Then it'd just be the next car back that wasn't "letting them in."
This situation actually happens. Don't discount it just because you live somewhere where drivers have at least half a clue.
Los Angeles is this way as well. The trick here is to start your move, then just as you know the person CAN'T accelerate you out of your spot, you signal just to let them know you aren't wandering due to a lack of attention. This may seem pointless, but if there is someone in your blind spot that you didn't see, at least they now know your intentions and can hit the horn or whatever needs to be done.
I have an AMD 6-core Thuban 1090T Black Edition. 3.2 GHz out of the box, 4.0 stable easily attainable with a $30 aftermarket cooler and a voltage bump (from 1.375V to 1.475V). That's a 25% overclock out of a $169 CPU -- hardly what I'd call "hard-pressed". 3.8 with no voltage bump was stable on the stock cooler, though I didn't much care for the temperatures.
Once upon a time, manufacturers didn't care if you overclocked unless it was a warranty issue. Then they started to care as their chips were passed off as a higher grade and failed early, which they rightfully saw as damaging their reputations, so they started locking multipliers. Later, they saw a market at the top end for enthusiasts who weren't doing it to scam anyone, just get the most out of what they bought -- which resulted in things like the AMD "Black Edition" and Intel's "Extreme". All these really are is chips that haven't been speed binned because there isn't enough of a target market to justify the expense of testing them that hard.
THIS is why old-school overclocking on the desktop is dead. That, and the fact that laptops are usually designed with barely adequate cooling, so you really don't want to throw any more heat at them than they are already emitting.
As the owner of a laptop with an E350, I can say it's actually a pretty good bundle. The CPU isn't particularly fast, but it's not unreasonably slow either, and the GPU is more than adequate to keep up with any game you'd want to run on such a CPU. The laptop was saddled by insufficient RAM (fixed, 8 GB *really* helps) and a slow HD (not fixed, I run almost everything off a NAS box), but neither of these is the fault of the E350 as a platform.
Will be interesting to see what happens during the next ten to fifteen years after this has been in place for long enough to really get into the soil, the food chain and the poor saps who this rain falls on.
Direct health effects aside, they are salting their fields. This problem will take care of itself, sooner or later, one way or another. It just won't be very pretty when it does.
Or we could return to the Federal model the US is actually based on instead of this rule from Washington thing we're doing now. Return the States to their rightful place and make the national government small as it should be. Then people can move to the State that best reflects their view of the world. That is how things were supposed to be in the first place, no?:)
This ended with the Civil War. Although it was arguably the MORALLY correct thing to do, the north had no LEGAL right to prevent the southern states from seceding. The Constitution says nothing about LEAVING the Union, and DOES say in the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
By applying the conspicuous absence of secession procedures together with the above, the Constitution logically implies that it is the states themselves that decide how to implement secession, and that they have the right to do so.
In Germany you are taxed to death (by 'merkin standards) and the price of petrol is over 12$US per gallon - yet they have among the highest standard of living and the most robust economy in Europe.
This will not persist. As it stands, Germany is basically the only solvent economy in the entire EU, and it won't be able to sustain it much longer as credit dries up for even a country of its trustworthy credit rating. West Germany took a big hit from having to absorb the blight the Soviets left in the East, and although they've largely recovered from it, they're not ready or able to support ALL OF EUROPE. Look for Greece to default first (probably late February according to sources I've seen), followed soon after by Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. Credit will become very expensive or cease to exist entirely. Countries that have lived on borrowing, like the U.S., will resort to desperate measures to pay the bills -- in the case of the U.S., that means the Fed using the "nuclear option", seignorage. My personal bet for the seignorage option is on March 23, 2012, give or take a week. You know damn well they'll do it on a Friday afternoon when they hope nobody is watching.
The bankers saw this coming. It's no accident that baseless 2012 prophecies have been played up in the media. They want the populace prepared for a global disaster, it just won't be the one they're expecting. Right or wrong, a disproportionately high number of Americans will survive, compared to casualty rates worldwide. The psyops campaign will be a significant part of why they do.
