The primary complainers about acid rain were fresh-water fishermen, who thought that acid rain was acidifying their favorite ponds and lakes, such as in upstate New York, and killing off the fish. There were confounding factors, however. Historically, many of those lakes were too acid for fish, due to runoff from pine forests. Farmers came in and cut down the forests, the lakes became neutral and were successfully stocked with fish. Years passed, farming became unprofitable in many areas, and the forests slowly grew back. People forgot that the lakes weren't naturally hospitable to fish. Eventually, the lakes became too acid for fish again, and people blamed acid rain. Well, maybe, maybe not.
More telling is the effect on limestone buildings. Acid reacts with limestone and eats it away. The evidence for that is less ambiguous than fish.
Anyhoo, want suphides in the air? Burn lots and lots of high sulphur coal. Fairly cheap source of energy, and lawsuits for pollution can be turned back by yelling "Stop global warming!" Cool the world and melt all those nice white limestone buildings.
You are mistaken. I used MULTICS at MIT, and there was instant messaging. I had very little knowledge of the system, but messages from another user did show up on my terminal, and I had no idea how to block them or reply.
1. Yes, LensRentals rents out cameras and lenses. For special one-time needs, it's better to spend $400 to rent a super-duper lens for a week than to buy it for $4000. Also, some people will rent equipment prior to buying it, to cover the possibility that the equipment isn't satisfactory for their purposes.
2. The experience of an eclipse differs from sunset or cloudy overcast. While in the partial phase, it gets dark while shadows are still distinct. It's a rare event, and the combination of rarity and the peculiar sensations do make it interesting.
Some people overreact, and I understand your cynicism. Nonetheless, an eclipse is unusual and a bit fun; it's a memorable event that most people are pleased to have experienced.
Yes. Get a lens that stops down to f/22. Attach two 2X telextenders to the lens. You now have an effective aperture of f/88. Set the ISO speed to 50 (or lower if possible), the shutter speed to 1/8000 or faster. Any visible part of the sun's disk should now be within the dynamic range of the sensor, although not by much.
Other techniques could be used to cut down the amount of light entering the lens, such as covering the front of the lens with a sheet of aluminum foil with a pinhole in it. The success of that technique depends of the design of the lens; severe vignetting may result.
f/88 means a lot of diffraction, so the image won't be sharp. You're better off with the solar filter.
If your SLR camera allows you to stop down the lens before you press the shutter button, you can use that feature to safely use the viewfinder while photographing an eclipse. Typically, the procedure goes like this: set the ISO sensitivity as low as possible (50). Set the shutter speed as high as possible (1/8000). Focus for infinity. Stop down the lens as far as possible (f/22). Point away from the sun and put your eye to the finder. Find the sun through the finder, immediately press the shutter release, and then immediately turn the camera away from the sun.
That's sufficient not to hurt your eye. By my estimate, if any of the main disk of the sun is visible, it will be about 3 stops in excess of the sensor range.
Generally there are one or two triggering mechanisms, impact and timer. If only a timer is used, it can be broken by impact. Some primitive impact mechanisms might not work if the bomb lands at a peculiar angle, I guess. Or, the triggering mechanism may have been defective from the time of manufacture.
Since the side using the bomb wants to be able to transport it safely, bombs are designed to be armed (the triggering mechanism enabled) shortly before use. Failure to arm the bomb could also prevent detonation.
I've heard the claim (don't know if it's true) that some bombs were made to explode only if someone tried to defuse them, thus insuring that at least one highly trained person would be killed.
It's a question of economic practicality. Defect rates with big, high resolution screens is a problem. Getting adequate screen driver hardware is a problem. Handling the high information bandwidth is a problem. The money to build the machinery that can make big screens is a problem. Lack of perceived market is a problem.
Manufacturers have to decide on what is the best use of their available money flow. They don't want to spend $100 million to be ready to produce a product that won't be mass market for ten years. On the other hand, they don't want to be too late to the game to get in on the bulk of the profits.
Resolution has been specified linearly at least since Lord Rayleigh's paper in 1879. The use of total pixels to specify resolution changes is advertising lies.
The "20/" terminology should be regarded as obsolete. It is based on how well a person can focus as 20 feet. Furthermore, it has no relevance to displays, for which people can wear corrective lenses.
The human eye's best resolution is greater than 4k. 8k is the next power-of-2 step, so why not?
For monitor use (static images) it's reasonable to move in close and study one region, then move over a bit and study another region. That's easier and better than panning the whole screen.
The statement "men do have more color-blindness" is wrong. The typical man has no more color-blindness than the typical woman. The true statement would be "more men have color-blindness".
It is neither rational, nor just, nor good for the economy to have stockholders liable for the actions of corporate executives that they cannot control in any meaningful manner. Corporate executives should be liable for any criminal activities they undertake in the corporation's name.
Making corporate owners liable for the actions of a corporation's executives makes as much sense as making the residents of a town liable for the actions of the town's mayor.
To whom are you referring? Neither the Hildebeast nor Fakahontis is Jewish.
Americans generally aren't too much bothered by Jews. It's the obvious fakery of the LDS, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, et. al. that upset people.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary complainers about acid rain were fresh-water fishermen, who thought that acid rain was acidifying their favorite ponds and lakes, such as in upstate New York, and killing off the fish. There were confounding factors, however. Historically, many of those lakes were too acid for fish, due to runoff from pine forests. Farmers came in and cut down the forests, the lakes became neutral and were successfully stocked with fish. Years passed, farming became unprofitable in many areas, and the forests slowly grew back. People forgot that the lakes weren't naturally hospitable to fish. Eventually, the lakes became too acid for fish again, and people blamed acid rain. Well, maybe, maybe not.
