Searching for Cancellations, Any Tips?

Murken · 13 days

There's not a set time, they become available as cancellations happen.

jtcoons · 2 months

Huh? He's .281-.358-.525 lifetime against the Cubs.

And .318-.414-.559 against the Mets. Unless I'm missing something here:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5164/splits;_ylt=Ag009ycpBzCLgfn_vCop7GKFCLcF?year=career&type=Batting

By OPS, he does the best against the Phillies, .333-.444-.598

mrdov · 2 months

Might find this read to you liking: http://joeposnanski.si.com/2012/03/07/kucinich-and-the-dh/

Corn_Pops · 2 months

There's a big difference between, "I'm going to kill you", which is a threat, and "You're a dumb nigger", which is just an insult.

The article simply mentions "racist remarks", not "racist threats", but I there could be more detailed sources out there about what was actually said. Do you have any links to them?

Corn_Pops · 2 months

The crime isn't the speech, it's the malicious intent with which he went about it.

So the crime is... being a mean person?

Jux_ · 2 months

Whatever he is endorsing in commercials that week.

eviloars · 2 months

And half their content is recycling reddit and other crowdsource news. =P

I really wish they would just stick with local stuff and not the internet flavor of the hour. Whenever I'm on their site I have to filter through OC and what I already saw on reddit two days ago.

garage1981 · 2 months

Oh man have I got close to what you're looking for!

On sbnation recently they were doing an analysis on pitch f/x data for the most outside-the-strike-zone pitches that were hit for home runs.

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/2/10/2788517/2011-in-extreme-home-runs

Enjoy!

TotalBiscuit · 2 months

Thanks for giving oskarla a good explanation. rxh339's is useless for new players trying to learn.

Bladewing10 · 2 months

Meaningless gesture.

trot-trot · 2 months

We would never send human pilots into combat against an enemy like China.

If full-scale war were to break out today, who would be the ones fighting it? Our fleet of predator drones, or pilots in conventional fighter/bomber planes?

Sure, it's easy to say that going forward, drones are the future and that's where we should invest development dollars. But if you had made that decision 15 years ago, chances are you'd have a fleet of drones that, while better than what we have today, probably aren't good enough to be a primary air force.

damullettwhisperer · 2 months

Wow, the Browns really just mail it in...

SecularMontaigne · 3 months

Easy: Orphaner.

TheRedditPope · 3 months

It's very obviously a shop job. There's no way that you have that amount of clouds at the horizon, and NO atmospheric hazing towards the bottom of the image (e.g. the Milky Way looks just as crisp at the top, where there's little atmosphere, as the bottom/horizon, where there's a lot more atmosphere).

TheRedditPope · 3 months

Couple of things:

If you go out to an area with less light pollution, you can see the Milky Way more clearly.
You will never see it as clearly as in this photo - cameras that can take photos for 10-20 seconds at a time are just better at picking up detail compared to our own eyes that see in real-time.
You will never take a photo like this, because it's a composite of two photos. That amount of light and clouds in the atmosphere would make the Milky Way very faint, if visible at all.

pixel8 · 3 months

Why should they contact your un-credible email account, instead of going to the police directly?

2203 · 3 months

I never made that claim. I said DoF doesn't physically exist, it's a useful function of the limitations of our biology. If our eyes were good enough to focus properly, that is, on a point, like a lens does, then we would never know about depth of field.

Eyes are far from the only recording device put behind optics, and even then you haven't danced around the fact that eyes aren't the perfect recording device you describe, so depth of field is still a very real and relevant measure.

It's ignorant to claim that a concept can't exist, simply because at the boundary condition (infinite resolution recording device), the measure wouldn't make sense. It doesn't mean that the concept or its numbers are non-existent when you choose a meaningful real-valued acceptance criteria for depth of field (i.e. the circle of confusion tolerance).

What kind of JC University of Phoenix did you proudly study at?

2203 · 3 months

You're the one who chose to re-define "actual physics" as, "depth of field defines a range of perfect focus".

No one else in this thread makes that claim. Ergo, it's a debate you've made up just to assert your "expertise" over a strawman.

If you think otherwise (someone is actually making that claim), quote it.

electronics-engineer · 3 months

No one claimed republicanism (or rather, the American version is what you seem to be referring to) is the best form of government either.

But that doesn't automatically make direct democracy better, like many people here seem to assume.

2203 · 3 months

When people say you live in an ivory tower, this is exactly what they mean.

You are correct in a very narrow context. Someone who claims depth of field is a range of perfect focus, is wrong.
Nobody claims that. Pretty much everyone claims depth of field is a range of acceptable focus, where the acceptance criteria is somewhat arbitrary
You willfully ignore anyone who doesn't want to talk in your narrow context in #1 as ignorant and less intelligent than yourself (and it's a strawman, because no one is claiming that).

Lose the pedantry, and lose the ego. No one cares about the opinion of someone who's so full of himself, and it goes double when that person turns out to be completely wrong in their assertions.

2203 · 3 months

How do you know someone's an academic? Don't worry, they'll tell you.

You're right about everything you described (surprise, you're not the only one on the internet who knows optics). But you're a pedant (or obliviously living in your ivory tower) in trying to squeeze your argument into the conclusion, "there's no such thing as depth of field."

Nobody ever said depth of field defines a range of things in perfect focus. Nearly anyone you ask who knows a little about optics will tell you that it defines a range of acceptable focus, and the acceptance criteria is arbitrary. But if you are concerned with maximizing your resolution given particular equipment or a particular output format, that number isn't so arbitrary and can be used relevantly. And the numbers are also meaningful relative to others, if you keep your acceptance criteria constant.

If you'd like to go back and confer with your advisor I'm sure they would tell you the same.

electronics-engineer · 3 months

Plus law-writing by direct democracy has its ugly side... it was far easier to get Civil Rights and racial equality enacted via executive decision (courts), than waiting around for 50% of the population to be okay with it. For proof, look at gay marriage legislation - the majority of the population has consistently voted against allowing it, and when it gets enacted it will probably be by the courts ruling so.

Tyranny of the majority cuts both ways, and it'd be a bad precedent to start banishing copyright laws simply because 51% of a population think it's a good idea.

2203 · 3 months

Your answer is very much right. Probably people who are dogmatic about depth of field numbers and have no idea about the concept of background magnification (i.e. "compression") using long focal lengths.

2203 · 3 months

You're not really talking physics, you're talking semantics. DoF very much exists, even if it's an arbitrary measure. It's just a matter of knowing how to apply that measure, instead of taking it literally.

2203 · 3 months

Yup, Lagged2Death is probably the explanation OP is looking for. If you play around with the DoF calculators you'll find that a 16mm f/2.8 and 200mm f/2.8 can give the same depth of field if you match up the magnifications. But even with equivalent depth of fields, everyone will say that the background on the 200mm shot is much blurrier, because the background is much more magnified than with the 16mm

thedailynathan

TROPHY CASE

thedailynathan

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login