Go look at Leica's still-camera lenses; the things are miniscule. A 50mm f/1.4 lens needs an aperture about 35mm across, after all. A 300 f/2.8? That's a different story.
This is because they don't have to accommodate a mirror box. Rangefinder lenses have ALWAYS been smaller and cheaper than SLR lenses of similar quality, as they don't have to allow for a mirror to swing up behind them. The trade-off is that you cannot look directly through the taking lens.
Most photographers tend to have the attitude that a camera is some thing you bolt on the back of a lens, and they're pretty much right. I did some wonderful wildlife work with a $150 (used) banged-up old DSLR; I finally gave it up after bits started falling off of it.
Back in the film days, this was pretty much true. As long as you could get the exposure and focus right (for which you might or might not require the camera's assistance depending on your skill), one black box with a flat film plane is pretty much the same as another of the same size. So long as you find the feature set adequate, you can take just as good a shot with an all-mechanical Nikon F-3 as you can with a largely electronic F-5. They take the same lenses, the same film, and the same flashes, but the F-3 offers you a lot less assistance.
In the digital era, the sensor is the equivalent of film, and it's part of the camera body. Not all sensors are created equal. However, if you take two bodies that use the same size and comparable quality sensor (like the $2300 Canon EOS 5D Mark II and the $7000 EOS 1Ds Mark III), attach the same lenses, and put them in the hands of someone with the skills to use them properly, you're going to be hard pressed to tell the difference in the photos (other than sheer MPixels). In that sense, the old attitude still stands. Pick the quality and size of sensor that you need that accommodates the lenses you need (or expect to need later), THEN start shopping on features and price.
Yeah right. DHS would be all over your ass for operating a terrorist device.
While I'm sure you were going for "Funny" or "Sad Commentary On Society", it's the FAA and TSA you'd be in trouble with if you failed to secure the necessary Airspace Waiver.
Agreed. Football inherently has a highly unstable balance between offense and defense, and the lawyerly rule set exists to try to keep this straight. As soon as one coach finds a suitable way around the rules (and gets copied by everyone else), the rules get changed to restore the balance. That's why football is so damn confusing for newbies. Professional basketball is slowly heading down the same path because it "broke" when Wilt Chamberlain came along and stood in the post where he was almost guaranteed to score once he got the ball. The basic problem is that the game was not originally designed to be played by people in excess of 7 feet tall, it was designed to be played by anyone of reasonable athletic ability and good perception, tall or not.
By comparison, both baseball and hockey have relatively simple rule sets, and basketball also does at lower levels. Size is not particularly advantageous in and of itself in either of these sports (except for goalies), and size REALLY only dominates in basketball when the entire talent pool is at the upper bounds of height such that they can play "above the rim" (which makes me wonder why the basket isn't raised for the NBA -- it would solve so many problems). Strength, speed, stamina, quickness, and smarts will take you a long way in baseball and hockey (and soccer), not so much in basketball (or volleyball), and unfortunately are of limited application in football.
There was another story about genetic testing for fast-twitch muscles, to see what sports a kid might be good at. I think it would be a lot simpler to just LOOK at the kid to see whether they are small, average, or tall for their age group. If tall, steer toward basketball and volleyball. If not quite so tall (but still above average), steer toward football. If average or smaller, steer toward baseball, soccer, and hockey. Obviously other factors may dominate, like being prone to collision-related injuries (which pretty much rules out football and hockey) or having really strong hand-eye coordination (steer toward baseball) or being particularly fast (not so useful for basketball and volleyball, where the small court demands quickness more than speed).
actually the wire-suspended camera was an innovation of the now-defunct XFL. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skycam it's about the only thing (other than Tommy Maddox) the NFL picked up from the XFL.
And HE HATE ME (Rod Smart), though he isn't allowed to wear his tagline on his jersey.
