Are you actually comparing the safety of a conservative pilot with their own well-maintained aircraft to the statistics for all motorcyclists, or was it just badly phrased?
I assume that means I poorly phrased it as I wasn't talking about motorcyclists in that quote. There, I was talking about all generalized vehicles on the roads.
You've excluded a lot of "low hanging fruit" to boost
As I specifically walked you through the list of "low hanging fruit" which was excluded, I'm not sure what you're point is. But, just because "low hanging fruit" is excluded, it hardly means its not valuable information in its own right. Furthermore, most flying clubs and many rental shops take excellent care of their planes and therefore fall into the, "well maintained", group.
Remember, one of the key items which significantly raises the risk of flying are pilots doing dumb stuff, despite being taught to taught never to do, in their remedial training; and were even taught why not to do it. Not to discount the equipment available to commercial pilots, but a large part of the safety equation commercial operations bring to the table is their safety mentality. Many non-commercial pilots bring this to the table as they understand their cargo is themselves, their friends, and their family. Pilots who fall into this category, statistically, are already flying in a much safer matrix than motorcyclists on the roads, and only slightly worse off (statistically) than all other vehicles on the road. By flying well maintained equipment, which is hardly an undesired objective, are statistically safer than your typical vehicle on the road. I stated owners and it illustrates a group which is more likely to properly maintain their aircraft. That doesn't mean they are the only group to do so.
So while I did trim low hanging fruit to garner safety, its anything but unachievable or unreasonable exclusions.
Light aircraft are considerably more dangerous than cars per mile flown.
Most argue that's a poor statistic to compare for aviation but that's not the primary reason I'm responding. GA, on average, is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. Keep in mind this includes even the most dangerous categories of general aviation. Realistically, statistically, once you exclude things like acrobatics, you're almost as safe as riding in a car (between motorcycles and cars). If you excluding stupid pilot tricks like flying into IMC (bad weather) without an instrument ticket, lack of currency, lack of flight planning, etc, you're actually slightly safer than riding in a car. If you exclude poorly maintained aircraft, which is common with low end rentals, your safety improves yet again.
Realistically, as long as you are a conservative pilot, and especially if you own your own plane (assuming that means its well maintained), you're far safer flying in a plane than riding on the roads. And if you fly commercially, your safety drastically improves beyond that. But worst case, statistically, if you are willing to ride a motorcycle on the roads, then you shouldn't blink at riding in most any certified aircraft.
As a side note, contrary to what even most pilots will tell you, statistically, if a pilot flies less than 100-150 hrs/year in a multi-engine aircraft, you are in a more dangerous category than acrobats. So don't even let the dual engine "safety" rhetoric lull you into flying in a twin, thinking its far safer than a single, if the pilot doesn't regularly fly a lot! Twins have very dangerous single engine failure scenarios which can be a big handful in even the most experienced of pilots. And in these failure scenarios, current experience absolutely matters.
For what its worth, helicopters have these same types of failure concerns. Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond. Furthermore, most helicopters have a critical horizontal speed which must be obtained before enough energy can be maintained in the rotor system to safely auto rotate. As such, there is a critical failure window in all single engine helicopters, during take off, in which auto rotation is all but impossible. Multi-engine helicopters are generally not an issue as worst case they will generally have enough power to safely land in this critical window of time.
There is no such thing as, "flight rated". There is, however, FAA certification. Unless they have something like $10,000,000 or more and many years dedicated toward certification, its unlikely to be certified. And that's just for the engine. Of course, that doesn't mean whoever they acquire their engines from don't already have a certified product. Just the same, the odds are not in their favor as certified engines which provide the required power to weight ratios for these types of projects have unheard of.
And this is why your cable bill is so high. You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not. And due to big bundles, you're paying for a lot of them.
Last I read, for those of us who don't watch or rarely watch sports, typically 40% of your bill is used to subsidize all those sports channels. So for people like me, al la carte would mean at least a 40% reduction in my bill over night.
Furthermore, cable/sat companies hold hostage popular channels, often requiring people to pay an additional al la carte fee and/or higher cost package frequently resulting in extremely costly channels which most people would watch if it were otherwise provided.
Anyone remember the entire purpose of cable/sat was to avoid seeing commercials - which providers all promised would never happen. Now we all have commercials, while paying a premium, plus are forced to pay up charges for the channels people actually want to watch, including local channels. Nothing like government enforced monopoly raping...
If these microscopic hairs that were lifted from spiders work really well in preventing "fouling", why haven't whales evolved the same?
Sharks have evolved a mechanism which already works extremely well and is now actively being used for ocean faring ships. Just because sharks have evolved such a mechanism, why would you assume whales would? Besides, sharks are predatory creatures, where the extra performance is likely key to their continued success, whereas most whales which suffer from fowling are typically not predatory.
Collectors typically work two different ways. Sometimes they simply buy the debt at something like 25% - 50%, and often purchased in bulk. In this case, anything they collect over their % debt paid is gross income. The second way is to collect and charge a percent; typically 50% or so. IMOHO, most people are familiar with the later of the two.
So if there is a $300 debt, even after they take their 50%, that's $150 for both parties. Considering their labor is generally pretty cheap, that pays for A LOT of phone calls and even a modest about of legal work (lien, etc). Its simply not likely a collector is going to pass on a $300 debt.
If you're going to reference something, at least make sure you understand what it is you're referencing. Personally I find C&D to be a horrible rag made for people who can't spell car. Just the same,
brakes by and large can still
...meaning, it's possible but not an absolute - which I don't disagree.
