NIO adds in some really great I/O capabilities. I absolutely love having channels/selectors for network servers. 5 hours of coding on a network server to go from single thread per connection to one thread multiplexing all of my I/O. Using a few worker threads to process incoming data and my stress testing I used before doesn't even come close to pushing the server like it used to. I had to increase the brutality of the testing quite a bit more to find top level performance.
I know I/O is just one aspect of programming, but it is VERY key to overall performance.. and in I/O bound apps NIO is a godsend.
So anyway, there were some really good improvements in 1.4. I think 1.4 was a pretty marked improvement just because of NIO.
It is so easy to get on an ideological high that the practicalities of our world are missed.
If even one person still believes in violence there must be a counter to that person, or at least a threat. You simply can't let a violent being go unchallenged. It is WRONG to let a violent person continue their violent actions. Some of the time the only way to end a violent persons actions are with violence. Im sorry you aren't going to talk a madman with an assault rifle who is on a killing spree down. You have to take him out.
Same situation. If you have a son and he is picked on, pushed around, and in some cases involved in a fight not of his choosing would you have your son sit there and "take it like a man?". Some of the time there is no other way. When placed into a situation of extreme violence with no choice I would love to see how many people who preach non-violence stick to their claim and take the effects of the violence without fighting back.
The only way it could ever work is if everyone in the world, all at once, agreed to stop all violence immediately and we had a way to irrevocably enforce the agreement. When such an ideological fantasy comes true let me know and I will agree along with the rest of the world
Linux and Windows both have their strengths and weaknesses. When it really comes down to it both of them suck ass.
That is a nice conclusion, one I could even agree with on many levels. Even if most people agree with you that doesn't change anything being discussed in this article. The whole point is to determine which "sucks ass" the least (Windows or Linux):)
Most of the 10s street cars all have major traction problems. I have seen guys go from low tens to mid 9s w/Slicks and no other significant changes. It actually is kind of scary to drive a car with that much available torque on the road on street tires.. but ah.. who am I kidding.. it beats walking;)
Most 500rwhp - 500ft/lb tq cars I know of are quite capable of running on the lower side of 10s. I have seen several TT V8 stangs on a stock bottom end with auto trannies pushing low tens on street tires. (of course I am thinking rwhp as that is all I really like to use. I think flywheel HP is a gimmick).
(Not to mention TT V8 stangs can get ~24mpg@500rwhp)
Mary *was* married when she had Jesus. So actually no.. you are wrong. A child is not a bastard if it has *A* father at the time of birth.
From Matthew, Chapter 1: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
So, a commonly known and accepted definition is that a same-sex marriage doesn't even have the same legal power as a regular marriage. And here I am arguing for the same legal status for a same sex (common law marriage) and you are bustin my chops? Why fight when we want practically the same thing?
Come on Helpless Will. I was being mostly sarcastic in saying that marriages are a Christian institution. I honestly don't really give a care. As long as the two are of legal age, mutually consenting, and of sound mind, sure let them marry! Brother, sister, whatever. Marriage at the highest level is a legal status and I don't feel that any couple commited to staying a couple for the rest of their lives should be denied said legal status.
I do think all the standard concepts of Marraige should apply. Till death do you part, you can't easily disolve the union and you are entitled to the exact same benefits of any normal married couple (because you would in fact BE a normal married couple). It is the most simple approach given how complex the laws pertaining to marriage are. Anything else will just muddy the waters. Marriage is just an umbrella term anyway, most religions, and even most people view marriage slightly differently.
I completely agree. Marriage is a specific christian tradition that is bound by God and the love of a man and a woman for each other. That is what marriage is.
To be perfectly honest I don't mind homosexuality in the least. I do mind same-sex marriage
Let's call it what it is, a civicl union, mostly to afford them the same financial benefits as regularly married people.
Invent some new term, but don't do something that most people believe to be against the Bible. That is not the way to achieve goals.
I read an article on this. He was not showing up for some minor commitements, like blue screen scans. Boring stuff. He had a back injury and his time was being split by his other movie project (Seabiscuit) at the time.