No the thing is sensors are cheap. Making a 1920x1080 sensor doesn't cost much. Heck, making 3 of them doesn't cost much (as the cameras we own have). You can also make them pretty small. You can pack them down in a tiny device.
True, but smaller sensors are inherently "slower" (less area to detect photons), making them more susceptible to shot noise at low light levels and/or small apertures. Another reason good glass is expensive is that it is BIG, and also more precisely manufactured since aberrations that can be disguised at f/5.6 will show up much worse at f/2.8 and be completely intolerable at f/1.4.
I am pretty sure that if the kids have all their limbs, and aren't mentally handicapped, that no matter what level of ACTN-III they might have, they qualify to play any sport they like.
AC's ironic remark raises the question: in what sport would people of short stature have an advantage?
Baseball, if you have enough strength to get the ball "where they ain't". Smaller strike zone, faster around the bases, harder to tag, quicker first step on defense. Just ask this guy -- or for that matter, just about any middle infielder or center fielder until the Age of Steroids.
This is why calling this material a "solid" seems disingenuous. It seems someone (quite possibly the writer and not the researchers) is accidentally or deliberately confusing "rigid" and "solid" to mislead people into thinking this is more useful than it actually is. This is a shame, because it looks like such lattices will prove plenty useful with the characteristics they DO have. They just won't be buoyant in air.
Last place I worked, they backed up over a VPN to a remote site continuously, to backup hard drives nightly, and to tape weekly. There were at least 12 tapes in the rotation unless one broke or otherwise failed, in which case the rotation would be temporarily shortened until some more tapes could be ordered. The most recent tape lived at the office. The next most recent was at the owner's house. The third most recent was in the home of the Senior IT guy, and the fourth most recent in the home of the Junior IT guy. All three of these people had tape drives at home so they could restore remotely if necessary. This was at a company with 80 people and a full server room, so it's not like it was an insignificant amount of data. In the five years I worked there, they had to load files from tape ONCE, and that was only because the missing files weren't noticed for about two weeks.
Granted, this was in an industry where such record-keeping is required by law, but even so, the backup system was considerable overkill for the need. We never lost more than one day's worth of data, and that happened twice.
I should add that while not all policies have a Hammer Clause, there are certain classes (like Professional Liability, IP Infringement, Errors & Omissions, Malpractice, and the like) where it is more common than not. While you can get a policy that lacks such a clause, it will typically cost you 40-50% more than one that does but otherwise has the same limits. It should be pretty obvious why -- the Insurer knows they can settle and close their books on a claim that much faster (even if it's not the smallest possible settlement) and keep legal fees to a minimum.
It seems to me some interpretation of the Hammer Clause probably applies here. Basically, if an Insured makes a settlement without the consent of the Insurer, then the Insurer is only on the hook for the amount that THEY WOULD HAVE AGREED TO SETTLE FOR. This is usually used to discourage a company from fighting a case on principle and losing more than they would have by settling. In this case, it would seem that the CRIA members might have paid LESS if they had gone to trial -- but in any event, if the Insurer did not authorize the settlement, then they aren't going to pony up for it above and beyond what they would willingly have settled for, nor will they pay for legal fees beyond the point at which they would have settled. The law probably is different in Canada, as I know it varies in other significant aspects from U.S. law. (For example, the law says policies sold to the public must be written in plain English/French and not legalese -- or at least the legalese has to be explained in plain language, and in the case of a conflict, the plain language prevails.)
Slashdot Mirror
Then it'd just be the next car back that wasn't "letting them in."
This situation actually happens. Don't discount it just because you live somewhere where drivers have at least half a clue.
Los Angeles is this way as well. The trick here is to start your move, then just as you know the person CAN'T accelerate you out of your spot, you signal just to let them know you aren't wandering due to a lack of attention. This may seem pointless, but if there is someone in your blind spot that you didn't see, at least they now know your intentions and can hit the horn or whatever needs to be done.