Additionally, what typically happens, which is often ignored when ignorant people hand wave over important details is, drivers typically start trying to compensate with the brakes, not realizing what's happening at first. This causes them to rapidly heat. Shortly after, they attempt to navigate off the road while still trying to control the vehicle with the brakes. Now they try to stomp them and the combination of insufficient brakes, break fade from over heating, and ABS means you can no longer stop your vehicle. And that all, of course, assumes that the vehicle has the brakes to stop a vehicle in motion, at full throttle, which is never a requirement in the first place. Many do not.
So please stop spreading misinformation - especially garbage by C&D magazine.
People forget about momentum. You're not just stopping a vehicle from accelerating, you're stopping its existing momentum as well. Not to mention the brakes overheating fairly rapidly on consumer vehicles under these situations.
Exactly. People seem to falsely believe braking is strictly a linear function (ignoring brake fade - which happens quickly in this situation and believes that's the whole story), completely forget about stall converters, forget a vehicle at rest is typically unable to produce peak HP, they forget the differences between static and dynamic frictional co-efficients, ABS brakes actually prevent maximum braking potential, so on and so... Not only are the physics COMPLETELY different but the mechanical variables are completely different.
So next time you see someone ignorantly hand waving that simply stomping the brakes fixes all, please understand they are completely fucking clueless about the world around them and its likely very safe to ignore anything they have to say on the subject - and likely many other subjects for that matter.
I'm pretty sure that it's standard on all cars to have brakes that are more powerful than the engine.
Every time this story keeps popping up, everyone keeps getting this detail wrong. The requirement exists for a vehicle at rest. Brakes must be able to prevent a vehicle from starting to roll at full throttle. The physics involved when a vehicle is traveling at 50-80 mph and at full throttle are completely different. On many vehicles the brakes can not stop a vehicle in this situation; which is completely different from holding a vehicle at rest.
Think about this people - you can still do burn outs in modern cars; its just a lot harder to get started and get right. I don't know why everyone keeps getting this soooooo wrong. Plus, if everything could be made right by simply pressing the brake peddle, chances are very high we wouldn't be reading about this problem today.
Sp please stop spreading this misinformation. It largely does not pertain to the greater context.
the new class of designer antimicrobials that my company is developing would be on the market
And meats which are antibiotic and contagion free would not only be on the market but aggressively marketed as such. Sadly a federal judge decided educating consumers on what is and is not actually in their food is illegal; as a result of a suite by the FDA and beef growers association. Both of these organizations actively encourage antibiotic use and is well documented to ignore contagions which are known to negatively affect human health.
If you find meats which do not have contagions, its strictly because its important to both the processing house and transportation company used; as it has nothing to do with the FDA.
This is completely untrue. In these parts, those jobs have all but dried up. No one will touch you unless you go through a contracting company for exactly these reasons. As a result, if you want work you are no longer independent - you are a paid employee working for a contracting house.
Without a doubt, the IRS has killing many, many, many a small business.
Interesting. I knew that Texas has a problem; didn't know about FL.
Most all southern states have feral hog issues. In particular, those in central south and south eastern states are especially problematic. This obviously includes Texas, Oklahoma, Louisianian, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
Last I read, the alien reptiles plus the feral hog populations were devastating their numbers.
Feral hogs in particular have reach epidemic population levels and show no sign of slowing their explosive growth. Furthermore, they are become more aggressive than ever. Worse, they are also growing larger than ever with some extremely aggressive males reaching 900lbs and new records of over 1200lbs. They will literally kill and eat anything within their territory,
Its not known why their populations have recently changed from relatively stable levels to exponential growth, world wide, but all states with a feral hog problem typically have open season and are begging hunters to help control the populations.
Believe it or not, feral hogs, due to their large pack sizes plus huge size in general, are becoming top predators in every environment - displacing existing predators such are cougars, alligators, and even bears.
no evidence that supplements would help anyone with a moderately balanced diet
I completely disagree with that but can't point you at anything specifically. Few people, including the vast majority of American's, have anything near a, "moderately balanced diet.", which is a proven fact. Most American's are both slightly malnourished (IIRC 60+%) and slightly to moderately dehydrated (70%-80%). Furthermore, their are multitude of studies which indicate those who take supplements when their diet is otherwise compromised (typical American diet) grow larger, are healthier (get sick less), and generally have a couple higher IQ points. If we assume a cross section of known studies is still applicable, it means the vast majority of Americans will directly benefit, especially during their earlier years, from drinking lots more water and taking a vitamin/mineral supplement. Even the FDA's own studies indirectly acknowledge this. What is in contention is if mega-doses is truly beneficial. And there is a growing body of evidence that the answer is, "maybe", depending on the health of the person, what is taken as a "mega-dose".
More often than not, people are not seeing these studies because they are funded by vitamin companies; despite the study being conducted by credible research groups. The medical community doesn't want to research because there's not money in it and no funding available. This leaves it up to the private sector to fund the studies. At the same time, the medical community actively ignores these studies because they themselves did not fund the research. Its a catch-22. Regardless, there is a large body of evidence, when properly applied, clearly indicates even your typical American directly benefits from some type of supplement - generally a multi-vitamin. Again, the point of contention is that of mega-doses, what constitutes a mega-dose, and if any potential benefits are out weighed by potential side effects.
