I'm not sure which show you guys have been watching, but you're not describing BSG.;) BSG, from the start, has always been about people and social problems while in the middle of a war. Granted, somewhere along the way they decided that viewers care more about people, and who is boffing who, rather than war, ethics, society, and the drama of all involved around that conflict. Everything was awesome until the last season where the writers decided they knew what everyone really wanted. It went down hill this last season while they were trying to turn it into an evening soap. I must admit, I would also consider BSG to be a space opera, just as I would B5. But you have to draw the line somewhere. My guess is they thought they could draw in new viewers and didn't realize they were losing their core audience.
Re-reading your post, it looks like you're confusing engine stability with overall ride stability.
"Stability" is what was provided. I used the defacto definition one assumes when "stability" is referenced with cars. I wouldn't say I was confused. Secondly, excess vibration is not referred to as "stable". So either the poster didn't say what was meant or the wrong word was used.
You're also making many assumptions. Since we're largely talking about would-ofs and could-ofs, your comment doesn't seem to make much sense. It's common for SUVs and trucks to have large HP motors but they are by no means safe at speeds much over 70-80MPH. So once again, HP has nothing to do with stability or comfort.
HP is a function of torque. HP = torque*RPM. This means there are three ways to for a low HP engine to allow cruising at such speeds. One, create a torqie motor which runs at low RPM, which addresses your RPM complaint. Two, create a low torque motor which is designed to run at high RPMs (the norm, which is why you have high RPMs), or three, meet somewhere in the middle and add overdrive gearing, which allows the engine to run at lower RPMs but requires more toque in the engine. Long story short, for the type of driving your talking about, its absolutely possible to do what you want with a fairly low HP engine. Of course, it's not going to be the size of a truck...but a midsize to compact car is certainly doable without 200+HP.
Solenoid? Alternator? The solenoid is part of the starter assembly, bozo. It engages the starter cogwheel with the flywheel and closes the circuit that allows current to flow through the starter motor. I believe some alternators have selinoids too. I'm not sure what function it serves but I've heard others complaining about their Japan import, that their fuse on their alternator selenoid has blown, etc... So either their is mass altnerator selenoid hysteria going around or it really exists.
When doing this type of driving, if you have less than a 150 - 175 HP (peak) motor in, say, a Honda Civic, the car is just not stable enough at the speeds you drive in those situations.
Since when does HP = stability? Stability if a function of aerodynamics, suspension, and the road surface. HP is going to determine your cruise speed/top end and it can scale to match the aerodynamics of the vehicle.
Simple fact is, most vehicles are not safe at speeds in excess of 80MPH because of poor suspension stability, aerodynamics, and their tires. Vechiles which tend to safe at these speeds and upwards are typically sports cars but that's because they are low the ground, have stiffer suspensions, typically have appropriate speed rated tires, and are aerodynamically designed to provide a stable ride by minimizing the airflow under the vehicle. Notice this is the polar opposite of trucks and SUVs.
The vast majority of Americans can easily get by with 100-150HP and still cruise at speeds well in excess of 80MPH.
On my system, OJFS doesn't work right. Everytime I attempt to locate a file the FS starts running all over my hard drive trying to find the REAL file despite it obviously being OJFS. It also seems to create files on golf.
Fuel from corn in America is foolish. Corn is often grown with water taken taken from an underground aquifer. The aquifer is getting so low, most people that are aware of it are starting to become very concerned. The government already has restrictions on who gets the water and what can be done with it. Worse, there are already predictions on when the acquifer will run out, or run low enough to significantly effect crop productions across America. Yet we are now starting down a path which will place additional pressure on this acquifer to grow even more corn we don't need.
Right now, up to 15% of all corn grown in the US is irrigated from this acquifer. Running out of water in this acquifer means loss of massive crops reaching far beyond that of corn. Not to mention, byproducts from crops grown from this acquifer are used to feed large heards of cattle.
