Are you serious or is this a subtle joke I am miss-understanding? Romney is intellectually and experientially the most qualified candidate for US president? Really? Really?
Romney is a corporate shill, who is willing to flip-flop on any issue as long as it gets him the nomination and presidency. He doesn't care about 99% of the people in this country, he only cares about keeping himself rich and empowered, and keeping those other rich people and especially corporations, rich and empowered.
If he becomes President, expect more lobbying, high taxes for middle-income and working classes people, lower taxes for big corporations and wealthy individuals, less benefits and lower standards of living if you're poor, and so on. Also, expect less regulation on banks, increasing the chances of another financial crash. Of course, if that happens you can be sure he will make a bunch of money out of it, as will all his friends, and indeed the bankers responsible for the crash.
Oh, and all those people who got healthcare thanks to Obama's healthcare improvements (examples here: http://obamacarestories.com/ ), well, screw all those free-loaders, under Romney we can point and laugh as they go bankrupt and/or die, because he'll be repealing that bill.
Actually my girlfriend (a Nurse) says you should cover your mouth with the inside of your elbow when you sneeze. This way the virus particles are not spread onto your hands and there is much less chance of rubbing your elbow against a door handle or some other often used public object.
My girlfriend works as a nurse at one of the most respected hospitals in NYC and she says that the Doctors and Nurses think it's all a storm in a teacup.
They believe it's no worse than regular flu and is just being publicized so much for the revenue in terms of newspapers sold etc.
When I ask her what the real killers are: smoking related illnesses, heart disease due to obesity/being overweight, accidents/drunk people/cars/ etc...
Don't worry about H1N1, we have enough worry about without this bullshit.
This bug goes deeper. You could actually also glitch through any locked door in the game. However, what made this glitch a bit different was that you could only do it if you were wielding a dual-saber type weapon.
Basically the method was that you stood with your back to a door while wielding a dual saber then performed a 3 hit combo. Characters that could wield the dual saber performed a step back at the end of the combo and each time you performed it, you stepped back into the door. Apparently the collision detection didn't work in this particular scenario.
After a few steps back you were fully stuck in the door, then you could turn your character round and then walk gradually through the door.
The only hard part about doing this was acquiring a dual saber in the first place, since they were a pretty rare weapon.
As someone who has experienced small cameras with large amounts of pixels and SLR's with fewer pixels, I can safely say that it's a much better idea to buy a 6MP DSLR (example Nikon D50) with a nice lens than it is to buy a super compact camera with 12MP and a tiny sensor.
In the world of photography the most important thing is the photographers eye for a good picture, the second most important thing is the lens, the third most important thing is the size of the sensor (full frame = best) and the last most important thing is the number of pixels.
I think you're miss-understanding the original article.
This article is about what is needed for average people taking average photos. Most people (99%+) will never print larger than 20x30 inches and most will never even print that big. Even with a 7MP camera with a decent lens, you can print perfectly fine at that size. I've tried myself and have several great examples.
Given that 7MP can produce great results at 20x30, why does the average person need 12MP? Especially when most of the cameras they use have tiny sensors. You may not realize this but there is no point in squeezes more pixels onto a small sensor because all it means is grainier photos and reduced low light quality. As each sensor receives fewer photons.
The only cameras where going > 12MP makes sense are full frame SLR's where there is obviously a good size sensor and lots of light can be let in. These cameras should the be paired with nice big lenses to make the most of the huge sensor.
TLDR version: Most people are taking vacation snaps and photos of their kids/dog. They don't need anything more than 7MP because they don't actually make any prints big enough to see the additional pixels.
I think you're miss-understanding the original article.
The author isn't talking about the 1/1000000 person who's interesting in taking photos of protozoa on the wall of his fish-tank.
This article is about what is needed for average people taking average photos. Most people (99%+) will never print larger than 20x30 inches and most will never even print that big. Even with a 7MP camera with a decent lens, you can print perfectly fine at that size. I've tried myself and have several great examples.
