Really? God even my local PUB employees a photographer to take pictures on a regular basis. They have a whole section on their webpage where you can see all the action photos from the last friday night...
Except it SUCKED for this. The screen was rubbish and it wasn't an overlay. Google glass would have taken off if you actually felt like it was useful for anything. It simply didn't feel like it was. I spent hours playing with one on a couple of occasions and I just came away from it saying meh.
Full eye overlay, ie transparent screen. That is what it needed. Then you could have the camera recognise the parts. You are holding part #464521 check gap with feeler guage 2
It is because you are looking at why people are wearing the glasses vs not. People get lasic because it means they don't HAVE to wear glasses anymore and the lasic does the same job as the glasses. People in that situation see the glasses as a penalty. It is a bit like a wheelchair, you wouldn't use one unless you had to.
The google glass on the other hand was meant to come with benefits that out weighed the penalties of wearing them. In exactly the same way that sunglasses come with benefits that outweigh the costs of wearing them. They cut the brightness and they can make you look cooler (YMMV). The reason so few people did wear the google glass though is because they quite simply sucked and didn't do very much for anyone.
If the glasses were a true hud rather than a crappy little screen people would have used them. God if you could give me something the size of a bluetooth headset with a connected contact lens that gave a true overlay I would be seriously tempted to use that all the time.
Because for me all the useful things pretty much revolve around image processing. I want it to translate for me, I want it to recognise text and give me access to extra information. I want "augmented reality" where it overlays things over what I am seeing. All of which require a camera.
The LAST thing I will find it useful for is an extra screen for my phone.
Clunky interface. I found the way of interacting with the glasses more difficult then I expected. The screen was also a big disapointment for me. Not sure what I was expecting but an opaque little black rectangle wasn't what I wanted. The lag and the delay when you used it was also a killer.
The biggest thing was that I couldn't come up with a usage case that was worth wearing them for so I never wore them out.
For me I would want a full eye transparent overlay. I would love to be able to pick up a Japanese menu and have it overlay the english over it. Or have a GPS map overlayed over the road I was seeing. The recording stuff, couldn't care less about.
Other useful things would be, range finder, facial recognition, text recognition that gave you links to more information that sort of thing.
This simply isn't true. Enforcement costs and prosecution costs are definitely there, but the medical costs of heroin are not solely created by the fact that it is criminalised, though I will acknowledge that some of them are.
Long term exposure to heroin use can cause things like intense depression, impaired cognitive function, damage to the heart, lungs and liver. It can also cause the failure of control of semi-autonomous muscles so people have trouble urinating and the like. All of these create ongoing medical costs that are nothing to do with enforcement.
I agree that if heroin was legal then it could be dispensed and given clean needles. In Australia we have needle exchange programs in order to prevent the transmission of things like aids and other blood borne diseases. These are a no questions asked service, and they are also done explicitly with no cameras or other ID recording equipment.
As for the civil rights argument that has been made, that somehow being prevented from being a heroin user is an attack on your civil rights, what about the rights of the people around you to not be negatively impacted by your decisions? Do I not have a civil right to be able to go about my life without it being negatively impacted by you?
You have forgotten the financial costs on society. If you have a society with any kind of social system, welfare, social healthcare or similar heroin cost society are large amount of money. It was why it was banned in the first place. Currently the US estimates that it spends $5 Billion on health care costs associated with heroin use. In addition it is estimated that heroin costs about $11 billion in lost productivity.
People ODing is also not a black and white situation. You take too big a dose and collapse, do we leave you to lie there till you die? Or do we take steps to save your life? Ambulances, doctors, nurses, treatment etc. Or lets say you have died. Then what? Do we leave your body there to rot, how do we deal with your assets? Your debts?
It may come as a surprise but when you live in a group your action effect the others in the group. That means your actions have a cost to the people around you. In some instances society as a whole decides the cost of an individual activity is too great for the group to accept and that activity is banned. If you as an individual do not like that you, as the individual, have to leave that group.
As someone with a 18 month old and a 4.5 year old then yeah absolutely the 4+ year old could have a chemistry set and you could do something else. Though unfortunately her preference is to colour in my little ponys.