Right now, ethanol is one of the largest farces ever thrust on Americans. Inclusion of ethanol in gas is one of the reasons fuel prices have risen. If you include the cost of ethanol, after subsides are accounted for, we are already paying some four to five dollars per gallon. Using corn for ethanol makes zero economic sense and worse, is directly contributing to the depletion of the largest underground acquifers in the US (perhaps in the world). Encouraging yet more corn crops makes even less sense.
Which would you rather have, ethanol which costs more per gallon than gas (and requires more energy to produce than it yields) or food and fresh drinking water? It really is that simple.
Long story short, please don't encourage additional corn crops.
I don't have access to the actual standard, but would guess that they're really claiming more reliability for the same storage capacity, not more reliable in absolute terms.
In the real world this translates into, "more reliability". Reliability has always been relative to dollars spent. This means given the same dollars you are more reliabile. This means, given absolute dollars, you are more reliable.
It was probably a mistake. Don't worry about it. It may be meta-moderated later anyway.
Thanks for the encouraging word but it's very unlikely it was accidental. Two topical posts of mine were incorrectly moderated within a very short period of time; as is often the case. A user here loves to troll-moderate my posts, presumably via multiple accounts, especially when they are topical. Worse, I find meta-moderation to be completely useless as they never fix the ongoing abuse. The user in questionis repruhsent. He's my very own slashdot stalker. One has to ponder just how empty and meaningless a life is that has nothing better to do than to stalk someone on slashdot.
Well, at the time my mother was sick with cancer so researching this stuff was her hobby. It's what kept her going. We lived in Houston at the time and the majority of of it was published in the Houston Chronical. My mother said she had some medical journal articles covering what little was published, which she then used to write her representatives about the horrible abuse of government power (FDA, AMA, and lobbiest) which was rising at the time. I quickly tried some Googling but didn't find anything specific to which I referenced. To my surprise though, I did find a lot of vitamin-cancer treatment information is being published against by MD Anderson. I imagine if you contact them directly, you might be able to shake some information loose.
Needless to say, most sane American's that didn't have their hands in medical related pockets were happy to see Kesslier go. You may even remember the commericals which briefly appeared on TV which simulated vitamin raids into people's homes. Most people thought those were silly because they didn't realize the FDA had already raided several stores and home businesses and held the customers hostage for many, many hours (up to 8 hours IIRC). The logical conclusion is house holds were next because they were actively lobbying to outlaw vitamins. A judge later ruled they did not have the power to do such things and agreed that it amounted to illegal detainment. If you hunt, you can probably find references to these.
To be absoluetely clear here, I am by no means saying that mega-doses of vitimins are an end-all, cure-all for cancer! I can not stress this enough! What I said was, MD Anderson published some early research which indicates for specific types of cancer, mega-doses of vitamin were a viable alternative with results within spitting distance from conventional treatments of the time. Something else to consider is that traditional treatments have advanced significantly since then; thanks to computer aimed radiation guns, etc. Having said that, considering the research was in its infancy, it certainly showed great promise. The fact that they seemingly have continued vitamin cancer research seems to confirm they believe it still shows promise.
Just in case you're looking for raid informaiton, a quick Google found: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22 _v46/ai_15999889. I'm 100% sure if you want to keep looking into that one, you'll find lots and lots more articles on the subject. The article places it in 1990, so that means the search was probably somewhere between 1988 - 1994 (hey, I've slept since then). If you replied expecting to call my bluff, I believe you failed. If on the other hand, you are sincerely interested, you should have enough information to either find stuff online or to directly contact MD Anderson. I'm assuming we can both agree MD Anderson qualifies as a reputable medical research facility? I'm also assuming it's the research you are wanting to chase and not the FDA raids.
Do a Google on "MD Anderson vitimin cancer". I show, "765,000" hits.
