waashk/20ng huggingface dataset:
In article <1993Apr2.182216.28603@walter.bellcore.com>, deaddio@ski.bellcore.com (Michael DeAddio) writes:  |> |> Question 2: |> |>  |> |> 	If I am right about the doppler(if I spell it different every time, |> |> maybe one will be right) effect, how does the radar get an accurate reading |> |> when the car containing it is moving??  It would seem to me ( for all thats |> |> worth) that it would need to be calibrated with the speedometer of the car |> |> containing it??  I am fairly sure this isn't the case, so whats the deal?? |>  |> Essentially, this is actually how it is done.  The radar gun is tied into |> the speedometer of the car.  No, it is independent of the speedometer. The gun processes two doppler returns--the speed of the car relative to the pavement and the speed of the target, taking the difference between the two. Some guns with a "moving mode" actually have a split beam with one beam aimed preferentially at the pavement.  Car and Driver had a good article on traffic radar, but it was back in 1985. I used its contents and references to defend myself against a bogus radar-measured ticket. It detailed "moving mode," which is easier to defend against because of the increased amount of variables.  --  --------------------------------------------------------------------        Dave Medin			Phone:	(205) 730-3169 (w)     SSD--Networking				(205) 837-1174 (h)     Intergraph Corp.        M/S GD3004 		Internet: dtmedin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com   Huntsville, AL 35894		UUCP:  ...uunet!ingr!b30!catbyte!dtmedin     ******* Everywhere You Look (at least around my office) *******
This is message is only of interest to those going to  International Symposium on Circuits and Systems that is being held in Chicago this May.        I checking to see if there is any people out there who would be interested in getting together for a pickup game of soccer during  the off hours of the conference. If so could you e-mail me at:  philc@macs.ee.mcgill.ca  I'll bring a ball. If you know someone who is going to the  conference and you know that they are avid soccer players please pass on this message to them. Also if someone in Chicago is going to the conference please let me know if there is any field near the hotel where we can play.  Thanks. Bye.
In <1993Apr20.230749.12821@reed.edu> mblock@reed.edu (Matt Block) writes:  >In article <sehari.735331566@marge.ecss.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes: >>--- >> >>I was wondering, what copy protection techniques are avaliable, and how >>effective are they?  Has anyone have any experience in this area? >> >>                      With highest regards, >>                           Babak   Sehari.  >	Uh oh... >	Umm, there are a number of copy protection schemes.  Some involve >modifying the physical media, and some involve encryption schemes, &c. >	All of the ones that have existed over the course of computing have >been successful for a time.  I recall, however, near monthly releases of new >ways to "crack" the copy protection scheme of the latest releases.  The fact >is, none of them are completely secure, or anywhere near it.  Some are more or >less difficult to crack, and some have already been cracked. >	I guess what I am saying is that your question is difficult, if not >impossible, to answer.  What exactly do you want to know?  Do you need a good >one for a project you are working on?  How secure must it be?  Are you trying >to crack one that someone else has used?  I can probably make suggestions, >assuming the activity is strictly legal.  (In general, it is a BAD idea, >legally, to tamper with copy protection.  It can also lead to corruption of >files which you necessarily do not have back ups of (being as they are copy >protected,) which can be devestating.)  Do you have absolutely no ideas for >practical applications, and are merely curious? >	Please clear up those questions, and I'll try to help as much as I >can.  >	Incidentally, the "Uh oh..." at the top is indicative of the dread >anyone who has watched their friends hacking equipment be carted off feels >when they are asked how to hack.  The area you are broaching is wrought with >dangers, many of which include breaking the law, or at least addressing it >(from one side or the other.)  >Matt  I have written a program and I want to market it.  I would like certain degree of protection, since my main custmers are individuals and not the  cooperations.   I know laser hole burning method, and hardware key method, however, my  software is going to cost only $15.00, so I can not afford that. Also, at this low price I can not afford people make too many copy of my software. Well, I guess say upto %20 illigal copying is ok by me.  However, I do not want someone to get a copy of PCTools and copy my software.   Off course, I never meant to forbid the true hackers from copying, since they can develope a better program anyway.                        With highest regards,                            Babak   Sehari.