Given that 7MP can produce great results at 20x30, why does the average person need 12MP? Especially when most of the cameras they use have tiny sensors. You may not realize this but there is no point in squeezes more pixels onto a small sensor because all it means is grainier photos and reduced low light quality. As each sensor receives fewer photons.
The only cameras where going > 12MP makes sense are full frame SLR's where there is obviously a good size sensor and lots of light can be let in. These cameras should the be paired with nice big lenses to make the most of the huge sensor.
TLDR version: Most people are taking vacation snaps and photos of their kids/dog. They don't need anything more than 7MP because they don't actually make any prints big enough to see the additional pixels.
I think you miss-understand how this would be used.
I buy 5 brand new cheap laptops with cash each from a different store. I go war-driving and find a random 5 random wifi connections. With each un-traceable laptop I make a searchwiki message. (Each with a different IP address which is not linked in any way with my real name or identity)
After using each laptop it is trashed and never used again. Ahead of time I have met with a confederate in person and told him the queries I will be using and how he can decode the message.
Now tell me how anyone could possibly put that message together by linking the five pieces together? I don't care whether you're an FBI field agent or the head of the CIA, there is no simple way.
In your example you seem to think that anyone trying to send secret messages over the internet would be using their home connection! I think you're underestimating the average terrorist and hacker.
I wasn't offended. My point was that the majority of space-walks are done tethered. And my point still stands.
Yes, I didn't need to type 99.99, but you must realize that when people use figures like this they are not performing a calculation to get there, they are using the figures to make a point. If the point is made clear by the figures (as mine was), then the actual accuracy of the figures is unimportant.
In addition, the untethered space-walks were mainly carried out some time ago (in the 80s) and while they were untethered, the astronaut had a jetpackesque unit, again ensuring that the astronaut wouldn't drift into space (my original point)
1) This is a small bag of tools we're talking about, not a giant ACME anvil. Having a bag tethered to you is not suddenly going to mean chaos and carnage. Besides, it could be strapped to the spacesuit in such a way that it wouldn't be flailing about.
2) The astronaut is not going to go flying off into space, as you suggested. 99.99% of space-walks are tethered (ie attached to the shuttle, space station etc)
3) As another commenter says below. I would like to see where Nasa says they mute the microphones. What if there was a problem in that period of time? Something which could potentially risk the entire mission, but which could be avoided by getting information from ground control?
The trouble about using Methanol as an example, is that it can be acquired completely legally as it is freely available in "Methylated Spirits" which is basically a mix of Ethanol and Methanol, the methanol added to stop people drinking the ethanol. (Methanol is poisonous).
Yeah the ten trillion was a mistake, I saw it mentioned in a different, inaccurate article. But you know what the actual value is still ridiculous - 3 trillion. Still an amount far in excess of the cost of universal health care.
You do realize that the USA just spent > 10 trillion over in Iraq and Afghanistan right?
Yes, your beloved tax dollars, which you seem to be so obsessed with not going to anyone else went to buy bombs to go explode somewhere very far away.
You also understand, I assume that the cost of healthcare for the whole country would be a fraction of this amount?
So in your infinite wisdom, tell me why it's ok for your country to spend your tax dollars to kill some foreigners and incite some more hatred against America, but it's not ok to provide healthcare to your OWN citizens, who really need it, but who can't afford it?
Ah I see, so what you propose is that poor people just die when they get sick, yeah who cares, fuck 'em, they don't deserve what the same rights as us richies!
He may have an axe to grind but that doesn't mean lies in the films he makes. The lady in question was in FACT refused access to a hospital based on insurance and as a result her child died.
Regardless of Moore's bias, those events did happen. ie: They are facts. And as such, prove what i've been saying.
If you want examples of people who are not being treated, who should be, watch sicko, the movie.
There's an example of a mother whose child was seriously ill and denied access to a close-by hospital because her insurance didn't cover it. By the time they drove to a different hospital, it was too late, her child died.