He is still in, he shaped up and is still in as far as I know
Your comment on an enlargement looking totally different from a standard print reminds me of getting started a year and a half ago. When I first started taking pictures with the SLR I got really upset that the developing place was messing up my prints (colors were all just drained). They were totally overusing the chemicals and not going with fresh stuff often enough. But I equated bad prints to bad pictures. A year later I took some of my original negatives and had them scanned at the same place I have my slide film developed. The colors in those pictures (taken with the kit Canon lens) were simply vibrant compared to the original prints)
The sad thing is that those bad prints actually made me think it was my equipment and or me. For several months I just couldn't figure out why my pictures didn't have any pop. I was using every print film out there (Reala, Royal Gold, etc. etc.) and I still couldn't get anything great. I finally caught on when I went to a Wal-Mart 1hr lab and the prints looked very colorful.
The thing is most people are going to go through this sort of trial and error process and it can really douse one's spirit for taking pictures when all you get are bland de-saturated pictures when you are expecting at least to have colors that are as colorful as real life.
With the digital camera there are still post-processing tricks to be done, but usually you can see/feel the true potency of a camera right away and I feel like you are on a steadier platform right from the beggining. There are no changes in film/print quality to throw you off etc. You get faithful production each time.
I do have some nice negatives I would like enlarged some day. I mostly shot Fuji Reala or Velvia slides. Some day.
I still carry the SLR with a roll of Velvia ready to go in case I find a really great shot on the Digital camera. I bracket like hell with the Velvia, lol. So I guess I am trying to say I agree with you:). I know there will invariably be some people out there who shoot at least a dozen great pictures their first year with a digital camera who go, "Man, I wish I could have this one enlarged!".
The thing is, it took me like twice as long to get comfortable with the film. With the digital camera I don't feel so "guilty" about experimenting and burning through a couple hundred MB of CF experimenting. For most people digital shots = no cost, but film shots = $$$, so I like telling people to start off with a lower end digital camera to learn to take pictures. When you want the good stuff you will know what you want after that.
I bought and learned over the course of a year with a Rebel 2K and lots and lots of print film. I spent more on film and developing than I did on the camera itself. I did learn, but it was expensive. I have gone digital and I will not look back, ever.
I have never enlarged past 8x10, and probably never will. MOST people won't enlarge beyond 8x10 so the MP race is meaningless. Get digital camera with a good lens and 3-5MP and start taking pictures! I was on the photography newsgroups for a while and so many people get hung up on the technical aspects of photography that it is hard to weed through the noise. Focus on composing your shots and taking the picture. A digital camera will let you see your mistakes and learn more quickly. If after a couple of years you really are into A.) Technology will have improved and B.) You will know what to plunk money down on and what you like and what you need.
Start cheap, shoot a lot of pictures in digital, and enjoy it. Find a camera that will last and one that has a decent lens and some manual controls, the rest will take care of itself in a couple of years:-D
I spend 50 or 60 bucks each Holiday or weekend I go out shooting pictures. (average)
I recently went digital with a 6.3MP digital rebel (canon). Get to keep my lenses and I now have 2GB of CF cards to stash pictures on. I will in some ways miss Velvia and the slides I made, but I won't miss spending upwards of 75$ for one weekend of shooting.
I like to take a lot of pictures. I am not to an Ansel Adams think about the picture for weeks and take that one perfect shot on a Hassy or some other Medium Format camera. I am more interactive than that and I truly enjoy it and have taken some "great" photos that way.
The camera will pay for itself within a year. Within a year and a half I will have made up for the cost of the original film SLR body and stuff.
I picked up a Canon Rebel 2K for like 180 and the f/1.8 50mm lens for 50 more.
The picture quality on high end print film with the 50mm is OUTSTANDING. Reading all of the reviews (technical and anecdotal) this lens is right up there with the top of the line max out your credit card lenses (in terms of picture quality, the build quality is pretty low). Canon has some really great stuff in the low end if you hunt around. They also have some really bad stuff. f/1.2 compared to f/1.8 really isn't worth whatever you would have to spend for it. It does give you that extra stop or two in low light situations, but the 1.8 is just as good most of the time:)
There is always going to be communications overhead when you have more than one developer, it is inevitable. That is why I included the little statement of diminishing returns. I still believe, even in a corporate setting, you can create a team of individuals that can outperform one, single person in a good variety of (most) environments.
