upvote for mentioning the enormous amount of money that must have been cleaned when eastern europe changed currencies. i sometimes wonder if that wasn't the main idea behind the expansion of europe. you should see how many casinos are within 200m of my flat.

Thanks CW. I fixed the embed and it should work now.

In reply to this comment by Crosswords:
Doesn't seem to be working.

Well those numbers are surprisingly good. I wonder if that's the one-way trip they're timing. The user experiences latency as both the outbound and return trip. Anyway 12-17ms you'd hardly feel, 100ms would be annoying but maybe survivable, 200ms I couldn't tolerate at all but maybe some people could.

Remember this isn't like latency in World of Warcraft. If you have a 500ms ping in WoW (which I frequently do), your client still responds instantly to character movement, inventory browsing and many other things. If you're playing two characters side by side it's surprising how far the clients can be out of sync with the server, but it works for the most part.

I don't really believe those numbers, I must say. The internet alone, in the best case scenario, will cause that much latency. Streaming video would have to have more latency.

I mean the most important element of video compression is motion estimation - taking advantage of temporally redundant data. That's not possible here. You don't know how quickly the client will be rotating their camera for the next frame. It seems like the compression would be pretty poor because of this (nearly as inefficient as single image compression, with some gained efficiency for re-using codebooks/palettes from previous frames where possible), and the bandwidth required very high, and that's just more opportunity for stuttering because of dropped or delayed frames. And each frame has to travel independently. You can't group them and compress them together or you're adding huge amounts of latency.

I'll believe it when I see it working with low latency and high resolution in a large scale deployment.

It was a half-curved and half-straight track section because the 200m track is curved and the 100m is straight.

I will say this though...the close up of the guy pulling the trigger on the AK showed exactly why he couldn't hit a target from 200m.

My thoughts exactly. Don't jerk the trigger.

Anyone who says you need an entire handbook to disassemble an M16, or that the M16 is too complicated and time consuming to clean, has never taken one apart... or at the very least has never been shown how to do it. My time in the Canadian Military was spent as a Vehicle Tech, and we qualified on the C7 (identical to the US M16) only once per year. Even with such limited experience with the weapon I can recall being timed in the 1.5 - 2 minute range.

I will say this though...the close up of the guy pulling the trigger on the AK showed exactly why he couldn't hit a target from 200m.

My palms got sweaty too, but why? Was it some unconscious; my lizard brain wanting to see these fools die? I wonder if my palms would get sweaty were I up there doing pull-ups from 200m? Crazy nutbars.

In the intro to the pdf you posted, it refs a study on human cells which agrees with my assertion about exposure mutation.

Well, that was kind of the point of my referencing that particular study, as the basis for using a study on S. cerevisiae was as a setup to establish a baseline by which to compare mutagenicity, carcinogenic response, and other potential to reactions. It references the human cell exposure (notably, melanoma and osteosarcoma cells) study and a few others specifically because it was indirectly questioning the validity of those results, as they study S. cerevisiae's mutagenesis but also its recombinational repair. If you note in the conclusion, Shimizu et. al. suggest that ELF-MF "LF-MF does not injure the basic genetic system in the same manner as ionizing radiation or chemical carcinogen does". It is because of this that they call for further research on yet-more indirect mechanisms for any effects of MF exposure, and also a call for better exclusion of experimental setup issues ("involvement of eddy currents induced in the culture medium could not be precluded"). In fact, I do believe these issues of experimental procedure are very difficult to deal with - going through similar papers, they are a constant concern, especially when it comes to bacteria. This is ultimately a large issue of expanding all disease-related effects from simple organisms to more complex organisms, as complex organisms - in full, not just isolated cells - will ultimately not respond to such delicate, unintentional and untracked variable changes in experimental environment. This is, again, why epidemiological studies of humans will trump small-scale bacterial studies.

Certainly many of the things we take for granted in our lives are many times more dangerous then HV lines, you will get no argument from me on that. While I do see the tendency by many to fixate on a minor risk while ignoring real risks(terrorism vs car accidents for instance), that does not mean that the proper response should be to discount concerns of risk which are based on unexceptional claims, even if we lack conclusive proof.

I see your point, in that in the face of a great risk, minor risks should not be ignored. However, my argument is that in the face of all adequate studies, all evidence points to an either insignificant or non-existent risk.

Due to the complexity of the systems involved the correlation of leukemia to HV lines (as in the 2005 study from Oxford) is very similar to the correlation of global atmospheric temperature to CO2.

To the specific study (Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study):
This study actually is pretty deep and requires a strong analysis not typically afforded it. Of note in the study, is the fact that they control using the Carstairs deprivation index for socioeconomic status statistically, specifically for affluence vs. risk of childhood leukemia. This needs to be considered with the fact that they're studying an association between distance of home address at birth from high voltage power lines. Do you see the issue in the combination of that control and that effect study? The basic control isn't so easily useable because of the number of confounding variables, including numbers of moves vs. birth location (stress factor), parental employment vs. location, etc. (These are only indirectly related to socioeconomic status as countered by Carstairs index, which uses four indicators: population density, owning a car, low social class, and male unemployment.) Then when you consider, within 200m, the analysis found a relative risk of 1.69 (95% confidence interval 1.13 to 2.53), the result becomes not merely questionable but likely variably confounded, something that the paper notes: "There is no accepted biological mechanism to explain the epidemiological results; indeed, the relation may be due to chance or confounding." and "We have no satisfactory explanation for our results in terms of causation by magnetic fields, and the findings are not supported by convincing laboratory data or any accepted biological mechanism." and "We emphasise again the uncertainty about whether this statistical association represents a causal relation.", which altogether amounts to an immense amount of ass-covering.