And there's no reason to get so worked up. This is a pointless debate on a website. Don't take it so seriously.
There is a fact that many people with diseases, illnesses, disabilities cannot afford medication and care in this country. This is a FACT. No country in the western world should have this problem, yet the USA, the "richest" country in the world, has people with eminently curable illnesses who are not being treated.
These people would be treated in the UK.
Yes the taxpayer pays. But you know what? It's worth it. It's worth knowing that should I ever be in a bad situation financially and I get sick, I can return to the UK and get free healthcare. Plus, on average, it balances out in the long run. So yes, you may pay for someone breaking their arm one week, but it could be you with cancer the next week, and someone else is paying for you..
What strawman? There is no fantasy there. It's quite to read up on many examples of people being denied healthcare based on insurance/ inability to pay. Oh and I live in America, so i'm not coming in on this from no experience at all.
I just happen to have experience of a better system is all.
In the UK, everyone has equal access to excellent healthcare. If they want private healthcare, they can get that too.
IMO, having health care is a basic right of a civilized nation. A lot of people in the USA don't have this access. It's a joke, quite frankly.
You make the point that it's not free, obviously. However, the amount people pay in the UK in taxes, is much less of a burden then the amount people pay in the USA for prescriptions, medical costs. Why? Because healthcare in the USA is run by greedy corporations who are out to make as much as they can. That's why having a broken arm costs thousands in the USA to an individual but in England will COST LESS to the taxpayer as a whole.
Also, in England, you will never be denied an operation or access to a hospital depending on your insurance company. It's unthinkable! And quite frankly, also barbaric.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you serious or is this a subtle joke I am miss-understanding? Romney is intellectually and experientially the most qualified candidate for US president? Really? Really?
Romney is a corporate shill, who is willing to flip-flop on any issue as long as it gets him the nomination and presidency. He doesn't care about 99% of the people in this country, he only cares about keeping himself rich and empowered, and keeping those other rich people and especially corporations, rich and empowered.
If he becomes President, expect more lobbying, high taxes for middle-income and working classes people, lower taxes for big corporations and wealthy individuals, less benefits and lower standards of living if you're poor, and so on. Also, expect less regulation on banks, increasing the chances of another financial crash. Of course, if that happens you can be sure he will make a bunch of money out of it, as will all his friends, and indeed the bankers responsible for the crash.
Oh, and all those people who got healthcare thanks to Obama's healthcare improvements (examples here: http://obamacarestories.com/ ), well, screw all those free-loaders, under Romney we can point and laugh as they go bankrupt and/or die, because he'll be repealing that bill.
Actually my girlfriend (a Nurse) says you should cover your mouth with the inside of your elbow when you sneeze. This way the virus particles are not spread onto your hands and there is much less chance of rubbing your elbow against a door handle or some other often used public object.
Mod parent up.
My girlfriend works as a nurse at one of the most respected hospitals in NYC and she says that the Doctors and Nurses think it's all a storm in a teacup. They believe it's no worse than regular flu and is just being publicized so much for the revenue in terms of newspapers sold etc.
When I ask her what the real killers are: smoking related illnesses, heart disease due to obesity/being overweight, accidents/drunk people/cars/ etc...
Don't worry about H1N1, we have enough worry about without this bullshit.
This bug goes deeper. You could actually also glitch through any locked door in the game. However, what made this glitch a bit different was that you could only do it if you were wielding a dual-saber type weapon.
Basically the method was that you stood with your back to a door while wielding a dual saber then performed a 3 hit combo. Characters that could wield the dual saber performed a step back at the end of the combo and each time you performed it, you stepped back into the door. Apparently the collision detection didn't work in this particular scenario.
After a few steps back you were fully stuck in the door, then you could turn your character round and then walk gradually through the door.
The only hard part about doing this was acquiring a dual saber in the first place, since they were a pretty rare weapon.