Most inventors tend to have day jobs as well, so they can't spend 18 hours/day working on their dream. Ok, they can pretty easily manage 40 hours / week in their spare time with enough passion (I know I have many times in the past w/school, writing a book, and just researching ideas), but that is less than 18 hrs/day.
My opinion: given a corporate structure, a budget that far outreaches the lone inventor's, and an appropriate sized team you can put in more productive man hours than the lone inventor and do more productive work.
I am an Application Architect, and I have seen that doing my job well and combining my work with knowledgeable management and clear, concise goals I can set a team of developers on task and they can quite easily accomplish a great deal of work (even with regular work hours). With proper management you can reduce the communications overhead significantly.
I really believe that highly motivated teams can accomplish more than the lone inventor. In your average corporate setting, maybe not, but in a truly well managed environment no questions asked a team can do more work than a lone gunman.
And to be perfectly honest the situations vary enough for our discussion topic that it is really kind of difficult to do much more than generalize things as we see them and make statements based upon those generlizations: most situations differ enough that the generalizations aren't even all that fair:)
I agree that individuals have tremendous amounts of knowledge and equipment available to them at a very low cost, yet the one man show still doesn't have every resource a larger development/research team would. The one man show is missing one key resource: time.
One person can't possible explore as much as a 5 man R&D team can. A well equipped R&D team researching the same idea a one man show is researching is bound to do better due to the amount of collaboration etc (Assuming the five people are equally skilled as individuals when compared to the one person). There ARE diminishing returns on development projects when you add more developers. There is a sweet spot, and anything more than that gets you less and less. However, that five man team has more raw man hours than the lone hobbiest, which can make a huge difference in the net results.
I do feel there is significant room for innovation from one guy with a great idea and the grit to see it through to the end, but it is always important to remember that the big company has money/time that one individual may not possess. Hopefully technology can equalize this gap, but it will take time for technology to do this.
I have a modded 87 Mustang that would be subjected to the restrictions there in Calgary.
Through diligent and careful tuning my car has emissions like that of a new car combined with an average gas mileage of about 26mpg. (Best part: 315 RWHP, 2700lb curb weight.. or about 1.5 times the RWHP of most performance sedans, half the weight of a medium-large SUV, and twice the gas mileage of a larger SUV).
My car should is tested to the same emissions standard. (Here in ATL it is) If it meets the requirements I can continue driving it, if it does not I have to make it so or spend some amount of money attempting to make it so. Any other regulation is simply silly. For all the goverment knows I could put a brand new LE engine in my old beater car:)
I have thought quite a bit about LOTR Trilogy (who here hasn't).
It really seems to me that Hobbits are outside of the normal realms of luck. I like to think that most of the races in Tolkien's world are somewhat tightly bound to do that which is their destiny, yet Hobbits seem capable of forging their own destiny's and truly changing the world.
Hobbits seem to have some special place in Tolkien's world that no other race fits in. This whole idea of Hobbits being more capable of changing the world is further supported by the fact that Sauron never really saw the Hobbits coming until it was to late. Sauron is supposedly a king manipulator. Humans, Elves, and Dwarves all got rings, but not Hobbits. Hobbits were never tainted by the "rings" as gifts. You can go on and on showing how Hobbits stick out like a sore thumb as a race. I always admired how this aspect of Hobbits is very subtly woven into the story.
I suppose any of the Heros in the story could really have been considered "able to change the future", but the Hobbits always seem to be in the right place and the right time with just the right tool to stab the enemy in the side when they least expect it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, NIO was pretty good for what its worth.
NIO adds in some really great I/O capabilities. I absolutely love having channels/selectors for network servers. 5 hours of coding on a network server to go from single thread per connection to one thread multiplexing all of my I/O. Using a few worker threads to process incoming data and my stress testing I used before doesn't even come close to pushing the server like it used to. I had to increase the brutality of the testing quite a bit more to find top level performance.
I know I/O is just one aspect of programming, but it is VERY key to overall performance.. and in I/O bound apps NIO is a godsend.
So anyway, there were some really good improvements in 1.4. I think 1.4 was a pretty marked improvement just because of NIO.
