You seem to have the wrong backpack for your setup and needs. If you only have a single lens to carry around, you would be much better served with a normal laptop fitting backpack and a shouldered top loader for the camera. Considering your equipment, my feeling is that would be more probably more adequate for your likely use of the camera (which I can only guess).
Camera backpack fitting laptops are often too large to be useful if you have a single camera or a single lens. Plus, their second compartment is usually too small.
If you want to stick to backpacks, maybe something like the Lowepro CompuDay woule be better in your case. I would definitely avoid dedicated multiple camera or multiple objective compartment packs (like most camera backpack have).
Go get one and keep your FastPack for your future needs. Personally, I think you'd be better off with a combo top loader and normal backpack. A good top loader is always fun to have. I use it alone or in combination with the FastPack for quick access to a second camera.
I have a Fullframe DSLR (implying large large and heavy lenses) and a MBP 17". Fits perfectly in the FP 350. I really like the good and quick access to the camera, that can be taken out without fully removing the backpack.
Negative point is that only slim laptops fit in it. Don't expect to put anything thicker than a macbook.
I've had almost 15 kg of gear in it, and was still comfortable. Fitted nicely, MBP 17, Western Digital mybook (one 3.5 HDD format), 1 extra tele lens, 1 extra fixed focal lense (small) , flash and various accessories (power supplies, cables, etc). The bag is still compact for all that content. The compartments are well organized and optimized.
Largest drawback is that you can't nicely strap a tripod or monopod to it. I miss that a lot.
You are distorting my words and making a lie out of it. Maybe that's why we are having civil problems...? And can't you identify a simple second level critic in a sentence? Or must I put something [imcriticizingamerica] tags around the critics?
I will repeat myself, because you might have missed the last few words of my post (most reply can be resumed by tl;dr anyway). The main point is intent. I have not information on the intent of the people taking the network down, but, somehow, I do not think it was to block people from expressing themselves, getting together and exchanging idea or what ever people can do everywhere else. My understanding is that the decision was made by people that couldn't care less about what ever civil matter is being rioted for. All they want is their transit system to work as fluently as possible and securely as possible. That's their job. And they do this job for other people, who also have rights. Rights to have a good working transit system they paid for. Right to move through the transit system safely.
Nothing is white or black, like think it is. But if you can't pick up a strong second order critic in a sentence, I don't expect you to pick up the gray in civil matters.
"hey, nice baseball bat laying there on your front yard... i'm going to use it later to break into your car and destroy your garden gnome".
Hearing that, you'll probably store the piece of wood somewhere out of reach. That would be a totally sane move. Point is, they are not trying to prevent protests (that's a totally wrong headline). They want to avoid protesters to share real-time information on security personnel location and actions in order to optimize and maximize the disruption of the transit system. Once that has been said openly you simply _cannot_ allow the system to remain active.
By leaving the system active, if incidents occures and it does turn our that the network was used as proposed, you would be very negligent. I guess that in America, some people might go as far as bringing you to court over this.
Now, you would say "how is this any different in the streets". That, I really don't. Where the line lies between security measures and rights is never clear and this subject is tackled daily here. In the end, I guess that the main difference between, lets say, Egypt and this (or on which side of the thin line you lay) is the intent of those shutting down the network in said areas.
I guess they are considered like all other airport employees having security clearances and working behind the TSA security veil... There are thousands of people going in and out of the "secure" areas every day in any airports through the world each day without seeing such security screening.
They do simple background checks on these employees. I can't see any reason to threat crew differently.
The power output of such a motor is maybe a few hundred Watts... add to this loss in electrical conversion and hydraulic conversion, you won't do much with the suit.
My gut feeling tells me you need nominally a few kilowatts for that thing. It may be possible and give enough autonomy (eg. fuel) to be practical in a few specific applications, but the mass of the power backpack my destabilize the suit too much. Keeping the center of gravity in a comfortable position will be hard and increase the weight of the suit even more.
The power supply seems more critical part... as it clearly can't be 'on board' with current technology, having a fixed power (electrical and/or hydraulic) source or a large generator on a truck nearby connected with an umbilical isn't very attractive for many application. Maybe a smaller, mobile (on track or wheels), power source that follows the suit might be interesting for many combat or civilian operations (disaster SAR comes to mind).
