I'm an Apple hater. I hate its business practice, greed that's way above and beyond the norm, hubris, closed eco-system, terrible OS, dumb/outdated design (but marketed to shit as "intuitive/elegant") on and on I can go, but one thing I can't fairly hate is its hardware build and material.

I don't see much wrong (other than "not optimal") with the heat sink/fan distance here. The way the fins are aligned do allow air flow to direct to the fan. Takes a fraction of a second to generate the wind tunnel effect, and all the components between the fan & heatsink just need to be able to withstand the heat, and they surely do.

It's easy to see why they do it. That's "height". Apple want to make the Air as thin as possible, they can't do that by stacking 4 components together.

Bwaaahahaha....
Sorry, I forgot anyone not a Trumptard ready to follow Trump and abandon the republican party at the drop of a hat is a RINO. You have lost your mind, buddy. Trumpsters are RINOs, lifelong conservatives, Republican back when Trump was partying with Clinton, decades before he switched parties to become a republican out of convenience, they are not the RINO, friendo.

Also, if you really could read, and really had read it, you would have read about the bipartisan commission intentionally including Trumpsters who had to be reminded that if Trump won they would have to convince many that he hadn't cheated, so needed to participate in the anti election fraud committee even though they didn't actually want it to exist.

What is that supposed to mean? Free and fair elections by any legal means is the American way, and the right thing. They are the foundation of any democracy. My forefathers died to secure the right to free and fair elections here. You're saying free and fair elections aren't worth the efforts it takes to maintain their freedom and fairness?
Free and fair by funding underfunded election offices, providing missing ppe, helping states send out applications for mail in ballots the Fed won't fund....you know, the kind of stuff Americans as a whole took for granted before Trump.
Trump and his cohorts went above and beyond trying everything imaginable to make the election as unfree and unfair as possible, the first president ever to work against free and fair elections in our country, I know it's normal in yours, Putin doesn't want elections at all.

It's like 10 poker players at the table and 2 collude to get new unmarked decks so no one can cheat...player 3-9 having no issue, and player 10 throwing a fit and claiming they're all cheating him, he really won all those hands he just lost, it's a fraud, he won't pay, and calling his crackhead buddies over to try to rob and kill the other 9.

I would go hunting for the videos, but Biden has already stated that he fully plans to empower Beto to be his gun control 'czar'. Beto has already said that he absolutely is coming for "our" guns. He plans a forced turn in or buyback of all assault style weapons, presumably those also covered by laws that allow them under federal tax stamps (full auto).

In addition, Biden lists the following on his website as his plans:

1. Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products – a protection granted to no other industry. Biden will prioritize repealing this protection. (Only this is misleading. Do shoe manufacturers get sued if you kick someone in the face? Do knife manufacturers get sued if you stab someone? Do car manufacturers get sued when you get into an accident? No and neither do most other manufacturers. Putting this in place means that any time a gun is used in a crime, they can try to sue the manufacturer of that gun into non-existence. It doesn't even have to be an 'assault' weapon, any gun manufacturer is at risk. The only thing that wouldn't count is blackpowder guns since they aren't classed as firearms.)

2. Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. (So this would be a perma ban on assault weapons and would also anticipate changes to circumvent the law. This would be the assault ban of 1994 on steroids.)

3. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. (So even if he doesn't get Beto to push through a buy back, he can force owners of assault rifles to be subject to the EXTREMELY restrictive NFA. Not only that, but it's expensive and would be a tax on gun owners yearly.)

4. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act. (Covered this already. But if this does go through, you likely won't be seeing me on here anymore as it will be a cold day in hell before I surrender my guns or pay the government to be allowed to own them.)

5. Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. (Once you get this through, it is far easier to get legislation passed to cap how many guns a person can own total. Fuck that.)

6. Require background checks for all gun sales. Today, an estimated 1 in 5 firearms are sold or transferred without a background check. Biden will enact universal background check legislation, requiring a background check for all gun sales with very limited exceptions, such as gifts between close family members. This will close the so-called “gun show and online sales loophole” that the Obama-Biden Administration narrowed, but which cannot be fully closed by executive action alone. (I can deal with this, just means you need to go through an FFL.)

7. Reinstate the Obama-Biden policy to keep guns out of the hands of certain people unable to manage their affairs for mental reasons, which President Trump reversed. (Not 100% on this one, but it isn't a deal breaker)

8. Enact legislation prohibiting an individual “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission” from purchasing or possessing a firearm. (Felony yes, but that already exists. Misdemeanor, fuck no.)