I have an AMD 6-core Thuban 1090T Black Edition. 3.2 GHz out of the box, 4.0 stable easily attainable with a $30 aftermarket cooler and a voltage bump (from 1.375V to 1.475V). That's a 25% overclock out of a $169 CPU -- hardly what I'd call "hard-pressed". 3.8 with no voltage bump was stable on the stock cooler, though I didn't much care for the temperatures.
Once upon a time, manufacturers didn't care if you overclocked unless it was a warranty issue. Then they started to care as their chips were passed off as a higher grade and failed early, which they rightfully saw as damaging their reputations, so they started locking multipliers. Later, they saw a market at the top end for enthusiasts who weren't doing it to scam anyone, just get the most out of what they bought -- which resulted in things like the AMD "Black Edition" and Intel's "Extreme". All these really are is chips that haven't been speed binned because there isn't enough of a target market to justify the expense of testing them that hard.
THIS is why old-school overclocking on the desktop is dead. That, and the fact that laptops are usually designed with barely adequate cooling, so you really don't want to throw any more heat at them than they are already emitting.
No matter what specs you settle on, the mission will be at least one (more likely two or even all three) of the following:
This is the way UNMANNED missions work. Once you factor in humans, the chances of things going according to plan slip from slim to none.
As the owner of a laptop with an E350, I can say it's actually a pretty good bundle. The CPU isn't particularly fast, but it's not unreasonably slow either, and the GPU is more than adequate to keep up with any game you'd want to run on such a CPU. The laptop was saddled by insufficient RAM (fixed, 8 GB *really* helps) and a slow HD (not fixed, I run almost everything off a NAS box), but neither of these is the fault of the E350 as a platform.
Will be interesting to see what happens during the next ten to fifteen years after this has been in place for long enough to really get into the soil, the food chain and the poor saps who this rain falls on.
Direct health effects aside, they are salting their fields. This problem will take care of itself, sooner or later, one way or another. It just won't be very pretty when it does.
Or we could return to the Federal model the US is actually based on instead of this rule from Washington thing we're doing now. Return the States to their rightful place and make the national government small as it should be. Then people can move to the State that best reflects their view of the world. That is how things were supposed to be in the first place, no? :)
This ended with the Civil War. Although it was arguably the MORALLY correct thing to do, the north had no LEGAL right to prevent the southern states from seceding. The Constitution says nothing about LEAVING the Union, and DOES say in the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
By applying the conspicuous absence of secession procedures together with the above, the Constitution logically implies that it is the states themselves that decide how to implement secession, and that they have the right to do so.
I would imagine it was hard to respond to questions calmly and intelligently when THEY WERE ALL SHOUTED AT HIM by Dorminey.
Guess how this is going to be spun? My guess is this:
"Those couch-potatoes who do nothing but type all day are overpaid. They're part of the problem! See, we ARE doing something!"
By solvent, I mean the only country that could actually STOP BORROWING and still pay all its obligations.
In Germany you are taxed to death (by 'merkin standards) and the price of petrol is over 12$US per gallon - yet they have among the highest standard of living and the most robust economy in Europe.
This will not persist. As it stands, Germany is basically the only solvent economy in the entire EU, and it won't be able to sustain it much longer as credit dries up for even a country of its trustworthy credit rating. West Germany took a big hit from having to absorb the blight the Soviets left in the East, and although they've largely recovered from it, they're not ready or able to support ALL OF EUROPE. Look for Greece to default first (probably late February according to sources I've seen), followed soon after by Spain, Portugal, and Ireland. Credit will become very expensive or cease to exist entirely. Countries that have lived on borrowing, like the U.S., will resort to desperate measures to pay the bills -- in the case of the U.S., that means the Fed using the "nuclear option", seignorage. My personal bet for the seignorage option is on March 23, 2012, give or take a week. You know damn well they'll do it on a Friday afternoon when they hope nobody is watching.