My monitor display has a bad case of the wigglies. I have a good ground. I live in an old house and I have replaced much of the wiring. I have two EMI filters on the computer, the monitor plugs into the computer. When fluorescent lights are on upstairs, the display jiggles, when motors run in the house, the display jiggles, when incandescent lights are on in the kitchen the display jiggles.  I could bring a separate line from the breaker box, and use it only for the computer, would this do it? EMI doesn't only travel the 110 volt line though. Should I shield the back of the monitor? Ground a grid or plate?  Your expertise is appreciated. Thanks very much!  Ed Byrnes
ruck@beach.cis.ufl.edu (John Ruckstuhl) writes:  At least locally, many shops carry a product called Goo Gone.  It works well on scummy-gummy-sticky-goop-that-won't-go-away...  As always, color test in an inconspicuous corner before use.
>> telephone systems have the capability of a passband of 30hz to 4Khz. >> The reason they do not implement this is: It is not backward compatable >> to every telephone system.  In addition, the most effecent mix of  >> electrical effecency, and intelegability closly mateches a 300hz-3khz >> passband. > >Close, but no banana (to paraphrase Garfield)... >The reason 300-3300 Hz is used is that voice channels used to occupy >4kHz bands when multiplexed on a trunk line. Therefore, 300Hz at the >bottom, and 700Hz at the top of this band were filtered to minimise >interference with the next band. > >Nowadays, digital trunks have made this less relevant, but the phone >companies still see no reason to improve quality (especially for free!). >Therefore, digital "chunk of a trunk" segments still have a guaranteed >bandwidth of only 4kHz (so they can carry the equivalent of one analog >line) at the clock rate of a standard PCM T1 or E1 digital trunk. > >It's all historical...   Here in the UK, the bandwidth restriction apparently only apply to  local lines.. ie those used by the average domestic client. Private lines which are run from the local exchange to the leasing client are  usually capable of a higher bandwidth if the exchange is digital.  Don't quote me on that..... But I think I remember a BT engineer  saying something to that effect when I was doing some work shadowing a few years ago.  Byeeeee !   Chris ;-)    +====================================================================+   |Name : Mr Chris Smith       |     Twang on that 'ole guitar !       |   |Addrs: scst83@uk.ac.liv.csc |                                       |   |Uni  : Liverpool University |Quest: To build more and more hardware |   |Dgree: Computer Science     |                                       |   +====================================================================+   "What ever the sun may be, it is certainly not a ball of flaming gas!"   -- D.H. Lawrence.
In article <1qf44aINNll@rave.larc.nasa.gov>, watson@nimbus.larc.nasa.gov (Catherine Watson) writes:  | I gave up after a year of | letters and phone calls.  I got the impression the FCC was powerless and it  | was up to the cable company to correct the situation.  Isn't there some *formal* action a citizen can take that *requires* the FCC to, at least, generate some paperwork?
In <3889@ncr-mpd.FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM> Brad Wright writes:  >	If you know much about PC's (IBM comp) you might try the joystick >port.  Though I haven't tried this myself, I've been told that the port >has built in A-D converters.  This would allow the joystick to be a couple of  >pots.  If you could find the specs this might just work for you...  I guess 100k, connecting pins 1-3 (1x), 1-6 (1y), 9-11 (2x), and 9-13 (2y).  Or: Get an 8-bit DA-Converter (merely a couple of transistors and Resistors) and an OpAmp to compare its output to the voltage you want to measure, connect them to a spared printer port (if you have one), and do the rest by software (stepwise refinement). The port addresses for your printer ports are probably: &H378 (LPT1), &H278 (LPT2). This should work well enough for your purposes.  Hope this helps  -- GMD,  Schloss Birlinghoven,  Postfach 1316,  D-5205 St. Augustin 1,  FRG
I was having a look through a couple of components catalogues when I came across a range of Peltier Effect heat pumps intended for cooling components.  For those who have not heard of this effect, you put a current through one of these devices, and it pumps heat from one side to the other.  Reverse the current and you reverse the effect.  I think a temperature difference can give you an EMF as well.  Anyway, it struck me that you could make a nice cool/hot box for picnics with one of these, a power regulator, a thermostat and a couple of heat sinks.  The biggest device can shift 60W with an efficiency of 80-90%, which ain't bad (although it would flatten my car battery in about half an hour).  Unfortunately the catalogue didn't list anything more than the basic specs as a heat pump.  I imagine that you would get a back-EMF as the temperature gradient across the device increases.  If so, presumably its power decreases as the back-EMF increases, until eventually we have a steady state with no current being consumed (assuming no leakage).  If so, then the final temperature difference between the two sides could be set by the supply voltage and nothing more (although that would be a lousy way to control it).  What I would like to know is:  1: Are the above guesses correct?  2: What is the open-circuit thermal resistance of a typical device?    (I just want to be sure that my coolbox is not going to get warm    too fast when I unplug it)  3: How does a Peltier Effect heat pump actually work?  It looks like    magic!  4: Why don't they use these things in domestic fridges/freezers?   Thanks in advance,  Paul.
