Let's make this clear. "Analog" Amplifiers: All amplifiers in use by DJs today process analog input (music) signals. An analog signal is a continuous wave signal, a digital signal is an analog signal which has been converted to a sequence of numbers. Analog when spoken in terms of power amplifiers typically refers to the design of the power supply and/or output stage, and most analog amps are those with a straight Class AB design. A so called analog amplifier has a power supply which typically uses a large power transformer, a rectifier circuit, and large capacitors. These three basic devices convert the AC voltage from the outlet to a lower voltage (more suitable for the internal needs of the unit), change it from AC to DC, and filter and store energy. These types of power supplies have been around for many years; they are relatively simple and reliable. The downside is that the power transformer is usually large and quite heavy (the transformer core utilizes a considerable amount of iron), and the capacitors (a minimum of two are normally used) can also large and bulky. Amplifier efficiency is generally assumed to be stated for resistive loads. Speakers are reactive loads, meaning they are basically a resistance with the added characteristic of inductance or capacitance (one or the other at any given time). A speaker will never be totally reactive (meaning it will never be totally inductive or total capacitive, it will always have a resistive component). Ideal inductors and capacitors dissipate no power (these devices store electrical energy), however they DO allow current to flow. For illustrative purposes, lets say that we have a very strange speaker that is 8 ohms inductive (100% inductive). If we hook this up to an amplifier will current flow (assuming the volume is up)? Yes! However, the inductor cannot dissipate any power (and hence this speaker makes no sound). Ohms law dictates how things work here. Basically, we will have the same current flowing through an 8 ohm inductor as would be in an 8 ohm speaker, HOWEVER, the current through the inductor has a different phase than it would through a resistive load. Ohms law states that the current around any circuit loop is the same in each component and the voltage drops in the loop must sum to zero. So, we have voltage drop across the inductor and current flowing through it, however because the current and voltage are 90 degrees out of phase there IS NO POWER dissipated by the inductor. HOWEVER, there IS power being dissipated in the output device of the amplifier EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NO POWER BEING DISSPATED IN THE INDUCTOR (the strange speaker in this example)! What I am trying to explain in this long winded section is that inductive (and capacitive) loads can place added demands on the output devices of amplifiers! As I mentioned, no real speaker will be 100% inductive (or capacitive), but under certain conditions (conditions that are not uncommon in actual use) speakers can have an inductive (or capacitive) component that can definitely add to the stress on the output device of an amplifier. Reactive loads will basically increase the power dissipated in the output device in an amplifier. Peak Power This is the power, in watts, that an amplifier can produce during short peaks or transients. Typically, peak power is 1 to 3 dB higher than the continuous power. Peak power depends on the amplifiers power reserves (energy storage). If the amplifiers power supply has a bank of large filter capacitors, they can store energy that can be released during short peaks. Many loudspeakers are rated in the peak power they can handle. Ideally, the power amplifiers peak power should not exceed the loudspeakers peak power rating. If the power amp does not have a peak power spec, just make sure that the amps continuous power is twice that of the loudspeaker (within 80% to 125%). Now I listed this out for you to get a look at just how important the Capacitors in an amp are necessary to store power necessary for peak performance. AboveAlpha
The SCOTUS said in Roe - That a State (or Federal Government) COULD establish that a child in the womb is a 'person' and that would make an " almost IMPOSSIBLE case" for the attorneys trying to legalize abortion to make. They didn't say that it would help the proponents of abortion (as you are claiming it would). In fact, Sarah Weddington, during the arguments AGREED that it would be a MUCH more difficult case for her - if the Court were to establish the personhood of the (human) fetus. [video=youtube;81NrWq3p5Ag]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NrWq3p5Ag[/video] Guess what.... We heard what the court said and we've been working to establish that personhood ever since.
You make a good point. You also, I noticed, in that little slogan at the bottom of the post says ,"Saying "abortion rights" is like saying "Holocaust rights." The absurdity of the phrase should speak for itself." You are right. Aborting would be just like the Holocaust. Thank you for commenting.
Listen, I'm not going to lie to you. You all have different opinions. But if it is made legal, if Congress lets abortion continue, then what about the children? You may call it a "fetus", and yes that is the scientific name for it, but it is a living being, separated from the mother. If you say that it is part of the mother, you are wrong. To say that is like saying that an adult is still part of their mother, and that it is legal for the mother to kill the adult, because the adult is ,"still part of the mother". And what about the future? That unborn child will never have the experience of growing up. They weren't even given a chance.
It IS legal....and if it was made illegal it still would happen. What about the "future"? Abortion has been around for 100's of years, maybe thousands , and now, THAT "future" is here and there's still plenty of people swarming all over this planet... "The unborn child will never have the experience of growing up" That's the purpose of abortion, no ensuing "child". ""They weren't even given a chance""" Why should they be owed a chance....nobody ever gave me the chance to be a NASCAR driver, boo-hoo! IF abortion was made illegal how do you think it should be prosecuted, how would you prove a woman had an abortion, and what do you think the sentence should be??
You're not really a lawyer, are you? If you were, you would recognize the nazi card as a logical fallacy, especially as it is used here to compare the termination of a pregnancy to throwing actual, born individuals into an oven.
"Unjustified Beliefs." I agree, don't go forcing your unjustified beliefs on another person. Is a fetus human? What other scenario can you arbitrarily kill another human? For clarity.
