Because neither set of lenses blocks it perfectly. This is typical of filters.

It's a lot like some lethally poisonous delicious mushrooms. The poison is unaffected by cooking, so you should soak the mushrooms in water first. After you've done that you should do it a second time. This process doesn't remove the poison - it only removes something like 90% (per soaking) of it IIRC. Then you eat the poisonous mushrooms, and they're delicious.

In the same way the 10% (I just made up that number for the point) of UV that gets past your own lens is still bad. 1% or even less that gets past shades and your eye is much better. Shades are only needed occasionally because the difference in solar UV probably varies by several orders of magnitude.

The relatively bright star Adhara (Epsilon Canis Majoris) is actually the brightest star in the sky in UV light. Of course you don't have pure UV vision but rather just a bit more UV bias.

However, since you seem to enjoy an experiment I suggest going somewhere where at least the brightest stars are visible, and comparing relative brightnesses between stars with a person with average vision.

Some background and a chart for Adhara below. It's close to Sirius which in turn is easy to find by using the belt of Orion.
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/adhara.html
http://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/fig/CanisMajor_wAdhara.gif

From now on proper terrorists will put their weapons/bombs up their butts. Unless something has changed this should still get past the scanners without a problem.

Not that anyone seems to be very interested in bombing planes these days.

Come on moderators, reward the man for managing an on-topic post on with that subject!

I'm wondering what they'll do too!

Still better than 'Webinar'.

I think it goes something like this:
1) Any ordinary Maksutov of that size would take far too long to adjust to ambient temperature. It would also be heavy.
2) This thing will have a lot of Maksutov benefits while being usable and huge (meaning powerful) at the same time.
3) Professionals and others with more resources can get a Ritchey-Chretien (fuck you for not having unicode Slashdot) telescope or similar instead and indeed probably don't care for something like this.
4) However, for amateurs shortcuts like this one often make sense. A popular way of getting huge apertures is to grind your own mirror, for instance.

Heh, I suspect that *you* are the memory hog here if you "usually" have 200 tabs open. =)

I believe you when you say Chrome works better for you. But performance with 200 tabs open has no (direct) connection to marketshare in any way.

Actually I'm not that interested in arguing, but rather want to ask how you manage to actually open/need/use that many tabs?

Maybe you should sell your property if it's such a bother?

Seriously, if you feel that some random campers are "sponging off" you then the largest problem is probably your attitude. There could be some actual tax peculiarity but it's pretty much guaranteed to be a negligible problem.

If by "the industry" you mean "the energy industry" then I'm right with you.

This isn't pro-nuclear or pro-anything either: I'm just saying that any large-scale energy production has looked corrupt to me. They're all subsidized too.

The way it all appears to suck reminds me of the construction industry.

They still draw and publish a magazine with him in Sweden. Probably only Superman/Batman are more well known/popular there.