As an example, I do remember reading one study from China, conducted by a very reputable group. They used supplements. This study more or less echoed an endless pit of other studies which showed a potential causation between the supplements and large growth, higher IQ, and better health. The medical community responded by saying the baseline was malnourished. The group conducting the study says that's not the case. The counter reply is almost all Chinese are malnourished; therefore its a foregone conclusion their baseline was malnourished.
Regardless of where you want to place your faith there, it clearly indicated supplements are beneficial and are absorbed by the body; to which the western reviewers did not find a point of contention. Given the medical communities own research which confirms that American's are typically malnourished and dehydrated, its a very reasonable assumption to conclude supplements should be added to all American's diets. This becomes especially true as one study after another continues to find reduced nutrition year after year in what is widely regarded as nutritional foods (fruits and vegetables).
At the end of the day, the medical and supplement communities both have billions and billions of dollars worth of interest to push their agendas. Of the two, the medical community have far, far, far, more to loose. Given there is a large body of evidence spanning many decades in support of vitamins, to at least some degree, plus a growing body of medical research which also supports supplements, its very likely the safe bet is on the medical community lying, or at the very least, distorting what it knows to be true.
there isn't likely to be a single molecule of the active ingredient in most preparations.
I watched a documentary on this one time. They had a statistician run some numbers based on information provided by a physicist. Its statistically impossible, by a wide measure, for any of the active ingredients to be in solution for a properly prepared homeopathic cure. When questioned about this, the homeopathic purists insist the solution "remembers".
The benefits of vitamins and minerals on the other hand do have evidence backing them up, but members of the alt-med community goes so far as claiming that they cure AIDs.
While I've never heard the AIDs claim, I wouldn't be surprised. Interestingly enough, there may be some evidence behind such a claim. Even the famous MD Anderson did cancer treatment trails during the 80's and found that their early formulations were as effective, if not more effective than some conventional (at the time) radiation therapies against some cancers. The studies were stopped before wider testing could be conducted. Regardless, they did prove that alternative vitamin therapies may have value for various serious conditions and diseases. Interestingly enough, the cost of the vitamin therapy some something less than twenty bucks. The cost of conventional therapies was hundreds to thousands of dollars. Not hard to see why the studies were not picked up and continued.
Also keep in mind, the use of vitamins for burn victims, at the time, was unheard of and considered quackery, but is now part of a standard treatment; whereby fewer antibiotics are required. Generally, western doctors are completely ignorant on the benefits of vitamins and herbs and in many cases are more than willing to tell people they are quackery, when in fact there exists a huge body of evidence to the contrary. Though this has slowly started to change, somewhat, over the last decade. Truth be known, western doctors are horribly ignorant on nutrition in general, and of the systemic effect of various vitamins and herbs. Generally their knowledge has been extended to be made aware of potential Rx conflicts. More research is required but because its simply not as lucrative as conventional Rx, no one wants to fund it.
I will point out that since the 80's conventional radiation therapies and protocols have significantly improved and I no longer remember the specific test results. I do recall the vitamin therapy was not shown to be significantly better - but then again, it was very early research. Furthermore, I do recall most all vitamin tests had results better than placebo.
As a side note, its widely believed lucrativeness of the vitamin market, if it could be placed under FDA and drug company control, was what was behind the FDA+DEA raids, whereby they stole inventory and held hostages (no joke, literal truth) during the 80's. Oddly enough, this all started shortly after MD Anderson's preliminary results indicated vitamins may prove to be an alternative cancer treatment. Which is to say, by arresting everyone who purchased and/or dealt in vitamins, and by requiring prescriptions (which was also actively being pushed by the FDA) for vitamins, the Rx companies hoped to grab the market and in doing so, drastically increase its lucrativeness. This is of course why there were farcical commercials showing DEA raids into people's homes to make arrests for vitamin ownership; as the FDA has already made overtures it intended to progress this way.
As an example, synthetic vitamin E used for acne, which requires an Rx, which has a higher death rate and higher potential for organ damage associated, cost some 20x more than natural vitamin E and shown to be as equally effective. Accordingly, given that the Rx companies have previously worked hard to gain exclusive control over the vitamin market and have no problems pushing more dangerous alternatives at far, far higher prices, I believe it speaks loudly to the legitimacy of vitamins as potential treatments for many ailments.
Long story short, factually, vitamins have a huge body of evidence supporting they are in fact effective for treating a long list of ailments and disease. This, of course, does not mean I'm advocating they can cure AIDs or cancer - only that its not outside the realm of possibilities. And that for some types of cancer, preliminary research indicates that it is in fact possible. Regardless, at the end of the day, your point remains, there are lots and lots of quacks making completely unfounded claims about vitamin and herb cures.
Great post... right up to the part about "bodies exploding"
That's a statement made by many a sniper and I've seen video supporting such statements. This is not to say, "exploding" like a grenade or explosive round. Just the same, if you've ever shot a melon or a jug of water, its accurate to say they, "explode."
Its common for people shot by.50 BMG to be dismembered, decapitated, bisected, etc. And the tissue immediately surround such wounds do more or less "explode".
Helicopters have been relegated to support roles (remember the canning of the Comanche project?) because a man with a rocket launcher can blow one up.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Its true many helicopters function in a support role, but this has always been true. However, if you look at recent major engagements, helicopters have served on the front lines, often during initial insertions, engagements, or major offensives, whereby they absolutely were not serving support roles. For example, Apaches took out many SAM and radar sites before stealth bombers and fighters began their assaults. So to say, "helicopters have been relegated to support roles", is completely false. Apaches frequently fire the first rounds in new conflicts; and not as a support role.