What makes you believe that a woman's decision to abort is arbitrary? now I understand that you personally may feel that a lot of those reasons are not valid and as such arbitrary made .. but then all that means is you are also making arbitrary decisions as to what is a valid reason. what gives you the right to decide what is or is not a valid reason for a woman?
No, I don't care if you think it's unjustified beliefs. Just don't go forcing your beliefs on another person. What is justified in one eyes may not be justified in the others.
That's fine with me. I am just asking for there to be consistency in the thought and reasoning on this topic. Which I see little from either side.
I'm pretty pro-choice. But I can't in good conscience argue that a fetus is not a human. There are good reasons for choice, but to result in denying the biological reality of a human, then that's when I have to jump off board.
What characteristics are necessary to qualify as "A human"? Is there a single characteristic that is essential for "human beingness"?
That's a good question and one that I don't think has recently been explored in the courts. Usually, the characteristics of "humanness" are never up for discussion in this debate. I think that all you need for a human is the biological facts. Human DNA is a prerequisite to all of those facts. Does that mean that your clipped fingernails are human? Not exactly, so there is something else. Is a human "a choice"? That doesn't seem correct either. In between I think we can see that there is a choice for a human to exist. To exaggerate it's threat to another human I think is unwarranted in most individual cases. And that is the standard of most criminal law. Two worlds collide. The thing that most puzzles me is that if we apply this standard uniformly it goes like; you need consciousness to be human...anyone can be killed in their sleep, you need to not be able to feel physical pain...then anyone receiving anesthesia can be killed, you need to move (quickening) to be human, people in comas can be killed, I am being injured and must protect my body...fast food servers can be killed. That may sound "slippery slopey", but if you follow the logic, a fetus can only harm a woman if the woman chooses (should be made more available) to not use birth control and not use secondary options to avoid a pregnancy. Which is my problem with pro-life arguments. They spend all of their resources (and arguments) defending "the life" instead of "preventing the life". There is nothing unethical about preventing life...unless there is. If so, then you are arguing in the wrong topic. Go to "sexual immorality", and leave abortion be.
A Human Being has a LEGAL DEFINITION and a SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION. I have posted before what the Scientific Definition is as a Human Being is a Multi-Cellular Multi-Species Bio-Mechanical Construct where multiple species exist within and as a part of that construct in a symbiotic relationship necessary for the Bio-Mechanical Human Being Construct to exist and reproduce. The LEGAL definition is a Human Being exists with all U.S. Constitutional Rights with PERSONAGE and PERSONAGE exists when a Human Being can exist alive upon it's own outside the womb even if it has mechanical support and as long as it is BIRTHED or REMOVED via C-Section from the womb and has a WORKING BRAIN and is not brain dead or does not have a brain which without Higher Brain Functions a Birthed or C-Section removed from the womb Fetus cannot obtain PERSONAGE without Higher Brain Function. This is consistent with a person who has had trauma and is on life support but has no Brain Function or Higher Brain Function....as such a person is then considered DEAD...and No Longer a Personage. In the case of a Fetus that is either Birthed or removed via C-Section and this Fetus for whatever reason is BRAIN DEAD....but yet can exist with mechanical assistance outside the womb...such a fetus cannot obtain Personage and is NOT a living Human Being as it never developed to a point it became one. AboveAlpha
so this baby was not a human legally http://lmg.letmeget.net/blog/nicholas-coke-wiki-baby-without-brain he was given a birth certificate, was on Medicare, parents was able to claim him on their tax returns as a dependent, and he received a death certificate when he passed away at three how was he able to receive all those legal documents and assistants and all the rights and protections reserved for humans if he was legally not one if Nicholas Coke wasn't a legal human being what legally was he
Anencephalic babies are born with a brain stem which enables vital life functions without life support.
Things like this are SICK!!! This woman should have had an abortion once she found out this fetus was improperly developing and NO...even though all those things were given such as a Birth Certificate...etc....that was more of a case of SYMPATHY than reality. This thing born was a Genetic Abnormality and the woman should NEVER have been allowed to go through birthing it. AboveAlpha
so what other birth defects you conceder sick and should not be given the rights of a human where do you draw the line ? Margret Singer and Adolf Hitler would be very proud of your ideology still waiting for your answer if Nicholas Coke wasn't a legal human being what legally was he
The LINE is drawn when a Pregnancy has been determined by a Doctor to be Non-Viable as this one should have been...or was and was ignored. If a Fetus can never think or live and grow into a person then it should be ABORTED!!!! AboveAlpha
you refuse to answer the question and the reason why you would have to create a sub human category and who else would you place in that category? If he wasn't a human what was he?
I am not refusing to answer anything. I told you the answer. It is a DOCTOR who must decide whether a fetus is considered to be Non-Viable. Non-Viable basically means the Fetus cannot live outside the womb or even if it can either with the help of mechanical assistance or not without Higher Brain Functions a Fetus is NOT a Human Being and will never become a Human Being and should be aborted asap. AboveAlpha
living three years after birth would be considered viable wouldn't you think but according to your other qualifications Nicholas Coke wasn't human. so what was he then? you thought you had this all wrapped up in a nice little package on what is legally human so to justify killing the unborn and along comes Nicholas Coke that blows holes in your little theory
"Nicholas's" "life" was a freak occurance with mentally ill people for parents. I do not think this should be the reason to deny all other women the right to their reproductive freedom. But, be happy, the Anti-Women faction is gaining ground with their misogynistic view that women are nothing more than breeding cattle and must be totally controlled, that they are not equal citizens,,,.