I've also found that the electronic starters on these "instant-on"  compact fluourescent lamp fixtures kick out interference that nukes my cordless phone.  (I can hear it in my guitar amplifier, too...)
In article <1993Apr24.201422.25682@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu> mcorbin@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu (Max Corbin) writes: >Once upon a time, long long ago in this news group, someone >posted a schematic for a 1-bit A/D converter.  Well I just found a use >for the little monster.  Anyone out there still got this text file? >It had a flip-flop, a resistor and a cap, and a comparator/op-amp I  >think.  I would be extremely thankful to anyone who could mail me the  >schematic or post it to the news-group.  Hmmm... how about a piece of copper wire?  0 to 5V input range, standard TTL output, instantaneous conversion time!  [ (-:  for the humor impaired ]
John Hawkinson (jhawk@panix.com) wrote: : Yes, I know it sounds crazy. Call it an urge. Call it what you want. : Just don't ask why :-)  : Anyway, I'd like to build a UV flashlight, cheaply. "flashlight" means : it should be reasonably portable, but could have a power pack if : necessary.  : My main question is the bulb: where can I get UV bulbs? Do they : need a lot of power? etc., etc.  : I'm not too concerned with whether it's long-wave or short-wave : (but hey, if anyone has a cheap source of bulbs, I'll take both).  	Check out a medical supply catalog, the thing you are looking for is called a woods lamp (so you can check for woods sign, certain skin conditions flourecse (sp) under UV light)  They come in disposable penlight like types and larger ac powered types.  It is also used in eye examinations, a flourescent dye is introduced to the surface of the eye, then UV is shined on it, shows up scratches and abrasions very clearly that would otherwise be very difficult to detect.  (for the completest the dye is called flouescien, and in normal light appears orangish, and leaves a mild burning sensation to the eye for 10-15 minutes, until the tears flush it all out.    Have fun.
In article <1qg98sINNokf@sheoak.ucnv.edu.au> j. pethybridge, jeff@redgum.ucnv.edu.au writes: > I asked this a year ago, but i am still looking. > I am getting sick of having to use a HC373 or a 8751/2. Check out Xicor's new goodie in the April 12th edition of EETimes X88C64 - an 8k * 8 E2PROM with built in latch AND bootloader setup. You hook it directly to your '51, power it up, the prom initialises the serial port on the '51, you load in your code via RXD, this gets blatted onto the E2PROM, then you reset and run - i'm sure Dallas also does something like this too, i suppose it would boil down to relative prices, and the Dallas part freeing up P0 & P2 completely. I wonder if ANYONE has ever managed to design a single sided PCB with an 8051, 573, EPROM, SRAM and >>NO LINKS<< ? cheers Mike.
Hi, 	Does anyone know anything about this group and what they do? Any info would be appreciated. Thanks!
