Maker Pro
Maker Pro

OT: CPU heatsink "heat pipes"

J

JAD

Jan 1, 1970
0
David Maynard said:
Taiwan is a wonderfully bizarre matter, ain't it?

It is, and I understand that it is used as the last ditch effort to confuse
a conversation, because of its complexities and the fact that a governmental
structure seems to exist there, but hardley in the conventional manner, and
really is a conundrum.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Nice try. Please quote this definition of sovereignty which you've
alleged I've invented.

You do make it difficult to quote a 'definition' because you spend more
time stomping around crying "no it ain't" than anything else but you've
made it clear that 'controlling' territory is pretty much it.

You will, no doubt, say that's inaccurate but it doesn't really matter
because you deny the reality of it, which means whatever you will fail to
explain it is while opining "that isn't it" is still, being contrary to
reality, an invention.

For your further education, this is known as setting a up a "straw
man".

And you work real hard at it too.
And I tend to be a bit stuffy about fatuous inventions - try arguing
with what I've written, rather than what you would have liked me to
have written.

For some strange reason I actually do.
<snipped a chunk of very selective quotation>

You're a hoot. I pull 5 whole sections of the article and you call it "very
selective quotations" and rebut with a 14 word sentence fragment ripped out
of context. Not only that but, to make your attempted deception even more
apparent, the sentence fragment you ripped out as 'your quote', while
suggesting mine was 'selective', was *INCLUDED* in my quotation, except
with the rest of the words around it that YOU selectively eliminated.

And then, to complete the farce, you snip my fuller quotations out.
Anyone who reads the whole article will find a rather more balanced
assessment of the issues involved in recognition.

What they'll find is that most of the rest is examples and explanations of
why the portions I pulled out are the case
Here's a quote which is more to my taste

" the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state
population, state territory, effective government) "

Isn't that nice? Except that all the words around it, that you ripped it
out of, are explaining why that isn't the case, why it could not be the
case, and why it isn't desirable that it ever be the case. Which is *IN*
what you call my "very selective quotation."

Putting that one (of 5) "very selective quotation" back in...

"It is only by recognition that the new state acquires the status of a
sovereign state under international law in its relations with the third
states recognizing it as such. If it were to acquire this legal status
before and independently of recognition by the existing states, solely on
the basis of the three so-called traditional criteria of statehood (state
population, state territory, effective government)..... It would not be
possible to bring about the `negative' legal consequence intended by
non-recognition, i.e. denial of the legal status of a state under
international law."

What I 'selectively' removed at the ..... was an example to emphasis the
point using Rhodesia and the Serbian Republic in Bosnia-Herzegovina and
removing it did not alter the meaning, just saved some space.

*Your* selective culling of those 14 words is a deception attempting to
suggest exactly the opposite of what the text says.

I also cut the paragraph short as the rest of it reinforces the last
sentence in my quote but, lest anyone doubt and is too lazy to follow the
link, here's the rest.

"Legal personality under international law, which non-recognition was
intended to prevent, would already have been acquired, and non-recognition
would then in a sense be futile and would merely be an expression of
political censure of the way in which the state came into existence,
without this flaw having any significant legal consequences under
international law. Such an assumption is not consistent with state practice."

In other words, it ain't the case, can't be the case, isn't desirable that
it be the case, *and* is inconsistent with state practice.
Which was - as even you ought to appreciate - a joke.

Well, it sometimes helps to laugh when you haven't got a leg to stand on.

The Northern Alliance might have been a recognised entity, but it
wasn't a government, and certainly not of the 90% of Afghanistan ruled
by the Taliban.

What you *think* should have been the case doesn't matter. The fact is the
Taliban was not the recognized government of Afghanistan and, as the
article explains, there are reasons why 'recognition' matters, that there's
more to a government that simply 'control' over territory, and just having
'power' doesn't automatically bestow legitimacy.
That international diplomacy has lot in common with high comedy, and
very little to do with reality. You should love it.

If we were sitting around talking about the ironies of life in a general
sort of way I might agree with you, or at least find it amusing, but it
isn't very funny when someone is harboring and aiding the folks who
declared war on you and just mass murdered a few thousand of your fellow
countrymen.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
JAD said:
It is, and I understand that it is used as the last ditch effort to confuse
a conversation, because of its complexities and the fact that a governmental
structure seems to exist there, but hardley in the conventional manner, and
really is a conundrum.

Yeah. It can be a tactic in a general strategy that I sometimes refer to as
divert and befuddle, not that folks use who it are always aware it comes
out that way.

Another is what William Buckley explained as the "false equivalency:"
attempting to claim substantively different things are 'the same' based on
a 'technically true', but false for the substance, 'similarity'. His
example went something like:

Murder pushes elderly woman into the path of an oncoming bus.

Hero <who you want to demomize> sees elderly woman about to be struck by an
oncoming bus and pushes her out of the way.

Demonizer claims your hero is 'just like' (the same as, no different than,
just as guilty as) a murderer because they both push around old ladies
(they do 'the same thing').

When, of course, the substance of the matter is that one is trying to kill
her and the other is trying to save her.

