RadioBanter

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.radiobanter.com/general/)
-   -   Why do people use anonymous remailers for? (https://www.radiobanter.com/general/24859-why-do-people-use-anonymous-remailers.html)

Lloyd Davies - The Time Lord November 3rd 03 07:22 PM

Why do people use anonymous remailers for?
 
Are they afraid to use a real name or callsign?

Afraid they may get sued for libel?

I wish we could get all these anonymous remailers shut down. I'm sure they
have some good uses, but people like Wiseman use them to harrass people. And
it's gonna catch up with him. Sooner the better!!!


Lloyd Davies - Time Lord and Talk show host
"On the Domestic Front"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domesticfront/

Stinger November 7th 03 10:55 PM

Hey! Anybody ever told you a preposition is a terrible thing to end a
sentence with?

;^P
-- Stinger
"Stagger Lee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:55:29 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender

wrote:
:
: And Arf!Arf! still can't explain why the FCC question pool question used

as an example is WRONG.
: RMS voltage is calculated thusly:
: From FCC Element 4:
:
: E8A11 What is the RMS value of a 340-volt-peak-to-peak pure sine wave?
: A. 120-V AC
: B. 170-V AC
: C. 240-V AC
: D. 300-V AC

Yeah, but that wasn't the history of it. In message

,
you posted the following:

"120 V * 1.414 = 169.69 Volts.
Learn how to multiply, DROPOUT"

And that little gem illustrates that you can't even get the final
digit in a multiplication to come out (hint: 2 x 4 = 8) and that you
have no idea about significant digits. You SHOULD have used more
significant digits in the square root of two if you wanted to obtain
the peak voltage to five significant digits (169.71). Otherwise, you
should have rounded the number off to the two significant digits used
in the FCC question pool and obtained 170 VAC.

Your faux pas has forever been archived on Google, and you can't
spin your way out of it. Every time you try, I'll repost the
Message-ID of your blunder.




Frank Dresser November 7th 03 11:14 PM


"Stinger" wrote in message
...
Hey! Anybody ever told you a preposition is a terrible thing to end a
sentence with?


"Ed Lahey, a reporter for the Chicago Daily News, wrote one of the
wittiest leads ever in his story describing Loeb's demise: "Richard
Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a
proposition." "

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...b/LEO_LOEB.HTM

Frank Dresser



Stinger November 7th 03 11:21 PM

Another good one, Frank!

-- Stinger
"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Stinger" wrote in message
...
Hey! Anybody ever told you a preposition is a terrible thing to end a
sentence with?


"Ed Lahey, a reporter for the Chicago Daily News, wrote one of the
wittiest leads ever in his story describing Loeb's demise: "Richard
Loeb, despite his erudition, today ended his sentence with a
proposition." "

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...b/LEO_LOEB.HTM

Frank Dresser





Dave Bushong November 7th 03 11:26 PM

Stinger wrote:

Hey! Anybody ever told you a preposition is a terrible thing to end a
sentence with?

;^P
-- Stinger


My son and I drove to Harvard so that he could start his freshman year.
When we arrived, I asked someone out in the common area for
directions. "Can you tell me where the registration area is at?" I asked.

He said "Sir, at Harvard, we do not end a sentence with a preposition."

"OK. Can you tell me where the registration area is at, asshole?"


(OK, I stole the story, but it's a good one :)

Dave
KZ1O


RHF November 7th 03 11:28 PM

SL,

To be 'consistant' in your Logic of using "Five Significant Digits":

Would be: 120.00 V * 1.4142 = 169.704 Rounded 'down' to 169.70

NOT: 120 V * 1.421356237~ = 169.705627484~ Rounded 'up' to 169.71

Regardless Either Answer:
- - - When 'rounded' to Whole Numbers the Answer would be 170.

But then again, how does one really, truly, factually claim that "170"
is 'round' to "Two Significant Digits" using Three Numbers ? ? ?


hnyccot ~ RHF
Hey, Numbers! You Can Count On Them.
- Resideing just-south of Buz-Er-Kal-Lee, Cali-4-Ni-Ah
- - In The Logic Free Zone :o)
- - - Where Everthing Adds Up To Nothing !
..
Ok-land, Cali-4-Ni-Ah
Mayor Jerry "Moon Beam" Brown
- - - - - - -&- - - - - - -
The Gover-Nator der Arnold !
..
= = = Stagger Lee
= = = wrote in message ...
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 13:55:29 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous Sender wrote:
:
: And Arf!Arf! still can't explain why the FCC question pool question used as an example is WRONG.
: RMS voltage is calculated thusly:
: From FCC Element 4:
:
: E8A11 What is the RMS value of a 340-volt-peak-to-peak pure sine wave?
: A. 120-V AC
: B. 170-V AC
: C. 240-V AC
: D. 300-V AC

Yeah, but that wasn't the history of it. In message ,
you posted the following:

"120 V * 1.414 = 169.69 Volts.
Learn how to multiply, DROPOUT"

And that little gem illustrates that you can't even get the final
digit in a multiplication to come out (hint: 2 x 4 = 8) and that you
have no idea about significant digits. You SHOULD have used more
significant digits in the square root of two if you wanted to obtain
the peak voltage to five significant digits (169.71). Otherwise, you
should have rounded the number off to the two significant digits used
in the FCC question pool and obtained 170 VAC.

Your faux pas has forever been archived on Google, and you can't
spin your way out of it. Every time you try, I'll repost the
Message-ID of your blunder.


Dave Bushong November 8th 03 12:28 AM

RHF wrote:

SL,

To be 'consistant' in your Logic of using "Five Significant Digits":

Would be: 120.00 V * 1.4142 = 169.704 Rounded 'down' to 169.70

NOT: 120 V * 1.421356237~ = 169.705627484~ Rounded 'up' to 169.71

Regardless Either Answer:
- - - When 'rounded' to Whole Numbers the Answer would be 170.

But then again, how does one really, truly, factually claim that "170"
is 'round' to "Two Significant Digits" using Three Numbers ? ? ?



Hmmm... those answers are fine (close, but only that) for textbook
examples of how to convert numbers, assuming a pure sine wave. They are
great for teachers (and those who have learned only from teachers). In
real life, if the answer comes out to 169.705627484, remember that the
real-world value can plus-or-minus a few volts.

It's a lot like saying that "Observers estimate that the fire was at
least a mile, or 1.609347219 kilometers, away."

Have you ever done it? I mean, looked at a scope, stuck the probe in
the wall socket, and measured the line voltage? Is it a pure sine wave?
(answer: no, and no, I suppose). It's a complex power waveform.

So, do you know how to integrate a complex waveform such as a sine wave
with various spike interference present, in order to know the true RMS?
Does it even matter, if you are lighting up a light bulb?

By the way, this thread was so distorted that I don't know who is who,
and it is obviously a ****ing contest, so if I mistakenly pointed out
the idiocy, or replying to the idiocy, I apologize ahead of time.

The good part is that one or more of these guys will flame me without
facts, and that will answer the original question.

Is it about:

* spelling (typos)
* significant digits
* ham radio

My guess is: yes, yes, no.

All the best, and 73,

Dave
KZ1O


JACKADEN June 11th 12 12:48 PM

thanks for the great information..


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com