Hack For Bedrock

[Phuong Fulsom]

NoteOur sandal sizing has changed in all 2024 Cairn Evo models. To find your new Cairn Evo sandal size please consult our sizing chart below or fit your foot to one of our sole outlines.

Our sizing is unisex (e.g. size 9/10 is equivalent to size 9 for men, and size 10 for women.) The Classic LT Sizing is wider and more comparable to standard US sizing lengthwise than our Cairn sizing.

Please use this sizing chart or print out our Classic LT Sizing Outlines to find your best fitting size. If using our chart below we recommend measuring the length of your foot and then adding 1.5-2cm in order to find the sandal size that most closely corresponds.

Our Mountain Clog sizing is unisex but runs a size smaller than our new Cairn Evo sandal sizing (e.g. size 9/10 is equivalent to size 9 for men, and size 10 for women). The Mountain Clogs run small compared to both US standard sizing and to our Cairn Evo sizing. We Suggest you size up from your Cairn Evo size.

Please email us at sup...@bedrocksandals.com for assistance. It can be helpful to send us photos of your feet on our Cairn Sandal Templates or in your sandals to help guide your clog sizing decision.

product.title uses our new 2024 Evo sizing + fit standard. We recommend checking our Bedrock Sizing Chart as this size is now larger and fits truer to US standard sizing. Continue adding to Cart?

product.title often runs one US size small. We recommend checking our unique Bedrock Sizing Chart to see if one size larger would fit you better. Continue adding to Cart?

Bedrock is the solid rock that underlies looser surface material.[1] An exposed portion of bedrock is often called an outcrop.[2] The various kinds of broken and weathered rock material, such as soil and subsoil, that may overlie the bedrock are known as regolith.[3][4]

The surface of the bedrock beneath the soil cover (regolith) is also known as rockhead in engineering geology,[5][6] and its identification by digging, drilling or geophysical methods is an important task in most civil engineering projects. Superficial deposits can be very thick, such that the bedrock lies hundreds of meters below the surface.[7]

Exposed bedrock experiences weathering, which may be physical or chemical, and which alters the structure of the rock to leave it susceptible to erosion. Bedrock may also experience subsurface weathering at its upper boundary, forming saprolite.[8]

A geologic map of an area will usually show the distribution of differing bedrock types, rock that would be exposed at the surface if all soil or other superficial deposits were removed. Where superficial deposits are so thick that the underlying bedrock cannot be reliably mapped, the superficial deposits will be mapped instead (for example, as alluvium).[9]

I had a chance last week to share some of my thinking here to an unlikely audience at EclipseCon, a wonderful experience for which my thanks go to Mike Milinkovich and Ian Skerrett for being crazy enough to invite a "web guy" to give a talk.

It's a fair question and one I wrote off too quickly the first time he posed it. We have which lets us draw lines however we like, so why can't we override the path painting for borders? Why isn't it just a method you implement like in Flex or Silverlight?

Put another way: there are some low level APIs in the web that suggest that such power should be in the hands of us mortals. When using a low-level thing, you pay-as-you-go since lower-level things need more code (latency and complexity)...but that's a choice. Today's web is often mysteriously devoid of the sort of sane layering, forcing you to re-build parallel systems to what's already in the browser to get a job done. You can't just subclass the right thing or plug into the right lifecycle method most of the time. Want a ? Fine. There you go. Want a ? Hot s coming up! But don't go getting any big ideas about using the drawing APIs from to render your . Both are magic in their own right and for no reason other than that's the way it has always been.

The daftest part in all of this is that JavaScript does exist in the web so you can strictly speaking do whatever you want. Goodness knows that when the platform fails us today, we're all-too-willing to just throw JS at it. It's crazy, in this context then, that spec authors seem to be trying to uphold a golden principle: JavaScript doesn't exist. Writing it out of the story allows you to just claim that your bit of the system is magic and that it doesn't need an exposed lifecycle and plug-in architecture. New things can just be bolted onto the magic, no layering required. It's magical turtles all the way down.

But how much should we "web people" care about what they think? After all, "real programmers" have been predicting the imminent death of this toy browser thing for so long that I'm forgetting exactly when the hate took its various turns through the 7 stages; "Applets will save us from this insanity!"..."Ajax is a hack"..."just put a compiler in front of it and treat it as the dumbest assembler ever" (which is at least acceptance, of a sort). The web continues to succeed in spite of all of of this. So why the gnashing of teeth?

Thanks to Steve Souders, I have an answer: every year we're throwing more and more JS on top of the web, dooming our best intended semantic thoughts to suffocation in the Turing tar pit. Inexorably, and until we find a way to send less code down the wire, us is them, and more so every day.

Let that picture sink in: at 180KB of JS on average, script isn't some helper that gives meaning to pages in the breech, it is the meaning of the page. Dress it up all you like, but that's where this is going.

Don't think 180KB of JS is a lot? Remember, that's transfer size which accounts for gzipping, not total JS size. Oy. And in most cases that's more than 3x the size of the HTML being served (both for the page and for whatever iframes it embeds). And that's not all; it's worse for many sites which should know better. Check out those loading "filmstrip" views for gawker, techcrunch, and the NYT. You might be scrolling down, looking at the graphs, and thinking to yourself "looks like Flash is the big ticket item...", and while that's true in absolute terms, Flash isn't what's blocking page loads. JS is.

3a8082e126