9. Close the “Charleston loophole.” (yeah, no problem with this one)

10. End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. Biden will enact legislation to prohibit all online sales of firearms, ammunition, kits, and gun parts. (So if I want to build another AR15 I can't? Fuck that. You still have to get the primary receiver through or shipped to an FFL. Which means a background check every single time.)

11. Create an effective program to ensure individuals who become prohibited from possessing firearms relinquish their weapons. (I would be for this if it wasn't for the fact that it is one step away from the government outlawing guns. Once this mechanism is in place at a federal level, all that means is you are one vote away from having your guns seized.)

12. Incentivize state “extreme risk” laws. Extreme risk laws, also called “red flag” laws, enable family members or law enforcement officials to temporarily remove an individual’s access to firearms when that individual is in crisis and poses a danger to themselves or others. (Sounds good, but nobody is willing to state the guidelines that the family or LEO will have to follow. That means that it is completely up to family members and LEO's to decide what constitutes a 'crisis'. Bet you a lot of LEO's in protest states would red flag most protesters immediately if this law existed now in all states.)

13. Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs. (This is above and beyond the federal checks. This would mean any gun owner or potential owner would have to maintain and pay for a separate gun license. Also, it allows states and locales to decide what constitutes the requirements for the gun license. There are already some states doing this and you have to get permission to even own a gun from the sheriff or other official. Fuck that.)

14. Put America on the path to ensuring that 100% of firearms sold in America are smart guns. (Are you fucking kidding me? What if the battery runs out, what if it gets hacked, or what if the government decides to flip a switch and shut them all down? I'll never agree to this.)

15. Require gun owners to safely store their weapons. Biden will pass legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely in their homes. (IE, locked in a safe or partially disassembled, possibly a combination of both. Why bother having a gun for home defense if it can't be used without spending 5-10 minutes to make it available/functional?)

16. Stop “ghost guns.” (This is just stupid. 3d printed guns might be able to fire a few shots before reaching a critical failure. You can't 3d print a lower or upper receiver that matches a stock one. Yes, they made lowers for the original m-16s, but they swapped from those because they were shit. They broke constantly. And those weren't printed, they were molded from a tougher plastic. A 3d printed one is not nearly as strong. Either way, I don't care too much about this because it is a buzzword for non-gun people. Just like bumpstocks. You can still bump-fire a regular ar-15, the bumpstocks were just training wheels for idiots.)

Now he has a shitload more laws he wants to pass, but most of them I don't care too much about. I won't bother covering all of them. In any case, he is going to go after guns on a scale unseen to this point. If the dems get control of both houses, he will get these laws passed. Then the only hope is that SCOTUS votes them down as unconstitutional.

I won't vote for Trump, but I will be doing my part to maintain a split congress. Which means straight republican ticket other than Trump.

This is true in Canada as well. If you ask a french person what nationality they are, they will ALWAYS say French before Canadian. In their eyes, they are French who happen to live in Canada, and French will always be their primary identity. Even within Canada, they are considered a "Distinct Society." Quebec has their own laws that are above and beyond the Federal laws. A lot of these laws pertain to maintaining their French status first.

Label laws in Canada say we always have to have French and English on everything you buy, but in Quebec, they don't require English. Same with signage.

So the French do have a different way of assigning their allegiances. To some it may be subtle, but it's actually pretty entrenched in their culture.

She exemplifies the problem we have with identity politics: it's important to her that she is black and queer (since she repeatedly references that). How does that qualify her, above and beyond any other (non-black/queer/ trans/ Am. Indian/Hispanic) candidate to keep the buses running, the property taxes collected, the garbage service operational, the homeless shelters staffed, etc.? I don't care about her ethnicity or gender preference when I am deciding on who to vote for - and how she can apparently believe that I should, is a complete mystery to me.

@enoch,

i hear ya,but that is our responsibility,not the journalist or speaker.

I'm gonna be old school and insist that anybody wanting to be referred to as a journalist MUST meet the bar I laid out of putting the whole truth above and beyond bias, agenda and profit. If you are collecting, presenting or commentating on things but fail to meet that bar your not a journalist, your a commentator, propagandist, political hack or some other designation but journalists are supposed to look for the truth.

As you suggest though, they are slowly becoming extinct .

I would say even 1% is WAY too many if the remaining 99% are going to look the other way.
For it to be only 1%, you have to consider those by-standing cops that let their 'brothers' be violent criminals as "good cops". I can't go that far, meaning it's more like >99% bad in my eyes.

