170 karma · joined January 28, 2016
But if you actually care about what the voltage (and uncertainty) is, most of this is difference is mostly pointless, you're reference will have a bias, there are linearity errors and so on. 1 LSB will not match either the 1/128 or 2/255, you will need parameters to compensate for it.
You're pointing to one of the other security issues for which a fix was released today.
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/home-projects-umbrella
https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/museum-grounds-and-gard...
There probably are a lot more such projects on it.
As far as I know, most browser vendors already download the CRLs, and then update the browsers based on what they downloaded. For instance firefox seems to be using CRLite. There is a lack of support for something like that in the non-major browsers and non-browsers. The alternative they have is to download the CRL instead of the OCSP reply, which is larger, probably making things slower. Or they could just not check the status, which is most likely what will happen.
CRLite changes the failure mode of the status check, it no longer just ignores error in downloading the status information.
We need better support for something like CRLite.
On a data CD, those 2352 bytes are split in 2048 data bytes, plus an additional 4 error detection, 276 error correction, plus some other bytes including an address. So there is an extra layer of error correction.
I forgot that CTDB (http://db.cuetools.net/) exists, which is is an alternative to AccurateRip. CUETools is open source Windows software to rip CDs. Instead of just providing a checksum of the track, it provides error correction information. So instead of just getting that you probably have a bad rip, and keep getting a bad rip, it's possible to correct the rip. EAC has a CTDB plugin that's installed by default, whipper currently doesn't support it.
AccurateRip is not something from EAC, it's from dbpoweramp.
Having unsuccessfully gone through 2 different procedures to try to remove that page from Google search result, I have little faith that it will work now.
The acceleration you can reach is mostly limited by the peak current and the force constant, but the maximum speed you can reach at that acceleration is mostly limited by the voltage you have available because of the back-EMF. A simplified formula is that the voltage you need is R * I + v * BEMF. The higher the voltage is, the better the insulation between the windings needs to be. You need to find a balance between the different properties.
"It is Google’s understanding that the information about you on this URL - with regard to all the circumstances of the case we are aware of - is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing, and therefore the reference to this document in our search results is justified by the public interest.
Based on the information available to us at this time, Google LLC has decided not to take action on this URL."
I've now tried the other URL, but I doubt this will help.
Google's current policy still seems to require them to use 1 Google log, and 1 other non-Google log given the lifetime. They seem to use 1 Google log, and 1 other random log, including their own.
I'm doubt the logs will be able to keep up.
Note that the composition might also still have a copyright because it's not the original composition but a derived work, but that seems unlikely in this case.