text stringlengths 1 330k |
|---|
Originally Posted by jbhawley View Post |
Conspiracy theory. HMM Maybe? But not really am I posing a conspiracy, but questioning the status quo. Its the helmet mfg, Snell etc that should post hard-cold data and not some friggin' "CONSENSUS". Do you agree? |
I'm trying to figure out what you are expecting. A 200 page report with data for 50 different head types and 1000 different usage patterns? Maybe a 100 question form where you add up the points at the end and that determines how long your helmet will last? |
It would be inane or useless, and most likely would only open the manufacturers up to lawsuits, and that would hurt all of us. I think Snell said it well. Only YOU know what your helmet has been through. THERE ARE NO HARD AND FAST RULES, yet you seem to want to pretend there are. |
This sort of post usage testing is what I would like to see from Snell. Take a helmet that has actually been worn by an average rider that is 2, 5, 7 etc years old and see if it still hold to the initial testing criteria. |
What is an "average rider"? |
Does this average rider have oily hair or dry hair? |
Does the rider sweat much? How much is "much"? |
What was the average length of continuous helmet usage? |
What was the longest length of continuous helmet usage? |
How many hours was the helmet used annually? |
How tight was the helmet initially? (exact head size vs helmet size) |
What temperature was the helmet stored at (usually)? |
What humidity was the helmet stored at (usually)? |
What part of the world did the rider live in? |
Given the VERY LARGE number of variables in the above answers, how would any testing be useful for ANYONE except that "average rider"? |
Alton screwed with this post 04-17-2012 at 10:42 AM Reason: added response |
Alton is offline Reply With Quote |
BFG AGEIA PhysX Accelerator |
The physics battle heats up |
Updated 2/4/2008 |
Comments Threshold |
Hopes for benefits |
By Xodus Maximus on 2/4/2008 5:48:57 PM , Rating: 3 |
Intel has Havok and they did nothing new with them, so I am really hopeful that NVidia might do something that moves the field forward. Im sure that the AGEIA PhysX API will be accelerated by drivers from Nvidia in the future, but NVidia tried something similar with Cg, and that received almost no industry backing, except for some books being written about it. |
This might actually kill PhysX, because AMD will make their own product, and with all three companies having competing products and having no standard, games will be forced to have their own solution that doesn't take advantage of these great techs, and eventually it will be some obscure feature on NVidia's SDK that 1% of people use... |
RE: Hopes for benefits |
By togaman5000 on 2/4/2008 6:07:15 PM , Rating: 4 |
The different standards may very well hurt overall adoption, but if nVidia takes the smart route and integrates the technology directly into their cards, then developers would have a guaranteed user base. |
If it were up to me, then I'd integrate the technology into all future GPUs. I'd also release a software version. Not only would any user be able to use Ageia's physics engine, regardless of GPU brand, but nVidia GPUs would be faster and include more features. Kind of like how EAX is available up to 2.0 for most licensed hardware based sound companies, but Creative can use it up to 5.0. All games support it now, despite the fact that only a certain percentage of the population can use it to the fullest. |
RE: Hopes for benefits |
Related Articles |
UFC Fight Night 29 Play-by-Play: Fabio Maldonado vs. Joey Beltran |
October 9, 2013 |
Comments off |
UFC Fight Night 29 Live Results Home Page |
Fabio Maldonado vs. Joey Beltran |
Round 1: Maldonado gets his jab going early, while Beltran is swinging for the fences. Beltran moves in for a takedown, but Maldonado defends along the fence. The referee steps in after Beltran lands a couple low punches, and warns that next time he will take a point away. They restart, Beltran trying to get his own jab going, but Maldonado beating him to the punch. Beltran forces his way inside, landing several punches that rock Maldonado a bit. Beltran presses Maldonado into the fence, lands some good short uppercuts, but Maldonado answers with a solid body blow. Beltran, however, is keeping his weight on Maldonado and landing some short punches and knees while he does so. Maldonado lands a few short body shots, but Beltran is mixing his techniques up well landing elbows, punches and knees, all the while pressing Maldonado into the fence. Beltran tries to wrap Maldonado’s legs for a takedown, but gets caught briefly in a guillotine attempt. He quickly releases it and they return to their feet, Maldonado calling for Beltran to come at him as the horn sounds to end the round. MMAWeekly.com scores round one 10-9 for Beltran. |
Round 2: Beltran going back to his jab to start round two, but eats a straight right from Maldonado. Maldonado goes back to employing his jab, lading it with frequency. Beltran is coming forward, swing wide and heavy, but getting picked apart by Maldonado’s jab. They clinch up, Maldonado doing some good body work with his punches. Maldonado comes off the fence, landing some heavy shots, and then goes back to the fence, urging Beltran to come in and fight him along the cage. Beltran does, presses Maldonado onto the cage, and lands some hard knees and elbows. They’re clinched on the fence, Maldonado’s mouthpiece comes shooting out and the ref stops the action for him to retrieve it. They start up at the center of the cage, Beltran chasing Maldonado down with punches, but eating lots of jabs in doing so. Maldonado keeps the jab going, and mixes in some combinations. They get close, Maldonado really edging ahead with the frequency and quantity of his punches, the jab now in full effect. They trade blows to the horn. MMAWeekly.com scores round two 10-9 for Maldonado. |