And FYI, the Comanche program was canceled because it was way over budget, was not delivering its project goals, and it was believed the Apache platform could be retrofitted to address the lion share of the Comanche program objectives. Furthermore, with the fall of the Soviet Union, the need for the Comanche has been significantly questioned.
Furthermore, Apaches are relatively hard to shoot down, having taken direct hits from RPGs and flown home, and in general helicopters are hard targets when they are properly flown. The problem with most well known shoot downs are that idiot higher ups decided that helicopters should be flown low, slow, and forced to become highly visible targets such that they can be an ideal, easy target rather than the hard target they generally are. What you're describing is largely an idiocy problem which is pervasive within the military rather than an equipment issue. My understanding is some demotions have taken place and flight profiles have significantly changed.
The latest Apaches are capable of both radar and heat seeker missile counter measures. Extremely few are willing to engage any troops when Apaches are visible or even if they have been recently observed within an area. Areas where Apaches commonly patrol have some of the lowest IED rates in country. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Apaches have monikers such as "Demon Night Sharks" and everyone is scared shit-less of them. They can engage targets with their 30mm cannon well beyond the range at which they can be heard or observed. And its cannon is the least lethal weapon it carries. As scary as the Apache is, some of the technology it carries is basically 20 years old - even in the most common Longbow variant. As is, the Apache has few rivals on the battlefield and even tank crews, operating modern tanks with the latest armor, will openly tell you they're scared shit-less of them and their kind - even when they don't have missiles and/or rockets.
We have man-wearable armor today which can stop a.50 caliber round... not a.50 AP round to be fair,
I'm actually not aware of any such armors, but ignoring that, any body armor capable of stopping a NATO.50 BMG round is still going to kill the wearer in a single shot. The blunt force trauma which would be transferred from these projectiles is huge. To prevent that transfer of force requires some type of rigid frame which does not come in contact with its wearer - which means you're no longer talking about body armor. Right now, about the most effective body armor available is Dragon Skin and a ball.50 BMG will cut through it like butter. Being hit by a.50 BMG round normally results in body parts explosively flying in various directions. It has a lots and lots of energy. And Dragon Skin is way more effective than what is actually issued to troops right now. In fact, many actually spend their own money to obtain it despite the fact the military has effectively banned the armor because of political back door money deals. Simply put, no body armor is even c
I will add, should a large amount of paging be required, IIRC, it is possible for a memory mapped file to make its way into the page file. Though that's not the normal expectation. This should be known because of potential security implications. Though honestly, not likely to be an issue for the vast majority of people.
When you memory map a file, it does do so by making it part of the paging system
I was trying not to be too technical. I did not mean to imply it copies it to the page file. Though I must admit, I don't get that impression from re-reading, but I can certainly see why you may have thought that based on the greater context, whereby that is the case.
Thanks for clarifying for others who may have thought that's what I meant.
I think the issue here is that the system is turning to swap.
Technically its page, not swap...but I frequently call it swap too.
Windows does things completely differently than most systems do. Windows uses the page file as a backing store for most everything. If you want to memory map a file, you actually map it into the page file and read it from there. Likewise, most things are automatically paged on Windows. That's why Windows requires a huge page file, and if allowed to dynamically grow, it will despite the fact it has enough memory for the job. Windows does this under the assumption that when it comes time to page, they can simply free the pages, as the associated pages have already been paged out. This often saves a complete write cycle. In doing so they have effectively alleviated the classic I/O bound problem which, for example, the Linux kernel authors have long struggled.
If you need to page, that likely means some portion of data also needs to be paged back in. In a classic implementation, you are now pushing data out to the page file, and as possible, freeing pages, which then allows you to locate the pages you desire, and page those into the newly freed pages. This has the result of causing high latencies and frequently thrashing the disk.
On Windows, this is not the case. On Windows, a more typical case is pages are freed, which then allows you to locate the pages you desire, and page those into the newly freed pages. This tends to create a read-only scenario rather than a stream of random reads, seeks, and writes which is the cause of the thrashing and high latencies.
While these are very different paging strategies, Windows also pays for it. It pays for it because for just about everything there is a paging cost, even if its a deferred write to the page file. In an environment where paging is not typically required, it means Windows is technically running slower than need be. Of course, this is also why many claim their system is noticeable faster when they disable paging on Windows. Conversely, this is one of the reasons why Linux and most Unixes are faster than Windows and one of the reasons why most all mainstream OS' designed to scale, scale far, far better than Windows.
When RAM was expensive and rare, I'd say Window's strategy made a lot of sense. Heck, I'd say it may of even been a superior solution, for the average user, compared to what Linux and most Unix's do. But now that RAM is cheap and plentiful, in my opinion, their "optimization" now only serves to slow systems down and confuse the hell out of people who don't understand how Windows uses paging.
The long of the short is, its normal for Windows to be paging - always - unless paging has been turned off.
Personally, I really hate garbage collection as a paradigm
Yeah, We all absolutely love languages which buffer overflow and reference dangling pointers.
Those are orthogonal issues. For example, such issues are even possible in Java. Furthermore, languages like C and C++ have garbage collectors available and such issues can still exist. Even more so, using things like smart pointers in C++ can completely alleviate the issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you actually comparing the safety of a conservative pilot with their own well-maintained aircraft to the statistics for all motorcyclists, or was it just badly phrased?
I assume that means I poorly phrased it as I wasn't talking about motorcyclists in that quote. There, I was talking about all generalized vehicles on the roads.
