Pros And Cons [v0.01]
I like the 0.1, but I would love it to be able to do 180x180mm like the prusa mini, then it would be the best model for me. So I am considering v1 and switchwire. I can get a formbot kit for the switchwire for about 500 usd which is not too steep and is a big plus since I do not have much time to source everything myself. If some parts need replacing in the future, I can cope with that.
Pros and Cons [v0.01]
From the Voron developers themselves "The original goal of the VORON project, back in 2015, was to create a no-compromise 3D printer that was fun to assemble and a joy to use. It had to be quiet, clean, pretty, and continue to operate 24 hours a day without requiring constant fiddling. In short, a true home micro-manufacturing machine without a hefty price tag. It took over a year in development, with every part being redesigned, stress tested and optimized. Shortly after the release a vibrant community formed around the project and continues to grow today. This community is part of what makes VORON such a special experience.
Initial assembly of the frame was very much similar to the LDO Kit, the major difference being in place of the threaded bars to mount the linear rails, m2 nuts are inserted in a printed nut carrier. This can be quite fiddly and added some time to the assembly of the frame itself. The second notable difference in this stage of the build is the machine screws provided with the Fysetc appeared to be a softer metal and lower quality than that of the provided LDO machine screws. This wasn't an issue however care did have to be taken so as to not round the heads of the screws when bolting the frame components together tightly. A rounded screw added extra time to my frame construction this time around.
While installing the electronics I did note that the motor wires for both the A and B motors apear to be PVC coated vs the Teflon coating on the A and B LDO Motors. This is inconsequential however as once mounted there is no movement in these wires.Once the wiring was completed and I had a few successful test prints under my belt it was time to run input shaper on both builds. The results are as follows
After building both kits the LDO kit is definitely the nicer and more finished of the two however the Fysetc Kit has the best bang for buck however.It's best to weigh up the pros and cons of both kits and see which one is most suitable for you.
I ask as I have a customer who is very particular about the exterior surface quality on a 150mm tall abs box enclosure I print for them. I use my V0.1 (direct drive) as I normally like to print them one at a time and only ever have a few to do each job. My V0.1 suffers from the 'inconsistent extrusion' issue and I have never been able to reduce or fix the problem. I am very tempted to try going to a bowden setup, the default V0.0 setup with pocketwatch.
The SteelSeries Arctis 1 are alright for neutral sound. While they fall a bit flat of reproducing a thumpy bass, they bring a bit of boom to their sound. Their mid-range is also well-balanced and neutral, although their treble is underemphasized across the range, resulting in dull and dark vocals and lead instruments. They also reproduce bass and treble inconsistently across users, and due to their closed-back design, have a somewhat unnatural and closed-off soundstage.
The SteelSeries Arctis 1 are decent for wired gaming. They're decently comfortable and can be used with full audio and mic compatibility with most consoles that have an AUX port. Their boom mic does an excellent job of capturing your voice, even in demanding environments. However, they offer extremely limited controls and don't have companion software to tweak their sound.
The Logitech G335 are slightly better for wired gaming than the SteelSeries Arctis 1. The Logitech are comfier, better-built, more stable on the head, and deliver audio more consistently. Meanwhile, the SteelSeries block out more ambient noise, leak less audio, and offer superior mic recording quality and noise handling capability.
The SteelSeries Arctis 1 and the Corsair HS35 are both wired gaming headphones with their own pros and cons. The SteelSeries feel more cheaply made than the Corsair but have a better microphone performance. The Corsair sounds muddier, and their mic isn't as good, but they're more comfortable for long gaming sessions.
The SteelSeries Arctis 1 are better wired headphones than the SteelSeries TUSQ. The Arctis 1 have a better overall mic performance and can create a more wide and spacious passive soundstage. However, the TUSQ are better built and have more consistent audio delivery.
The SteelSeries Arctis 1 have a warm and boomy sound profile. They deliver a touch of extra boom but lack some thump and rumble. They also have an underemphasized treble, so vocals and lead instruments seem dull and lacking detail as well as presence. These headphones also have inconsistent bass and treble delivery and are sensitive to fit, positioning, and seal.