In article <May.9.05.41.06.1993.27543@athos.rutgers.edu>   salaris@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrabbits) writes: > MTV controls what bands are popular, no matter how bad they are.  In fact, it is   >better to be politically correct - like U2, Madonna - than to have any musical   >talent.  > Steven C. Salaris                   Interesting idea.   Regular televeision seems to do this sort of thing too with politically correct   shows.
stuff deleted ...  > Religion (especially Christianity) is nothing more than a DRUG. > Some people use drugs as an escape from reality.  Christians inject > themselves with jeezus and live with that high.    Your logic is falty.  If Christianity is a DRUG, and once we die we die, then why would you be reluctant to embrase this drug so that while you are alive you enjoy yourself.  I also question your overall motives for posting this article.  Why would you waste your presious fews seconds on this earth posting your opinon to a group that will generally reject it.  If you die, never having acepting Christ as your savior, I hope you have a fantastic life that it is all you evver dreamed because it is al of heaven you will ever know.
.            It's my understanding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never         given a legal definition of religion.  This despite the many         cases involving religion that have come before the Court.             Can anyone verify or falsify this?              Has any state or other government tried to give a legal         definition of religion?
In article <May.12.04.27.07.1993.9920@athos.rutgers.edu>, scott@prism.gatech.edu (Scott Holt) writes: >"Hate the sin but love the sinner"...I've heard that quite a bit recently,  >often in the context of discussions about Christianity and homosexuality... >but the context really isn't that important. My question is whether that >statement is consistent with Christianity. I would think not. > >Hate begets more hate, never love. Consider some sin. I'll leave it unnamed >since I don't want this to digress into an argument as to whether or not  >something is a sin. Now lets apply our "hate the sin..." philosophy and see >what happens. If we truly hate the sin, then the more we see it, the  >stronger our hatred of it will become. Eventually this hate becomes so  >strong that we become disgusted with the sinner and eventually come to hate >the sinner. In addition, our hatred of the sin often causes us to say and  >do things which are taken personally by the sinner (who often does not even  >believe what they are doing is a sin). After enough of this, the sinner begins >to hate us (they certainly don't love us for our constant criticism of their >behavior). Hate builds up and drives people away from God...this certainly >cannot be a good way to build love.  I don't agree, but I can only speak for myself.  I have a good friend whose lifestyle is very sinful.  Do I hate the things she does to herself and others?  Yes.  Do I hate her?  Absolutely not.  In fact, she tells me repeatedly that I am the best friend she has in the world.  I care about her very much despite the fact that I hate how she lives her life.  It's very easy to fall into the progression you describe above.  I've felt it with my friend more than once.  There is a very important  part of Christianity that you've overlooked above and makes it possible to "love the sin but hate the sinner."  Before I look at someone else's life and sin, I look to myself and am as disgusted by what I see in *me* as I see in others, probably more.  Self-righteousness is contradictory to Christianity and is what makes the progression you describe happen.  If a Christian can truthfully quote Paul and say, "Wretched man that I am!" [Romans 7:24 (NASB)], that Christian will be able to love the sinner and hate the sin.  If we have the attitude of the Pharisee  who said, "I thank Thee that I am not like other men..." [Luke 18:11 (NASB)], we will hate both.    -- Scott at Brandeis
Is life a pass/fail course, and does God grade on a curve? 	I'm new here, and only vaguely religious, but I want to know what some of you people think.  Specifically, are there an infinite number of Heavens, and a person goes to the one that he/she deserves?  Or is it simply Heaven or nothing (Hell?) Also, are we "graded" by those around us, or has there always been some unchanging method?  Is the person's childhood taken into account? 	I'm sure these must sound like over-simplifications to most of you, but I figure that you're the experts.  						-Quinn  [Eschatology is an area on which Christians do not agree.  I suspect that's because our primary source of information is prophets and visionaries, and their writings tend to be highly symbolic.  However both Jesus' teachings in the Gospels and books such as the Revelation to John talk primarily about the difference between eternal life and eternal death.  