You've excluded a lot of "low hanging fruit" to boost
As I specifically walked you through the list of "low hanging fruit" which was excluded, I'm not sure what you're point is. But, just because "low hanging fruit" is excluded, it hardly means its not valuable information in its own right. Furthermore, most flying clubs and many rental shops take excellent care of their planes and therefore fall into the, "well maintained", group.
Remember, one of the key items which significantly raises the risk of flying are pilots doing dumb stuff, despite being taught to taught never to do, in their remedial training; and were even taught why not to do it. Not to discount the equipment available to commercial pilots, but a large part of the safety equation commercial operations bring to the table is their safety mentality. Many non-commercial pilots bring this to the table as they understand their cargo is themselves, their friends, and their family. Pilots who fall into this category, statistically, are already flying in a much safer matrix than motorcyclists on the roads, and only slightly worse off (statistically) than all other vehicles on the road. By flying well maintained equipment, which is hardly an undesired objective, are statistically safer than your typical vehicle on the road. I stated owners and it illustrates a group which is more likely to properly maintain their aircraft. That doesn't mean they are the only group to do so.
So while I did trim low hanging fruit to garner safety, its anything but unachievable or unreasonable exclusions.
Light aircraft are considerably more dangerous than cars per mile flown.
Most argue that's a poor statistic to compare for aviation but that's not the primary reason I'm responding. GA, on average, is as dangerous as riding a motorcycle. Keep in mind this includes even the most dangerous categories of general aviation. Realistically, statistically, once you exclude things like acrobatics, you're almost as safe as riding in a car (between motorcycles and cars). If you excluding stupid pilot tricks like flying into IMC (bad weather) without an instrument ticket, lack of currency, lack of flight planning, etc, you're actually slightly safer than riding in a car. If you exclude poorly maintained aircraft, which is common with low end rentals, your safety improves yet again.
Realistically, as long as you are a conservative pilot, and especially if you own your own plane (assuming that means its well maintained), you're far safer flying in a plane than riding on the roads. And if you fly commercially, your safety drastically improves beyond that. But worst case, statistically, if you are willing to ride a motorcycle on the roads, then you shouldn't blink at riding in most any certified aircraft.
As a side note, contrary to what even most pilots will tell you, statistically, if a pilot flies less than 100-150 hrs/year in a multi-engine aircraft, you are in a more dangerous category than acrobats. So don't even let the dual engine "safety" rhetoric lull you into flying in a twin, thinking its far safer than a single, if the pilot doesn't regularly fly a lot! Twins have very dangerous single engine failure scenarios which can be a big handful in even the most experienced of pilots. And in these failure scenarios, current experience absolutely matters.
Let's assume that the engine stops at 50 feet.
For what its worth, helicopters have these same types of failure concerns. Contrary to popular myth, beginning auto rotation generally requires time for the pilot to respond. Furthermore, most helicopters have a critical horizontal speed which must be obtained before enough energy can be maintained in the rotor system to safely auto rotate. As such, there is a critical failure window in all single engine helicopters, during take off, in which auto rotation is all but impossible. Multi-engine helicopters are generally not an issue as worst case they will generally have enough power to safely land in this critical window of time.
flight rated
There is no such thing as, "flight rated". There is, however, FAA certification. Unless they have something like $10,000,000 or more and many years dedicated toward certification, its unlikely to be certified. And that's just for the engine. Of course, that doesn't mean whoever they acquire their engines from don't already have a certified product. Just the same, the odds are not in their favor as certified engines which provide the required power to weight ratios for these types of projects have unheard of.
And this is why your cable bill is so high. You are paying for channels whether you watch them or not. And due to big bundles, you're paying for a lot of them.
Last I read, for those of us who don't watch or rarely watch sports, typically 40% of your bill is used to subsidize all those sports channels. So for people like me, al la carte would mean at least a 40% reduction in my bill over night.
Furthermore, cable/sat companies hold hostage popular channels, often requiring people to pay an additional al la carte fee and/or higher cost package frequently resulting in extremely costly channels which most people would watch if it were otherwise provided.
Anyone remember the entire purpose of cable/sat was to avoid seeing commercials - which providers all promised would never happen. Now we all have commercials, while paying a premium, plus are forced to pay up charges for the channels people actually want to watch, including local channels. Nothing like government enforced monopoly raping...
If these microscopic hairs that were lifted from spiders work really well in preventing "fouling", why haven't whales evolved the same?
Sharks have evolved a mechanism which already works extremely well and is now actively being used for ocean faring ships. Just because sharks have evolved such a mechanism, why would you assume whales would? Besides, sharks are predatory creatures, where the extra performance is likely key to their continued success, whereas most whales which suffer from fowling are typically not predatory.
Collectors typically work two different ways. Sometimes they simply buy the debt at something like 25% - 50%, and often purchased in bulk. In this case, anything they collect over their % debt paid is gross income. The second way is to collect and charge a percent; typically 50% or so. IMOHO, most people are familiar with the later of the two.
So if there is a $300 debt, even after they take their 50%, that's $150 for both parties. Considering their labor is generally pretty cheap, that pays for A LOT of phone calls and even a modest about of legal work (lien, etc). Its simply not likely a collector is going to pass on a $300 debt.
brakes by and large can still
If you're going to reference something, at least make sure you understand what it is you're referencing. Personally I find C&D to be a horrible rag made for people who can't spell car. Just the same,
brakes by and large can still
...meaning, it's possible but not an absolute - which I don't disagree.