It would not be a surprise if the long term failure rate of SSD is drastically different than the one for HDD. Although the extrapolation may turn out to be wrong (it's an extrapolation after all), I do not believe it is that far fetched. From another point of view, fitting HDD failure rate curves to SSD would be plain wrong.
By now, with all that happened in the last 6 months on this front, you would have though that any computer holding sensitive information was already moved behind an air gap. That IT security experts would have learned that they cannot protect their networks against attack as long as the network is opened to the outside world.
Either people do not learn, or they are really way to slow at making things change...
So there is no unambiguous word on cancer incidence due to exposition to non-ionizing radiation. In the best case you could say the it is inconclusive. But stating that it is impossible that the exposure of non ionizing radiation, namely radiation at longer wavelength than UV, cannot cause cancer is about as false (or as true) as saying it does cause cancer without a doubt.
The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.
This is total bullshit. There are a lot of studies show the link between EM radiation at longer wavelengths than the UV causing an increase in cancer rates. I'm not even going to bother providing a references to one of the thousand papers on this subject. Just look at some studies performed in England and Belgian on the incidence of cancer for radar operators in WW2. We are speaking of other magnitudes of energy levels, but it still invalids your opening statement. Maybe you also overlooked non-ionizing biological effects?
And then... the eyes... Again a falsehood. The eyes are very actively cooled, and that with a very high blood flow, to cool them down from the incoming and concentrated (through the eye optics) radiation. On a very sunny day, where you have over 1 kW/m^2 of irradiance, without a good cooling, they would simply burn/cook.
I wonder how one can present such a thought out post, with calculations and everything, but with such blatantly falls information at the same time.
I'm really surprised about this story. That none of the sold phones go over the legally set limit is a no-brainer. This whole story looks like a piece of junk written by technologically-challenged persons for other technologically-challenged persons. Although the information is correct and TFA is very neutral and factual, the conclusions presented TFS is total bullshit. Then it presents a set of data that most people in this world don't understand. They can only see if their phone is over the legal limit or not. What more can a normal person, that is some that is not an antenna specialist and specialist on biological effects of EM radiations, deduce from such a set of data? Nada. And even the specialist will probably say he doesn't have enough information do deduce anything.
Important factors are left out of the story and its THOSE that should be discussed here. Leave the bland non-news for tabloids... Things like how are those SAR measured. Who sets the SAR limit and how was this SAR limit decided. Who studied the relation between SAR level and biological impact of the EM radiation. For all we know (from TFA), the FCC might have measured somehow the SAR, taken the highest level, added 10%, set it as a limit, cashed the check from cellphone makers. Although I don't think it went out like this, I still believe these questions need to be discussed and reviewed further.
You have to be careful here. The CO2 emissions targets were stupidly fixed using a reference time point... the same for everyone. There are countries that did a lot to reduce CO2 emissions before that reference time point, others did nothing. It really can't be a surprise that countries that did a large effort in reducing CO2 footprints prior to the reference date have a little more trouble reaching their new goals.
These CO2 emissions targets are only worth a political talk. In reality, I'd say they are quite worthless.
I work at the KIT and I can assure you that the goal of this new name (came from the fusion of the University of Karlsruhe and the Research Center of Karlsruhe) was to make it "sound" like MIT. I've even seen memos explaining that we should pronounce the letters KIT in English instead of German... which is both stupid and obvious in my opinion. The board of directors was pretty explicit on this topic. And yes, it has everyone snickering... maybe not in Germany, but in the old Forschungszentrum at least.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have the wrong backpack for your setup and needs. If you only have a single lens to carry around, you would be much better served with a normal laptop fitting backpack and a shouldered top loader for the camera. Considering your equipment, my feeling is that would be more probably more adequate for your likely use of the camera (which I can only guess).
Camera backpack fitting laptops are often too large to be useful if you have a single camera or a single lens. Plus, their second compartment is usually too small.
If you want to stick to backpacks, maybe something like the Lowepro CompuDay woule be better in your case. I would definitely avoid dedicated multiple camera or multiple objective compartment packs (like most camera backpack have).
Go get one and keep your FastPack for your future needs. Personally, I think you'd be better off with a combo top loader and normal backpack. A good top loader is always fun to have. I use it alone or in combination with the FastPack for quick access to a second camera.
