Math and electrical desgin

CH

Sign language isn't speech, but lots of people use it for conversation.

Speech researchers do study it, and for all practical purposes it is a kind of speech.

It's actually a controversial claim, but the controversy it about the quality of the conversation taking place rather than any idea there wasn't a conversation going on.

It's more like an apes brain than any other vertebrates brain, but then again so is yours.

According to ISO it's Latin.

This one is Greek ? - "Greek" "lower case Mu" code point U+03BC

Look the same to me. "Latin-1" is not a language indication. It's a Unico

atin characters as well?

The letter mu is definitely a Greek character.

Completely different from the Latin alphabet.

The micro sign (from Greek) was already in DEC MCS (Multinational Character Set) at position 0xB5 to indicate 0.000001.

ISO 8859-1 adopted the DEC MCS nearly completely. The ISO-8859-1 was then nicknamed Latin-1 That nicknaming doesn't make 0xB5 Latin.

I assume you are referring to ISO 8859-7 as "Greek",

It has that symbol among ordinary greek lower case letters.

Please note that ISO 8859-7 doesn't have the micro symbol in position

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

the metric system denoting a factor of 10-6 (one millionth).

meaning "small". The symbol for the prefix comes from the Greek

I guess I just said Latin because medical and math uses it so much.

My next line is supposed to be:

"It's all Greek to me."

Surely as a Linux use you can just type these symbols directly? Maybe you first have to choose a better keyboard layout if you have picked the

David Brown wrote in news:r5sq20$3h4$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Maybe you should rememeber the roots of the machine you are typeing on, special keyboard boy.

Alt Gr m??? We have no Gr key over here, boy! (Foghorn Leghorn)

And it is easy to tell why.

And easy to rememeber why.

The ALTernate character set is not part of the main 128 character set, and is accessed on a perfectly NORMAL keyboard using the alt key and a numeric sequence that ALL personal computers started with. What the f*ck a "Gr" key is we do not know. But I can assign keyboard shortcuts as I wish without the need for some strange character.

ANY "user" of ANY computer should possess enough brains to learn basic computing paradigms, or be relinquished to asking others for help. But the text substitute thing is bad.

U R Stew Pid and LOL and all that crap is really dumb. TYPE IT OUT.

That's the same realm we got pants down past the asscrack stupidity from. And any odd keyboard layout adopted since the AT spec emerged are the odd men out, not us. And if Linux or BSD does not allow me to simply tyrpe in the standardized alt + numeric to get an otherwise unavailable character up, then f*ck them too.

I think someone needs to calm down a little!

And once you have relaxed, you can read a little history. Then you could read a little about how to type different characters on a Linux system. Or if you can't use Linux, you might like to change your pseudonym.

You do think that designing electronics is an arcane black art. Actually, it's easy.

x86 was obsolete the day it was invented.

I never liked the x86 architecture, but it is still available and going strong.

Are you thinking of the iAPX432 or i860? The former was glacially slow, the latter was /another/ processor where the compiler people couldn't produce a compiler that made use of the hardware.

No I'm thinking of x86, the lineal descendent of 8008 and 4004.

The PDP-11 and 68K and VAX were elegant cisc architectures. The story was that IBM preferred 68K for the PC but thought Intel would be easier to control.

It's certainly not an arcane black art, but it isn't easy to do it well.

As far as I can see, John Larkin doesn't do it at all, but rather evolves his designs by small incremental changes, going with the changes that seem to work.

He thinks that what he does is design, but his capacity to think to about any other subject is obviously pretty much non-existent, so that this is probably one more of his face-saving misconceptions.

Hey Phil, this stuff is great. (I'm sorry the thread went into the tank.) You said upstream that the scattering X-section would be twice the physical area.. (sorry projected area.) I don't understand the factor of two. Maybe I don't understand what cross section means. It's pretty easy to count the number of photons hitting the sphere. And that's the total scattered intensity into all space (4 pi steradians)

Oh and how much do I/we have to pay for a copy of your 'bag a tricks' photon budget book/notes? Is there some way to self publish and make sure you get paid? (if a publisher doesn't want it.) Hey maybe you need someone to read and comment on it.

George H.

The factor of exactly two applies only in the wave picture, and is easiest to see in the scalar model. A largish, lossless plane scatterer punches a hole in the wavefront as well as directly scattering, and both hole and scatterer produce identical amounts of scatter.

The directly scattered field is Psi_scat(x,y), and the field with the hole punched is therefore Psi_incident - Psi_scat(x,y) because in the absence of loss the two have to add up to Psi_incident. Psi_incident is unscattered by hypothesis, so up to a minus sign the field perturbation is the same in the forward and backward directions.

So in the backscatter direction you get one copy of Psi_scat, and in the forward direction you get another copy, so the total scattering cross section is twice that of the scatterer alone.

Sure, when I get that far that would be great. I'm still not ready with the third edition.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

er familiar--what's

? It's the

inct, but it

Curious....What is the analytical basis for this sweeping statement?

it is one example of a segmented hw architecture. Whether one 'likes' or 'dislikes' the architecture is somewhat based on wha t seems more intuitive to them. It's a machine that performs computing tas ks, of which there are many approaches to accomplish the same thing.

Silly sport. Only one person gets to do it at a time, for a few minutes behind a stinky outboard, and all the other people sit in the boat and watch. Snow skiing, everybody can do it together, all day between food+drink breaks in the clubhouse.

I'm impressed by how many ski boats are blocking driveways, under tarps that haven't been moved in years.

Huh... thanks. I'll first say I'm not too good thinking in the wave picture. (i'm a lazy photon user.) So in the photon picture I'd get a x-section = area of circle, if the photons were all just absorbed by the sphere. A black sphere gives x-section = 1*area, and then following your logic chain, a perfectly reflecting shpere gives x-section = 2*area.

I once got deep into the weeds of atomic scattering (Ramsey's, "Molecular Beams") trying to understand some weird Rubidium effects... The effect went away with time and I never understood it... Mostly likely due to H2 in the Rb cell.

George H.