Re: Call Of Duty Black Ops 2 English Language Packrar
Shay Silvertooth
How do I determine the risk of bears or rodents? I rely on personal experience and research. What have I observed before, and what am I being told by area guidebooks, online forums, trip reports, rangers, and the local news?
Disclosure. I strive to offer field-tested and trustworthy information, insights, and advice. I have no financial affiliations with or interests in any brands or products, and I do not publish sponsored content
This website is supported by affiliate marketing, whereby for referral traffic I receive a small commission from select vendors like Amazon or REI, at no cost to the reader. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Presently I put ALL food and personal hygiene items into a clean, fairly new OP sack.
Then I put the OP sack inside a trash compactor bag and twist that shut.
Then I put the trash compactor bag inside my backpack, and close the backpack up.
Then I put that right next to me in my Duplex tent. I fold the empty belt pockets under the pack (pockets which held snacks during the day and probably still have that smell) .
So far, no problems.
I think the bear risk is unacceptably high along only a few stretches on popular long-distance trails. For example: the High Sierra and Desolation Wilderness along the PCT; and Yellowstone, The Bob, and Glacier along the CDT.
The bottom line is this: There is NOT conclusive evidence on whether or not bear hangs are legitimately and measurably safer than sleeping with your food and ANYONE (YOU) pretending otherwise is full of absolute dogshit.
An Ursack Major weighs only 8 oz, and it easily pays for itself in the 30-minute time savings each night versus hanging your food. And it will be more effective when that determined bear comes into camp.
I had chipmunks eat through my Ursack Major (tied 3 feet off the ground). It might resist bears, but it sure did not resist mini-bears! I was left with a 3 inch puncture and spoiled food. How do you manage to avoid the risk of mini-bears when using your Ursack Major?
The logic behind sleeping with food is that bears (talking about black bears here) are afraid of you and will not risk a human encounter to get food. You NEVER hear of a bear going after a pack of food while a hiker is wearing the pack. Nearly all stories of problem bears involved bears going after unattended food. Those who say you are irresponsible for sleeping with food will cite rare cases of bears going for food in tents with people. However you rarely hear the whole story. It is just as likely that bears have learned that tents are,a good place to find unattended food. Part of the strategy is to minimize food odors (I use odor barrier bags) AND maximize human odor by not using scented toiletries. Smelling bad (ie like a human) is part of good food management. The other key thing is to keep your food with you 60/60/24/7 (every second of every minute of every hour of every day). Bear biologists have told me this is all scientifically sound based on what we know, but the only way it can ever be tested is for a management area to require this in an area to see if indeed bears do not learn to be a nuisance as they do in areas that require traditional storage methods. Unfortunately, there is no wildlife management agency bold enough to do this experiment.
Cute story a friend of mine told me: the bus he was in when travelling from Kiruna to Lulea, was flagged down by an ecstatic elderly Swede who just hd to tell someone he saw his first bear! Had been living there his entire life.
You sound like a Nervous Nelly. I do a lot of back country trips and there is no need ever for a gun. Your silly statements about you breaking the law, fearing predators, risking your life strangers, mama dying to teach junior a lesson are all asinine and would be laughable outside the fact that you are dangerous to yourself and others.
So I think this advice seems logical and is clearly based on years of experience. but one thing occurs to me. Saying you would take different sort of bags and containers depending on where you were and what the local bear/rodent conditions are is fine for shorter trips, but for a thru-hike you would need to have one solution that will do for the whole hike.
Mini-bears are the most consistent thread on the AT. This is especially the case if you are ground sleeping, because nearly every single potential ground campsite has been made into one. As a side note, I would strongly recommend that you consider a hammock, rather than a ground shelter. A hammock has many advantages, one being the ease of staying away from impacted sites.
In the advice I have read they all say to cook out side away from your tent. I disagree because if a bear shows up you are in grave danger. You will surrender your food and maybe survive. It is very dangerous to get close enough to give him a good dose of spray.