I have a Fullframe DSLR (implying large large and heavy lenses) and a MBP 17". Fits perfectly in the FP 350. I really like the good and quick access to the camera, that can be taken out without fully removing the backpack.
Negative point is that only slim laptops fit in it. Don't expect to put anything thicker than a macbook.
I've had almost 15 kg of gear in it, and was still comfortable. Fitted nicely, MBP 17, Western Digital mybook (one 3.5 HDD format), 1 extra tele lens, 1 extra fixed focal lense (small) , flash and various accessories (power supplies, cables, etc). The bag is still compact for all that content. The compartments are well organized and optimized.
Largest drawback is that you can't nicely strap a tripod or monopod to it. I miss that a lot.
http://products.lowepro.com/product/Fastpack-350,2087,14.htm
Yes, that is correct. I think that what they want to prevent is on-the-fly adjustments.
You are distorting my words and making a lie out of it. Maybe that's why we are having civil problems...? And can't you identify a simple second level critic in a sentence? Or must I put something [imcriticizingamerica] tags around the critics?
I will repeat myself, because you might have missed the last few words of my post (most reply can be resumed by tl;dr anyway). The main point is intent. I have not information on the intent of the people taking the network down, but, somehow, I do not think it was to block people from expressing themselves, getting together and exchanging idea or what ever people can do everywhere else. My understanding is that the decision was made by people that couldn't care less about what ever civil matter is being rioted for. All they want is their transit system to work as fluently as possible and securely as possible. That's their job. And they do this job for other people, who also have rights. Rights to have a good working transit system they paid for. Right to move through the transit system safely.
Nothing is white or black, like think it is. But if you can't pick up a strong second order critic in a sentence, I don't expect you to pick up the gray in civil matters.
"hey, nice baseball bat laying there on your front yard... i'm going to use it later to break into your car and destroy your garden gnome".
Hearing that, you'll probably store the piece of wood somewhere out of reach. That would be a totally sane move.
Point is, they are not trying to prevent protests (that's a totally wrong headline). They want to avoid protesters to share real-time information on security personnel location and actions in order to optimize and maximize the disruption of the transit system. Once that has been said openly you simply _cannot_ allow the system to remain active.
By leaving the system active, if incidents occures and it does turn our that the network was used as proposed, you would be very negligent. I guess that in America, some people might go as far as bringing you to court over this.
Now, you would say "how is this any different in the streets". That, I really don't. Where the line lies between security measures and rights is never clear and this subject is tackled daily here. In the end, I guess that the main difference between, lets say, Egypt and this (or on which side of the thin line you lay) is the intent of those shutting down the network in said areas.
An the lock that goes with this 'perfect' key will most likely be picked through a deficient identification and validation system.
I guess they are considered like all other airport employees having security clearances and working behind the TSA security veil... There are thousands of people going in and out of the "secure" areas every day in any airports through the world each day without seeing such security screening.
They do simple background checks on these employees. I can't see any reason to threat crew differently.
The power output of such a motor is maybe a few hundred Watts... add to this loss in electrical conversion and hydraulic conversion, you won't do much with the suit.
My gut feeling tells me you need nominally a few kilowatts for that thing. It may be possible and give enough autonomy (eg. fuel) to be practical in a few specific applications, but the mass of the power backpack my destabilize the suit too much. Keeping the center of gravity in a comfortable position will be hard and increase the weight of the suit even more.
The power supply seems more critical part... as it clearly can't be 'on board' with current technology, having a fixed power (electrical and/or hydraulic) source or a large generator on a truck nearby connected with an umbilical isn't very attractive for many application. Maybe a smaller, mobile (on track or wheels), power source that follows the suit might be interesting for many combat or civilian operations (disaster SAR comes to mind).
It would not be a surprise if the long term failure rate of SSD is drastically different than the one for HDD. Although the extrapolation may turn out to be wrong (it's an extrapolation after all), I do not believe it is that far fetched. From another point of view, fitting HDD failure rate curves to SSD would be plain wrong.
By now, with all that happened in the last 6 months on this front, you would have though that any computer holding sensitive information was already moved behind an air gap. That IT security experts would have learned that they cannot protect their networks against attack as long as the network is opened to the outside world.
Either people do not learn, or they are really way to slow at making things change...