It is also worth mentioning that assuming "400-420 cases of childhood leukaemia occurring annually, about five would be associated with high voltage power lines" approximately, and childhood leukemia is a pretty rare disease as it is. The amount of money blown on these types of studies would cover the treatment for these patients many times over. Of course, the issue of extended disease results still needs to be dealt with, but from the standpoint of pragmatism....

Overall my concern is more that the HV lines are an anachronism, just as with CO2 spewing cars and power plants, it is not technologically necessary to put up with these things when we have better option which use less energy, and produce less waste, both in physical and EMF terms. I think arguing that it may be a small risk, but it would be better to do away with the tech even if it were not, is more pragmatic then arguing from a complex, and sometimes conflicting, body of data that we should ignore it.

My argument with this sift specifically lies in epidemiological claims, and I take up the debate because of my interest in the topic and my exposure to the issue. I am arguing against claims of increase in disease incidence as caused by EMF exposure from power lines, cell phone towers, etc., something that has not only not been demonstrated but that, if causally linked, is highly unlikely to matter in any reasonable scale of public life. From a scientific/academic perspective, it's worth researching. From a medical perspective, most likely not. From a public health perspective, almost certainly not. And we're being practical here.

Like I said, I have no experience or anything approaching debate-worthy levels of knowledge on the technological necessity or lack thereof of HV lines, something separate from its possibility of causing diseases. If you would like to sift something about the technology of HV lines and its economic feasibility or some such that I could watch and then read up on, I'd be more than happy to look into it.

so... us military sales to saddam before the kuwait invasion made regime change then a potential quagmire?? that us military sales to the taliban emboldened them??

really???

not really

from 1972 to 1990 us military sales to saddam amounted to a measly total of 200m dollars, in the form of 117 light helicopters -- during the same period, the warsaw pact, china and others sold saddam a grand total of 43.96 BILLION dollars worth of military goods, making the us contribution towards the whole a whopping half a percent

in afghanistan, us aid went to afghan mujahideen until the soviets pulled out in 1989 -- when was the taliban created? oh yeah, 1994... hmmm? but, but... weren't the mujahideen and the taliban allies?? nope, they were enemies... in fact, the mujahideen fought alongside us forces AGAINST the taliban since 2001

so... if this was posted for jon's very funny comedy - great! heh heh, his hammish act is always worth some laughs

if this was posted as any sort of political history, well, it's lack of context makes it dishonest

The commentary is in Dutch, and it's not a quarter mile. The commentator says it's 200m = 0.12mi

Ok let's assume the target is somewhere way up on the hill side, not the black square frame right about 50m away. (See the tire tracks, and guage distance by that)

Ok, so let's say the target is off frame, or somehow magically is 200m away. You bullet leaves 2000-3000 ft/s. so watch it in mute (or the original video, not this re-doctored one). Count the seconds from muzzle flash to ground impact.

There is no... no... way this works out unless the target is far, far away. Now, if you are going to play this game with post-target ricochet, well guess what, your "271 ft/s" would never make it back to the guy. 32ft/s/s and all that... punch it into your little formula.. unless the richochet comes back up in the air like 10 degrees above horizon.

I'm saying a bullet that might slow to average of 1500 ft/s can't work out here. You can say that the majority of the time is spent from metal plate travel back to shooter.. But unless it maintained 800ft/s, it would drop too much. So maybe it skipped off the ground a bunch of times? Certainly he would have no head if it was 50 cal. It doesn't look and feel fake to you?

the target appears to be about 200m away (give or take 50m). sound is 330m/s . how long after the 'bang' would you hear the 'ping' of a bullet hitting the target?

call it 600 feet and 1000 fps in imperial.

bullet speed is probably 3 times as fast over that distance - if you want to factor that in.

apart from that schoolboy error, it's a pretty good hoax!

Westy, based on your comments on other posts I have no idea whether I should take you seriously (or seruysly, or however the hell you think it is supposed to be spelled), but in case I should, or anyone else is wondering why they're doing this, I think it's actually a brilliant way to lift the surrounding community *out* of poverty. They're billing this as an "8th Wonder of the World," which almost certainly means tourists will be visiting. If this is supposed to hold up for 1000 years and costs, lets say, $200M (I'm guessing it'll go overbudget, probably by more than that), they only need it to earn $200,000 every year to break even. Plus interest presumably, but if it's really as incredible as they're billing it to be a sum well over $500k per year should be easy. Potentially they could rent out some office space and make that much, which would also be good for the community, as at the very least there would be some secretarial / temp work; restaurants too.

Hell, they put a good arcade, imax theater, and/or waterpark into it and I'm thinking 2nd honeymoon destination. Oh, and please a "Planet Bollywood" restaurant. This must happen.

@Farhad2000
Yeah the warhead has to travel 25m past the launcher before the warhead is armed but with a dud like that run like hell just in case. Thats just standard on any range. Then call in the Sappers/Pioneers and stay away from it. M203's have to spin a number of times before there armed like darksun said but wire guided rockets don't spin and there is a range finder built into the launcher. I never got to fire HEAT-WRAP rounds just TPT (pratice) rounds. There are 2 or 3 french units gearing up for the next tour in Afganistain.
@darksun
its a decision between range and punch.
ERYX 600m range can defeat reactive armor (the americans have so far refused to declassify there test M1 abrams vs ERYX)
MILAN 1/2 2200m range cant defeat reactive armor (Milan 3 can though but loses 200m)

But yeah the Javelin i have fired HEAT rounds and that thing is fun watching it slam into the target from above. They like to zig zag but before hitting they usualy fly up then just slam right into the target its fun to watch.