Ultimately, which process you use will come down to your goals, the size of the project and your team, and other factors. To help you decide, here are 5 of the best software development processes with pros and cons for each.
Comprehensive enterprise-grade software systems should meet a number of requirements, such as linear scalability, efficiency, integrity, low time to consistency, high level of security, high availability, fault tolerance, etc.
The stretch cluster seems an optimal solution if strong consistency, zero downtime, and the simplicity of client applications are preferred over performance. However, this model is not suitable for multiple distant data centers. Furthermore, not all the on-premises environments have three data centers and availability zones. The active-active model outplays the active-passive one due to zero downtime in case a single data center fails. Therefore, we would like to have a closer look at the active-active option.
This type of a deployment should comprise two homogenous Kafka clusters in different data centers/availability zones. The connectivity between Kafka brokers is not carried out directly across multiple clusters. They are connected through an asynchronous replication (mirroring). The bidirectional mirroring between brokers will be established using MirrorMaker, which uses a Kafka consumer to read messages from the source cluster and republishes them to the target cluster via an embedded Kafka producer. Client applications receive persistence acknowledgment after data is replicated to local brokers only.
Out of the three examined options, we tend to choose the active-active deployment based on real-life experience with several customers. However, the final choice type of strongly depends on business requirements of a particular company, so all the three deployment options may be considered regarding the priorities set for the project.
I concur with Rev#2 that the paper has a good potential, but it still needs to be restructured: in particular, aims should be more clearly defined and results and discussion properly separated. What is not yet sufficiently clear to me is if the paper is a methodological one or if it reports a case-study. Both cases have pros and cons and could be valuable, but the aim should be stated more clearly in this sense.
Probably no one has ever used all the features of MS-NSPI, especially on Global Catalog Domain Controllers, and the ntdsai.dll library may throw some unhandled exceptions which result in lsass.exe termination and a reboot. We were unable to consistently reproduce this behavior.
These observations are consistent with the results of Powell et al.  from 2009. Powell et al. only optimized reaction R2 and described the reaction rate as the sum of two Arrhenius expressions. Reaction rate of R1 left untouched by Powell et al. based on consistent literature data; Reaction R3 was not changed by Powell et al., since it only plays a minor role.
The demand for organ transplantation has rapidly increased all over the world during the past decade due to the increased incidence of vital organ failure, the rising success and greater improvement in posttransplant outcome. However, the unavailability of adequate organs for transplantation to meet the existing demand has resulted in major organ shortage crises. As a result there has been a major increase in the number of patients on transplant waiting lists as well as in the number of patients dying while on the waiting list. In the United States, for example, the number of patients on the waiting list in the year 2006 had risen to over 95,000, while the number of patient deaths was over 6,300. This organ shortage crisis has deprived thousands of patients of a new and better quality of life and has caused a substantial increase in the cost of alternative medical care such as dialysis. There are several procedures and pathways which have been shown to provide practical and effective solutions to this crisis. These include implementation of appropriate educational programs for the public and hospital staff regarding the need and benefits of organ donation, the appropriate utilization of marginal (extended criteria donors), acceptance of paired organ donation, the acceptance of the concept of "presumed consent," implementation of a system of "rewarded gifting" for the family of the diseased donor and also for the living donor, developing an altruistic system of donation from a living donor to an unknown recipient, and accepting the concept of a controlled system of financial payment for the donor. As is outlined in this presentation, we strongly believe that the implementation of these pathways for obtaining organs from the living and the dead donors, with appropriate consideration of the ethical, religious and social criteria of the society, the organ shortage crisis will be eliminated and many lives will be saved through the process of organ donation and transplantation.
SLSA consists of a set of requirements that are becoming the recognized best practices in the industry. These requirements can be adopted in phases or levels, with an improved security posture for each additional level attained. Broad adoption of SLSA can have cascading benefits throughout the software industry. As more companies produce and publish software with attestation based on corresponding levels of SLSA, consumers of that software can automatically verify its components and include them in their own software supply chain with greater assurance and trust. 041b061a72