dorbie

The main limiting factor today is the display, especially for simply displaying images rather than doing complex real-time rendering. In layman's terms, graphics cards are getting faster at drawing textured triangles in 3D. They can draw a lot more of them and they can fill a lot more 3D pixels a second than ever before. They support features like programmability in each pixel shading operation. Antialiasing is getting much better and faster (and more efficient, the penalty for enabling it is getting less). Texture quality is improving with anisotropic filtering getting faster. Features like bump mapping can be implemented through math operations per pixel like dot products instead of simple fixed function additions and modulations. In addition to all this pixels are getting much higher quality in terms of precision. Signed extended range floating point pixel formats are now available giving higher quality and high dynamic range (think exposure adjustment in the display of images or of a 3D scene for example). Graphics buses like PCI-Express continue to give more bandwidth to the graphics card from system memory and geometry acceleration continues to amaze with the performance increases. Applications developers are also getting better at programming graphics cards. For basic stuff like Word this makes no difference, but for games it does. For video editing software it makes no difference unless the developers write their applications in a way that can exploit the hardware. Same with something like photoshop, unless they deliberately use hardware you'd never tell the difference and are really just relying on software. An example in photoshop could be compositing layers and dragging them around independently etc. This could be done with hardware acceleration today taking almost no CPU and just displaying the results, it would be lightning fast and allow very interractive placement of layers and painting of masks for example, but this isn't how the software works (last time I looked), it's all just done in the CPU. A cheap graphics card today exceeds the performance and flexibility of multi-million dollar fridge sized systems I used to program five -> eight years ago. Some popular applications that could exploit this often don't but that may start to change.

Is the USA totally getting mad? I decided not to put a foot on US-Territory a few months ago and nearly every week I read about a new reason why this still is a good idea. Mad? For throwing away the key on an unrepentent scumbag for trying to blow up an aircraft killing hundreds of men, women and children? No, and if you think that's mad then you're the one who needs treatment. The death penalty would have been generous, but I'm satisfied that he'll die in jail.

It is, but the pumping is also a very common misconception it seems. The idea of holding in deep brakes is to slow the canopy to reduce the air pressure holding the cells closed and allow airflow into the nose to inflate the cell. Page 40 of the 2005 SIM details how to clear this but also may explain why so many are confused over the pumping issue. c. end-cell closure (1) Bring both toggles to the bottom of the stroke to slow the canopy and pump at the bottom of the control range. (Alternates include using rear risers which I usually do now.) So it looks like the pumping you were taught should be AFTER you've brought the toggles down to slow. I've never had to pump, just slowing the canopy does it and that's also what I was taught on a canopy control course after AFF.

Dude they never knew, they knew there was a potential threat & a risk. The whole world has known about this. Ever read Tom Clancy? I have, did I fly afterwards? Yes! Ever hear of the French hijacking where they took out the hijackers on the runway? It's believed the intent was to fly that into the Eiffel Tower if they'd gotten the fuel they wanted. I knew about this before 9/11 and a lot of other people did too. The only surprise in this is the use of simple boxcutters for the hijacking, I don't think anyone anticipated that. It means there was no risk of them being discovered at security. Even if the US had anticipated the attack they probably still wouldn't have been screening for boxcutters, we didn't know. Maybe if the pilot had known their intent he wouldn't have let them invade the cockpit threatening to slit throats, but you can't know the ultimate intent of someone in that situation.

Oh please, even she says he said this in 2003, probably a private joke even assuming it's true. She's obviously bitter at him, the civil proceeding was a dispute with her, in other words it should have given it zero credence. As for lying on the form, that's some bullshit technicality he was never charged. They're throwing the book at him because they know they can't get him on anything else. How many lies/mistakes/omissions have you made on forms, what if the feds descended on you and scrutinized everything about your life because some bitch went to the feds for something you said a year ago? This sort of thing only earns the Federal Gestapo black marks with thinking people, and the only reason they get away with it are the numbskulls at companies like CNN hitching their wagon to the story. Oh and readers like you. Who do you think knocked on CNN's door and gave them the story? Those "public servants" with the government badges.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/pilot.arrest/index.html Looks like an easy way to get the federal gestapo involved in your domestic dispute.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/10/terror.trial.ap/index.html Unfortunately the CNN story is light on facts and substance but instead waffles on hopelessly about irrelevant bullshit, like supporters in the courtroom and lawyers opinions that this was a 'message' from the government. What about hard facts and circumstances? That's too much for a news organization these days.

