We're talking about profound changes in behaviour within a day of getting a vaccine. When your child stops talking right after injecting a bunch of live viruses into their body there is a tendency to blame it on the live viruses. Much like if they ate something that they never ate before then puked, there would be a tendency to blame the food for them getting sick.
I remember seeing charts where the rise in diagnosis closely followed the introduction of the MMR vaccine. Wish I could find the charts now, unluckily after over a dozen years I've lost my bookmarks.
Still when your child loses the capability of speech and starts acting much different within days of getting a shot it does seem like causation. In my case, the last time my son called me Dad was on the way to the Doctor for a shot. 12 years later he still hasn't called me Dad. I've also seen too many supposed scientific studies that turned out not as scientific as the studies claimed. Usually these are studies done by people or organizations with an agenda.
Still when your child starts acting weird, and stops talking within days after getting a shot it is easy to draw a conclusion. Then when going on line there is lots of others who seem to have had the same thing happen it seems like more evidence. At the time there also seemed to be quite a few incomplete studies found at various.edu sites which agreed with the autism MMR link. Generally along the lines that some people just couldn't handle being injected with 3 live vaccines at once, which caused intestinal problems and also seemed to lead to autism. Some of the studies were pretty simple, graphing autism rates compared to when the MMR vaccine was introduced. These should be easy to redo if the data is still available. I know the meme that correlation is not causation but in my experience there often is a correlation.
By "crash safety switch" they probably mean the inertial switch for the electric fuel pump. Good to turn off the gas in a crash, of course it will also kill the engine if it is still running.
My rear brake line rusted out the other year. Scared the crap out of me when my foot suddenly went down close to the floor. The front brakes still worked and once I pulled over and crimped the line braking was close to normal. Crappy engineering, to save a couple of cents Ford ran the brake line along the bottom inside of the frame where all the mud etc collects on a 4x4. After this I tested braking using the parking brake. Not only did it barely slow me down but the design is bad for trying to use it as an emergency brake.
Hmm, I've always heard that most diesels don't have good engine braking due to the open intake. The exception being large trucks with engine brakes that partially closed the intake valves. This engine IIRC had about 22.5 compression ratio. Also still had a vacuum pump on the back of the alternator for the brake booster. No turbo on this model either though there were Australian versions with a turbo, usually in a 6 cylinder configuration. I'd guess these had a different injector pump setup.
The only diesel I ever owned, a SD25 in a Nissan 720 PU, had a throttle, consisting of a butterfly valve in the intake operated by the accelerator pedal. The fuel pump was operated by a vacuum line from the intake. It had 1/2 a million klicks on it when the body fell apart and the engine never seemed to have a problem from closing the throttle. Went through maybe 1/2 a litre of oil every 3000 miles at the end.
Depends on the diesel. I drove a '84 Nissan pickup with a SD25 diesel. The throttle was hooked up to a butterfly valve in the intake and there was a vacuum line that ran to the injector unit to control fuel injection. This was a totally manual diesel, especially since a previous owner had replaced the electric kill switch with a choke cable. One advantage of this setup was excellent engine braking. And yes it had a mechanical governor like you describe though it increased the fuel delivery when redlining it, lots of black smoke but maybe easier on the engine.
As you state, the longer the half life the safer. Wouldn't the radioactive material contained in coal be very safe as it obviously has a very long half life having already existed for 100's of millions of years and still being radioactive?
Huh? America was founded on the principle of killing other people and taking their stuff. It didn't take long for the first settlers to start killing the people that were there first. Though it did help them cooperate. And your house that was built by someone else on land that was cleared by someone else was acquired by stealing, cheating and killing. At that the policy of America was genocide for quite a while.
There's a whole bunch of rights or maybe a better term is privileges that the constitution gives some people. Things like which people had the right to vote, which people were counted as people and which were counted as 3/5ths of a person, who had the right to run for congress and president, the option to grant copyright come to mind. I doubt if they thought of it that they would have added the right of groups of people who may consist of potentially hostile foreigners to have a disproportionate influence on the elections.
