text:
Features and benefits
SNL plummer block housings in the 30, 31 and 32 series have the following features and benefits:
Stiff housing
The housing base is reinforced with ribs and has extra material surrounding the holes for the attachment bolts (fig. 1). This virtually eliminates any distortion of the base and bearing seat during tightening of the attachment bolts.
Good heat dissipation
The centre cross reinforcement in the housing base (fig. 2) increases the contact area between the housing base and the support surface to improve the heat flow from the bearing outer ring to the support surface.
Caps and bases individually marked
The housing cap and base are matched during manufacture and are not interchangeable with the caps and bases of other housings. To prevent any mismatches, a unique serial number is marked on both the housing cap and the base (fig. 3).
Dimples to locate accessories
Dimples cast into the housing cap indicate where grease fittings and condition monitoring sensors can be mounted for maximum effectiveness (fig. 4).
Simple mounting
To simplify mounting and make alignment more accurate, lines indicating the centre of the bearing seat and housing bore axis are cast into the housing base. Dimples indicate the position for dowel pins (fig. 5). Mounting instructions are supplied with each seal pack. The housings have two eyebolts on the cap for safe and easy handling.


text:
Quote:As most of us know here bunkai is not for sparring,it is meant to be an attack ender right from the start. In some kata there are neck,arm,or other bone breaks. There are strikes to vital areas that would kill too,but isn't it just all hypothetical? There's no way of testing it,no way of proving it.
Offering stun guns, pepper spray,
tasers and other self defense products not available in stores.
Online distributor of self defense supplies like videos,
stun guns, Tasers and more.
Surveillance, Hidden Cameras, Nanny Cams, Digital Recorders, Spy Equipment,
Pocket DVR's and more
Stun Gun
Wholesale Directlhy to the Public! Stun gun and Taser Guns and personal protection products. Keep your loved ones at home safe!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
�We got two eyes but still don�t see� � �Casey Jones,� The Grateful Dead
Jerry Garcia�s ex-wife, Carolyn, aka Mountain Girl, successfully sued his estate after his widow/executor halted the $250,000 annual payments Garcia agreed to pay. The lawyers worked out all the details and Mountain Girl ended up in better shape than the typical baby boomer. At first glance, it may appear to be a giant leap from Workingman�s Dead to retirement planning but many don�t get the message.
At the Retirement Income Symposium Vanguard�s venerable John Bogle, like Jerry Garcia, sees trouble ahead. The combination of low yields on fixed income, underfunded pension plans and a flawed retirement system will lead to a train wreck unless we make changes quickly. Like the Dead warned, �It�s on the wrong track and heading for you.�
Our current retirement system with self-directed IRAs and 401(k) plans potentially dooms everyone; perhaps we need to hit the reset button. Bogle, a lifetime conservative Republican, suggests combining all retirement plans into a single entity run by a board with fiduciary responsibility. The idea that you can plan your own retirement successfully while navigating the ebb and flow of markets and financial marketing hype leads people to expensive errors.
Bogle echoes a prescient New York Times column (July 21, 2012) by Teresa Ghilarducci, who labeled our approach to retirement �ridiculous.� Ghilarducci enumerates the problems with our do-it-yourself approach. Understand you have to save 7 percent of every dollar you earned beginning in your mid-20s and earn 3 percent over inflation. Don�t withdraw any money if you get laid off, get sick or divorced, buy a house and need to pay college tuition.
You must asset allocate appropriately and avoid investment gimmicks while keeping fees low.
Both Ghilarducci and Bogle propose changes to our current 401(k) distribution options. Their recommendations include eliminating loans and penalty-free withdrawals. Ghilarducci touts annuitization (creating a lifetime income stream) to make sure people don�t run out of money before they run out of breath. The money management world cringes at annuitization because they would have fewer assets to charge fees.
Bogle takes advisors to task for unwittingly (or not) increasing clients� risk by goosing yield for short-term gain. Using low cost passively managed ETFs and mutual funds increase your return without additional risk. What you don�t pay you keep. Don�t take big bets on a hot sector or some new-fangled investment idea.
