Has anyone here used a long-distance moving company they would recommend? I may be relocating to Austin from Tampa (thank science!) and I do not drive, so the concept of me driving a moving truck the 1100 miles is out of the question.
What with christmas on the way, I'm looking to get my brother something cooking related. He loves to cook, and already has excellent knives and pans, so I was thinking of something cool and unusual, which won't be some silly novelty item that will be relegated to the back of a cupboard. Any suggestions?
A dutch oven. He'll love it. Make sure and get the one with the legs on the lid and bottom. The lid can be flipped over and used as a griddle. Linkage. And I only give this to you in hopes that I won't have to hear about that chick anymore. You fucked up. Learn from it and move on man.
Do you mind loading and unloading the truck yourself? If you don't this company has the best prices I've ever found for moving stuff long distance http://www.upack.com/. I moved from Chicago to Reno, about 2 thousand miles, for a grand.
Anybody know of a website that has collections of "hate Lebron" signs prepared for the Heat-Cavs game last night? Most of the ones they showed on TNT were pretty weak, and I KNOW fans are more creative than that. I love me some good fan hate.
A mandolin is also a good choice. I received one for Father's Day a few years back and I'm amazed at how much I use it. OXO makes a good one for about $50.
Ok, so last night I revisted the cat scanner I found, and scanned my head before sending my friend through it. For my own head, we used the default settings of 120kV and 200mA, and the resulting image only picked up "bone" or "not bone" (either that, or I've proved the hypothesis that you need to be brainless to sit in an xray machine you just found). When I scanned my friend, I used 80kV and 300mA and this detected all the different types of tissue with a good amount of contrast between them (image contrast... we didn't actually inject ourselves with dye). What I want to know is, which technique has the higher radiation dose? I noticed afterwards the scans we did turned out better than the ones saved in the database that the radiologists had done, but they used the 120kV settings. Is it dangerous to use a lower voltage with more current?
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to do anything illegal or creepy. For Xmas I'd like to get my mom an autographed picture of the color commentator for the Carolina Hurricanes, Tripp Tracy. She hates him so obviously this would be hilarious. The help I need is finding a way to contact him. Email, Twitter, Facebook, anything. I've tried but I'm not as savvy as some of you.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2361448550 There's his facebook fan group. I'm sure if you message the admin he'll give you some contact info.
Lower kVp contributes to a higher patient dose, yes. It seems counterintuitive, but the lower energy photons are more likely to interact w/ biological tissue.
ick. So basically I blasted him with the maximum amount of radiation the machine is capable of outputting. Oops. How can the equivalent radiation dose be calculated from this info? I know about converting from grays to sieverts but I'm not too sure how to get grays from kV/mA & the number of slices. I've looked extensively on Google and been unable to find anything.
Ok, beyond the fact that you are exposing yourself to harmful radiation from an CT scanner that you found. You don't know what changing the settings will do, or how those changes could affect you, or how to properly operate the instrument, and you're continuing to use the thing. Wow, just wow..... Doing a little research online. It looks like you can calculate what the CTDI (CT Dose Index) based on the settings of the instrument. From there you should be able to calculate how much of a radiation dose you've received/scan. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.impactscan.org/download/msctdose.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.impactscan.org/download/msctdose.pdf</a> Maybe somebody on here is a radiologist and they'll be able to shed some more light on it for you. You do know this thing increases your risk of cancer? Wow...
Wow, thanks. That was helpful, and reassuring - in that we used a large pitch so the effective mA's were quite low. I was going to PM you to address your concerns as this isn't really the place, but others may be wondering: Spoiler We did know there are risks, and we also knew that we don't really know the magnitude of the risks (the Dunning-Kruger effect) hence we're prepared to deal with the consequences of our actions. We practised scans on inanimate objects before getting the confidence to stick ourselves in there, and we only did one scan each and don't intend to do any more. It was purely an excercise in curiosity and adventure, as the images we obtained aren't useful for any medical diagnosis (according to a friend who is a doctor). Ultimately, we had a lot of fun that was probably statistically safer than the drive over there.
Does anybody have a copy of Mike's Beginner Work Out from RMMB? Just joined a gym again and want to pick back up. Answered in rep: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.instrength.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.instrength.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116</a>
This is probably going to be the dumbest post on this thread but I'm okay with that. I met Ben Nichols at the Lucero concert last night so obviously I had my friend take a picture of me with him. Apparently she is not great at saying, 'that didn't come out, let's take another one' which is what I did with her to make sure hers came out good. Anyways, it's not the most flattering picture of me which is fine, it's still me with Ben Nichols. The problem arises in the fact that I have demon eyes in the photo. I don't have photoshop on my computer and I was trying to make due on photobucket/picnik and neither worked for me (probably because it's not technically red eye.) Could one of you fine people who are smarter than me please fix my eyes in this picture? Spoiler I would greatly appreciate it.
Here's another math/science problem for all of you smart kids. I have 2 gallons of liquid. 7 quarts is non alcoholic. 1 quart of it is 190 proof (95% alcohol). What is the overall proof of this? Please show your math so I know how to do it as well. Thanks.
Is this what you're looking for? I've heard that if there's a feature you don't like, you're supposed to draw attention away from it. I am not one of those that knows how to edit very well, but here's a shot at it.
.95 quarts of alcohol out of 8 total, .11875% abv. Tasty. Generic formula: abv*liquor bottle volume, divided by total liquid amount.
More generally, if you are mixing shit. (C1)(V1) = (C2)(V2) Where, C = concentration, V = Volume So lets see 95% * 1 Quart = C2 * 8 Quarts C2 = 11.875%