As for the 18 month old. Lets see, could I realistically leave her alone for any length of time? If I was to put her in a playpen, with nothing too small, and prevented older sister giving her anything I could probably leave her and she will just scream, but I could ignore that right? Or she could be let out, want all of big sisters toys (most of which are prime choking hazards), want to climb on the sofa but face plant in the attempt, try to eat the cats tail, open and close cupboard doors really really hard. Yep I can give her a chemistry set and go play games!
My bank is even worse. They REQUIRE a 6 character password, and the input method is clicking on the virtual keyboard on the screen. So no special characters no capitalisation.
Then they force that password into the mobile app where you type it on a normal keyboard. I hate it. The only good security aspect they have is you can request (note not standard) an RSA token that you have to enter the code for whenever you want to make a transfer.
The employer provides you with the car. The training on how to drive the car. The insurance for if something happens while in the car. They have others make sure there is a road for you to travel down. They make sure the car is filled with fuel as you need it. They define the destination and they provide the maps (some maps are better than others). Then on top of that they pay you to drive the car. When you get to the destination and it turns out to be way better than expected you turn around and say "Hey I agreed to drive the car for $65,000 per year but now I want more. More MOre MORE. $8 Million! I WANT MORE CAUSE I DROVE HERE!!!!"
Inventions are rare. Corporations invest in an uncountable number of inventions that go absolutely nowhere. In those situations you dont hear "Well Mr Employee, the work we have been working on has turned out to be a massive dead end. As a result we need you to sell your house to put towards the costs. Thanks."
As for being the source of the innovation, there is no question that he is a brilliant scientist. But there are lots of brilliant scientists. If another had been given the same job as him there is nothing to say they wouldn't have been the one to have come up with blue leds.
In the end he signed an agreement to trade his time and expertise for a set figure, his salary. After the agreement, because his particular work was more successful than expected, he wants a bigger share.
If you leave your company I assume that you know you don't get to take all the intellectual property you have been working on with you. Whether you are a scientist building blue leds, a programmer writing a phone app, or a sales monkey with a list of clients. That IP belongs to your employer.
Exactly - the split when you sign on for the job. He signed on for a job, collected a salary, did his job. Congrats he built something cool.
You don't get to renegotiate afterwards. Your incentive to do stuff at work is your salary. If you are writing code for a living you will create new things ever day to solve the problem you encounter. That is inventing. If you are a researcher then you are paid to invent stuff. You signed on for the job. I don't hear anyone saying that a researcher should have to cover a percentage of the losses if their research doesn't work out.
He created the work while employed by someone. That someone provided him with all the equipment and capabilities to do the research why the hell should he be awarded the patent?
If you are part of a team who gets the patent? It seems to me only logical that the entity that commissioned the work, invested the resources and made it happen ie the company should own the patent.
As for the education system. Correct me if I am wrong but this guy who is now holder of a nobel prize is the product of that education system.... There seems to be a serious axe to grind there with a feeling that he didn't get his due and I think he is drawing a very long bow.
By design the satellites should have small final booster to push them low enough to be grabbed by atmospheric drag. Or if they are geo orbit a final booster to push them into one of the agreed parking orbits.
I'm failing the feed the troll part here. Firstly perhaps I should point out that "government enforced monopolies and taxpayer bailouts" are public sector?
Nothing you have put there changes the fact that private sector is highly efficient and more efficient then the public sector at most things. You seem to have conflated the aims of the private sector, to make money, with some kind of over arching "should be guiding society to a better place" aim.
Taking your financial example, the private banking sectors goal is to maximise profit, to do that it lent as much money to the most people it could. The banking sector was very very efficient at doing this. The role of government it to keep an eye on the societal impacts of private sector activity or inactivity and take actions to ensure the desired outcome. In the case of the banking crisis the banks weren't getting together and saying to each other, lets fuck this up it will be fun. They were independent actors that collectively pushed the boundaries too far. The governments role should have been to push those boundaries back to lower the risks being taken.
That said though that requires perfect vision and hindsight is wonderful. Even today the trigger for the banking collapse is still not 100% agreed and certainly what steps that could have been taken to prevent it remain are also far from agreed.
Again though, none of this matters when you are looking at efficiency. It doesn't matter if your customers are happy with your business or not. What matters is are you maximising your return on investment. If you customers being unhappy lowers your return then you should make your customers happier to improve the return. If keeping your customers happy costs more than you get from happy customers then it doesn't matter. This is efficiency.