You can make the false equivalency more difficult by having both fail to
achieve their goal so your hero is even 'worse' than the murderer, or so
the demonizer will claim, because not only does he push around old ladies,
'just like' the murderer, but he's killed more of them than the murderer
(never mind that the murderer had also deliberately killed, or attempted to
kill, 2 men and 3 fashion models, they're not old ladies, and that the
elderly woman's death wasn't the hero's intention).
 
David said:
If we were sitting around talking about the ironies of life in a general
sort of way I might agree with you, or at least find it amusing, but it
isn't very funny when someone is harboring and aiding the folks who
declared war on you and just mass murdered a few thousand of your fellow
countrymen.

Osama ben Laden may have been the titular head of Al-Qaeda, which is a
loose organisation. One of the Saudi-based branches of Al-Qaeda seems
to have organised and executed the the assault on the Twin Towers, but
at the time you invaded Afghanistan you would not have been able
collect enough evidence of ben Laden's involvement to make a case in
your courts or anybody else's, which means that you weren't in a
position to demand his extradition. You might have been able to get him
for involvment in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the U.S. embassies in
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, but I can't recall that being
mentioned at the time.

Even today, the only real evidence of his involvement in the attack on
the Twin Towers is a video tape, made long after the event, where he
claims to have been privy to the initial planning. Since you'd by then
started a small war on the presumption of his guilt, he didn't have
anything to lose by claiming some responsibility, and he did gain some
prestige amongst his supporters.

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as support for him or Al-Qaeda -
we'd all sleep more soundly if he and his supporters were safely behind
bars, but history suggests that we will have to wait until the
survivors have all died of old age.

What I do understand - and you clearly don't - is that Al Qaeda's real
success in knocking down the Twin Towers wasn't the material damage,
the casualty list, or the wide-spread feelings of insecurity, but their
success in provoking your administration into abandoning the rule of
law. Not that your current administration seems to have needed much
provoking.

Any terrorist organisation that can provoke the target government into
harrassing innocent citizens has achieved a considerable strategic
victory at essentially no cost to themselves.

I've yet to hear of a real terrorist being arrested under emergency
regulations.The British anti-IRA legislation has been on the books for
around thirty years now, and about 95% of those arrested under it were
released without charge, while none of the remaining 5% were ever
charged with terrorist offences - almost all of them were charged with
being illegal immigrants of one sort or another. And the pressure on
the U.K. police did produce a small crop of convictions of innocent
people, who had been "pressured" into confessing.

There does seem to be a fair amount of anedotal evidence that
government over-reaction can encourage some members of minority groups
to join terrorist organisation they see as defending their minority
against an oppressive government.

Go figure.
 
J

Joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
Bernhard said:
I had this question before. Maybe I should put it in the article:

------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I made the vapor cooling I made a "drinking bird" and found
ether flows quite well. At first I thought about using water and
with its high surface tension I was a little worried that its
bubbles might be too rigid to enter or leave the small pipes or
such. Also there was a table which listed the height of a liquid
column that could be carried by the vapor pressure at a temperature
difference of 1 degree C and ether had the highest value with 43 cm
(http://www.klangspiel.ch/trinkente/). In my design it is important
that the vapor pushes the liquid out of the vapor pipe. Lower
boiling liquids might do even better, but they might require cooling
or pressurization for storage or filling of the thermo syphon.

Ether also has near ambient pressure which causes little mechanical
stress and may also reduce the rate of anything leaking in or out.
Since you already had it ok, otherwise i would suggest a (near)
perchlorinated (methyl, ethyl, propyl, or butyl hydrocarbon) ketone.
Not very toxic, very nearly ozone safe, and non-flammable; they are used in
"Clean agent fire extinguishing systems". Hey, who is that chemist? He
ought to be able to do better than this.
 
J

Joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
Richard said:
No, Mr. Sloman, you have it back-asswards.

Most of the trouble in the world is caused by somebody "helping to solve
other peoples' problems.".

**** you! Solve your own damn problems!

And I wish the US government would solve their own damn problems before
they go stampeding around the world trying to "fix" everybody else. >:-(

Thanks,
Rich
You realize that most of the US going off to "fix" other people's problems
(ala "banana republic") is at the behest of multinational corporations.
 
D

David Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
Osama ben Laden may have been the titular head of Al-Qaeda, which is a
loose organisation. One of the Saudi-based branches of Al-Qaeda seems
to have organised and executed the the assault on the Twin Towers, but
at the time you invaded Afghanistan you would not have been able
collect enough evidence of ben Laden's involvement to make a case in
your courts or anybody else's, which means that you weren't in a
position to demand his extradition. You might have been able to get him
for involvment in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the U.S. embassies in
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, but I can't recall that being
mentioned at the time.

Even today, the only real evidence of his involvement in the attack on
the Twin Towers is a video tape, made long after the event, where he
claims to have been privy to the initial planning. Since you'd by then
started a small war on the presumption of his guilt, he didn't have
anything to lose by claiming some responsibility, and he did gain some
prestige amongst his supporters.

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as support for him or Al-Qaeda -
we'd all sleep more soundly if he and his supporters were safely behind
bars, but history suggests that we will have to wait until the
survivors have all died of old age.