I'd have thought there'd be enough real widows & tragic stories out there without making one up. The "taking a bullet for the Iraqi kid" angle probably got her noticed before stories of real heroes. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/10/gi.hoax.ap/index.html

I suppose it was much better when Clinton had an agreement with them to not build nukes, and he smiled in front of the TV cameras, pronounced the world safe, and the voters were happy. Meanwhile, North Korea violated their agreement and kept on building their nukes... Yeah, trusting tin-pot tyrants made much more sense. Don't forget the financial assistance we gave them as part of that treaty. We paid them to not build the nukes they built anyway. An agreement with NK isn't worth the paper it's written on. There's a whole monitoring backstory to this with political interests turning a blind eye to pretend this wasn't going on. But what's with the claim that this is the first time they've admitted this? They've already admitted they have nukes to the US (at least through diplomatic channels). This happened maybe 18 months to 2 years ago, maybe longer. It took a huge effort to get them to the 6 party talks, initially they insisted on bilateral talks. America refused in part because they violated the initial agreement because [drumroll] thet had made nukes anyway. (or made the fissile materials which just about ammounts to the same thing these days). w.r.t. missiles last I heard they were testing an extended range missile that could reach California.

NEW PARTY, inclusive, aggressive, unashamed of their values and unafraid to take the fight to the doorstep of the right. Currently, the DNC does not represent the center OR the left. They represent the center right. The left has been COMPLETLEY ABANDONED. If there was ANY representation of the left out of the current DNC, Rice would not be Secretary of State, Gonzales would not be Attorney General and Bush would not be POTUS, we would not have gone into Iraq and (I don't know this for sure, but I guess) there wouldn't be such hysteria coming from the FCC about what is on the TV. Wouldn't work in America, you can't have a nuanced position. Heck Americans can't even recognize nuanced (hint: it's not being two faced). Every debate is boiled down to bipolar opposites only the most extreme idiot supports. The false choices of pro or anti abortion, pro or anti gay marriage, pro or anti military, pro or anti tax, pro or anti social security, pro or anti constitution, pro or anti liberty. It's a national affliction. Who the hell frames these issues? I dunno but everyone falls for them hook line and sinker and not a single politician running for the top job has the guts to articulate a genuine middle position. The closest you get is some waffler who's scared to take any position or some two faced cynical SOB who'll take both extremes at different times depending on the audience & polls. P.S. For all the "debate" on abortion have you ever heard a presidential candidate discuss time periods or circumstances in detail, no it's "right to life" or "right to choose" or on gay marriage ever hear them mention civil unions? No it's all about who's a homophobe and who's "progressive". It's not a debate it's a pantomime; "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't", "yes it is", "no it isn't"........

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1994-19.html

Don't you have to die to win the Darwin award? The Darwin Award is really about natural selection as it relates to intelligence. Traditionally you have to die in an extremely foolish way and not have reproduced. This guy however wins one on a technicality, in that even if he survives he won't be able to reproduce (unless the surgeons stitch functioning nuts back on there), and so he's really a prime candidate. He may even wind up being the first surviving recipient. P.S. I just checked, there have been other Darwin Award nominees who survived but lost their ability to reproduce. According to the rules you must be dead or sterile. http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/ This may fail on the "capable of sound judgement" requirement.

Well said, from who is this line? I just wrote it, spontaneous like.

Dunno what you have but mine's called a penis.

But the bed would add some weight too right.

Still looks like a lineover that pinches the side and rear instead of all the way over the front. It's clearest in "Afbeelding 004.jpg" I think.

Yea that's old, I thought as I typed Democracy that that some nit-picking fool might take issue with it as they do half the time but I decided not to even bother. In this case it's just the predictable senseless bash.

Cry me a river bitch. I hope she learned a lesson, she's the one who needed it. Geeze her earlier assault doesn't justify dragging these kids through court, especially after a written apology and knowledge of the circumstances. The presumption throughout is that an apology was needed, it wasn't, it was merely being extracted under duress. The kids aren't responsible for her mental disorder. Two wrongs don't make a right and sometimes shit happens, now she has to deal with the consequences of her own actions which are far more antisocial than anything the girls did.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-phone-jamming,0,4483461,print.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines Good riddance. It seems like he got off lightly. This guy was stopping people voting. This should be taken very seriously in any democracy.

One more reason to go out and buy a crate tonight.

OK, maybe this is a silly question but how about more grass at Perris? Everyone aims for the grass strip and the only real issue is it's narrow, maybe this improves pattern discipline(?), but really it's no better than any other area, it's just that the green stuff is the designated landing area so why not extend the strip away from the runway to make a square?

Exactly. To a minimum within reason. Safety regulations are a tradeoff. There are all sorts of regulations and restrictions we could impose today in the name of safety but don't because they'd impose too much of a burden for a marginal benefit. As your first line said it's managed risk, you manage it by trading benefits against costs (in whatever form cost may be financial, enjoyment, time or other factors). Risk is a statistics game, a personal choice and a strange psychological phenomenon.

Yea we need more stalwarts running like Kerry the National Windsock . Yet again to the pot calls the kettle black.

Nice, do you put this on just one side or both? P.S. My triathlon 190 needs this, dunno why a canopy wouldn't but I can get the slider lifting in a dive easily (and it's stowable + a twist or two). Haven't bothered with it before I only started pulling it down after the recent incident in Texas since I don't have bumpers/stops.

But what if he's right, what if it really IS fun to kill some people? All I'm saying is don't knock it until you've tried it.