My little Canon MP620B printer is great. I use it to print my photos and they always look good. It does eat ink like crazy though. That's about the extent of my printer knowledge.

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Excellent website! What about a ridiculous high dpi inject printer?
>> ^critical_d:
http://components.arrow.com/part/search/%5E8/33/790
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Definitely just the sensor would be preferable. But it is hard to find a place that sells just the sensors... Any suggestions? I was thinking about contacting the Aptina or Foveon directly. It definitely seems like a standard CCD image sensor might be out. They are too expensive, the image capture is too slow, and the pixel area is too small.

Excellent website! What about a ridiculous high dpi inject printer?
>> ^critical_d:

http://components.arrow.com/part/search/%5E8/33/790
>> ^MycroftHomlz:
Definitely just the sensor would be preferable. But it is hard to find a place that sells just the sensors... Any suggestions? I was thinking about contacting the Aptina or Foveon directly. It definitely seems like a standard CCD image sensor might be out. They are too expensive, the image capture is too slow, and the pixel area is too small.

http://components.arrow.com/part/search/%5E8/33/790

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

Definitely just the sensor would be preferable. But it is hard to find a place that sells just the sensors... Any suggestions? I was thinking about contacting the Aptina or Foveon directly. It definitely seems like a standard CCD image sensor might be out. They are too expensive, the image capture is too slow, and the pixel area is too small.

Definitely just the sensor would be preferable. But it is hard to find a place that sells just the sensors... Any suggestions? I was thinking about contacting the Aptina or Foveon directly. It definitely seems like a standard CCD image sensor might be out. They are too expensive, the image capture is too slow, and the pixel area is too small.

>> ^kulpims:

they forgot to mention it needs a specialized runway to land on - its engines simply melt any other ordinary landing surface


Do you have a citation for that?

I think this video is damn impressive. This is clearly a huge leap from the Harrier.

It's a ridiculously expensive weapons program, but it is also a large scale program. F-35's are hardly the most annoying weapons we invest in. The F-22 or B-2 are far more annoying because the number of units is too small to mitigate the extreme development costs. It's pointless to develop an aircraft if you're not making 1,000 of them. This aircraft could easily see 2, 3, 4, or 5 thousand airframes built and sold internationally.

But anyway, I agree that our military budget, especially these money pit programs, should be severely curtailed.

Sounds good.

Good work.

However, as you indicated, it's likely an inconsequential finding since, for the majority of the 135 vaccine-adverse event pairs that were studied, "the evidence was inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship." That is, "few health problems are caused by or clearly associated with vaccines."

But you still might want to attempt to claim your prize.


>> ^oritteropo:

Nope, got it. Institute of Medicine reports, 25 August 2011, Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality.
Report finds that anaphylaxis, meningitis, or encephalitis are in fact possible side effects of several vaccines. Measles and varicella were associated with meningitis or encephalitis, and anaphylaxis was a risk for Varicella, Influenza, Hep B, Tetanus, Meningococcal, HPV.
This does, I feel, somewhat support my conclusion that it would be possible to suffer brain damage as a result of a vaccine.
My other assertion, that this does in fact happen to very small numbers of people... well... that's a bit harder to support. The percentage chances of any of these side effects is "vanishingly small"... too small to show up in any of the 1000 vaccine studies they investigated, and it is only as a result of case studies that they felt they could make these associations. Oh, and they're far more likely in immune compromised subjects (as you'd expect).
I stand by my assertion that the diseases that these vaccines protect against are far more dangerous and far more likely to cause brain damage than the vaccines themselves.

>> ^eric3579:

@ponceleon this is the third or fourth video you've associated douchbaggery with burning man. I assume you have never been. I know you've mentioned people you know who have gone are douchebags. Well I've been six times and have loved everything about it, each and every time. Maybe you should check out burning man for yourself and hang out with less douchebags .


Well, I got to say, maybe you've just hit the nail on the head. Really it is just based on the people I've met personally that have gone. They have been really just uncreative, drug-abusing, total douches who are just reprehensible in the way they run their lives. The kind of people that drink and smoke pot while breastfeeding. I mean, I'm a fairly liberal guy as many of you know, but the people that I associate with Burning Man really qualify as the "wrong" kind of hippie.