A little back story for you: At the time, my mother had already received her maximum lifetime dose of radiation which left her skin burned where her breast once was. When her cancer came back, knowing radiation was not an option, she began looking at alternative treatments. Convensional treatment expected her to die within 6-months to a year; two on the outside, if she was very, very lucky. The alternative treatment was a radical change in diet and massive vitamin doses plus a non-FDA approved solution which was injected into the tumors. The injections proved to be somewhat effective but the FDA later came down hard, early 1990's, on the MD that was providing it to her. At which time, she was left strictly with dietary and vitamin treatments. She was in state with cancer from 1986 until she died on Christmas of 2001. That statement is unrivaled with
We have as many compounds that fight cancer as we have compounds that cause cancer. If you want to really cure people, we're talking scientific medicine, not feel-good natural herbal supplements.
Except there is some historical basis to support the line of logic...which is not to say I believe its one giant conspiracy standing on dozens of cures. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, MD Anderson did a lot of research into alternate treatments. Some of those treatments included mega doses of vitamins and minerals. The results? They were able to obtain cure rates of some cancer, in humans, only several percent less than traditional treatments. At the same time, someone (guess who) wound up the FDA which started raiding shops at gun point, DETAINING CUSTOMERS, and lobbied to get new suppliment legislation passed. Shortly after, MD Anderson's funding for alternate treatments went away. Oddly enough, the number of artificial vitimans (basically, chemically-like, patented, and fully synthesized; which BTW, has a much higher death and illness rate, generally cost 4-8 times of the real thing, and requires a Rx). Oddly enough, this all happened at the same time Kessler was publically campaigning against suppliments of any kind. He made many such anti-suppliment statements such as, "American's have the most expensive urine in the world", and, "Mega-doses of any vitamin is bad or worthless". The second is a paraphase as I don't remember the exact quote. While at the same time, lots of studies directly contradicted him. Studies by crediable organizations. When pushed with these studies he remarked with something like, "Well, they are only effective in non-first world countries as every American receives proper nutrition", which we all know is well documented as factually incorrect.
Lastly, it was reported that mega-doses of vitamins, when used in conjunction with traditional radiation treatment resulted in yet higher cure rates (some single digit percent), faster recovery, and fewer side effects. The studies were halted before they could determine if continued suppliment treatment, post-cure, would result in a lower recurrence rate. So on and so on...
Long story short, factually speaking, research into cheap cancer treatments using suppliments has been kneecapped by the pharmaceutical industry and razed by the FDA while it was still in a very promising infancy. Its no wonder there are many conspiracy theories bounding about of many hidden cures.
If they were that good, and that rare, they'd be able to charge much more for their services. If you think you're being paid below your worth, but you're unable to get a higher paying job, then you're simply not as good as you think you are.
That's a over simplification. Doctors and lawyers are both licensed which means I can't bring an Indian in at $5.00/hr to represent me or to give me medical care. If I could, their prices would fall over night. Needless to say, I could write a book explaining how you errored in your analysis. Hopefully the above will point out what is obvious enough. Having said that, there are those of us that make a pretty living. But between the bottom feeders and the imports (usually bottom feeders too), we're not making what we should.
Or blame IT workers who think that computer programming is such a rare, special skill that they're more important than plumbers or car mechanics.
Or blame Dr/Lawyer workers who think that their service is such a rare, special skill that they're more important than plumbers or car mechanics.
Like it or not, good IT people are as hard to find as a good Dr or Lawyer. Likewise, a good IT person has often worked long, long hours at crap pay to do jobs that the majority of people in the country can't do. Likewise, most of these people paid for a higher education. Simple market economics demand that their servies are more costly than a plumber's or car mechanic.
Simple fact is, most all *common* plumbing or mechanical jobs are step 1, 2, and 3. Little to no complex thinking is required. Most all trouble shooting can be looked up in a book or diagnosed via a computer. There is a reason why these trades can be taught in 3-6 months. None of that is true for IT, save only for level one (usually frustraiting and worthless) help desk support. And yes, I often do my own plumbing and mechanical work except when I don't have the time to mess with it.