No system is perfect, they are manned by humans in the end. On top of this some things are better suited to delivery by the public sector and somethings, as I said initially, will only EVER be delivered by the public sector.
No Seriously! It was in the early days when Brisbane was really small and the investment in a brewery was significant because it required importing the bits from the UK.
Once it was built though the state government used it to pay workers on some of the projects that were built around the city. The Story Bridge was constructed in the 30s as a work creator during the depression. During that time the workers were paid a small amount of cash and beer. The beer was given to them at the start and ends of the shift.
The private sector already does most things better and more efficiently than the public sector. However there are a number of areas where even if the private sector can do it better they won't bother. These are the areas that there isn't money to be made in either the short or long term. Into these areas are where governments are traditionally expected to step in.
As a silly example back around the late 1800s private enterprise didn't see enough value to build a brewery in Brisbane, Australia. So the state government built one. Then they sold it to private hands later.
So in this example pure space exploration and research is unlikely to be funded by private entities at this time. So the government is still likely to be the one building and funding probes, deep space missions and the like and as a result will have to maintain a certain capability. Especially if the private sectors capability falls short of requirements.
Another thing to consider, you have identified "uncompetitive" as the key driver in the government making decisions. I don't think they really care when it comes to core decisions.
Games continue to be the reason I maintain a windows install. The nice side effect of that though is that I ONLY use it for games now so the OS stays pretty stagnant and doesn't seem to cruft as much.
There are still lots of things I find frustrating about linux (I use mint btw) but on a day to day basis I prefer using it to windows. The silly thing though is the major reasons are all so minor. The ability to hit f3 in nautilus to have a split screen. Silly but that is a huge one for me. That and multi-desktops. And finally bash scripts. It is soooo much easier to write file manipulation scripts in bash then to write a bat file to do the same thing.
And I don't see any way the bullet would retain a stable alignment. As soon as its spin speed dropped it would have to remain perfectly angled through the air with never a breath of air pressure differential. A momentary change in pressure on one edge, let alone a gust of wind, will cause it to tumble.
You can see if with.22lr rounds on a 200yd range. Sometimes your bullet will have tumbled before reaching the target
If you go through the cited articles there you will see that almost all of them are people who are hit while the bullets are on the way up or the bullet was fired at a sub 45 degree angle.
Even the Puerto Rico CDC link which is used as the primary source material starts by saying that it is based on media reports. That page seems to conflate injuries sustained through "celebratory gunfire" and bullets falling from the sky. People get shot when someone does something stupid with a weapon. However the physics behind whether a falling bullet will cause serious injury are able to be calculated fairly well.
I'm not saying firing a 7.62 round into the air is without risk. But the chances of serious injury are very low.
As for birdshot, No.10 grains are 0.032 grams and there are 850 of these balls per cartridge. Effective range for killing a pigeon is about 20m. Past 50m and you have no chance, and this is when it is driven under force from a shot gun.
I have no idea what the terminal velocity of something that weighs that little and has a diameter of 1.75mm is. But it would be safe to say, not very high. If I took a fist full of those pellets and dropped them from a 30 storey balcony on a crowded street below I would suggest most people wouldn't even notice. It sure as hell isn't going to have the force of light hail. More so if there is a slight breeze and the cloud is dispersed on the way down.
Thats not a 9 step process for rooting a nexus 5. That is all the stickies collected into 9 groups. I mean one of the sections is called "Defects" and talks about things like light bleed.
To root a nexus 5 you don't need to do anything extravagant at all. Basically install the drivers, turn on the phone while holding down volume down, plug it into your usb and from a command prompt type "fastboot oem unlock"
Really? Go to XDA-Forums. Look up your device and start with the sticky that is inevitably there which tells you how to root, return to stock, and everything else you need.
I was kinda assuming that deploying a hunter/killer drone and having at least 1 potentially 2 sizable devices falling out of the sky was illegal already.
You chances of being caught as the person who fired a marble out of a slingshot or a air rifle pellet are probably lower than being cause as the owner of your hunter/killer.
Slingshot for me would be the most fun I think. You could mess around with different pellet designs, like making a fishing line let and firing a wad of 12 small fishing weights. Would that deploy as a net or would it just stay as a clump?
Slashdot Mirror
Really? God even my local PUB employees a photographer to take pictures on a regular basis. They have a whole section on their webpage where you can see all the action photos from the last friday night...