Round 3: They both immediately go to the jab, Maldonado again looking to be the more effective puncher. Beltran is starting to drop his hands and Maldonado is taking advantage. Beltran is trying to find a takedown, but eats some big right hands from Maldonado, who fends off the attempts. Beltran keeps fighting for the takedown, but Maldonado is doing a good job maintaining his balance and making Beltran work. The referee finally sees enough of the stalemate and restarts them in the center. Maldonado goes right back to the jab, throwing it high and to the body. Beltran is landing infrequently, but Maldonado keeps the jab in his face. Beltran presses Maldonado to the fence and lands some short uppercuts, but Maldonado fires back with short shots to the body, and one errant shot that lands south of the border, briefly halting the fight. They restart, Maldonado going back to the jab, but Beltran moves forward, secures a front facelock and drags Maldonado to the mat. Maldonado is on his knees, while Beltran is standing and driving knees into his ribs. They return to their feet, both men battered and bloody. MMAWeekly.com scores round three 10-9 and the fight 29-28 for Maldonado. |
Fabio Maldonado def. Joey Beltran by Split Decision (28-29, 29-28, 29-28) |
UFC Fight Night 29 Live Results Home Page |
Comments are closed. |
The city commuters streaming home through darkened streets last Tuesday night would never have recognised the middle-aged, bespectacled man slipping into the offices of a leading law firm. |
Which is how Sir Richard Dearlove likes it, given that until last year he was running MI6. The message he was en route to deliver at that night's private seminar, before a discreet audience assembled by the law firm Ashursts, was a chilling one. There was 'extensive complacency' about the terrorist threat, he said, and those who thought July's London bombing was the worst Britain would suffer were wrong. |
'We probably have to conclude that the clock is running on some much more dreadful events,' he said matter-of-factly. The dilemma now was how to stop them. |
Quite, as Tony Blair might say. After a week which saw David Blunkett, his closest cabinet ally, forced out for the second time in a year and his majority cut to a humiliating one by a cross-party revolt over his terrorism bill, it is hard to tell which setback angers the Prime Minister most. |
When Blunkett came under serious attack, Blair knew he must let go. On terrorism, however, the issue has had to be prised from his reluctant grip. One friend describes his mood as 'sheer exasperation', not just with the Tories - whom he regards as wantonly defying police warnings that they need new powers to tackle al-Qaeda - and of the public mood, but with his own party for aiding and abetting. |
'Part of his fury is about the fact that we have suffered a self-inflicted wound, allowing the Conservatives to limp away, even though they are there for the taking on this issue,' says one friend. 'He thinks we could destroy Cameron and Davis on this.' Rebellious Labour MPs, meanwhile, accuse him of losing touch with reality in pursuit of yet more draconian crackdowns of unproven effectiveness. |
The wrangle over plans to detain terrorist suspects for up to 90 days without trial has ended in what the ex-minister John Denham calls a 'blind game of poker' over who folds first. Were Labour MPs bluffing when they threatened their leader's first Commons defeat? Do the Tories dare bet against the risk of another bomb? And would Blair stake everything on a vote that, if he lost, could prompt demands for his resignation? |
Charles Clarke, his Home Secretary, has been desperate for a deal: his chief whip, Hilary Armstrong, warned Blair that he would not carry Parliament. The Prime Minister's mood was, if anything, hardening. 'I don't think there is any sort of Plan B on 90 days,' said one government source bleakly. |
Last-minute attempts to square that circle have left Clarke negotiating a climbdown, while Blair insists publicly that any compromise would be inadequate. The conclusion for many Labour MPs is that, weakened by weeks of infighting, he simply dare not risk a defeat that would leave him looking washed up. 'It's not about the terror bill: it's the symbolism of Tony losing his majority,' says another government source. |
But it is not just political careers at stake. With the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) adamant that without the new powers - on which MPs now vote this Wednesday - suicide bombers could go free, the dispute matters to every citizen in Britain. |
Guy Fawkes mugs and gunpowder mustard sold briskly at the Commons gift shop last week. Once a traitor, now a tourist attraction, Fawkes neatly illustrates the dilemma for MPs: time blurs the lines between deadly treachery and legitimate protest. |
Wednesday's revolt centred on plans to outlaw the glorification of terrorism - drawn up to prevent 'hate preachers' advocating jihad from mosques. But rebels say the measures are so vaguely drawn that they would - as Tory Dominic Grieve argues - outlaw 'the glorification of Robin Hood'. |