I'm a WoW player, achievement points are my crack.
posting for achievement..
As someone who has experienced small cameras with large amounts of pixels and SLR's with fewer pixels, I can safely say that it's a much better idea to buy a 6MP DSLR (example Nikon D50) with a nice lens than it is to buy a super compact camera with 12MP and a tiny sensor.
In the world of photography the most important thing is the photographers eye for a good picture, the second most important thing is the lens, the third most important thing is the size of the sensor (full frame = best) and the last most important thing is the number of pixels.
I think you're miss-understanding the original article.
This article is about what is needed for average people taking average photos. Most people (99%+) will never print larger than 20x30 inches and most will never even print that big. Even with a 7MP camera with a decent lens, you can print perfectly fine at that size. I've tried myself and have several great examples.
Given that 7MP can produce great results at 20x30, why does the average person need 12MP? Especially when most of the cameras they use have tiny sensors. You may not realize this but there is no point in squeezes more pixels onto a small sensor because all it means is grainier photos and reduced low light quality. As each sensor receives fewer photons.
The only cameras where going > 12MP makes sense are full frame SLR's where there is obviously a good size sensor and lots of light can be let in. These cameras should the be paired with nice big lenses to make the most of the huge sensor.
TLDR version: Most people are taking vacation snaps and photos of their kids/dog. They don't need anything more than 7MP because they don't actually make any prints big enough to see the additional pixels.
I think you're miss-understanding the original article.
The author isn't talking about the 1/1000000 person who's interesting in taking photos of protozoa on the wall of his fish-tank.
This article is about what is needed for average people taking average photos. Most people (99%+) will never print larger than 20x30 inches and most will never even print that big. Even with a 7MP camera with a decent lens, you can print perfectly fine at that size. I've tried myself and have several great examples.
Given that 7MP can produce great results at 20x30, why does the average person need 12MP? Especially when most of the cameras they use have tiny sensors. You may not realize this but there is no point in squeezes more pixels onto a small sensor because all it means is grainier photos and reduced low light quality. As each sensor receives fewer photons.
The only cameras where going > 12MP makes sense are full frame SLR's where there is obviously a good size sensor and lots of light can be let in. These cameras should the be paired with nice big lenses to make the most of the huge sensor.
TLDR version: Most people are taking vacation snaps and photos of their kids/dog. They don't need anything more than 7MP because they don't actually make any prints big enough to see the additional pixels.
I think you miss-understand how this would be used.
I buy 5 brand new cheap laptops with cash each from a different store. I go war-driving and find a random 5 random wifi connections. With each un-traceable laptop I make a searchwiki message. (Each with a different IP address which is not linked in any way with my real name or identity)
After using each laptop it is trashed and never used again. Ahead of time I have met with a confederate in person and told him the queries I will be using and how he can decode the message.
Now tell me how anyone could possibly put that message together by linking the five pieces together? I don't care whether you're an FBI field agent or the head of the CIA, there is no simple way.
In your example you seem to think that anyone trying to send secret messages over the internet would be using their home connection! I think you're underestimating the average terrorist and hacker.
I wasn't offended. My point was that the majority of space-walks are done tethered. And my point still stands.
Yes, I didn't need to type 99.99, but you must realize that when people use figures like this they are not performing a calculation to get there, they are using the figures to make a point. If the point is made clear by the figures (as mine was), then the actual accuracy of the figures is unimportant.
In addition, the untethered space-walks were mainly carried out some time ago (in the 80s) and while they were untethered, the astronaut had a jetpackesque unit, again ensuring that the astronaut wouldn't drift into space (my original point)
talk about anal-retentive
1) This is a small bag of tools we're talking about, not a giant ACME anvil. Having a bag tethered to you is not suddenly going to mean chaos and carnage. Besides, it could be strapped to the spacesuit in such a way that it wouldn't be flailing about.