You're right, the more money involved in marketing the easier to get your candidate elected. This is especially good for non-Americans as all they have to do is open a subsidiary in the States and eg the Chinese can finance their candidate. Especially if they buy out all the media to make sure that the oppositions message doesn't get out.
The Americans have the same reasonable limits in practice. Their congress has passed lots of laws limiting free speech even though their constitution clearly says no laws. Examples include yelling fire in a theatre (used during the first world war to imprison people for passing out pamphlets critical of the draft), child porn laws (seems reasonable but still a restriction on free speech), various national security laws where people can't talk about things declared secret and of course the DMCA where they can't talk about breaking copy protection.
One other difference between Canada and most other democracies is that we limit campaign spending, so even if the politicians do raise more money they can't spend it. Also advertising is regulated. Hard to do much about promises of jobs especially as that is one of the things that politicians are supposed to be encouraging. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada
You're looking at the wrong law. Now the limits about $1000 (as of 20007) adjusted for inflation (actually currently about $1100) and corporations, unions etc are not allowed to contribute at all. It is in the same paragraph in your link as your $5000 limit. Interestingly Canada first outlawed corporations making political donations in 1908, unluckily they didn't include a means of enforcing it for over 50 years. Also of interest is that the Green party gets about the same spending limit as the main 3 parties even though they have never elected a MP. Another link, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada
Good analogy, especially when taken further. When one of those Islamic nations does give women equality and freedom, at least relative to their neighbors. They get invaded by a bigger more powerful country, their infrastructure destroyed and the government replaced. Companies are scared of the same thing, use open source and a bigger, more powerful company will drag them through the courts destroying them. Especially if they don't have patents etc that can be used for mutually assured destruction
Here in Canada we've stopped businesses (and trade unions and other unincorporated associations) from contributing to election campaigns. Also people are limited to citizens and permanent residents and limited to about $1000 contribution annually (adjusted for inflation). It hasn't helped. The government is still pro business including the media companies. Has been trying to pass laws limiting our rights with respect to IP, eg a Canadian version of the DMCA. Doesn't matter which party is in power, they've both tried to pass similar laws with small differences like the last version had an exception for breaking copy protection on VHS tapes. The only saving grace here has been that governments keep falling before they get these laws passed. Provincially the voters have totally rejected the right wing party of the day and voted for a third option a couple of times in our history with the last time triggered by envelopes of money being passed in parking lots. Within an election or 2 the third party is populated by members of the rejected party, the leader is the guy who was predicted to lead the other party etc. In other words the only real change is the party name.
Linux used to come with ctrl-alt-del mapped to shutdown -r now. It varied whether it was enabled but was easy to enable/disable in one of the rc files in/etc
And of course ctrl-insert is used for copying to the clipboard and shift-insert for pasting, pretty important functions though you can use the Mac shortcuts as well on Windows and perhaps on Linux
And if the employer didn't have to make their contribution they could keep it as more profit. So funny the people who think that if taxes, social security etc went down they'd end up with more money instead of the business making more profits.
Ford got sued for raising his workers wages by the capital investors (the Dodge brothers in this case) and the court ruled for the capital investors forcing Ford to lower his wages. After this Ford had to get rid of the capital investors to raise wages. Increased productivity just means more profit for the stock holder, not higher wages, at least in a public company. This is the same reason that if the fantasy of getting rid of taxes happens it will just mean the workers get their wages lowered so they have the same take home pay and the stock holders have bigger profits to invest overseas.
Slashdot Mirror
We're talking about profound changes in behaviour within a day of getting a vaccine. When your child stops talking right after injecting a bunch of live viruses into their body there is a tendency to blame it on the live viruses.
Much like if they ate something that they never ate before then puked, there would be a tendency to blame the food for them getting sick.