Investing should be as exciting as watching paint dry. Too many people confuse short-term speculation with investing. The market doesn�t care if you need additional income. Rather than take extra risk, look at paring back expenses or working longer.
Bogle scoffs at the notion of privatizing Social Security and, since he�s a conservative who can do math, instead proposes raising the amount subject to employment taxes while gradually raising the retirement age and limiting inflation adjustments. The notion of privatizing Social Security in a country where 75 percent of people approaching retirement have less than $30,000 saved for retirement boggles the mind.
Life expectancy is increasing but for many people �Train 102 is on the wrong track and heading for you.�
Buz Livingston, CFP offers hourly financial planning and fee-only investment management to clients along Florida�s Emerald Coast. He can be reached at 267-1068, email@example.com www.LivingstonFinancial.net.


text:
Daniele Paolo Scarpazza is a member of the Multicore Computing Department at the IBM T. J. Watson Research Center. He is the author of articles and scholarly papers on parallel algorithms and performance optimization on emerging multicore architectures.
Larrabee, the new multicore processor that Intel will release in the next months, is going to catch most programmers unprepared. For once, it is difficult to estimate its potential on the basis of the very few details available. And programmers of non-numerical developers, traditionally secondary audience for GPGPU architects, are going to face an even steeper programming challenge.
In this article, I consider the example of regular-expression matching, arguably one of the hardest non-numerical workloads to parallelize, and map it onto LRBni, Larrabee's instruction set. I show that a good mapping of this code onto LRBni is possible, but only at the cost of a radical data-parallel redesign. Indeed, the data-parallel techniques that I learned on earlier SIMD (Single Instruction, Multiple Data) architectures become even more effective on Larrabee. Because of the wide SIMD nature of Larrabee, developers who won't adopt a similar data-parallel approach risk leaving most of the processor unused, and thus up to 93% of its compute power on the table.
Unfortunately, at this point, nobody (outside Intel) can estimate how fast Larrabee will run the code I provide. With such complex instructions, potentially translated into dozens of serialized micro-instructions, and involving multiple potential cache misses, it will be a challenge for Intel engineers to match the throughput and power efficiency of more stream-lined RISC architectures featuring higher clock rates and simpler instruction.
Why Regular Expressions?
Regular expressions (RE) are those patterns that you feed to grep on the command line when searching log files for messages matching a given template, the ones that you provide to flex when designing the tokenizer for your newly invented programming language, the ones that tell network intrusion detection systems like Snort what malicious traffic looks like, etc.
You might wonder why, among many possible workloads I could examine, I chose regular expression matching. Here are five good reasons:
- RE matching is the core of common and emerging applications like search-engine indexing, XML processing, application-level intrusion detection, and language analytics. In all of these, it is one important (if not the most important) consumer of execution time and hardware resources.
- RE matching relies on finite-state machines, a class of workloads notoriously hard to parallelize. In his famous presentation [4] -- almost a manifesto -- on parallel computing research, David Patterson mentions finite-state machines (FSM) as the #1 of his "dwarfs", i.e., workloads that deserve attention and effort.
- Larrabee is a SIMD architecture. On a SIMD architecture, each register contains multiple operands, and a SIMD instruction can process all those operands in parallel. We are used to 128-bit registers, divided in four 32-bit lanes. Larrabee has 512-bit registers, divided in 16 lanes. Traditionally, compilers don't usually do a very good job in translating irregular, non-numerical code into SIMD code. If you want good code, chances are you have to write SIMD code yourself, by hand. If you don't, you might leave up to 75% of the performance on the table on contemporary 128-bit SIMD architecture. On Larrabee, the potential loss is even higher: you might be using only 1/16 of the compute power (i.e., waste 93.75%).
- Presenting a realistic application in depth in this short space (and within the short attention span of a busy programmer) is a challenge. RE matching boils down to a handful of instructions, making this possible.