Except it SUCKED for this. The screen was rubbish and it wasn't an overlay. Google glass would have taken off if you actually felt like it was useful for anything. It simply didn't feel like it was. I spent hours playing with one on a couple of occasions and I just came away from it saying meh.
Full eye overlay, ie transparent screen. That is what it needed. Then you could have the camera recognise the parts. You are holding part #464521 check gap with feeler guage 2
It is because you are looking at why people are wearing the glasses vs not. People get lasic because it means they don't HAVE to wear glasses anymore and the lasic does the same job as the glasses. People in that situation see the glasses as a penalty. It is a bit like a wheelchair, you wouldn't use one unless you had to.
The google glass on the other hand was meant to come with benefits that out weighed the penalties of wearing them. In exactly the same way that sunglasses come with benefits that outweigh the costs of wearing them. They cut the brightness and they can make you look cooler (YMMV). The reason so few people did wear the google glass though is because they quite simply sucked and didn't do very much for anyone.
If the glasses were a true hud rather than a crappy little screen people would have used them. God if you could give me something the size of a bluetooth headset with a connected contact lens that gave a true overlay I would be seriously tempted to use that all the time.
Because for me all the useful things pretty much revolve around image processing. I want it to translate for me, I want it to recognise text and give me access to extra information. I want "augmented reality" where it overlays things over what I am seeing. All of which require a camera.
The LAST thing I will find it useful for is an extra screen for my phone.
I will also add.
Clunky interface. I found the way of interacting with the glasses more difficult then I expected. The screen was also a big disapointment for me. Not sure what I was expecting but an opaque little black rectangle wasn't what I wanted. The lag and the delay when you used it was also a killer.
The biggest thing was that I couldn't come up with a usage case that was worth wearing them for so I never wore them out.
For me I would want a full eye transparent overlay. I would love to be able to pick up a Japanese menu and have it overlay the english over it. Or have a GPS map overlayed over the road I was seeing. The recording stuff, couldn't care less about.
Other useful things would be, range finder, facial recognition, text recognition that gave you links to more information that sort of thing.
This simply isn't true. Enforcement costs and prosecution costs are definitely there, but the medical costs of heroin are not solely created by the fact that it is criminalised, though I will acknowledge that some of them are.
Long term exposure to heroin use can cause things like intense depression, impaired cognitive function, damage to the heart, lungs and liver. It can also cause the failure of control of semi-autonomous muscles so people have trouble urinating and the like. All of these create ongoing medical costs that are nothing to do with enforcement.
I agree that if heroin was legal then it could be dispensed and given clean needles. In Australia we have needle exchange programs in order to prevent the transmission of things like aids and other blood borne diseases. These are a no questions asked service, and they are also done explicitly with no cameras or other ID recording equipment.
As for the civil rights argument that has been made, that somehow being prevented from being a heroin user is an attack on your civil rights, what about the rights of the people around you to not be negatively impacted by your decisions? Do I not have a civil right to be able to go about my life without it being negatively impacted by you?
You have forgotten the financial costs on society. If you have a society with any kind of social system, welfare, social healthcare or similar heroin cost society are large amount of money. It was why it was banned in the first place. Currently the US estimates that it spends $5 Billion on health care costs associated with heroin use. In addition it is estimated that heroin costs about $11 billion in lost productivity.
People ODing is also not a black and white situation. You take too big a dose and collapse, do we leave you to lie there till you die? Or do we take steps to save your life? Ambulances, doctors, nurses, treatment etc. Or lets say you have died. Then what? Do we leave your body there to rot, how do we deal with your assets? Your debts?
It may come as a surprise but when you live in a group your action effect the others in the group. That means your actions have a cost to the people around you. In some instances society as a whole decides the cost of an individual activity is too great for the group to accept and that activity is banned. If you as an individual do not like that you, as the individual, have to leave that group.
Yeah westpac.
Sublayer is right - Westpac....
As someone with a 18 month old and a 4.5 year old then yeah absolutely the 4+ year old could have a chemistry set and you could do something else. Though unfortunately her preference is to colour in my little ponys.