The bankers saw this coming. It's no accident that baseless 2012 prophecies have been played up in the media. They want the populace prepared for a global disaster, it just won't be the one they're expecting. Right or wrong, a disproportionately high number of Americans will survive, compared to casualty rates worldwide. The psyops campaign will be a significant part of why they do.
Go look at Leica's still-camera lenses; the things are miniscule. A 50mm f/1.4 lens needs an aperture about 35mm across, after all. A 300 f/2.8? That's a different story.
This is because they don't have to accommodate a mirror box. Rangefinder lenses have ALWAYS been smaller and cheaper than SLR lenses of similar quality, as they don't have to allow for a mirror to swing up behind them. The trade-off is that you cannot look directly through the taking lens.
Most photographers tend to have the attitude that a camera is some thing you bolt on the back of a lens, and they're pretty much right. I did some wonderful wildlife work with a $150 (used) banged-up old DSLR; I finally gave it up after bits started falling off of it.
Back in the film days, this was pretty much true. As long as you could get the exposure and focus right (for which you might or might not require the camera's assistance depending on your skill), one black box with a flat film plane is pretty much the same as another of the same size. So long as you find the feature set adequate, you can take just as good a shot with an all-mechanical Nikon F-3 as you can with a largely electronic F-5. They take the same lenses, the same film, and the same flashes, but the F-3 offers you a lot less assistance.
In the digital era, the sensor is the equivalent of film, and it's part of the camera body. Not all sensors are created equal. However, if you take two bodies that use the same size and comparable quality sensor (like the $2300 Canon EOS 5D Mark II and the $7000 EOS 1Ds Mark III), attach the same lenses, and put them in the hands of someone with the skills to use them properly, you're going to be hard pressed to tell the difference in the photos (other than sheer MPixels). In that sense, the old attitude still stands. Pick the quality and size of sensor that you need that accommodates the lenses you need (or expect to need later), THEN start shopping on features and price.
Yeah right. DHS would be all over your ass for operating a terrorist device.
While I'm sure you were going for "Funny" or "Sad Commentary On Society", it's the FAA and TSA you'd be in trouble with if you failed to secure the necessary Airspace Waiver.
Agreed. Football inherently has a highly unstable balance between offense and defense, and the lawyerly rule set exists to try to keep this straight. As soon as one coach finds a suitable way around the rules (and gets copied by everyone else), the rules get changed to restore the balance. That's why football is so damn confusing for newbies. Professional basketball is slowly heading down the same path because it "broke" when Wilt Chamberlain came along and stood in the post where he was almost guaranteed to score once he got the ball. The basic problem is that the game was not originally designed to be played by people in excess of 7 feet tall, it was designed to be played by anyone of reasonable athletic ability and good perception, tall or not.
By comparison, both baseball and hockey have relatively simple rule sets, and basketball also does at lower levels. Size is not particularly advantageous in and of itself in either of these sports (except for goalies), and size REALLY only dominates in basketball when the entire talent pool is at the upper bounds of height such that they can play "above the rim" (which makes me wonder why the basket isn't raised for the NBA -- it would solve so many problems). Strength, speed, stamina, quickness, and smarts will take you a long way in baseball and hockey (and soccer), not so much in basketball (or volleyball), and unfortunately are of limited application in football.
There was another story about genetic testing for fast-twitch muscles, to see what sports a kid might be good at. I think it would be a lot simpler to just LOOK at the kid to see whether they are small, average, or tall for their age group. If tall, steer toward basketball and volleyball. If not quite so tall (but still above average), steer toward football. If average or smaller, steer toward baseball, soccer, and hockey. Obviously other factors may dominate, like being prone to collision-related injuries (which pretty much rules out football and hockey) or having really strong hand-eye coordination (steer toward baseball) or being particularly fast (not so useful for basketball and volleyball, where the small court demands quickness more than speed).
actually the wire-suspended camera was an innovation of the now-defunct XFL. Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skycam it's about the only thing (other than Tommy Maddox) the NFL picked up from the XFL.