That said, I'm totally willing to concede that my sample size may be too small to pass judgment on the whole event. The video was damned cool.

Oh man. I'm all for blazing but seriously. As crazy as it sounds the first time I smoked pot was in 4th grade... but I didn't actually get stoned until 6th grade (in a car outside of the junior high across from my elementary school). Because that junior high was so fucked my parents sent me to a private school where there were like 20 kids in each class as opposed to one thousand. That's when I became a big stoner and ultimately started having panic attacks from shitty weed (laced or sprayed with something) alongside the stress a school that's whole goal was to get kids into really good colleges. The school was too small all of the faculty had their eyes on every single kid & knew what was up - it tripped me out.

Ultimately, three years later it led me to go back to public school in a different district so if I got so crazily stoned no one would realize; I'd be just another number in the police state.

It's all gravy now, I could smoke a bowl, drop E, some acid and a fifth of jack daniels and be smooth (not that I'd actually want to do that) but seriously, weed has the potential to fuck up a youngins mind or at least lead them astray. Not that I think it led me astray but I think the possibility is there. Now that my stoner years (wake & bake - go to art school) are behind me I smoke maybe a hit every once in a while, if I smoke much more I get panicy. I'm down to one hit as opposed to five bowlfuls... if it weren't for being a stoner at one point I probably wouldn't drink at least 3-5 to 15 beverages a day haha! It began a brutal cycle. Either mixing, or smoking a lot of weed, or drinking a lot of alcohol. They say everything with moderation, yeah sure, but addictions are more difficult to moderate!

Who even knows what effect pot could have on a baby's mind!! Sheesh!

>> ^robbersdog49:

>> ^Peroxide:

Shame of shames! You people and your hyper relativistic moral compass. What a load of shit, I mean seriously!
You do realize that one can treat any matter of justice and equity with the extreme relativism that you just have? For instance, I could kill your family and respond to your concerns, "Hey, lets be reasonable, I could have bombed a nursery, It's not so bad in comparison...You've actually got it pretty good."
Do you understand why you do a disservice to the norms of justice and equity by way of your extreme moral relativism? (I qualify it with extreme because of course our physical reality and method of interpreting it demands that we compare or engage in relativism to a basic degree.)
You probably don't, anyhow, I urge to seek the truth regarding how our current economic and political structures are simply, unarguably, morally perverse.

Show me where I say our society is fair? I don't think that at all, you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not in any way saying that people in first world countries should live like those in third world countries. I'm not saying anything is wrong with wanting your life to be better. I'm simply pointing out a fact. It's a fact that gets strong reactions, as you've shown. It's an uncomfortable truth that has lead you to attack me and claim I'm saying things I'm not.
If I have a bad day at work it helps me deal with it to remember how lucky I am. That I'm not one of the unfortunate billions who have to live on less than $2 a day (from what I can find, that's 2.7 billion people). I realise I have a lot to be thankful for and a lot of reason to pull my socks up and carry on.
What you're basically saying is that it's wrong for us to try to put things into perspective. That it's wrong for us to recognise the suffering of others. I disagree. I think there are injustices in our societies, of course there are. The tax cuts for the rich and the burden on those who earn less makes for a completely un-equal society and that's not going to help anyone. But it's possible to understand the inequalities in our society and also to be able to see that we have it better than others. It really could be worse.
How about we sit back and look at what we ave got for once, instead of just moaning about what we should have. I'm pretty sure Mahatma Ghandi didn't mean that a nation should ignore the plight of other nations. That people should ignore others because they live in another country or in a different way.
Why is it wrong for me to look at a poor family in Africa and say 'look how much worse off they are than you, be thankful for what you have'? Do you think we shouldn't be thankful? (Please remember this isn't the same as saying we shouldn't want better for ourselves and our families, it means just what it says; that however little we think we have, shouldn't we be grateful that we have that when so many have less).


Did you even read my comment? For your convenience I've highlighted the sections which show that you did not read/comprehend it.

My position is one of Idealism, I will be the first to admit that.

And I recognize that some people are, and will always be, of too small an imagination (or of a heart) to strive for justice within their own borders, as well as around the world.

You present arguments in favor of ignoring genuine socio-political inequity, by comparing extremes.

Of course it is comforting to know that you have access to clean water.