As for the 18 month old. Lets see, could I realistically leave her alone for any length of time? If I was to put her in a playpen, with nothing too small, and prevented older sister giving her anything I could probably leave her and she will just scream, but I could ignore that right? Or she could be let out, want all of big sisters toys (most of which are prime choking hazards), want to climb on the sofa but face plant in the attempt, try to eat the cats tail, open and close cupboard doors really really hard. Yep I can give her a chemistry set and go play games!
My bank is even worse. They REQUIRE a 6 character password, and the input method is clicking on the virtual keyboard on the screen. So no special characters no capitalisation.
Then they force that password into the mobile app where you type it on a normal keyboard. I hate it. The only good security aspect they have is you can request (note not standard) an RSA token that you have to enter the code for whenever you want to make a transfer.
Your car analogy is miles off.
The employer provides you with the car. The training on how to drive the car. The insurance for if something happens while in the car. They have others make sure there is a road for you to travel down. They make sure the car is filled with fuel as you need it. They define the destination and they provide the maps (some maps are better than others). Then on top of that they pay you to drive the car. When you get to the destination and it turns out to be way better than expected you turn around and say "Hey I agreed to drive the car for $65,000 per year but now I want more. More MOre MORE. $8 Million! I WANT MORE CAUSE I DROVE HERE!!!!"
Inventions are rare. Corporations invest in an uncountable number of inventions that go absolutely nowhere. In those situations you dont hear "Well Mr Employee, the work we have been working on has turned out to be a massive dead end. As a result we need you to sell your house to put towards the costs. Thanks."
And he was free to leave. In fact he did leave.
As for being the source of the innovation, there is no question that he is a brilliant scientist. But there are lots of brilliant scientists. If another had been given the same job as him there is nothing to say they wouldn't have been the one to have come up with blue leds.
In the end he signed an agreement to trade his time and expertise for a set figure, his salary. After the agreement, because his particular work was more successful than expected, he wants a bigger share.
If you leave your company I assume that you know you don't get to take all the intellectual property you have been working on with you. Whether you are a scientist building blue leds, a programmer writing a phone app, or a sales monkey with a list of clients. That IP belongs to your employer.
Exactly - the split when you sign on for the job. He signed on for a job, collected a salary, did his job. Congrats he built something cool.
You don't get to renegotiate afterwards. Your incentive to do stuff at work is your salary. If you are writing code for a living you will create new things ever day to solve the problem you encounter. That is inventing. If you are a researcher then you are paid to invent stuff. You signed on for the job. I don't hear anyone saying that a researcher should have to cover a percentage of the losses if their research doesn't work out.
He created the work while employed by someone. That someone provided him with all the equipment and capabilities to do the research why the hell should he be awarded the patent?
If you are part of a team who gets the patent? It seems to me only logical that the entity that commissioned the work, invested the resources and made it happen ie the company should own the patent.
As for the education system. Correct me if I am wrong but this guy who is now holder of a nobel prize is the product of that education system.... There seems to be a serious axe to grind there with a feeling that he didn't get his due and I think he is drawing a very long bow.
By design the satellites should have small final booster to push them low enough to be grabbed by atmospheric drag. Or if they are geo orbit a final booster to push them into one of the agreed parking orbits.
I'm failing the feed the troll part here. Firstly perhaps I should point out that "government enforced monopolies and taxpayer bailouts" are public sector?
Nothing you have put there changes the fact that private sector is highly efficient and more efficient then the public sector at most things. You seem to have conflated the aims of the private sector, to make money, with some kind of over arching "should be guiding society to a better place" aim.
Taking your financial example, the private banking sectors goal is to maximise profit, to do that it lent as much money to the most people it could. The banking sector was very very efficient at doing this. The role of government it to keep an eye on the societal impacts of private sector activity or inactivity and take actions to ensure the desired outcome. In the case of the banking crisis the banks weren't getting together and saying to each other, lets fuck this up it will be fun. They were independent actors that collectively pushed the boundaries too far. The governments role should have been to push those boundaries back to lower the risks being taken.
That said though that requires perfect vision and hindsight is wonderful. Even today the trigger for the banking collapse is still not 100% agreed and certainly what steps that could have been taken to prevent it remain are also far from agreed.
Again though, none of this matters when you are looking at efficiency. It doesn't matter if your customers are happy with your business or not. What matters is are you maximising your return on investment. If you customers being unhappy lowers your return then you should make your customers happier to improve the return. If keeping your customers happy costs more than you get from happy customers then it doesn't matter. This is efficiency.