Labour MPs fear it could become illegal to wear a T-shirt with an inflammatory slogan or say, as Cherie Blair once did, that she could understand why some Palestinians become suicide bombers. Librarians fear lending books on jihad could get them arrested: university professors say they risk prosecution for discussing al- Qaeda videos on politics courses. |
Officially, the Home Office dismisses such scare stories, but Clarke is still planning concessions. The argument over 90 days, however, is more profound. |
Acpo argues that building a case against sophisticated modern terrorists requires cracking computer codes, consulting police forces worldwide, retrieving forensic evidence from potentially contaminated sites - which cannot be reliably completed in the current allotted period of 14 days. |
But those against the changes argue there is no evidence of people being freed because the police have run out of time. Since January 2004, there have been only 11 detentions for the full 13-14 days, in all of which the suspect was subsequently charged. |
Neither can the malcontents be dismissed as diehard leftwingers or embittered ex-ministers. In cabinet, the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, is among those privately unconvinced: in the Commons, prospective rebels range from impeccably on-message lawyer Emily Thornberry to the Muslim MP and Downing Street favourite Sadiq Khan, as well as the veteran loyalist David Winnick, author of rebel proposals for a maximum 28 days' detention. |
The first sign of serious trouble came last Monday, when Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police chief, and the Met's head of counter-terrorism, Andy Hayman, were ushered into Downing Street. 'Tony didn't want to go into bat for 90 days without being absolutely certain they needed it,' says one source. 'But I've never seen them so adamant.' |
Sir Ian promptly published a newspaper article warning it was the 'united view' of senior police that 90 days was necessary, while Hayman briefed journalists that it was not some kind of 'bartering tool' for negotiation. Both Blair and Armstrong, however, were busy with a second unfolding crisis around Blunkett. |
The exit of Blunkett was a shattering blow not just for him, but for his boss. Blair overruled colleagues' warnings that it had been too soon to bring him back into Cabinet: now his friend was leaving under a cloud, putting Blair's own judgment on the line. |
As Gordon Brown sat impassively beside Blair, Michael Howard used Prime Minister's Questions that morning to accuse Blair of being a lame duck, 'in office but not in power' - the words Norman Lamont used against John Major. |
It was a breathtaking accusation from Howard, who, only months before was being attacked in similar terms by his own MPs. By the afternoon, the duck was pecking back, announcing that Blunkett would be replaced by the sharp but relatively unknown John Hutton. |
It was a surprise to some: Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary and son of Tony, is overdue for promotion and closer to the Chancellor, with whom difficult negotiations over pensions await. The choice of Hutton - a close friend and ex-flatmate of the Chancellor's bete noire Alan Milburn - spells defiance. Hutton, however, has ministerial experience of tussling with the rebels, over foundation hospitals. Right now, battle experience counts. |
In other circumstances, Blunkett might have taken Wednesday afternoon off. But shortly after delivering his resignation statement, he was voting on the glorification clause - knowing Blair needed every vote he could get. |
Brown spent most of the day in the Commons, badgering recalcitrant MPs to support the government: ministers were ordered back to Parliament to bolster the numbers. Nonetheless, Blair may only finally have averted defeat when the whips plucked a confused new MP from the rebel lobby into which he had accidentally strayed. The farce was complete. |
Clarke had to play safe on the even trickier threatened vote over the 90-day clause. Promising 'urgent discussions' to reach a compromise, he persuaded Winnick not to push the Commons to a vote on a 28-day limit he would almost certainly have won. Disaster was averted, but not for long. |
Next day, Blair told his Cabinet he still found the 90 days argument 'compelling' and that settling for an arbitrary figure would be pointless. 'The only logical argument is for 90 days: the rest is just parliament saying whatever it feels,' said one senior Whitehall source. By Thursday afternoon, Blair was publicly declaring that the police 'should have this power' if they wanted it. Was the deal off? |
In asserting his own authority, however, Blair had badly undermined Clarke's, making it look as if he could not deliver on his word. The rebels were furious. 'We had people saying "We've been duped",' says another Whitehall source. |
With Clarke demanding to be allowed to make a deal, a fudge was worked out whereby he would continue negotiating - and Blair would continue insisting publicly on 90 days, gambling on public opinion somehow bringing MPs around. Chief constables will brief them this weekend on why the new powers matter. |
No wonder all leave for MPs on Wednesday has been cancelled - with one intriguing exception. While Blair faces his demons in the Commons, Gordon Brown will be meeting poverty-stricken Palestinians, a rather more popular mission on the backbenches. |