Jeremy
Gotta love them STEREOTYPES. Perhaps they DID find themselves and they are perfectly happy at a keyboard hiding from the dreaded daystar?
Go take your crass stereotyping elsewhere, this is the last place on the world you will find the bulk of users agreeing with what you just said.
Jeremy
It is so easy to get on an ideological high that the practicalities of our world are missed.
If even one person still believes in violence there must be a counter to that person, or at least a threat. You simply can't let a violent being go unchallenged. It is WRONG to let a violent person continue their violent actions. Some of the time the only way to end a violent persons actions are with violence. Im sorry you aren't going to talk a madman with an assault rifle who is on a killing spree down. You have to take him out.
Same situation. If you have a son and he is picked on, pushed around, and in some cases involved in a fight not of his choosing would you have your son sit there and "take it like a man?". Some of the time there is no other way. When placed into a situation of extreme violence with no choice I would love to see how many people who preach non-violence stick to their claim and take the effects of the violence without fighting back.
The only way it could ever work is if everyone in the world, all at once, agreed to stop all violence immediately and we had a way to irrevocably enforce the agreement. When such an ideological fantasy comes true let me know and I will agree along with the rest of the world
Jeremy
Linux and Windows both have their strengths and weaknesses. When it really comes down to it both of them suck ass.
:)
That is a nice conclusion, one I could even agree with on many levels. Even if most people agree with you that doesn't change anything being discussed in this article. The whole point is to determine which "sucks ass" the least (Windows or Linux)
Jeremy
He did say webmail, implying a webmail application, not a local mail app :)
Jeremy
Most of the 10s street cars all have major traction problems. I have seen guys go from low tens to mid 9s w/Slicks and no other significant changes. It actually is kind of scary to drive a car with that much available torque on the road on street tires.. but ah.. who am I kidding.. it beats walking ;)
Jeremy
Hmmn?
Most 500rwhp - 500ft/lb tq cars I know of are quite capable of running on the lower side of 10s. I have seen several TT V8 stangs on a stock bottom end with auto trannies pushing low tens on street tires. (of course I am thinking rwhp as that is all I really like to use. I think flywheel HP is a gimmick).
(Not to mention TT V8 stangs can get ~24mpg@500rwhp)
Jeremy
Thanks for playing ;)
Mary *was* married when she had Jesus. So actually no.. you are wrong. A child is not a bastard if it has *A* father at the time of birth.
From Matthew, Chapter 1: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. 21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: 25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
So in closing, nice try!
Jeremy
From several different dictionaries marriage:
The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.
A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.
So, a commonly known and accepted definition is that a same-sex marriage doesn't even have the same legal power as a regular marriage. And here I am arguing for the same legal status for a same sex (common law marriage) and you are bustin my chops? Why fight when we want practically the same thing?
Jeremy
Not to mention I was just stirring the pot to begin with, I didn't think I would get such a strong reaction. Hehe.
Jeremy
Come on Helpless Will. I was being mostly sarcastic in saying that marriages are a Christian institution. I honestly don't really give a care. As long as the two are of legal age, mutually consenting, and of sound mind, sure let them marry! Brother, sister, whatever. Marriage at the highest level is a legal status and I don't feel that any couple commited to staying a couple for the rest of their lives should be denied said legal status.
:)
I do think all the standard concepts of Marraige should apply. Till death do you part, you can't easily disolve the union and you are entitled to the exact same benefits of any normal married couple (because you would in fact BE a normal married couple). It is the most simple approach given how complex the laws pertaining to marriage are. Anything else will just muddy the waters. Marriage is just an umbrella term anyway, most religions, and even most people view marriage slightly differently.
So.. in closing CALM DOWN
Jeremy
Well, what people thought were marriages occured before christianity, but in truth they were heathen unions.
Jeremy
Alrighty, they can have the same legal status as a married staright couple, but they still can't call it a marriage, just because.
Jeremy
I completely agree. Marriage is a specific christian tradition that is bound by God and the love of a man and a woman for each other. That is what marriage is.
To be perfectly honest I don't mind homosexuality in the least. I do mind same-sex marriage
Let's call it what it is, a civicl union, mostly to afford them the same financial benefits as regularly married people.