Additionally, what typically happens, which is often ignored when ignorant people hand wave over important details is, drivers typically start trying to compensate with the brakes, not realizing what's happening at first. This causes them to rapidly heat. Shortly after, they attempt to navigate off the road while still trying to control the vehicle with the brakes. Now they try to stomp them and the combination of insufficient brakes, break fade from over heating, and ABS means you can no longer stop your vehicle. And that all, of course, assumes that the vehicle has the brakes to stop a vehicle in motion, at full throttle, which is never a requirement in the first place. Many do not.
So please stop spreading misinformation - especially garbage by C&D magazine.
Easy ready for people who do not properly understand the factors involved and like to do hand waving such as you've done. The world as you believe it to exist simply doesn't.
People forget about momentum. You're not just stopping a vehicle from accelerating, you're stopping its existing momentum as well. Not to mention the brakes overheating fairly rapidly on consumer vehicles under these situations.
Exactly. People seem to falsely believe braking is strictly a linear function (ignoring brake fade - which happens quickly in this situation and believes that's the whole story), completely forget about stall converters, forget a vehicle at rest is typically unable to produce peak HP, they forget the differences between static and dynamic frictional co-efficients, ABS brakes actually prevent maximum braking potential, so on and so... Not only are the physics COMPLETELY different but the mechanical variables are completely different.
So next time you see someone ignorantly hand waving that simply stomping the brakes fixes all, please understand they are completely fucking clueless about the world around them and its likely very safe to ignore anything they have to say on the subject - and likely many other subjects for that matter.
I'm pretty sure that it's standard on all cars to have brakes that are more powerful than the engine.
Every time this story keeps popping up, everyone keeps getting this detail wrong. The requirement exists for a vehicle at rest. Brakes must be able to prevent a vehicle from starting to roll at full throttle. The physics involved when a vehicle is traveling at 50-80 mph and at full throttle are completely different. On many vehicles the brakes can not stop a vehicle in this situation; which is completely different from holding a vehicle at rest.
Think about this people - you can still do burn outs in modern cars; its just a lot harder to get started and get right. I don't know why everyone keeps getting this soooooo wrong. Plus, if everything could be made right by simply pressing the brake peddle, chances are very high we wouldn't be reading about this problem today.
Sp please stop spreading this misinformation. It largely does not pertain to the greater context.
the new class of designer antimicrobials that my company is developing would be on the market
And meats which are antibiotic and contagion free would not only be on the market but aggressively marketed as such. Sadly a federal judge decided educating consumers on what is and is not actually in their food is illegal; as a result of a suite by the FDA and beef growers association. Both of these organizations actively encourage antibiotic use and is well documented to ignore contagions which are known to negatively affect human health.
If you find meats which do not have contagions, its strictly because its important to both the processing house and transportation company used; as it has nothing to do with the FDA.
problem if you have exactly one client,
This is completely untrue. In these parts, those jobs have all but dried up. No one will touch you unless you go through a contracting company for exactly these reasons. As a result, if you want work you are no longer independent - you are a paid employee working for a contracting house.
Without a doubt, the IRS has killing many, many, many a small business.
Interesting. I knew that Texas has a problem; didn't know about FL.
Most all southern states have feral hog issues. In particular, those in central south and south eastern states are especially problematic. This obviously includes Texas, Oklahoma, Louisianian, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.
Now, what about the excess deer and alligators?
Last I read, the alien reptiles plus the feral hog populations were devastating their numbers.
Feral hogs in particular have reach epidemic population levels and show no sign of slowing their explosive growth. Furthermore, they are become more aggressive than ever. Worse, they are also growing larger than ever with some extremely aggressive males reaching 900lbs and new records of over 1200lbs. They will literally kill and eat anything within their territory,
Its not known why their populations have recently changed from relatively stable levels to exponential growth, world wide, but all states with a feral hog problem typically have open season and are begging hunters to help control the populations.
Believe it or not, feral hogs, due to their large pack sizes plus huge size in general, are becoming top predators in every environment - displacing existing predators such are cougars, alligators, and even bears.
no evidence that supplements would help anyone with a moderately balanced diet
I completely disagree with that but can't point you at anything specifically. Few people, including the vast majority of American's, have anything near a, "moderately balanced diet.", which is a proven fact. Most American's are both slightly malnourished (IIRC 60+%) and slightly to moderately dehydrated (70%-80%). Furthermore, their are multitude of studies which indicate those who take supplements when their diet is otherwise compromised (typical American diet) grow larger, are healthier (get sick less), and generally have a couple higher IQ points. If we assume a cross section of known studies is still applicable, it means the vast majority of Americans will directly benefit, especially during their earlier years, from drinking lots more water and taking a vitamin/mineral supplement. Even the FDA's own studies indirectly acknowledge this. What is in contention is if mega-doses is truly beneficial. And there is a growing body of evidence that the answer is, "maybe", depending on the health of the person, what is taken as a "mega-dose".
More often than not, people are not seeing these studies because they are funded by vitamin companies; despite the study being conducted by credible research groups. The medical community doesn't want to research because there's not money in it and no funding available. This leaves it up to the private sector to fund the studies. At the same time, the medical community actively ignores these studies because they themselves did not fund the research. Its a catch-22. Regardless, there is a large body of evidence, when properly applied, clearly indicates even your typical American directly benefits from some type of supplement - generally a multi-vitamin. Again, the point of contention is that of mega-doses, what constitutes a mega-dose, and if any potential benefits are out weighed by potential side effects.