But it doesn't follow that we, as a society should tolerate children lining up at the food bank because they have clean water and a fridge.

You say: "I realise I have a lot to be thankful for and a lot of reason to pull my socks up and carry on."

I say: I realize I have a lot to be thankful for, but just that fact that 2.7 billion people live off of less than $2 a day, does not mean that I should tolerate poverty in my country.

You say: "Why is it wrong for me to look at a poor family in Africa and say 'look how much worse off they are than you, be thankful for what you have'?"

I say: It isn't, of course I'm thankful for what i have you imbecile, but the act of dismissing inequalities simply because you can think of a more unequal situation is a pathetic, often wholly inappropriate practice.

Stuart Varney is the guy who tells the woman who was impregnated by her rapist, that she should be thankful her rapist didn't give her aids also.
Of course shes happy about that, it doesn't mean that rape isn't a rancorous evil.

If you find Stuart Varney's arguments convincing, you are a grade A twat.

I call FAKE! This guy is too small to be a soldier!

Is it just me, or is that yard just a WEEEEEEE bit too small for that animal.

Yeah, that doesn't look like a moose - it's too small. Hard to tell with youtube player's crap-tacular seek ability, but it definitely looks like a deer.

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.

Sorry Dudes, I know you mean well, but you are defending the indefensible. Obama has failed, just like those of us who know socialism (or semi-socialism) fails knew he would. Couldn't care less that the moonbats hate him for not being Marx enough, His Earness has failed.

Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs. With government, when 30 desk jockeys can replace 300, the other 270 stay on board for the ride (and pensions). No wonder we're headed for Greece.

Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board. Recognize it's not the government's money, even if it prints the sh1t.

Another wonderful side effect of letting people keep the lion's share of what they earn: you get a properly-restrained government too small to rape and plunder in the name of "social justice" or any other bullsh1t of the day.

And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.

wiki:

Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted (Hoover) for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for "reckless and extravagant" spending, of thinking "that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible."[54] Roosevelt's running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of "leading the country down the path of socialism".[55]

Ironically, these policies pale beside the more drastic steps taken under Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration later as part of the New Deal. Hoover's opponents charge that his policies came too little, and too late, and did not work. Even as he asked Congress for legislation, he reiterated his view that while people must not suffer from hunger and cold, caring for them must be primarily a local and voluntary responsibility.

Even so, New Dealer Rexford Tugwell[56] later remarked that although no one would say so at the time, "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."




>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
And yet here we are with our current SCAMULUS not helping at all.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-s-eco
nomists-stimulus-has-cost-278000-job_576014.html
I'm calling FOUL, Keynes! You hear me? KEEEEYYYYNNNEEEEEESSSS!

That article says it created 2.4 million jobs. Its main point was that if you take the number of jobs it's estimated to have created, and divide it by the total sum of the bill, it was expensive per job. But it wasn't buying jobs, it was buying goods and services.
Of course you can get more jobs per dollar if the government just directly hires people, and puts them to work doing what needs to be done (like build cars, sweep floors, grow corn, etc.). But that's socialism, so instead we just buy stuff from the market, and let the market decide how many (and which) jobs get created.

>> ^ForgedReality:

I thought this show ended. They restarted the series?


Top Gear will never, NEVER end!
(If it was up to me)


@colt45: You're welcome, I did enjoy it too.

>> ^truth-is-the-nemesis:

what a pinhead, I'm frankly sick of this business is suffering though too much regulation & taxes propaganda pieces. They would like everyone to believe the multinational corporations are the hard done by 'David's' of the economic world, rather than the colossal 'Goliath' they truly are, and all the while getting the very people who are pawns in the system to support the en-slavers as the enslaved.



I'm confused by your post. Taxes and regulation help big business and only serve to stifle competition from small business. In fact, most tax laws and regulations are there because big business put them there. Who do you think employs all those lobbyists living in DC? Big business is always getting special credits and exemptions while the small entrepreneur is getting fucked.

Big business is immune to taxes and regulation. There's always tax shelters, rebates, bailouts, and other corporate welfare. A business too big to fail means other ones too small to succeed.

Taxes and regulation help the Goliaths stay Goliaths. And if it wasn't for the government interfering in the first place, there would've never been any Goliaths.