No system is perfect, they are manned by humans in the end. On top of this some things are better suited to delivery by the public sector and somethings, as I said initially, will only EVER be delivered by the public sector.
No Seriously! It was in the early days when Brisbane was really small and the investment in a brewery was significant because it required importing the bits from the UK.
Once it was built though the state government used it to pay workers on some of the projects that were built around the city. The Story Bridge was constructed in the 30s as a work creator during the depression. During that time the workers were paid a small amount of cash and beer. The beer was given to them at the start and ends of the shift.
The private sector already does most things better and more efficiently than the public sector. However there are a number of areas where even if the private sector can do it better they won't bother. These are the areas that there isn't money to be made in either the short or long term. Into these areas are where governments are traditionally expected to step in.
As a silly example back around the late 1800s private enterprise didn't see enough value to build a brewery in Brisbane, Australia. So the state government built one. Then they sold it to private hands later.
So in this example pure space exploration and research is unlikely to be funded by private entities at this time. So the government is still likely to be the one building and funding probes, deep space missions and the like and as a result will have to maintain a certain capability. Especially if the private sectors capability falls short of requirements.
Another thing to consider, you have identified "uncompetitive" as the key driver in the government making decisions. I don't think they really care when it comes to core decisions.
Games continue to be the reason I maintain a windows install. The nice side effect of that though is that I ONLY use it for games now so the OS stays pretty stagnant and doesn't seem to cruft as much.
There are still lots of things I find frustrating about linux (I use mint btw) but on a day to day basis I prefer using it to windows. The silly thing though is the major reasons are all so minor. The ability to hit f3 in nautilus to have a split screen. Silly but that is a huge one for me. That and multi-desktops. And finally bash scripts. It is soooo much easier to write file manipulation scripts in bash then to write a bat file to do the same thing.
And I don't see any way the bullet would retain a stable alignment. As soon as its spin speed dropped it would have to remain perfectly angled through the air with never a breath of air pressure differential. A momentary change in pressure on one edge, let alone a gust of wind, will cause it to tumble.
You can see if with .22lr rounds on a 200yd range. Sometimes your bullet will have tumbled before reaching the target
If you go through the cited articles there you will see that almost all of them are people who are hit while the bullets are on the way up or the bullet was fired at a sub 45 degree angle.
Even the Puerto Rico CDC link which is used as the primary source material starts by saying that it is based on media reports. That page seems to conflate injuries sustained through "celebratory gunfire" and bullets falling from the sky. People get shot when someone does something stupid with a weapon. However the physics behind whether a falling bullet will cause serious injury are able to be calculated fairly well.
I'm not saying firing a 7.62 round into the air is without risk. But the chances of serious injury are very low.
As for birdshot, No.10 grains are 0.032 grams and there are 850 of these balls per cartridge. Effective range for killing a pigeon is about 20m. Past 50m and you have no chance, and this is when it is driven under force from a shot gun.
I have no idea what the terminal velocity of something that weighs that little and has a diameter of 1.75mm is. But it would be safe to say, not very high. If I took a fist full of those pellets and dropped them from a 30 storey balcony on a crowded street below I would suggest most people wouldn't even notice. It sure as hell isn't going to have the force of light hail. More so if there is a slight breeze and the cloud is dispersed on the way down.
Thats not a 9 step process for rooting a nexus 5. That is all the stickies collected into 9 groups. I mean one of the sections is called "Defects" and talks about things like light bleed.
To root a nexus 5 you don't need to do anything extravagant at all. Basically install the drivers, turn on the phone while holding down volume down, plug it into your usb and from a command prompt type "fastboot oem unlock"
Really? Go to XDA-Forums. Look up your device and start with the sticky that is inevitably there which tells you how to root, return to stock, and everything else you need.
As for exe files you could just use ODIN.
I was kinda assuming that deploying a hunter/killer drone and having at least 1 potentially 2 sizable devices falling out of the sky was illegal already.
You chances of being caught as the person who fired a marble out of a slingshot or a air rifle pellet are probably lower than being cause as the owner of your hunter/killer.
Slingshot for me would be the most fun I think. You could mess around with different pellet designs, like making a fishing line let and firing a wad of 12 small fishing weights. Would that deploy as a net or would it just stay as a clump?