Cops should get 'credit' for doing good things that are above and beyond what they are paid for, but not applauded for simply doing their job. That's a horrendous position we're in where people can honestly say that a person doing what they signed up and are paid for requires a parade or kudos...I'll give them only when they give the pay checks back.

Fucking hell, that was above and beyond. I would have shot him.

After ~ten minutes of bemusement, i found out that the video is only at 60 fps - and therefore interesting above and beyond the skill factor - in 720p or above.

It'd be nice to have that in the description... bit of a half arsed effort, if i might be so rude.

Ummm... I'm confused. Does Trancecoach and others like him think that Netflix doesn't pay to access the Internet? That Google, Amazon, Netflix and the like all have a free access pass to the Internet? Or when they say "In other words, people who stream video should pay for it, and not the people who don't." are they talking about end users and not the companies paying millions to access the Internet already? Or are they confused on other aspects?

Perhaps some aspects of this video confused them...

Right now if a person pays $45 a month for 15Mps they should expect all that content delivered to them at 15Mps. The way the ISPs want to rig it, is they want to go to Netflix/YouTube/Google/Amazon and other services and make them pay extra to get to that 15Mps. If Netflix doesn't pay then the ISP slows that content down to 10Mps, even though the end user is paying for 15Mps access. They aren't coming to the end user, yet, and having them pay extra for streaming access as shown in this video, though I'm sure they'll triple dip that too eventually. (Another problem I have with the video, beyond suggesting they'll just charge the end user extra, is that Netflix and others are willing partners in this scam, when Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix and all the others have been the biggest ones to support Net Neutrality and are fighting against the cable companies, while the video seems to suggest they'll handing the money over willingly.)

And if they mean the end user... then a person not streaming and only needing access to basic text and web stuff can get the basic 3Mbps option for only $30 or 2Mps option for $15. Streaming users do pay extra already. They pay for the extra bandwidth... if all you do is browse Facebook and tweet and the like and are using the 15Mbps or higher plans than you are an idiot. The end users do pay. As do the content companies like Netflix and YouTube/Google, Amazon and the rest...to the tune of millions a year. Yes, the content itself is far more expensive. For Netflix streaming a movie is cheaper than sending the DVD, postage is semi-cheap, but the people cost a lot. Still, they pay to access the Internet just like everyone else. Nobody is getting a free ride. This is just the ISPs trying to double, and potentially triple dip fees, and Net Neutrality seeks to stop them from double and potentially triple dipping. Bad enough we have to put up with banks double dipping ATM fees...

Big companies like Google, Netflix, Amazon and the like can potentially pay the fees if they have to. The question then becomes can sites like videosift pay whatever ComcastWarner, Verizon, AT&T want? I know my little blog couldn't pay extra... not that my site's users would need more than the 3Mps plan, if that, to access most of the content... save of course when I embed a YouTube video I made.

TLDR: The end user already pays extra if they stream above and beyond what an end user who doesn't stream pays. Also Netfilx, Amazon, Google and the like all pay millions to access the Internet, they don't get their access for free. What the ISPs want to do is tell Netflix, if they want to reach that customer who's paying $40 for 15Mps access at the full speed that consumer is already paying for, then Netflix has to pay that consumer's ISP in ADDITION to the costs they are already paying. If they don't pay, then the consumer is given that content at a slower speed than what they are paying their ISP to get it at. The ISPs are trying to double dip, and someday may triple dip. Net Neutrality would stop the ISPs from doing that.

Your wrong @eric3579. There is no protection for the wealthy--it only looks good to them but everyone is less safe for these policies.

But I must correct one injustice (among a few others) that John was wrong on. Most, and by most I mean most, solitary confinement of inmates does have both appeals policies inside the jail/prison and Judaical recourse. It is not foolproof, but lawsuits have vindicated many people. As such, this forced policies in place when confining an inmate.

Not to mention that many prisoners are mentally unstable as is--just like many homeless are. I am not saying to punish them. The medications they receive in prisons and in jails really are helpful in keeping them functioning in general population these days and should be the first reliance. They really do go above and beyond in many jails/prisons. However, someone who would rip out his own eyeball or shove a pencil up his penis, someone known to be violent, or even those severely handicapped and who would be abused, they must be protected. This guy doesn't point out this--instead it's generalized as ALL torture.

Imagine your son being raped in prison violently by someone with mental illness, just because he couldn't be justified as a danger for his entire stay... Happens every day, and so do the lawsuits. It's an impossible balance really.