- RE matching is not your usual GPU workload. GPU architects catered primarily to the gaming and the computer graphics communities. More recently, the scientific and supercomputing communities have gained some attention by showing that GPGPUs can accelerate numerical, dense algorithms from domains such as fluid dynamics, protein folding and acoustics. But "the rest of us -- developers of non-numerical applications -- are still at the door, waiting. I use this example to show a way to exploit GPGPUs to carry out jobs previously thought "hard" to parallelize. There is no reason why, in a near future, most desktop applications (and not just games or graphics codes) should not offload their heavyweight kernels to GPGPUs.
The main message of this article is that the programming challenges that LRBni brings about are not trivial, but also not new, and that they can be attacked successfully with data-parallel techniques that proved effective in the past. I propose an approach based on the complete elimination of the control flow from the compute kernels (the hot spots of your application), and its transformation into data flow.
Thinking in terms of branch-less data flows is the most natural way to take advantage of SIMD. In the past, I was able to apply this approach on the same RE matching workload I am presenting here, while designing a SIMD-based tokenizer kernel [5] intended for use in a search engine indexer [6] on the IBM Cell Broadband Engine processor. This kernel achieved 99.3% of cycle utilization, it is the fastest software tokenizer available on any architecture, and it delivers, with some restrictions, a level of throughput comparable to dedicated hardware.
Much Ado About Something?
Larrabee is surrounded by hype, mystery, and controversy. More than a year has passed since Larrabee was first announced to the world in a SIGGRAPH 2008 paper Larrabee: A Many-Core x86 Architecture for Visual Computing [1], and still nobody outside Intel has seen silicon or, for what it matters, a cycle-accurate simulator. Nevertheless, the anticipation keeps growing. While Intel keeps parceling out details, and competitors like nVidia react with nervous anxiety and criticism, most developers are left in the dark, wondering if it makes sense to commit resources and attention to the new platform, in the hope of accelerating most applications, or if Larrabee will just work well with regular, numeric, array-based workloads (like gaming graphics and physics) and won't be a true game-changer for everyone else.
A stream of press releases, rumors, and blog posts have created more confusion, rather than shed light. Plus, we developers don't enjoy much rummaging through the news. We are much happier with final specifications, reliable benchmarks, and stable tools to play with. So, in this sea of dubious, fragmented and sometimes contradictory information, two events stand out. The first is Michael Abrash's articleA First Look at the Larrabee New Instructions (LRBni) in Dr. Dobb's [2], which finally detailed the new LRBni instructions. That article is, I bet, on its way to become the most cited non-peer-reviewed publication among academic, peer-reviewed papers of 2009-2010 in the high-performance computing field. The second is the release, last June, of Intel's C++ Larrabee Prototype Library [3], a simple header file that -- all the no-warranty disclaimers factored in -- provides the actual prototypes of the intrinsics associated to new instructions, along with reference semantics detailed in plain C code. This prototype library allows you to write, today, code that will run without major changes on the real hardware. The promise is that some day a compiler will read these intrinsics and emit corresponding LRBni instructions. This makes the library a convenient prototyping tool, especially if you have limited experience with writing SIMD code.
Unfortunately, the library has a major weakness: it won't give you the slightest hint on the performance of the code you write. If you work in high-performance computing, you might be familiar with profiling and simulating your code, estimating its latency and throughput, and measuring indicators like cache misses ratios and Clocks Per Instruction (CPI). This library won't allow you to do any of these.
This is, alas, a big question mark. With instructions of unprecedented complexity, that may potentially decompose into hundreds of microinstructions and entail up to 16 memory references, each taking even 800 clock cycles to complete in case of cache misses, estimating the performance of LRBni code on paper is a major challenge.


text:
Last night, I was looking over all of my original MOTU figures, trying to see which figures share body parts to try and determine who we might see sooner than others in MOTUC.
When I got to Ninjor, I was reminded that he shared a body with Skeletor. And, it got me thinking.
If we see a Ninjor in the Classics line, will he still use Skeletor's body? So far, all of the MOTUC figures we've seen have been faithful to the classic versions. But, do we want our Ninjor to have the arm fins and clawed feet? Or would we rather him be more human?
And also, since the only thing he would need is a new head and weapons, if he does end up using Skeletor's body, does that mean he's close?