Invent some new term, but don't do something that most people believe to be against the Bible. That is not the way to achieve goals.
Jeremy
I read an article on this. He was not showing up for some minor commitements, like blue screen scans. Boring stuff. He had a back injury and his time was being split by his other movie project (Seabiscuit) at the time.
He is still in, he shaped up and is still in as far as I know
Jeremy
Your comment on an enlargement looking totally different from a standard print reminds me of getting started a year and a half ago. When I first started taking pictures with the SLR I got really upset that the developing place was messing up my prints (colors were all just drained). They were totally overusing the chemicals and not going with fresh stuff often enough. But I equated bad prints to bad pictures. A year later I took some of my original negatives and had them scanned at the same place I have my slide film developed. The colors in those pictures (taken with the kit Canon lens) were simply vibrant compared to the original prints)
The sad thing is that those bad prints actually made me think it was my equipment and or me. For several months I just couldn't figure out why my pictures didn't have any pop. I was using every print film out there (Reala, Royal Gold, etc. etc.) and I still couldn't get anything great. I finally caught on when I went to a Wal-Mart 1hr lab and the prints looked very colorful.
The thing is most people are going to go through this sort of trial and error process and it can really douse one's spirit for taking pictures when all you get are bland de-saturated pictures when you are expecting at least to have colors that are as colorful as real life.
With the digital camera there are still post-processing tricks to be done, but usually you can see/feel the true potency of a camera right away and I feel like you are on a steadier platform right from the beggining. There are no changes in film/print quality to throw you off etc. You get faithful production each time.
Very true :)
:). I know there will invariably be some people out there who shoot at least a dozen great pictures their first year with a digital camera who go, "Man, I wish I could have this one enlarged!".
I do have some nice negatives I would like enlarged some day. I mostly shot Fuji Reala or Velvia slides. Some day.
I still carry the SLR with a roll of Velvia ready to go in case I find a really great shot on the Digital camera. I bracket like hell with the Velvia, lol. So I guess I am trying to say I agree with you
The thing is, it took me like twice as long to get comfortable with the film. With the digital camera I don't feel so "guilty" about experimenting and burning through a couple hundred MB of CF experimenting. For most people digital shots = no cost, but film shots = $$$, so I like telling people to start off with a lower end digital camera to learn to take pictures. When you want the good stuff you will know what you want after that.
Jeremy
I will second that.
:-D
I bought and learned over the course of a year with a Rebel 2K and lots and lots of print film. I spent more on film and developing than I did on the camera itself. I did learn, but it was expensive. I have gone digital and I will not look back, ever.
I have never enlarged past 8x10, and probably never will. MOST people won't enlarge beyond 8x10 so the MP race is meaningless. Get digital camera with a good lens and 3-5MP and start taking pictures! I was on the photography newsgroups for a while and so many people get hung up on the technical aspects of photography that it is hard to weed through the noise. Focus on composing your shots and taking the picture. A digital camera will let you see your mistakes and learn more quickly. If after a couple of years you really are into A.) Technology will have improved and B.) You will know what to plunk money down on and what you like and what you need.
Start cheap, shoot a lot of pictures in digital, and enjoy it. Find a camera that will last and one that has a decent lens and some manual controls, the rest will take care of itself in a couple of years
Jeremy
50 rolls?
:)
I spend 50 or 60 bucks each Holiday or weekend I go out shooting pictures. (average)
I recently went digital with a 6.3MP digital rebel (canon). Get to keep my lenses and I now have 2GB of CF cards to stash pictures on. I will in some ways miss Velvia and the slides I made, but I won't miss spending upwards of 75$ for one weekend of shooting.
I like to take a lot of pictures. I am not to an Ansel Adams think about the picture for weeks and take that one perfect shot on a Hassy or some other Medium Format camera. I am more interactive than that and I truly enjoy it and have taken some "great" photos that way.
The camera will pay for itself within a year. Within a year and a half I will have made up for the cost of the original film SLR body and stuff.
I would call that good upgradability
Jeremy
I picked up a Canon Rebel 2K for like 180 and the f/1.8 50mm lens for 50 more.