On a number of occasions Jesus does say things that imply some sort of differentiation, e.g. Lk 10:14 and a number of similar passages where Jesus says things like "even XXX will be better off than you in the judgement."  Also, I Cor 3 talks about someone who gets into heaven, but by the skin of his teeth, as it were.  But these passages are not normally interpreted as suggesting separate heavens, so much as differing levels of prestige or punishment in heaven or hell (and not all Christians would even go as far as that).  The only Christian group I know of that believes in multiple heavens is the Mormons, and they are very far from mainstream Christianity (far enough that many of our readers would not call them Christian).  Their ideas in this area involve specific Mormon revelations, in addition to the Bible and "Holy Tradition" of a more generic Christian sort.  Note that many Christians will cringe at the very thought of associating grading with God.  The whole point of Christ was to free us from the results of a test that we couldn't possibly pass.  If you like test analogies, God grades on a very strict and unbending scale, but he also cheats -- he replaces our test papers with an exam that was prepared by the teacher, before actually doing the grading. Because some people end up in heaven and others in hell, it's easy to see why you'd be inclined to think of it as grading.  While there are differences among branches of Christianity on details, I think we all agree that in one way or another, God cheats.  I am personally very sceptical about anyone who claims to know exactly how far God's cheating extends.  Will he accept people who don't explicitly acknowledge Christ, but somehow still follow him in their hearts?  Many Christians believe that this is possible, at least in principle, but certainly not all do.  Jesus provided us with a clear description of how to be saved, but it's not clear to me that he provided an exact description of how he's going to place the dividing line.  Certainly he made it clear that we can't expect to know whether other individuals are saved or not.
Persons interested in the tongues question are are invited to peruse an essay of mine, obtainable by sending the message  GET TONGUES NOTRANS  to LISTSERV@ASUACAD.BITNET or to     LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Two follow up's to Mark's last posting:  	1.  As far as current investigations, the Church recently declared the 	    crying statue and corresponding messages from Mary at Akita, 	    Japan as approved (I found this out about a month ago.)  	2.  Again in the proof department, start with the appearances of Mary 	    at Fatima.  Among other things, there were pictures taken of the 	    "miracle of the sun" that appeared in some major American newspaper 	    (The New York Times, I believe) as well as most of the major 	    European newspapers.    	    I could talk (or post) for hours on this topic, but...  		(I have a thesis to write). 						God Bless, 							- Mike Walker
William Mayne (mayne@pipe.cs.fsu.edu) wrote: : In article <Apr.1.02.34.21.1993.21547@athos.rutgers.edu> jayne@mmalt.guild.org (Jayne Kulikauskas) writes:  : >People who reject God don't want to be wth Him in heaven.  We spend our  : >lives choosing to be either for Him or against Him.  God does not force  : >Himself on us.  : I must say that I am shocked. My impression has been that Jayne Kulikaskas : usually writes this much less offensive and ludicrous than this. I am not : saying that the offensiveness is intentional, but it is clear and it is : something for Christians to consider.  Jayne stands in pretty good company.  C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book promoting the idea contained in her first sentence quoted above.  It is called "The Final Divorce".  Excellent book on the subject of Heaven and Hell, highly recommended.  It's an allegory of souls who are invited, indeed beseeched to enter Heaven, but reject the offer because being with God in Heaven means giving up their false pride.
Joseph H. Buehler writes:  >This all obviously applies equally well to infants or adults, since >both have souls.  Infants must be baptized, therefore, or they cannot >enter into Heaven.  They too need this form of life in them, or they >cannot enter into Heaven.
In article <May.7.01.08.16.1993.14381@athos.rutgers.edu>, whitsebd@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu (Bryan Whitsell) writes: |> Any one who thinks that Homosexuality and Christianity are compatible should check   |> out: |> 	Romans 1:27 |> 	I Corinthians 6:9 |> 	I Timothy 1:10 |> 	Jude 1:7 |> 	II Peter 2:6-9 |> 	Gen. 19 |> 	Lev  18:22 |> (to name a few of the verses that pertain to homosexuality)  Anyone who thinks being gay and Christianity are not compatible should  check out Dignity, Integrity, More Light Presbyterian churches, Affirmation, MCC churches, etc.  Meet some gay Christians, find out who they are, pray with them, discuss scripture with them, and only *then* form your opinion. --