As an example, I do remember reading one study from China, conducted by a very reputable group. They used supplements. This study more or less echoed an endless pit of other studies which showed a potential causation between the supplements and large growth, higher IQ, and better health. The medical community responded by saying the baseline was malnourished. The group conducting the study says that's not the case. The counter reply is almost all Chinese are malnourished; therefore its a foregone conclusion their baseline was malnourished.
Regardless of where you want to place your faith there, it clearly indicated supplements are beneficial and are absorbed by the body; to which the western reviewers did not find a point of contention. Given the medical communities own research which confirms that American's are typically malnourished and dehydrated, its a very reasonable assumption to conclude supplements should be added to all American's diets. This becomes especially true as one study after another continues to find reduced nutrition year after year in what is widely regarded as nutritional foods (fruits and vegetables).
At the end of the day, the medical and supplement communities both have billions and billions of dollars worth of interest to push their agendas. Of the two, the medical community have far, far, far, more to loose. Given there is a large body of evidence spanning many decades in support of vitamins, to at least some degree, plus a growing body of medical research which also supports supplements, its very likely the safe bet is on the medical community lying, or at the very least, distorting what it knows to be true.
there isn't likely to be a single molecule of the active ingredient in most preparations.
I watched a documentary on this one time. They had a statistician run some numbers based on information provided by a physicist. Its statistically impossible, by a wide measure, for any of the active ingredients to be in solution for a properly prepared homeopathic cure. When questioned about this, the homeopathic purists insist the solution "remembers".
The benefits of vitamins and minerals on the other hand do have evidence backing them up, but members of the alt-med community goes so far as claiming that they cure AIDs.
While I've never heard the AIDs claim, I wouldn't be surprised. Interestingly enough, there may be some evidence behind such a claim. Even the famous MD Anderson did cancer treatment trails during the 80's and found that their early formulations were as effective, if not more effective than some conventional (at the time) radiation therapies against some cancers. The studies were stopped before wider testing could be conducted. Regardless, they did prove that alternative vitamin therapies may have value for various serious conditions and diseases. Interestingly enough, the cost of the vitamin therapy some something less than twenty bucks. The cost of conventional therapies was hundreds to thousands of dollars. Not hard to see why the studies were not picked up and continued.
Also keep in mind, the use of vitamins for burn victims, at the time, was unheard of and considered quackery, but is now part of a standard treatment; whereby fewer antibiotics are required. Generally, western doctors are completely ignorant on the benefits of vitamins and herbs and in many cases are more than willing to tell people they are quackery, when in fact there exists a huge body of evidence to the contrary. Though this has slowly started to change, somewhat, over the last decade. Truth be known, western doctors are horribly ignorant on nutrition in general, and of the systemic effect of various vitamins and herbs. Generally their knowledge has been extended to be made aware of potential Rx conflicts. More research is required but because its simply not as lucrative as conventional Rx, no one wants to fund it.
I will point out that since the 80's conventional radiation therapies and protocols have significantly improved and I no longer remember the specific test results. I do recall the vitamin therapy was not shown to be significantly better - but then again, it was very early research. Furthermore, I do recall most all vitamin tests had results better than placebo.
As a side note, its widely believed lucrativeness of the vitamin market, if it could be placed under FDA and drug company control, was what was behind the FDA+DEA raids, whereby they stole inventory and held hostages (no joke, literal truth) during the 80's. Oddly enough, this all started shortly after MD Anderson's preliminary results indicated vitamins may prove to be an alternative cancer treatment. Which is to say, by arresting everyone who purchased and/or dealt in vitamins, and by requiring prescriptions (which was also actively being pushed by the FDA) for vitamins, the Rx companies hoped to grab the market and in doing so, drastically increase its lucrativeness. This is of course why there were farcical commercials showing DEA raids into people's homes to make arrests for vitamin ownership; as the FDA has already made overtures it intended to progress this way.
As an example, synthetic vitamin E used for acne, which requires an Rx, which has a higher death rate and higher potential for organ damage associated, cost some 20x more than natural vitamin E and shown to be as equally effective. Accordingly, given that the Rx companies have previously worked hard to gain exclusive control over the vitamin market and have no problems pushing more dangerous alternatives at far, far higher prices, I believe it speaks loudly to the legitimacy of vitamins as potential treatments for many ailments.
Long story short, factually, vitamins have a huge body of evidence supporting they are in fact effective for treating a long list of ailments and disease. This, of course, does not mean I'm advocating they can cure AIDs or cancer - only that its not outside the realm of possibilities. And that for some types of cancer, preliminary research indicates that it is in fact possible. Regardless, at the end of the day, your point remains, there are lots and lots of quacks making completely unfounded claims about vitamin and herb cures.
Great post... right up to the part about "bodies exploding"
That's a statement made by many a sniper and I've seen video supporting such statements. This is not to say, "exploding" like a grenade or explosive round. Just the same, if you've ever shot a melon or a jug of water, its accurate to say they, "explode."
Its common for people shot by .50 BMG to be dismembered, decapitated, bisected, etc. And the tissue immediately surround such wounds do more or less "explode".
Helicopters have been relegated to support roles (remember the canning of the Comanche project?) because a man with a rocket launcher can blow one up.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Its true many helicopters function in a support role, but this has always been true. However, if you look at recent major engagements, helicopters have served on the front lines, often during initial insertions, engagements, or major offensives, whereby they absolutely were not serving support roles. For example, Apaches took out many SAM and radar sites before stealth bombers and fighters began their assaults. So to say, "helicopters have been relegated to support roles", is completely false. Apaches frequently fire the first rounds in new conflicts; and not as a support role.