Is that like 200 nautical miles East from Fukushima?
you are wrong
and bringing potable water to the outposts is just as challenging
And bringing gallons of diesel to fuel the generators to power the AC units is not.
I'm finding the Irony of using "mywife" as a password for a porn site quite delectable.
Not all ninjas are good at being ninjas...
It's misleading if you don't even go as far as reading the 2 line summary...
okay.
There is this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10926722
This one : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19035449
This second one brings up an important point also mentioned by the_raptor to my previous post... The cancer may have occurred from the exposure to the exciters. Separating both is difficult obviously.
But you also have studies that show no correlation between high-exposure environment and cancer rate, like this one (also mentioned above) :
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/9/810.full
or this one :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20570865
which is directly contradicted by this one showing totally opposite conclusions :
http://www.bfs.de/de/elektro/papiere/Stellungnahme_Naila/
So there is no unambiguous word on cancer incidence due to exposition to non-ionizing radiation. In the best case you could say the it is inconclusive. But stating that it is impossible that the exposure of non ionizing radiation, namely radiation at longer wavelength than UV, cannot cause cancer is about as false (or as true) as saying it does cause cancer without a doubt.
The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.
This is total bullshit. There are a lot of studies show the link between EM radiation at longer wavelengths than the UV causing an increase in cancer rates. I'm not even going to bother providing a references to one of the thousand papers on this subject. Just look at some studies performed in England and Belgian on the incidence of cancer for radar operators in WW2. We are speaking of other magnitudes of energy levels, but it still invalids your opening statement. Maybe you also overlooked non-ionizing biological effects?
And then... the eyes... Again a falsehood. The eyes are very actively cooled, and that with a very high blood flow, to cool them down from the incoming and concentrated (through the eye optics) radiation. On a very sunny day, where you have over 1 kW/m^2 of irradiance, without a good cooling, they would simply burn/cook.
I wonder how one can present such a thought out post, with calculations and everything, but with such blatantly falls information at the same time.
I'm really surprised about this story. That none of the sold phones go over the legally set limit is a no-brainer. This whole story looks like a piece of junk written by technologically-challenged persons for other technologically-challenged persons. Although the information is correct and TFA is very neutral and factual, the conclusions presented TFS is total bullshit. Then it presents a set of data that most people in this world don't understand. They can only see if their phone is over the legal limit or not. What more can a normal person, that is some that is not an antenna specialist and specialist on biological effects of EM radiations, deduce from such a set of data? Nada. And even the specialist will probably say he doesn't have enough information do deduce anything.
Important factors are left out of the story and its THOSE that should be discussed here. Leave the bland non-news for tabloids...
Things like how are those SAR measured. Who sets the SAR limit and how was this SAR limit decided. Who studied the relation between SAR level and biological impact of the EM radiation.
For all we know (from TFA), the FCC might have measured somehow the SAR, taken the highest level, added 10%, set it as a limit, cashed the check from cellphone makers. Although I don't think it went out like this, I still believe these questions need to be discussed and reviewed further.
You have to be careful here. The CO2 emissions targets were stupidly fixed using a reference time point... the same for everyone. There are countries that did a lot to reduce CO2 emissions before that reference time point, others did nothing. It really can't be a surprise that countries that did a large effort in reducing CO2 footprints prior to the reference date have a little more trouble reaching their new goals.
These CO2 emissions targets are only worth a political talk. In reality, I'd say they are quite worthless.
I think letting pseudo-sci-fi action flicks to set technology and engineering guidelines is neither sane nor practical.
... maybe take the time to check system status :
http://heartbeat.skype.com/
and/or read published solution:
https://support.skype.com/en/faq/FA10874/I-m-having-problems-with-Skype-today?frompage=category
Definitely not often enough.
Just like channels in a fiber, if you get enough HDD in parallel, you might get somewhere close to it... (but don't ask me at what cost).
I work at the KIT and I can assure you that the goal of this new name (came from the fusion of the University of Karlsruhe and the Research Center of Karlsruhe) was to make it "sound" like MIT. I've even seen memos explaining that we should pronounce the letters KIT in English instead of German... which is both stupid and obvious in my opinion. The board of directors was pretty explicit on this topic. And yes, it has everyone snickering... maybe not in Germany, but in the old Forschungszentrum at least.