-otherwise known as, something to warm up to on a cold, desert night...
Most inexpensive Bedouin campfire, EVHAH!!!!

Yea... who are these monsters? Coming up with non lethal weapons, when bullets are so inexpensive and plentiful.

While actually shooting fewer people is awesome, we've seen from how tasers have turned out that cops get trigger-happy when they see it as having no permanent consequences. Meaning that the taser has and this heat gun will become almost the immediate go-to, before conversation.

And I'm sure it'll be used for crowd control, and such, if people try to gather and protest in non-free-speech zones.

Yea... who are these monsters? Coming up with non lethal weapons, when bullets are so inexpensive and plentiful.

We are making tremendous progress in computer vision with the help of lots of data and lots of computing power. I'm a computer vision scientist and every conference people are getting more and more remarkable performance at a host of different recognition / segmentation / classification / whatever tasks. Things like face detection are so well solved that inexpensive cameras do it automatically. What is your expertise to say that the computer vision field hasn't shown any process? I completely disagree.

We have good benchmarks now based on some really difficult, extensive test sets and every year people are making significant gains in performance. We're not yet at human performance for most tasks but the gap is quantifiably closing. What are your credentials to dismiss the thousands of top notch computer vision publications in the past decade which clearly demonstrate our progress?

I wasn't saying that this processor is anything revolutionary either, I'm just hoping it keeps Moore's law going. That + lots of data + lots of clever engineering will solve computer vision, which is an AI hard problem.

You can totally get some of those fish at your local fish store, I see them all the time, and know someone who has a bunch of them... they are modified zebra danios... and are available quite inexpensively as far as tropical fish go. I've kept the regular natural variety at several different times over the years, they too are actually quite beautiful, and I find them to be an enjoyable little species.

Just do the fish a favor and get a school of them, not just one, as they like friends, also, keep them in a somewhat largish tank, no less than 20 gallons (you could have 15-20 of these guys in a tank that size so its worth it). If you want them to be truly happy, they need the room to swim about freely and like a strong current so get a power filter as they come from fast moving hill streams in India and its best to replicate this... please please, whatever you do don't keep them in one of those cheap desktop aquariums (even if the pet store tries to sell you one, saying that it will be just fine, this is a sales tactic and they don't know what they are talking about- these fish like to dart about and need the space to do so, otherwise, its quite sad to see them just turning in little circles all day), the fish will be healthier and more successful in a larger tank. Do these things and you will have very happy little danios that may even spawn for you, as they reproduce quite readily (which is why they are used in laboratory settings)... I think it would be interesting to see how strong the glow is in successive generations.

How did that search for a home defense shotgun turn out, dc? (I own a relatively-inexpensive Mossberg Model 500 very similar to the one depicted, sans heatshield and bayonet lug.)

Ok, Danimal, I know you meant no disrespect - but have you ever loaded a 155mm Howitzer? Unless you're Ahnold, you simply aren't strong enough seat the round in the bore with a good seal without ramming it - not to mention that the tray is faster. Also, yes, the chief is supposed to jump around. How else would he verify the data? The fact that you call it a "rail" and not a trail is either a typo, or tells me that you really don't know what you're talking about. What exactly did you do?

Big Bigbikeman: Deflection 3288 is a reading in mils. A mil is 1/6,400th of a complete circle, or .056 degrees. So deflection is left and right - the number he read before that was quadrant - that is the elevation of the cannon. On the right is the quadrant - there is a dial that is set to whatever number is called off and when the cannon tube is elevated, there is a level vial that must be leveled out - that tells you that you are at the set quadrant. On the left is the PanTel, or Panoramic Telescope. On this there is also a dial that is set to the number called off for the mission. When the Gunner sets that number, the head rotates, and he must then traverse the cannon back so he can see his aiming point through the PanTel.

Spoco: I don't know much about the cost of all that, but it's relatively inexpensive. You'd have to find an ammo technician for that.

Dag: Yes, ear protection is actually mandated by the SOP. However, it also hinders your ability to properly hear the data being called off and verified. You'll find that most Marines don't wear it, rather than just use their two forefingers - they work better than anything else. Hearing protection is mostly in the form of in-ear plugs.

Too bad the American economy is based off of making things cheaper and more inexpensive. That's exactly why PVC is being used in lieu of real rubber.

The reason given for rejecting the arch bridge is just silly. There are very simple and inexpensive methods to keep ships away from lower portions of the arch.

10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | December 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5)There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

hmm....i thought i had seen this here before. oh well. The atom is an amazing piece of machinery. Too bad the "inexpensive" tag doesn't apply if you want one in the U.S. I priced one on the website, and the cost to build one spec'd out to match the one in the studio there approached $80,000. That's the exchange rate for you, though.

not sure. I'd say that was a bad misspeak unless she was being tongue-in-cheek.

the point about China being vital to the US economy is plenty true however. if I'd been in her shoes I would've said something more along the lines of "occasional faulty merchandise is the kind of bullet we sometimes have to bite when trading with a country that -- very inexpensively -- makes 80% of our consumer goods".

Well, being a proud Sennheiser owner, I wouldn't say it's a fair comparison. He's comparing what are essentially circumaural headphones (his creation) to supra-aural headphones (the Senns.) Of course the ones that cover the entire ear will give a better insulation from noise than ones that don't. The big difference comes from the quality of the audio coming from the headphones. I'd be willing to bet that the Senns sound a LOT better in quality than the inexpensive ones. You do get what you pay for after all . . .

Still, I'll upvote for the MacGyver action.

Fletch, I was referring to the A-10 in that last paragraph. I know the Raptor is anything but inexpensive.

I saw a show on History Channel (or Discovery?) on this plane. Pilots hate going up against the Raptor in training because they are always "killed" before they even know the Raptor is there. They talked of sending up to 5 fighters at once against a single Raptor, and the Raptor spanks them all every time. So yeah, pretty incredible aircraft. Inexpensive? http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm

Airshow vids are usually only interesting/exciting to the people that shot it, but this one was pretty decent.