And FYI, the Comanche program was canceled because it was way over budget, was not delivering its project goals, and it was believed the Apache platform could be retrofitted to address the lion share of the Comanche program objectives. Furthermore, with the fall of the Soviet Union, the need for the Comanche has been significantly questioned.
Furthermore, Apaches are relatively hard to shoot down, having taken direct hits from RPGs and flown home, and in general helicopters are hard targets when they are properly flown. The problem with most well known shoot downs are that idiot higher ups decided that helicopters should be flown low, slow, and forced to become highly visible targets such that they can be an ideal, easy target rather than the hard target they generally are. What you're describing is largely an idiocy problem which is pervasive within the military rather than an equipment issue. My understanding is some demotions have taken place and flight profiles have significantly changed.
The latest Apaches are capable of both radar and heat seeker missile counter measures. Extremely few are willing to engage any troops when Apaches are visible or even if they have been recently observed within an area. Areas where Apaches commonly patrol have some of the lowest IED rates in country. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Apaches have monikers such as "Demon Night Sharks" and everyone is scared shit-less of them. They can engage targets with their 30mm cannon well beyond the range at which they can be heard or observed. And its cannon is the least lethal weapon it carries. As scary as the Apache is, some of the technology it carries is basically 20 years old - even in the most common Longbow variant. As is, the Apache has few rivals on the battlefield and even tank crews, operating modern tanks with the latest armor, will openly tell you they're scared shit-less of them and their kind - even when they don't have missiles and/or rockets.
We have man-wearable armor today which can stop a .50 caliber round... not a .50 AP round to be fair,
I'm actually not aware of any such armors, but ignoring that, any body armor capable of stopping a NATO .50 BMG round is still going to kill the wearer in a single shot. The blunt force trauma which would be transferred from these projectiles is huge. To prevent that transfer of force requires some type of rigid frame which does not come in contact with its wearer - which means you're no longer talking about body armor. Right now, about the most effective body armor available is Dragon Skin and a ball .50 BMG will cut through it like butter. Being hit by a .50 BMG round normally results in body parts explosively flying in various directions. It has a lots and lots of energy. And Dragon Skin is way more effective than what is actually issued to troops right now. In fact, many actually spend their own money to obtain it despite the fact the military has effectively banned the armor because of political back door money deals. Simply put, no body armor is even c
I will add, should a large amount of paging be required, IIRC, it is possible for a memory mapped file to make its way into the page file. Though that's not the normal expectation. This should be known because of potential security implications. Though honestly, not likely to be an issue for the vast majority of people.
When you memory map a file, it does do so by making it part of the paging system
I was trying not to be too technical. I did not mean to imply it copies it to the page file. Though I must admit, I don't get that impression from re-reading, but I can certainly see why you may have thought that based on the greater context, whereby that is the case.
Thanks for clarifying for others who may have thought that's what I meant.
Excellent point and one I'd not previously considered.
I think the issue here is that the system is turning to swap.
Technically its page, not swap...but I frequently call it swap too.
Windows does things completely differently than most systems do. Windows uses the page file as a backing store for most everything. If you want to memory map a file, you actually map it into the page file and read it from there. Likewise, most things are automatically paged on Windows. That's why Windows requires a huge page file, and if allowed to dynamically grow, it will despite the fact it has enough memory for the job. Windows does this under the assumption that when it comes time to page, they can simply free the pages, as the associated pages have already been paged out. This often saves a complete write cycle. In doing so they have effectively alleviated the classic I/O bound problem which, for example, the Linux kernel authors have long struggled.
If you need to page, that likely means some portion of data also needs to be paged back in. In a classic implementation, you are now pushing data out to the page file, and as possible, freeing pages, which then allows you to locate the pages you desire, and page those into the newly freed pages. This has the result of causing high latencies and frequently thrashing the disk.
On Windows, this is not the case. On Windows, a more typical case is pages are freed, which then allows you to locate the pages you desire, and page those into the newly freed pages. This tends to create a read-only scenario rather than a stream of random reads, seeks, and writes which is the cause of the thrashing and high latencies.
While these are very different paging strategies, Windows also pays for it. It pays for it because for just about everything there is a paging cost, even if its a deferred write to the page file. In an environment where paging is not typically required, it means Windows is technically running slower than need be. Of course, this is also why many claim their system is noticeable faster when they disable paging on Windows. Conversely, this is one of the reasons why Linux and most Unixes are faster than Windows and one of the reasons why most all mainstream OS' designed to scale, scale far, far better than Windows.
When RAM was expensive and rare, I'd say Window's strategy made a lot of sense. Heck, I'd say it may of even been a superior solution, for the average user, compared to what Linux and most Unix's do. But now that RAM is cheap and plentiful, in my opinion, their "optimization" now only serves to slow systems down and confuse the hell out of people who don't understand how Windows uses paging.
The long of the short is, its normal for Windows to be paging - always - unless paging has been turned off.
Personally, I really hate garbage collection as a paradigm
Yeah, We all absolutely love languages which buffer overflow and reference dangling pointers.
Those are orthogonal issues. For example, such issues are even possible in Java. Furthermore, languages like C and C++ have garbage collectors available and such issues can still exist. Even more so, using things like smart pointers in C++ can completely alleviate the issue.