I remember seeing charts where the rise in diagnosis closely followed the introduction of the MMR vaccine. Wish I could find the charts now, unluckily after over a dozen years I've lost my bookmarks.
Still when your child loses the capability of speech and starts acting much different within days of getting a shot it does seem like causation.
In my case, the last time my son called me Dad was on the way to the Doctor for a shot. 12 years later he still hasn't called me Dad.
I've also seen too many supposed scientific studies that turned out not as scientific as the studies claimed. Usually these are studies done by people or organizations with an agenda.
Still when your child starts acting weird, and stops talking within days after getting a shot it is easy to draw a conclusion. Then when going on line there is lots of others who seem to have had the same thing happen it seems like more evidence. .edu sites which agreed with the autism MMR link. Generally along the lines that some people just couldn't handle being injected with 3 live vaccines at once, which caused intestinal problems and also seemed to lead to autism.
At the time there also seemed to be quite a few incomplete studies found at various
Some of the studies were pretty simple, graphing autism rates compared to when the MMR vaccine was introduced. These should be easy to redo if the data is still available.
I know the meme that correlation is not causation but in my experience there often is a correlation.
By "crash safety switch" they probably mean the inertial switch for the electric fuel pump. Good to turn off the gas in a crash, of course it will also kill the engine if it is still running.
My rear brake line rusted out the other year. Scared the crap out of me when my foot suddenly went down close to the floor.
The front brakes still worked and once I pulled over and crimped the line braking was close to normal.
Crappy engineering, to save a couple of cents Ford ran the brake line along the bottom inside of the frame where all the mud etc collects on a 4x4.
After this I tested braking using the parking brake. Not only did it barely slow me down but the design is bad for trying to use it as an emergency brake.
Hmm, I've always heard that most diesels don't have good engine braking due to the open intake. The exception being large trucks with engine brakes that partially closed the intake valves.
This engine IIRC had about 22.5 compression ratio. Also still had a vacuum pump on the back of the alternator for the brake booster.
No turbo on this model either though there were Australian versions with a turbo, usually in a 6 cylinder configuration. I'd guess these had a different injector pump setup.
The only diesel I ever owned, a SD25 in a Nissan 720 PU, had a throttle, consisting of a butterfly valve in the intake operated by the accelerator pedal. The fuel pump was operated by a vacuum line from the intake.
It had 1/2 a million klicks on it when the body fell apart and the engine never seemed to have a problem from closing the throttle. Went through maybe 1/2 a litre of oil every 3000 miles at the end.
Depends on the diesel. I drove a '84 Nissan pickup with a SD25 diesel. The throttle was hooked up to a butterfly valve in the intake and there was a vacuum line that ran to the injector unit to control fuel injection.
This was a totally manual diesel, especially since a previous owner had replaced the electric kill switch with a choke cable.
One advantage of this setup was excellent engine braking.
And yes it had a mechanical governor like you describe though it increased the fuel delivery when redlining it, lots of black smoke but maybe easier on the engine.
As you state, the longer the half life the safer. Wouldn't the radioactive material contained in coal be very safe as it obviously has a very long half life having already existed for 100's of millions of years and still being radioactive?
See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422540 you might have to copy and paste the URL as mozilla doesn't like being linked from slashdot.
Huh? America was founded on the principle of killing other people and taking their stuff.
It didn't take long for the first settlers to start killing the people that were there first. Though it did help them cooperate.
And your house that was built by someone else on land that was cleared by someone else was acquired by stealing, cheating and killing. At that the policy of America was genocide for quite a while.
There's a whole bunch of rights or maybe a better term is privileges that the constitution gives some people. Things like which people had the right to vote, which people were counted as people and which were counted as 3/5ths of a person, who had the right to run for congress and president, the option to grant copyright come to mind.
I doubt if they thought of it that they would have added the right of groups of people who may consist of potentially hostile foreigners to have a disproportionate influence on the elections.
Well if money = speech then illegalizing bribery is unconstitutional. Perhaps the Supreme court will strike down those laws.
