmerge, then rubygem the lymphnode js shawarma module – and presto!
Sounds like an arse.Yeah. For some reason he was mildly notable in the States.
What the fuck is this shit?
Holy crap. The music brings it all back. lol. By about 3 mins in you'll get the gist.
Until we have more information and conclusive evidence I see promoting CO2 reduction a good thing. It's too risky otherwise.An interesting variant of Pascal's wager.
I may be wrong but doesn't mineral oil have a shitty thermal conductivity?I haven't done the maths, but gut feeling tells me that oil would work out better, simply because of how much of it there is. With water cooling, you can usually only have a small amount of water flowing through heatsinks around critical components. With mineral oil, you just turn your computer into an aquarium. The heat can spread in all directions, and the area of the heat dissipating region is huge.
Reading up on it, it seems like water would actually move the heat away faster than oil.
Ok, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. You seem to be reinforcing my point.You had a point?
The probability is remote however it is possible that a mobile phone could cause a fire at a petrol station.Well, yes, so could shoes. We should ban those too.
Are you allowed to use mobile phones at petrol filling stations?
Generally mobile telephones are not designed and certified for use in explosive atmospheres. Their use can also create a serious distraction for people carrying out dispensing activities. Radio transmissions from individual mobile telephones are generally too low to induce dangerous electric currents in nearby equipment and the risk of incendive sparking from the battery is low, however, they should not be used in the hazardous areas that exist when actually dispensing petrol. Neither should they be used in the hazardous areas around the fill and vent pipes during petrol deliveries.
Rather than applying a total prohibition on the use of mobile telephones on petrol forecourts which has resulted in some anomalies and frequent abuse to staff, the following controls are recommended:
- Mobile telephones should not be used by customers or forecourt staff whilst actually dispensing petrol into fuel tanks or containers;
- During petrol deliveries mobile telephones should not be used on those parts of the site that have been designated as hazardous areas by the site operator or the driver;
- Mobile telephones should not be used during other petrol handling operations or during the maintenance of petrol equipment unless a specific assessment shows the risks are negligible;
- There is no need to restrict the use of mobile telephones, with respect to the safe keeping of petrol, at other times or in other areas of the forecourt. This includes in the shop, in motor vehicles parked on the forecourt or in other non-hazardous areas.
The use of radio equipment fitted on emergency vehicles and citizen band (CB) radios may create an ignition risk. These types of transmitting equipment do have a power output sufficient to induce dangerous electrical currents in nearby fixtures and they should not be allowed to be used at the dispensing points or in the vicinity of the road tanker when unloading. It should be noted that the radio equipment mounted on most emergency vehicles is under automatic interrogation from the base station. This means that radio messages are being received and transmitted without anyone speaking into a hand set. The Home Office has issued the emergency services with separate advice on the use of radios and CB equipment in the vicinity of filling stations.
"Broadly, a citation is a reference to a published or unpublished source (not always the original source). "I stand corrected. I was only aware of the stricter definition outlined later in the article.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
I think that still leaves heaps of places to land.Absolutely.
Perhaps a signal from a mobile phone that was left on interfered with the electronics of the plane causing it to do weird things.Yes, and petrol stations blow up if you use a phone close to the pumps.
Far from a citation, but Rama's claim is consistent with my own observation. I'm that one douche that's often too lazy to switch my phone off (or put it in "airplane mode"), and my phone never picked up signal until shortly before landing. So, as long as they didn't land somewhere that has mobile coverage, they'd be completely undetected.Mobiles generally dont work at cruising altitude either.Citation needed.
The existance of satellutes is not an idea, it is fact.Then it should be very easy to prove, and I encourage you to do so.
How does your satellite tv service work?Not much can be said about that, given that my satellite TV service doesn't exist.
So what would back up the claim or facts from millions who understand how they work, plus those who design and build them, are they wrong?Perhaps Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement will be of some use to you.
Do you really doubt that satellites exist? What do dishes point at, measure the angles to find the source. Talk to people in the industry.Why, why, why are you so reluctant to just back your claim up? Two can play that game, you know.
I've done a pretty good job when it comes to quoting the claims while making requests. In fact, the very post you've quoted features two of those. I made them bold and pink for your convenience.What claims have I made that need substantiating?Meanwhile, we know that satellites provide us with communications, and have done for many years.You have yet to substantiate that.Why is it that RE'ers are obligated to show why FET doesn't work but FE'ers aren't obligated show why FET does work? Seriously, how can Inquisitive properly refute Thork's ionospheric skip proposal when Thork did not provide a workable proposal to refute?He can't, and I'm not asking for that. I'm asking that he substantiates his own claims. Thork at least made a sloppy attempt.