I think you're confusing a NEMA 5-20 (120V, 20A) and NEMA 6-20 (240V, 20A). Each has one blade sideways but they're mirror images of each other. T-slot varieties of both outlets are common, which can accept both 15A and 20A versions of their respective voltages. You won't find outlets that can accept both a 120V and 240V plug.
This house had sockets that would accept NMEA 5-15, 5-20, 6-15 or 6-20. (I forgot the numbers until you mentioned them). It wouldn't be allowed now, but my guess is the house was built in the 1950s.
Those outlets existed because pre-NEMA there were competing parallel and tandem bladed plugs/sockets [1]. The plugs you saw were probably like examples 2 & 3 in that link. The parallel configuration became NEMA 5-15P and the tandem became NEMA 2-15P.
The NEMA 6 series is wider than the 5 series and the 6-15P probably won't fit in those old outlets, but the NEMA 2-15P would. . . if you could find one.
Ah yes, I have seen those before (quite rare). IIRC they don't have holes for the grounding prong, which should prevent plugging in any modern 240V appliance.
I just had some fraudulent withdrawals on my bank account pretending to be paypal. They did the two sub-$1 authorization transactions, then took out $400 then "reversed" it by putting it back into my account... maybe to attract less suspicion and execute a larger fraud later?? Anyway, my bank reversed the withdrawals and I just got to keep the $400 the scammers deposited in.
> They are not identical. The aspects you are willing to ignore are more important than the aspects you are willing to accept. Robbery is not just another way of making a living, rape is not just another way of satisfying basic human needs, torture is not just another way of interrogation. And XML is not just another way of writing S-exps. There are some things in life that you do not do if you want to be a moral being and feel proud of what you have accomplished.
If there is an argument beneath the hyperbole and i-am-very-smart posturing, it seem very weak. He end up advocating a binary format (like TCP/IP) instead of a text-based like XML because it will be faster to parse. And because a binary format is harder to change, people will be sure to get it right the first time.
In my dabblings with SDR, playing around with analog video was one of the highlights. Something about this technology that was such a prominent yet opaque feature of my youth and now being able to control it from the inside out felt extremely empowering.
I wrote my own decoder in python (nowhere near realtime) because at the time I couldn't find one that handled color. The deep dive on the design tradeoffs and signal processing hacks for NTSC was fascinating.
I can see just by the artifacts gif that you've definitely been down the same rabbit hole. Kudos for actually pulling through on also adding some scrambling, I only read about that (and since I don't have any descrambling hardware, I would have had to do that part, too).
I share the sadness about those signals being effectively gone. How fun it would have been to work with real live broadcast ones at their heyday. There still are a few ones, but they're mostly pretty basic now.
The restrictions are tied to geography not persons.
A Puerto Rican in California is entitled to all the benefits of US Citizenship whereas a Californian in Puerto Rico is not. Mostly these are related to welfare and elections. This would be the case for the Californian or Puerto Rican living anywhere in the world outside the US.
You retain voting rights of the last jurisdiction you lived in within the US (states or territories) after moving abroad.
So a Californian that moves to, say, Germany can still vote by mail as though they were in California.
---
You're mostly correct about the loss of welfare benefits, though. The only exception being that you do remain eligible for Social Security retirement, although some people may not consider that "welfare".
It's remarkable that you said all of this, I'll be generous and say that someone else completely made up the part about the Jones Act and you just heard them and repeated it.
A walk down memory lane for sure... I loved my Eee PC 901 and still have it. I used it to build a 'carputer' / navigation system before I had a smartphone. http://mrgris.com/projects/birdseye/
I remember becoming disillusioned that the netbook branding pivoted to "cheap" rather than "compact". The 9" series was quickly abandoned, with much more expensive 10" models becoming standard. An "almost laptop"-sized laptop for "almost laptop" prices wasn't really compelling. The 901 was adorably small and only cost $400 iirc.
It's a misconception that the figure-8 shape is due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit. Most of the variation in the sun's horizontal apparent motion is also due to Earth's axial tilt. Orbital eccentricity only contributes the slight asymmetry seen in the final analemma. See my reply to the sibling comment for more detail.
This is incorrect. The analemma would still be a figure-8 even with a circular orbit, but it would be symmetric -- the orbital eccentricity only adds the asymmetry we see in Earth's analemma.
This is because the sun on an axial-tilted plane 'lags behind' then 'catches up' to the ideal 0-tilt sun over the course of the year. At the equinoxes, the sun's motion has a significant vertical component. Therefore, it's horizontal speed is slower than an untilted sun (both suns still travel through the sky at the same speed of 360/365 degrees per day), so it will lose ground and drift back. At the solstices, the sun moves horizontally, but at an higher latitude (equal to Earth's axial tilt) on the celestial sphere, covering more degrees of longitude for the same speed than the ideal sun moving along the equator, hence making up the lost ground. This variation in horizontal speed throughout the year creates the figure-8.
I'm having a difficult time understanding this. I trust that you're knowledgeable about the topic given your comment history, but --
You've argued that the Sun's rate of motion across the sky should have a constant magnitude (under the assumption of an Earth analog with a perfectly circular orbit but still 23.5 degree obliquity). It's not clear to me why this should be the case; on the celestial sphere, I would have an easier time accepting that the Sun should have a constant "horizontal" (i.e., in the sense of right ascension) motion due to the Earth's constant orbital speed, and that the Sun's "vertical" (i.e. declination) motion should be purely sinusoidal: greatest at the equinoxes, zero at the solstices. Have I misunderstood something here?
As an extreme case, imagine a tidally locked planet on a circular orbit of 1 AU with 23.5 degree obliquity. An observer sitting on the equator would see the sun moving on a line overhead, crossing the zenith back and forth, with no figure 8 -- right?
It is quite difficult to visualize and it took me a long time to "get it".
The path of the sun's annual motion relative to the stars is determined solely by my physical progress in orbit around the sun. A planet's axial tilt only changes the 'direction' I'm looking in and thus the reference point of my celestial coordinate system. The sun's path will always be a great circle on that celestial sphere (and always the same relative to the fixed background stars) regardless of which reference frame I choose. I think this is enough to surmise that the sun's angular speed on the celestial sphere is constant regardless of axial tilt (assuming a perfectly circular orbit).
Taken to an extreme, imagine a planet with 90° tilt -- the sun would move vertically and pass directly over the pole, making a constant 'horizontal' motion literally impossible.
I'm not sure what your tidally locked example is meant to demonstrate, since that's literally what the analemma is -- the path the sun would make in the sky once you subtract a planet's local axial rotation, i.e., tidally locking it to the orbital parent.
Thank you for the further explanation - this has convinced me that it's plausible, though my mind is slow and I still need to think about it to be fully convinced.
I used the typical GDAL tools -- gdalwarp, gdaldem, with some associated scripts of my own. I recall not using GDAL's image pyramid builder as I ran into some issues with wrapping at the int'l date line and in general wanted more fine-grained control over the process.
This could be rendered dynamically using the elevation tile services now available from mapbox, et al. I wanted to use Jon de Ferranti's dataset specifically though due to his commitment to uniform global quality.
An additional issue is since the color ramp is quite jagged, aliasing would be quite unsightly when zoomed out. You'd need a hefty amount of supersampling to get back the desired smoothness... not sure the tile services can support that easily.