What I do understand - and you clearly don't - is that Al Qaeda's real
success in knocking down the Twin Towers wasn't the material damage,
the casualty list, or the wide-spread feelings of insecurity, but their
success in provoking your administration into abandoning the rule of
law. Not that your current administration seems to have needed much
provoking.

That was part of their aim. The other part was economic damage, and
they were equally successful there. I read somewhere about an Al Qaeda
video (or net posting, or whatever) boasting that for every dollar they
spent on planning and executing the 911 attack, the US has spent a
million dollars in its retribution. That's a pretty good return of
investment by any standards, and is made even better (for Al Qaeda) by
the fact that most of it was spent attacking bin Ladan's enemy.
 
J

Joseph2k

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mxsmanic said:
Not necessarily. It all depends on the operating temperatures at both
ends of the heat pipe. Each heat pipe must be designed for a specific
application, and the nature of that application dictates the working
fluid, which may in some cases be water.
The volume changes associated with phase changes of water make it a very
poor choice for the working fluid of a heat pipe.
 
D

David Maynard

Jan 1, 1970
0
Osama ben Laden may have been the titular head of Al-Qaeda,

You might want to inform Zarkowi that Bin Laden is only 'maybe' the titular
head, then, because he swore allegiance. On the other hand, Zarkowi might
have a better grip on it than you do.
which is a
loose organisation.

Is that supposed to console the dead?
One of the Saudi-based branches of Al-Qaeda seems
to have organised and executed the the assault on the Twin Towers,

15 of the hijackers were Saudi but the attack was planned by Khalid Sheik
Mohammed and approved by Osama bin Laden; the two of them personally chose
the hijackers.
but
at the time you invaded Afghanistan you would not have been able
collect enough evidence of ben Laden's involvement to make a case in
your courts or anybody else's,

Besides the fact that you ignore all the events prior to 9-11 and that Bin
Laden was already known to have participated in other attacks and that not
only was the US trying to get him extradited but the UN had two resolutions
calling for it as well, the fact that one cannot file a search warrant, or
any other 'legal' document, in another land, much less conduct a search or
perform any law enforcement duties when the thugs of an unrecognized semi
'government' in control deny any and all means, as well as aid, abet and
provide sanctuary, is one reason why it is not a 'criminal law' matter.
which means that you weren't in a
position to demand his extradition.

And just how does one conduct a trial prior to extradition so that,
according to you, extradition can take place?
You might have been able to get him
for involvment in the August 7, 1998, bombings of the U.S. embassies in
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, but I can't recall that being
mentioned at the time.

What you fail to 'recall' is your failure.
Even today, the only real evidence of his involvement in the attack on
the Twin Towers is a video tape, made long after the event, where he
claims to have been privy to the initial planning. Since you'd by then
started a small war on the presumption of his guilt, he didn't have
anything to lose by claiming some responsibility, and he did gain some
prestige amongst his supporters.

That is so far off base, uninformed, and nonsensical it would take a week
to fix up and I don't have the inclination.

Don't misinterpret what I'm saying as support for him or Al-Qaeda -
we'd all sleep more soundly if he and his supporters were safely behind
bars, but history suggests that we will have to wait until the
survivors have all died of old age.

Oh yes, the obligatory "not that I support" statement after postulating
every imagined means to support his continued illegal 'war'.

What I do understand - and you clearly don't - is that Al Qaeda's real
success in knocking down the Twin Towers wasn't the material damage,
the casualty list, or the wide-spread feelings of insecurity, but their
success in provoking your administration into abandoning the rule of
law. Not that your current administration seems to have needed much
provoking.

Considering your stated opinion that international law is "comical" and has
"very little to do with reality" your opinion of what is, or is not,
'legal' has no validity.
Any terrorist organisation that can provoke the target government into
harrassing innocent citizens has achieved a considerable strategic
victory at essentially no cost to themselves.

I've yet to hear of a real terrorist being arrested under emergency
regulations.

Again, what you fail to 'hear' is your failure or, what I suspect is more
the case, what you refuse to hear.
The British anti-IRA legislation has been on the books for
around thirty years now, and about 95% of those arrested under it were
released without charge, while none of the remaining 5% were ever
charged with terrorist offences - almost all of them were charged with
being illegal immigrants of one sort or another. And the pressure on
the U.K. police did produce a small crop of convictions of innocent
people, who had been "pressured" into confessing.

I don't live in the UK, UK laws are not US laws, and the IRA is not Al
Qaeda. In short, what the UK may, or may not, have screwed up is their problem.
There does seem to be a fair amount of anedotal evidence that
government over-reaction can encourage some members of minority groups
to join terrorist organisation they see as defending their minority
against an oppressive government.

US law does not extend to Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, or any other
foreign nation, so tell me how, even if US law were 'oppressing innocent
citizens', which it is not, it could have possibly made one whit of
difference to Al Qaeda or fundamentalist wackos from Saudi Arabia?

Not to mention that in a democracy legal, you know, that thing you find
'comical', legislative, and judicial process are how to resolve matters,
not by murdering innocent civilians.
 
Top