2) The astronaut is not going to go flying off into space, as you suggested. 99.99% of space-walks are tethered (ie attached to the shuttle, space station etc)
3) As another commenter says below. I would like to see where Nasa says they mute the microphones. What if there was a problem in that period of time? Something which could potentially risk the entire mission, but which could be avoided by getting information from ground control?
The trouble about using Methanol as an example, is that it can be acquired completely legally as it is freely available in "Methylated Spirits" which is basically a mix of Ethanol and Methanol, the methanol added to stop people drinking the ethanol. (Methanol is poisonous).
Yeah the ten trillion was a mistake, I saw it mentioned in a different, inaccurate article. But you know what the actual value is still ridiculous - 3 trillion. Still an amount far in excess of the cost of universal health care.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846_pf.html
I would still like you to respond to my question on why you think its ok to spend tax dollars on war but not healthcare?
Please respond to my other post where I listed three articles.
1) Nice ad-hominem there.
2) I was exaggerating, to show you how ridiculous this debate is. I should have figured you wouldn't get that..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118781024289705455.html?mod=home_health_right
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_10/007290.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/nyregion/06health.html?pagewanted=print
You do realize that the USA just spent > 10 trillion over in Iraq and Afghanistan right?
Yes, your beloved tax dollars, which you seem to be so obsessed with not going to anyone else went to buy bombs to go explode somewhere very far away.
You also understand, I assume that the cost of healthcare for the whole country would be a fraction of this amount?
So in your infinite wisdom, tell me why it's ok for your country to spend your tax dollars to kill some foreigners and incite some more hatred against America, but it's not ok to provide healthcare to your OWN citizens, who really need it, but who can't afford it?
Do you see how ridiculous that is??
Ah I see, so what you propose is that poor people just die when they get sick, yeah who cares, fuck 'em, they don't deserve what the same rights as us richies!
He may have an axe to grind but that doesn't mean lies in the films he makes. The lady in question was in FACT refused access to a hospital based on insurance and as a result her child died.
Regardless of Moore's bias, those events did happen. ie: They are facts. And as such, prove what i've been saying.
If you want examples of people who are not being treated, who should be, watch sicko, the movie.
There's an example of a mother whose child was seriously ill and denied access to a close-by hospital because her insurance didn't cover it. By the time they drove to a different hospital, it was too late, her child died.
Do you approve of this system?
And there's no reason to get so worked up. This is a pointless debate on a website. Don't take it so seriously.
There is a fact that many people with diseases, illnesses, disabilities cannot afford medication and care in this country. This is a FACT. No country in the western world should have this problem, yet the USA, the "richest" country in the world, has people with eminently curable illnesses who are not being treated.
These people would be treated in the UK.
Yes the taxpayer pays. But you know what? It's worth it. It's worth knowing that should I ever be in a bad situation financially and I get sick, I can return to the UK and get free healthcare. Plus, on average, it balances out in the long run. So yes, you may pay for someone breaking their arm one week, but it could be you with cancer the next week, and someone else is paying for you..
What strawman? There is no fantasy there. It's quite to read up on many examples of people being denied healthcare based on insurance/ inability to pay. Oh and I live in America, so i'm not coming in on this from no experience at all.
I just happen to have experience of a better system is all.
And what? I don't see your point personally.
In the UK, everyone has equal access to excellent healthcare. If they want private healthcare, they can get that too.
IMO, having health care is a basic right of a civilized nation. A lot of people in the USA don't have this access. It's a joke, quite frankly.
You make the point that it's not free, obviously. However, the amount people pay in the UK in taxes, is much less of a burden then the amount people pay in the USA for prescriptions, medical costs. Why? Because healthcare in the USA is run by greedy corporations who are out to make as much as they can. That's why having a broken arm costs thousands in the USA to an individual but in England will COST LESS to the taxpayer as a whole.
Also, in England, you will never be denied an operation or access to a hospital depending on your insurance company. It's unthinkable! And quite frankly, also barbaric.