Mischievous whispers that Blair is so disenchanted with Brown he would rather be succeeded by David Cameron will be firmly squashed when the Prime Minister addresses Labour MPs at a special meeting tomorrow. But anxiety about where he is leading them, not just on terrorism but on public service reform, persists. |
'He's got to explain that he's not pursuing some egotistical legacy, that all the changes fit a set of Labour values,' says one ally. |
Despite tearoom gossip about leadership challenges, there is no appetite for an immediate putsch. Quietly, however, MPs are discussing how to speed the transition of power from Blair to Brown, avoiding more messy revolts along last week's lines. Envious eyes are cast at the Tories' 1922 committee, party elders who are traditionally sent to dispatch an ailing leader. |
View Full Version : The TWU customization tool dilemma. |
06-10-2011, 08:43 PM |
So i wanted to customize a 316g, 328.5mm balance racquet to my optimal specs of 350g, 323mm. I thought everything would be very easy thanks to TWU's great customization tool. However, the tool offered me two drastically different options to achieve the wanted specs. (the one or two location solutions). |
That's when i got confused because it's obvious that these two solutions would lead to two VERY different racquets, even with identical specs. I know the missing link is the SW but if i had to take a guess without actually trying to calculate SW, which of these solutions do you think has the best chances of pleasing me? Which one do you guys usually choose? |
I would guess the 2 location solution makes more sense since most pros have lead in the head and handle. I've rarely seen lead applied to a single location but i'm looking for a second opinion about this. |
06-10-2011, 09:36 PM |
The more weight you add further away from the butt cap the more the swingweight will increase. |
So if you want to increase swingweight the most, add weight to the very top of the racquet. If you want to add the least amount of swingweight add weight to the handle. |
Of course adding weight at the very end will change your balance point more drastically then closer to the middle. |
Since you have a specific goal in mind (350g, 323mm) Would it be safe to guess that you are trying to match the specs of a different racquet? |
If so, you should find the swingweight of that racquet as well, which will then make it much easier to decide where to add the weight to make all 3 specifications match as close as you can. |
06-11-2011, 07:52 AM |
I've tried to use the customization tool two times. |
The first time I wanted to match my 12.8 oz frame to my 12.9 oz frame. I did not know the swingweights of the two frames so I just assumed that the 12.8 oz frame had the stock swingweight and just extrapolated the 12.9 oz frame swingweight based on static weight. I used the tool but could not come up with a satisfactory match. So I gave up on this. Part of my problem was not having a good way to determine the balance point. |
Sometime later I found a good way to determine the balance point and used the TW tool to get my 12.7 oz frame to 13.0 oz (in between the 12.9 and 13.1) and it worked out just as I wanted. It's power level is right in between them - just what I wanted. |
After that, I found a tennis shop about 40 miles away with an RDC machine that does customization. One of these days, I mean to bring them down and get measurements on them and perhaps have them customize my lighter frames. |
Perhaps you could look around for a local shop that has an RDC machine so that you could get swingweight readings so that you could more accurately do your customization work. |
06-11-2011, 08:53 AM |
You can't really customize, and certainly can't match racquets, without knowing the starting swingweights. Luckily, calculating swingweight accurately is easy - you just need a yardstick, a stopwatch, two pencils and TWU's swingweight calculator. The RacquetTune app helps, especially if run on a device with a camera. |
If you have the swingweight, the Customization tool will usually give two sollutions - one with the additional mass more towards the tip and butt (towards the poles or "polarized") and one with a bunch of mass in the throat and less in the butt. Polarized racquets generally feel softer because the mass concetrated at the poles reduces the vibration frequency, aka dynamic stiffness. Unless you're adding a bunch of mass, though, that effect might not be super noticeable. |
The brutal secret to how parrots survive floods |
Eclectus parrots make their nests in parts of Australia where floods are extremely common. When their nests start to flood, the parrots make a grim decision. They kill their chicks...but only the male ones. What drives them to commit gendercide? |
It's rare for birds to kill their own children, and it's really unusual for these parrots to choose along gender lines. Indeed, it seems like the sort of behavior that evolution would select against, since artificially creating a gender imbalance leads to nothing except a lot of females one day struggling to find mates. |
To figure out what's going on, Robert Heinsohn of the Australian National University carried out an eight-year survey of 42 nest hollows belonging to Eclectus roratus. He discovered the likely answer: female chicks fledge a week earlier than males. The fact that the females can fly earlier means they have a better shot of surviving the flooding than males. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.