And indefinite is a misnomer. 30 days is a common number of maximum days a person can be held in solitary for disciplinary infractions. While this doesn't seem like a lot of time, I understand it's a LIFETIME to spend alone in a room that is abysmal. However, it is definitely not indefinite.

Additionally, the total ratio of inmates incarcerated in general population versus is about 5%. That's pretty small considering the totality of circumstances and general population inmates whose crimes are serious in nature.

As someone who has studied this issue indepth for the last 7-8 years I can say the jail/prison system is a failure on multiple aspects. It causes more crime. It hurts people who would be better served elsewhere. It is racially biased. In most cases there is no way out. However, in the dawning of the age of cameras, much has changed for the better. The fact that guards are charged with crimes for obvious abuse is one. The fact that solitary confinement is now working well is another. Prison populations are expanding less and less.

We should expand upon the good, instead of focus on the bad.

Obama has gone above and beyond the usual bureaucrat when it comes to making his own rules and to hell with anyone who wants to oppose him. The media doesn't challenge him because he's a Democrat, the Democrats don't challenge him because he's African-American, and the Republicans don't challenge him because they don't want to be a target of Eric Holder, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, etc ad infinitum, plus they're ball-less.
So he's got free rein, he can't be re-elected and he doesn't care too much because Michelle could probably carry on where he left off.

Love the cardboard box arrangement.

I remember in college when we had to put together a computer from chips, a friend's group went way above and beyond the required specs, so the college wanted to keep it.They problem is they'd mounted it in a used pizza box that happened to be lying around when they needed a case. Very classy, but it added a lovely extra touch of geek.

First, you again label me with your convenient labels knowing absolutely NOTHING about me. You make the mistake of assuming I'm an average consumer/waster/litterer. You would be wrong. I've never once thrown litter out my window or elsewhere since I was an adult, including cigarette butts and water bottles. In fact, I have bought fewer than 5 bottles of water in my lifetime. I grow my own food for the most part, and I don't buy much, so my garbage output is severely limited. Even my driving habits are below average, well under 5K miles per year.
(You have it backwards, in your scenario the asshat wants to shove his shit into my ass because I don't want it on our roads. If you think that's OK, I just don't know what to say except stay the hell away from me and mine!)
Second, you seem to be up in arms that someone would have the unmitigated gall to call someone else out on their illegal, immoral, and incredibly rude behavior by returning the offending litter, and your knee jerk reaction is to say you would do something worse to that jerk that had the gall to call you out and return your litter? Hmmmm. That's not a reasonable or logical reaction, and is what I expect from 5 year olds and meth heads.
The guy throwing shit out the window repeatedly after someone went to the extreme of going into traffic to retrieve the litter and return it has the death wish, he's poking an unstable bear (OK, really 2 unstable bears) while ensuring no one would come to his aid when it all goes wrong.
Interesting, in private you agree with me on many points, but when I call you out in public for making ridiculous statements attempting to be a little fucking thing (another way to say an annoying object, which is exactly what you have told me you are trying to be) you go off in unintelligible tirades. The hilarious thing about this one is we both seem to be suggesting similar responses, just by different parties. It seems if I don't agree with you 100%, I must disagree with you 100% (in your mind) and therefore must be insanely unreasonable.
Repeatedly littering when numerous others have gone above and beyond to stop you is insane, out of control, rude, and illegal, and is asking for some other idiot to take things a step farther out of control. Ramming one of their cars was BEGGING to be ripped out and beaten, he was just lucky the guy he hit wasn't the same kind of hot head. You think everyone besides you is insane, uneducated, and completely lacking self control, so how does antagonizing them and escalating the already hot situation do any good for anyone?
I just can't understand how anyone with the intelligence to type can defend the litterer in this. Even if you think everyone in the situation was wrong to some degree, the litterer A. started the situation B. was doing something both illegal and immoral C. repeated this action and D.escalated to vehicular assault. You really need some serious mental gymnastics ala Eric Cartman to make him the one who was wronged or righteous.

@hamsteralliance - Great comment and demo file, above and beyond the call of internet forum duty!

To my ears and with my speakers, I agree with your comments. I think that I can *just* distinguish between the 224 k and 320 k, but I don't have much confidence of doing so reliably in a blind test. 128 k versus 224 k or 320 k I think I could do with a reasonably high accuracy. 320 k versus original -- I must admit I'd just be blindly guessing.

Again thanks for the demo file and going above and beyond to answer my question and letting me (and anyone else here) see real results of various settings for myself!