Comments like yours seem to imply that all doctors are the same. If you ever need brain surgery, make sure you go with the guy that has never done it before and is right out of med school. After all, they are all the same. Better yet, save your self some bucks and hire your plumber.
Hmmm. My recent house repainting seems to disagree. I find it hard to believe painters were being paid thousands for a couple of days work some 20-years ago. If it were anywhere near true, the market would be saturated with painters and I would have paid much less for my house's paint job.
Long story short, I paid a fair price to my house painter based on current market economics. I imagine 20 years ago, they were paid a fair price given the economics at the time. At any rate, I'm sure yesterday's and today's prices would not be anywhere near the same.
Hunh. Why would trained millitary personell leave their armies of their respective countries to live/fight/die for the shithole that is Iraq?
Shesh guy. Read a newspaper and watch the news once in a while. What I stated is pretty common knowledge about the quality of many of the soldiers coming into Iraq. You're asking questions like any sane, reasonable person would. That's good! What you're missing is these guys are not sane and not reasonable. They are coming to Iraq to fight The Great Satan and their glorious death will bring them a life time of pleasures and virgins. Not to mention, often their families are financially rewarded and revered by the community at large, for their child's "martyrdom."
Are you millitary, per chance?
I'm not. My oldest son is a Marine. My oldest brother was (Army). My youngest brother is (Army) and did serve in Iraq. My father was (Army). I was CAP (Aux. Air Force) and a youth. Several close friends are/were military (mostly Army). A close friend of a close friend was a Navy Seal and is currently an independant in Iraq. Needless to say, I've been around lots of military people for most of my life.
Even the media doesn't use terms like "combatants"; and I've never heard people calling troops "our guys", even my best friend who was a marine in iraq. From the vauge writing and unsubstansiated 'facts' you present, you sound an awful lot like a plant for the millitary.
Now that's friggen funny. Paranoid much? A "plant for the military". I see. Now please tell me why the military would be planting such posts, which more or less stated commonly known facts, on a geek web site? Seriously, I'd really love to know what your spin on this is.
You're under the impression that these guys are completely untrained. Many of combatants are from Iran, Syria, and other surrounding countries. While some of them are new to the world of combat and simply come because they were recruited to die, many come because they have a long militant history with lots of real world combat experience. In fact, in Iraq, during some of the large sweeps through their cities, the vast majority of combatants were well trained and very highly motivated. These guys used everything from AK47s, sniper rifles, grenades, RPKs, to mortors and RPGs.
There are several things which are generally considered to be the life saver of our guys. First, better weapon, the M16. Second, superior firepower because of the support weapons (203s, javalins, and SAWs), allowing their riflemen to do their job. Third, speed of movement. Lastly, superior logistics. This, all despite the fact that the enemy is much more mobile and can fall back to various weapon caches.
Having spoken to quite a few people in the Israeli army who've used the M4 extensively, I can say that I am less than impressed with the reliability record of this assault rifle.
Contrary to popular myth, the M4 is not a short M16. There are key differences.
There's 2 types of combat on the modern battlefield - the close-quarters 100m max range, and the defensive long range. In close quarters, the M16s accuracy is rather irrelevant, and during more long range engagements the goal isn't to kill your enemy, but rather to suppress their fire until you can bring in heavy weapons large-caliber machineguns, artillery, or aircraft (actually that's often the goal in short-range engagements as well).
So much for arm chair theory. Current weapon use includes both Afganistan and Iraq, which completely disprove pretty much all that you said. In city fighting, you get everything from CQC to max range...AND everything in between. You'll find that for CQC, nades are king and the soldiers are kept well supplied. For everything else, the M16 does its job...including surpression and kills until you can bring squad support weapons to bare. But for the most part...it's the m16 kill...squad weapons are largely used for suppression so your riflemen can make those kills. Basically, riflemen suppress until the squad weapons can take over that job. Once supression is possible, it's the riflemen that generally make the kills of what is still exposed.