And HE HATE ME (Rod Smart), though he isn't allowed to wear his tagline on his jersey.
No the thing is sensors are cheap. Making a 1920x1080 sensor doesn't cost much. Heck, making 3 of them doesn't cost much (as the cameras we own have). You can also make them pretty small. You can pack them down in a tiny device.
True, but smaller sensors are inherently "slower" (less area to detect photons), making them more susceptible to shot noise at low light levels and/or small apertures. Another reason good glass is expensive is that it is BIG, and also more precisely manufactured since aberrations that can be disguised at f/5.6 will show up much worse at f/2.8 and be completely intolerable at f/1.4.
See "A Nice Morning Drive", by Richard Foster.
And the song "Red Barchetta" by Rush, which was based on the above.
I am pretty sure that if the kids have all their limbs, and aren't mentally handicapped, that no matter what level of ACTN-III they might have, they qualify to play any sport they like.
And maybe even if they don't. These are just the first ones that popped into my head.
AC's ironic remark raises the question: in what sport would people of short stature have an advantage?
Baseball, if you have enough strength to get the ball "where they ain't". Smaller strike zone, faster around the bases, harder to tag, quicker first step on defense. Just ask this guy -- or for that matter, just about any middle infielder or center fielder until the Age of Steroids.
This is why calling this material a "solid" seems disingenuous. It seems someone (quite possibly the writer and not the researchers) is accidentally or deliberately confusing "rigid" and "solid" to mislead people into thinking this is more useful than it actually is. This is a shame, because it looks like such lattices will prove plenty useful with the characteristics they DO have. They just won't be buoyant in air.
Last place I worked, they backed up over a VPN to a remote site continuously, to backup hard drives nightly, and to tape weekly. There were at least 12 tapes in the rotation unless one broke or otherwise failed, in which case the rotation would be temporarily shortened until some more tapes could be ordered. The most recent tape lived at the office. The next most recent was at the owner's house. The third most recent was in the home of the Senior IT guy, and the fourth most recent in the home of the Junior IT guy. All three of these people had tape drives at home so they could restore remotely if necessary. This was at a company with 80 people and a full server room, so it's not like it was an insignificant amount of data. In the five years I worked there, they had to load files from tape ONCE, and that was only because the missing files weren't noticed for about two weeks.
Granted, this was in an industry where such record-keeping is required by law, but even so, the backup system was considerable overkill for the need. We never lost more than one day's worth of data, and that happened twice.
I expected the guy in the spider bot to start firing arrows at the camera at any moment!
I should add that while not all policies have a Hammer Clause, there are certain classes (like Professional Liability, IP Infringement, Errors & Omissions, Malpractice, and the like) where it is more common than not. While you can get a policy that lacks such a clause, it will typically cost you 40-50% more than one that does but otherwise has the same limits. It should be pretty obvious why -- the Insurer knows they can settle and close their books on a claim that much faster (even if it's not the smallest possible settlement) and keep legal fees to a minimum.
It seems to me some interpretation of the Hammer Clause probably applies here. Basically, if an Insured makes a settlement without the consent of the Insurer, then the Insurer is only on the hook for the amount that THEY WOULD HAVE AGREED TO SETTLE FOR. This is usually used to discourage a company from fighting a case on principle and losing more than they would have by settling. In this case, it would seem that the CRIA members might have paid LESS if they had gone to trial -- but in any event, if the Insurer did not authorize the settlement, then they aren't going to pony up for it above and beyond what they would willingly have settled for, nor will they pay for legal fees beyond the point at which they would have settled. The law probably is different in Canada, as I know it varies in other significant aspects from U.S. law. (For example, the law says policies sold to the public must be written in plain English/French and not legalese -- or at least the legalese has to be explained in plain language, and in the case of a conflict, the plain language prevails.)