More telling is the effect on limestone buildings. Acid reacts with limestone and eats it away. The evidence for that is less ambiguous than fish.
Anyhoo, want suphides in the air? Burn lots and lots of high sulphur coal. Fairly cheap source of energy, and lawsuits for pollution can be turned back by yelling "Stop global warming!" Cool the world and melt all those nice white limestone buildings.
Maybe
Surely you could figure out something more stupid and inefficient than that.
MIT's Project MAC is 54 years old. Who's fooling whom?
You are mistaken. I used MULTICS at MIT, and there was instant messaging. I had very little knowledge of the system, but messages from another user did show up on my terminal, and I had no idea how to block them or reply.
How many people have had facebook show up on their doorstep with guns and handcuffs?
Between the Aurora and the eclipse we'll all be blinded. The Triffids will triumph.
1. Yes, LensRentals rents out cameras and lenses. For special one-time needs, it's better to spend $400 to rent a super-duper lens for a week than to buy it for $4000. Also, some people will rent equipment prior to buying it, to cover the possibility that the equipment isn't satisfactory for their purposes.
2. The experience of an eclipse differs from sunset or cloudy overcast. While in the partial phase, it gets dark while shadows are still distinct. It's a rare event, and the combination of rarity and the peculiar sensations do make it interesting.
Some people overreact, and I understand your cynicism. Nonetheless, an eclipse is unusual and a bit fun; it's a memorable event that most people are pleased to have experienced.
LensRentals is a very capable company. They do some of their own repairs, and some of the damage will be handled with repair, not replacement.
Yes. Get a lens that stops down to f/22. Attach two 2X telextenders to the lens. You now have an effective aperture of f/88. Set the ISO speed to 50 (or lower if possible), the shutter speed to 1/8000 or faster. Any visible part of the sun's disk should now be within the dynamic range of the sensor, although not by much.
Other techniques could be used to cut down the amount of light entering the lens, such as covering the front of the lens with a sheet of aluminum foil with a pinhole in it. The success of that technique depends of the design of the lens; severe vignetting may result.
f/88 means a lot of diffraction, so the image won't be sharp. You're better off with the solar filter.
If your SLR camera allows you to stop down the lens before you press the shutter button, you can use that feature to safely use the viewfinder while photographing an eclipse. Typically, the procedure goes like this: set the ISO sensitivity as low as possible (50). Set the shutter speed as high as possible (1/8000). Focus for infinity. Stop down the lens as far as possible (f/22). Point away from the sun and put your eye to the finder. Find the sun through the finder, immediately press the shutter release, and then immediately turn the camera away from the sun.
That's sufficient not to hurt your eye. By my estimate, if any of the main disk of the sun is visible, it will be about 3 stops in excess of the sensor range.
Generally there are one or two triggering mechanisms, impact and timer. If only a timer is used, it can be broken by impact. Some primitive impact mechanisms might not work if the bomb lands at a peculiar angle, I guess. Or, the triggering mechanism may have been defective from the time of manufacture.
Since the side using the bomb wants to be able to transport it safely, bombs are designed to be armed (the triggering mechanism enabled) shortly before use. Failure to arm the bomb could also prevent detonation.
I've heard the claim (don't know if it's true) that some bombs were made to explode only if someone tried to defuse them, thus insuring that at least one highly trained person would be killed.
The author of "The Anarchist Cookbook" has grown up and long ago dismissed his book as immature, and dangerous to those who use its advice.
It's a question of economic practicality. Defect rates with big, high resolution screens is a problem. Getting adequate screen driver hardware is a problem. Handling the high information bandwidth is a problem. The money to build the machinery that can make big screens is a problem. Lack of perceived market is a problem.
Manufacturers have to decide on what is the best use of their available money flow. They don't want to spend $100 million to be ready to produce a product that won't be mass market for ten years. On the other hand, they don't want to be too late to the game to get in on the bulk of the profits.
Resolution has been specified linearly at least since Lord Rayleigh's paper in 1879. The use of total pixels to specify resolution changes is advertising lies.
Think of a football game with the camera covering 50 yards. In SD, the football almost disappears because it's smaller than 1 pixel.
The "20/" terminology should be regarded as obsolete. It is based on how well a person can focus as 20 feet. Furthermore, it has no relevance to displays, for which people can wear corrective lenses.
The human eye's best resolution is greater than 4k. 8k is the next power-of-2 step, so why not?
For monitor use (static images) it's reasonable to move in close and study one region, then move over a bit and study another region. That's easier and better than panning the whole screen.
The statement "men do have more color-blindness" is wrong. The typical man has no more color-blindness than the typical woman. The true statement would be "more men have color-blindness".
2000 people is 0.3% of the population of Vermont. On the face of it, it's not an unreasonable request.
It is neither rational, nor just, nor good for the economy to have stockholders liable for the actions of corporate executives that they cannot control in any meaningful manner. Corporate executives should be liable for any criminal activities they undertake in the corporation's name.
Making corporate owners liable for the actions of a corporation's executives makes as much sense as making the residents of a town liable for the actions of the town's mayor.
Please exercise your freedom of assembly in an erupting volcano.
To whom are you referring? Neither the Hildebeast nor Fakahontis is Jewish.
Americans generally aren't too much bothered by Jews. It's the obvious fakery of the LDS, Scientologists, Christian Scientists, et. al. that upset people.
For which readers of Arthur C. Clarke are grateful.
BMW's good reliability is a recent thing. 20 years ago they were notorious for having expensive things like transmissions break.
Well, close: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J