Long story short, the M16 is the workhorse and not the other way around.
Besides, my point is that if the M-16 had been superior, people would have selected it over the AKs.
Hate to tell ya, but the M16 is far superior; save only in the nature of wounds inflicted. The reason why people buy AK is because they are dirt cheap. The M16 is fairly expensive. Most countries simply do not have the cash to purchase M16s and keep their army plush with 5.56 ammo. On the other hand, AK's are cheaper than dirt and ammo is cheaper than sea water. Not to mention, you can purchase from any number of enties with conflicting with your national pride or polity if you go AK. On the other hand, M16s often idealogically conflict. I think you'll find that those that can afford a real weapon either go with M16 or develop their replacement for the M16 (still 5.56). After all, the M16 is getting long in the tooth.
Long story short, do not confuse quality with economic and idealogical preference.
Real world use seems to indicate the M16 is better for the grunt on the ground. Look at the videos coming out of Iraq and Afganistan. Listen to the documentaries; there are lots of them. You'll see AK shots landing all around solders, often missing by inches to feet...including from scope based, carifully aimed shots. Meanwhile, the guys with M16's and ACOG are making kills as they return fire with single shots. In closer combat but still not CQC, the kill ratios are still much, much, much higher for the M16. Lastly, in CQC, around tight corners, you'll find grenades have effectively nuked the only serious advantage the AK had. Long story short, the M16 has proven it self to be a better, real world weapon than the AK.
Put your self in a soldier's boot for a minute. Which is more important to you? Hit the threat when you fire, CQC to 400+ yards? Or to kick your rusty weapon and still be able to fire...but not hit anything? The first is what soldiers demand. The second is strictly for bragging rights. At the end of the day, it's the M16 that brings soldiers home and makes for high enemy body counts.
Now then, if you are not part of an organized army and you need your weapon to sit in a cache for months at a time without needing to clean it...suddenly the AK is a better option...but still not a better weapon. For real soldiers in real armies in real combat situations, the M16 is hard to beat. Now then, if you want to talk about modern replacements for the M16, the field is pretty wide.
# the m16 was tested and spec'd for ammunition made with a particular clean-burning powder (manufactured by dupont i think). production ammunition for vietnam did not meet this spec and was, in fact, significantly more dirty.
Leave it to the bean counters to save the day. A specific powder type was given but in order to save money by the "brain trust" (the same guys that could determine if we were winning or losing the war by the ratio of deaths on each side - thus the constant need for body counts), they decided they knew better. As a result, soldiers got different powder which left huge amounts of trash in the barrel and receiver. It was actually these same "brains" that decided a cleaning kit was not needed despite reams of paper which indicated otherwise. Worse, they opted to not chrome the some of the internal parts which meant rust, pitting, and more friction. Put a weapon like that into a high humidity environment (like say Vietnam), and you have a weapon that jams all the time. After all, pitted surfaces make great places to collect crap which builds up over time.
Long story short, anytime you have bean counters running anything other than a calculator, they'll find new and interesting ways to completely screw everything up in the name of saving a penny.
Swap at store, still no joy. Try to return, get hit with restocking fee - take DVD home irate.
Do a charge back. Being charged for a product which fraudulently claims to be compatible with an industry standard (DVD) is fraud. Expecting you to pay fees associated with that fraud is fraud. The credit card issuer will more than likely understand that and issue the chargeback. If the store needs money to cover their restocking fee, they need to contact the manufacturer for producing a defective product. The problem exists between the retail outlet and the manufacturer and not between the retail outlet and the customer.