:)
The picture quality on high end print film with the 50mm is OUTSTANDING. Reading all of the reviews (technical and anecdotal) this lens is right up there with the top of the line max out your credit card lenses (in terms of picture quality, the build quality is pretty low). Canon has some really great stuff in the low end if you hunt around. They also have some really bad stuff. f/1.2 compared to f/1.8 really isn't worth whatever you would have to spend for it. It does give you that extra stop or two in low light situations, but the 1.8 is just as good most of the time
Jeremy
There is always going to be communications overhead when you have more than one developer, it is inevitable. That is why I included the little statement of diminishing returns. I still believe, even in a corporate setting, you can create a team of individuals that can outperform one, single person in a good variety of (most) environments.
:)
Most inventors tend to have day jobs as well, so they can't spend 18 hours/day working on their dream. Ok, they can pretty easily manage 40 hours / week in their spare time with enough passion (I know I have many times in the past w/school, writing a book, and just researching ideas), but that is less than 18 hrs/day.
My opinion: given a corporate structure, a budget that far outreaches the lone inventor's, and an appropriate sized team you can put in more productive man hours than the lone inventor and do more productive work.
I am an Application Architect, and I have seen that doing my job well and combining my work with knowledgeable management and clear, concise goals I can set a team of developers on task and they can quite easily accomplish a great deal of work (even with regular work hours). With proper management you can reduce the communications overhead significantly.
I really believe that highly motivated teams can accomplish more than the lone inventor. In your average corporate setting, maybe not, but in a truly well managed environment no questions asked a team can do more work than a lone gunman.
And to be perfectly honest the situations vary enough for our discussion topic that it is really kind of difficult to do much more than generalize things as we see them and make statements based upon those generlizations: most situations differ enough that the generalizations aren't even all that fair
Jeremy
I agree that individuals have tremendous amounts of knowledge and equipment available to them at a very low cost, yet the one man show still doesn't have every resource a larger development/research team would. The one man show is missing one key resource: time.
One person can't possible explore as much as a 5 man R&D team can. A well equipped R&D team researching the same idea a one man show is researching is bound to do better due to the amount of collaboration etc (Assuming the five people are equally skilled as individuals when compared to the one person). There ARE diminishing returns on development projects when you add more developers. There is a sweet spot, and anything more than that gets you less and less. However, that five man team has more raw man hours than the lone hobbiest, which can make a huge difference in the net results.
I do feel there is significant room for innovation from one guy with a great idea and the grit to see it through to the end, but it is always important to remember that the big company has money/time that one individual may not possess. Hopefully technology can equalize this gap, but it will take time for technology to do this.
Jeremy
It is called emissions testing.
:)
I have a modded 87 Mustang that would be subjected to the restrictions there in Calgary.
Through diligent and careful tuning my car has emissions like that of a new car combined with an average gas mileage of about 26mpg. (Best part: 315 RWHP, 2700lb curb weight.. or about 1.5 times the RWHP of most performance sedans, half the weight of a medium-large SUV, and twice the gas mileage of a larger SUV).
My car should is tested to the same emissions standard. (Here in ATL it is) If it meets the requirements I can continue driving it, if it does not I have to make it so or spend some amount of money attempting to make it so. Any other regulation is simply silly. For all the goverment knows I could put a brand new LE engine in my old beater car
Jeremy
I have thought quite a bit about LOTR Trilogy (who here hasn't).
:)
It really seems to me that Hobbits are outside of the normal realms of luck. I like to think that most of the races in Tolkien's world are somewhat tightly bound to do that which is their destiny, yet Hobbits seem capable of forging their own destiny's and truly changing the world.
Hobbits seem to have some special place in Tolkien's world that no other race fits in. This whole idea of Hobbits being more capable of changing the world is further supported by the fact that Sauron never really saw the Hobbits coming until it was to late. Sauron is supposedly a king manipulator. Humans, Elves, and Dwarves all got rings, but not Hobbits. Hobbits were never tainted by the "rings" as gifts. You can go on and on showing how Hobbits stick out like a sore thumb as a race. I always admired how this aspect of Hobbits is very subtly woven into the story.
I suppose any of the Heros in the story could really have been considered "able to change the future", but the Hobbits always seem to be in the right place and the right time with just the right tool to stab the enemy in the side when they least expect it.
Something to think about
Jeremy