It is much safer to have your food in your tent. Your shelter should have peek vents on every side. No floor attached so a hand and spray can be thrust outside on all sides. There is a good chance of being close enough to get an accurate shot in the bears face. If he gets it he will be fixed for life trying to steal campers food.
Google chimpac
Odour proof your food in a CLEAN hard case put it in a heavy duty CLEAN black plastic bag put that bag in an odour resistant rip resistant CLEAN black bag and stuff that package into a bush away from your tent. Or, get an airtight hard case wannigan and keep it scent free and out of sight.
The harsh reality of dirty campers and hikers. The U.S. Centre for Disease Control found that over 90% of intestinal disease caught while backcountry hiking/camping came from ingesting fecal contamination from the hiker/campers OWN butt. Wipe your butt, wipe your hands on leaves, shake trail mix into your fingers, eat. IDEAL way to eat your own feces .. and a SICK person is a much better target for a wild animal attack than a strong, healthy one.
Pragmatic and sensible, as usual Andrew. This is nearly exactly my practice and attitude in all respects. One difference is that I have, on occasion, had rodent problems at virgin campsites. I learned to avoid camping near packrat nests in the desert, or if I do, to have every loose item inside a zipped-up shelter. They love to drag away anything they can, including socks and trekking poles.
When it comes to rapid iteration, prototyping, or one-off scripting, it can be the fastest path to delivery. Memory management and the type system have a strong focus on getting out of your way and allowing you to quickly express ideas in code. Also, its long-running success has created an enormous ecosystem of tools that cater to science, finance, data, and ML professionals.
Any good tool requires experience, diligence, and discipline. For instance, accuse a C++ developer of working with a foot shotgun (maybe even throw in a reference to Keith, the "official" mascot), and you'll get a retort to the effect that it's only a problem with developers who don't know the language well or aren't using the newest standards.
It's simple enough for beginners, and powerful enough for veterans, and its dynamic typing means you don't need to fight-type systems along the way. However, the lack of guard rails is a two-edged sword.
Unless that function is well-documented, you're forced to take a look at the code. Of course, you're not totally out of luck; PEP 484 has your back, but type-hinting is optional and does nothing to help you with legacy codebases that don't already take advantage of it.
Here be dragons. The statement itself is innocuous enough and offers a hint to readers of your code that you're dealing with a list. However, if you didn't already know that the items = [] initialization is evaluated only once, you might inadvertently assume it's reinitialized with every call of the function.
As already mentioned, Python positions itself as a valuable tool for all calibers of developers. That said, it ends up being sold pretty hard to students and learners as a "beginner" language. So, what kinds of things tend to trip this crowd up?
Seasoned developers are primed to understand scoping rules. For new developers, though, this is easily one of the more confusing topics they'll encounter regardless of their choice of language. Python is no exception.
As mentioned in the comment, it's unambiguous what's going on here, since the omission of the let or any of its alternatives (const, var) means we're not trying to redeclare a variable but instead are accessing one that is already assumed to be in scope.
In this language, there are now additional guards against explicitly defining what's coming in from a parent scope, as well as the fact that it's a direct reference (the & before the variable) rather than a copy. While it requires a bit more code than Python, it leaves no room for ambiguity and behaves as expected.
There's a mentality shared between programmers and entrepreneurs - "fail fast" or "fail early." If something's not going to work, you'd rather know early on rather than tripping over a problem in a deployed product.
The contrived example above shows how you can have a glaring issue (in this case, my_first_variable wasn't declared), and potentially not know about it even as the program otherwise successfully runs.
Supposing you're developing a shared library and your functions aren't often called within your application, you might be shipping all manner of show-stopping bugs without ever witnessing them for yourself.
This can easily be remedied, of course, with unit tests. With 100% code coverage, ensuring that every branching statement is handled, you can preemptively identify and get in front of these kinds of mistakes. That said, can you guarantee that you or your colleagues have a perfect testing system in place?
Alternatively, your IDE or toolchain might catch such issues with linting. For instance, Visual Studio Code, with the Python and Pylance extensions enabled, will identify that usage of my_first_variable with a warning:
b1e95dc632