Best of all, performing a chargeback is a great way for the retail stores to feel the pressure and pass it on to the manufacturer. Surprisingly, merchant associations have fairly heavy clout when they pull in the same direction. Try to make it work for you instead of against you.
Really? I thought that it was only against the law to distribute IP you don't hold the rights to.
In the US, that is where fair use comes into play. Of course, that's why they created the DCMA which effectively makes using your right of fair use illegal. That's why they want every song or movie to be encrypted in some form. In order to decrypt it, you would have to violate the DCMA unless you are using an officially supported player.
I would be concerned about proper identification. I know systems which are currently deployed do not properly identify threats. For example, a mobile home which has a sat. dish is classified as a SAM site and someone raking their front yard is classified as a shoulder fired AA threat.
Hopefully the systems these guys are talking about do a much better job of classifying threats.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. I think we're on the same page. I only watched three episodes (first two and last one) of BSG last season.
Any MP3s of one of these things playing?
I'm not sure which show you guys have been watching, but you're not describing BSG. ;) BSG, from the start, has always been about people and social problems while in the middle of a war. Granted, somewhere along the way they decided that viewers care more about people, and who is boffing who, rather than war, ethics, society, and the drama of all involved around that conflict. Everything was awesome until the last season where the writers decided they knew what everyone really wanted. It went down hill this last season while they were trying to turn it into an evening soap. I must admit, I would also consider BSG to be a space opera, just as I would B5. But you have to draw the line somewhere. My guess is they thought they could draw in new viewers and didn't realize they were losing their core audience.
Re-reading your post, it looks like you're confusing engine stability with overall ride stability.
"Stability" is what was provided. I used the defacto definition one assumes when "stability" is referenced with cars. I wouldn't say I was confused. Secondly, excess vibration is not referred to as "stable". So either the poster didn't say what was meant or the wrong word was used.
You're also making many assumptions. Since we're largely talking about would-ofs and could-ofs, your comment doesn't seem to make much sense. It's common for SUVs and trucks to have large HP motors but they are by no means safe at speeds much over 70-80MPH. So once again, HP has nothing to do with stability or comfort.
HP is a function of torque. HP = torque*RPM. This means there are three ways to for a low HP engine to allow cruising at such speeds. One, create a torqie motor which runs at low RPM, which addresses your RPM complaint. Two, create a low torque motor which is designed to run at high RPMs (the norm, which is why you have high RPMs), or three, meet somewhere in the middle and add overdrive gearing, which allows the engine to run at lower RPMs but requires more toque in the engine. Long story short, for the type of driving your talking about, its absolutely possible to do what you want with a fairly low HP engine. Of course, it's not going to be the size of a truck...but a midsize to compact car is certainly doable without 200+HP.
When doing this type of driving, if you have less than a 150 - 175 HP (peak) motor in, say, a Honda Civic, the car is just not stable enough at the speeds you drive in those situations.
Since when does HP = stability? Stability if a function of aerodynamics, suspension, and the road surface. HP is going to determine your cruise speed/top end and it can scale to match the aerodynamics of the vehicle.
Simple fact is, most vehicles are not safe at speeds in excess of 80MPH because of poor suspension stability, aerodynamics, and their tires. Vechiles which tend to safe at these speeds and upwards are typically sports cars but that's because they are low the ground, have stiffer suspensions, typically have appropriate speed rated tires, and are aerodynamically designed to provide a stable ride by minimizing the airflow under the vehicle. Notice this is the polar opposite of trucks and SUVs.
The vast majority of Americans can easily get by with 100-150HP and still cruise at speeds well in excess of 80MPH.
On my system, OJFS doesn't work right. Everytime I attempt to locate a file the FS starts running all over my hard drive trying to find the REAL file despite it obviously being OJFS. It also seems to create files on golf.