You're right, the more money involved in marketing the easier to get your candidate elected. This is especially good for non-Americans as all they have to do is open a subsidiary in the States and eg the Chinese can finance their candidate. Especially if they buy out all the media to make sure that the oppositions message doesn't get out.
The Americans have the same reasonable limits in practice. Their congress has passed lots of laws limiting free speech even though their constitution clearly says no laws. Examples include yelling fire in a theatre (used during the first world war to imprison people for passing out pamphlets critical of the draft), child porn laws (seems reasonable but still a restriction on free speech), various national security laws where people can't talk about things declared secret and of course the DMCA where they can't talk about breaking copy protection.
One other difference between Canada and most other democracies is that we limit campaign spending, so even if the politicians do raise more money they can't spend it.
Also advertising is regulated.
Hard to do much about promises of jobs especially as that is one of the things that politicians are supposed to be encouraging.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada
You're looking at the wrong law. Now the limits about $1000 (as of 20007) adjusted for inflation (actually currently about $1100) and corporations, unions etc are not allowed to contribute at all. It is in the same paragraph in your link as your $5000 limit.
Interestingly Canada first outlawed corporations making political donations in 1908, unluckily they didn't include a means of enforcing it for over 50 years.
Also of interest is that the Green party gets about the same spending limit as the main 3 parties even though they have never elected a MP.
Another link, http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/federal-campaign-finance-laws-canada
Good analogy, especially when taken further. When one of those Islamic nations does give women equality and freedom, at least relative to their neighbors. They get invaded by a bigger more powerful country, their infrastructure destroyed and the government replaced.
Companies are scared of the same thing, use open source and a bigger, more powerful company will drag them through the courts destroying them. Especially if they don't have patents etc that can be used for mutually assured destruction
Here in Canada we've stopped businesses (and trade unions and other unincorporated associations) from contributing to election campaigns. Also people are limited to citizens and permanent residents and limited to about $1000 contribution annually (adjusted for inflation).
It hasn't helped. The government is still pro business including the media companies. Has been trying to pass laws limiting our rights with respect to IP, eg a Canadian version of the DMCA. Doesn't matter which party is in power, they've both tried to pass similar laws with small differences like the last version had an exception for breaking copy protection on VHS tapes.
The only saving grace here has been that governments keep falling before they get these laws passed.
Provincially the voters have totally rejected the right wing party of the day and voted for a third option a couple of times in our history with the last time triggered by envelopes of money being passed in parking lots.
Within an election or 2 the third party is populated by members of the rejected party, the leader is the guy who was predicted to lead the other party etc.
In other words the only real change is the party name.
I also tried this and my clipboard contained http://www.test.com/.
Maybe due to running Seamonkey instead of Firefox?
Yes, trying with Firefox I get the google redirect, http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.test.com%2F&rct=j&q=test&ei=C3ZTS_OqM5DusQPUzPX9Bw&usg=AFQjCNH21KLjC0CBkjon2DwD_CZ0HApLMw
So it is a Firefox thing.
Linux used to come with ctrl-alt-del mapped to shutdown -r now. It varied whether it was enabled but was easy to enable/disable in one of the rc files in /etc
And of course ctrl-insert is used for copying to the clipboard and shift-insert for pasting, pretty important functions though you can use the Mac shortcuts as well on Windows and perhaps on Linux
And if the employer didn't have to make their contribution they could keep it as more profit.
So funny the people who think that if taxes, social security etc went down they'd end up with more money instead of the business making more profits.
Ford got sued for raising his workers wages by the capital investors (the Dodge brothers in this case) and the court ruled for the capital investors forcing Ford to lower his wages. After this Ford had to get rid of the capital investors to raise wages.
Increased productivity just means more profit for the stock holder, not higher wages, at least in a public company.
This is the same reason that if the fantasy of getting rid of taxes happens it will just mean the workers get their wages lowered so they have the same take home pay and the stock holders have bigger profits to invest overseas.