Fuel from corn in America is foolish. Corn is often grown with water taken taken from an underground aquifer. The aquifer is getting so low, most people that are aware of it are starting to become very concerned. The government already has restrictions on who gets the water and what can be done with it. Worse, there are already predictions on when the acquifer will run out, or run low enough to significantly effect crop productions across America. Yet we are now starting down a path which will place additional pressure on this acquifer to grow even more corn we don't need.
Right now, up to 15% of all corn grown in the US is irrigated from this acquifer. Running out of water in this acquifer means loss of massive crops reaching far beyond that of corn. Not to mention, byproducts from crops grown from this acquifer are used to feed large heards of cattle.
Right now, ethanol is one of the largest farces ever thrust on Americans. Inclusion of ethanol in gas is one of the reasons fuel prices have risen. If you include the cost of ethanol, after subsides are accounted for, we are already paying some four to five dollars per gallon. Using corn for ethanol makes zero economic sense and worse, is directly contributing to the depletion of the largest underground acquifers in the US (perhaps in the world). Encouraging yet more corn crops makes even less sense.
Which would you rather have, ethanol which costs more per gallon than gas (and requires more energy to produce than it yields) or food and fresh drinking water? It really is that simple.
Long story short, please don't encourage additional corn crops.
I don't have access to the actual standard, but would guess that they're really claiming more reliability for the same storage capacity, not more reliable in absolute terms.
In the real world this translates into, "more reliability". Reliability has always been relative to dollars spent. This means given the same dollars you are more reliabile. This means, given absolute dollars, you are more reliable.
It was probably a mistake. Don't worry about it. It may be meta-moderated later anyway.
Thanks for the encouraging word but it's very unlikely it was accidental. Two topical posts of mine were incorrectly moderated within a very short period of time; as is often the case. A user here loves to troll-moderate my posts, presumably via multiple accounts, especially when they are topical. Worse, I find meta-moderation to be completely useless as they never fix the ongoing abuse. The user in questionis repruhsent. He's my very own slashdot stalker. One has to ponder just how empty and meaningless a life is that has nothing better to do than to stalk someone on slashdot.
For whatever reason, someone decided that a topical and factual recounting was flamebait...but this is slashdot...
8 83941
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232291&cid=18
Well, at the time my mother was sick with cancer so researching this stuff was her hobby. It's what kept her going. We lived in Houston at the time and the majority of of it was published in the Houston Chronical. My mother said she had some medical journal articles covering what little was published, which she then used to write her representatives about the horrible abuse of government power (FDA, AMA, and lobbiest) which was rising at the time. I quickly tried some Googling but didn't find anything specific to which I referenced. To my surprise though, I did find a lot of vitamin-cancer treatment information is being published against by MD Anderson. I imagine if you contact them directly, you might be able to shake some information loose.
Needless to say, most sane American's that didn't have their hands in medical related pockets were happy to see Kesslier go. You may even remember the commericals which briefly appeared on TV which simulated vitamin raids into people's homes. Most people thought those were silly because they didn't realize the FDA had already raided several stores and home businesses and held the customers hostage for many, many hours (up to 8 hours IIRC). The logical conclusion is house holds were next because they were actively lobbying to outlaw vitamins. A judge later ruled they did not have the power to do such things and agreed that it amounted to illegal detainment. If you hunt, you can probably find references to these.
To be absoluetely clear here, I am by no means saying that mega-doses of vitimins are an end-all, cure-all for cancer! I can not stress this enough! What I said was, MD Anderson published some early research which indicates for specific types of cancer, mega-doses of vitamin were a viable alternative with results within spitting distance from conventional treatments of the time. Something else to consider is that traditional treatments have advanced significantly since then; thanks to computer aimed radiation guns, etc. Having said that, considering the research was in its infancy, it certainly showed great promise. The fact that they seemingly have continued vitamin cancer research seems to confirm they believe it still shows promise.
Just in case you're looking for raid informaiton, a quick Google found: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22 _v46/ai_15999889. I'm 100% sure if you want to keep looking into that one, you'll find lots and lots more articles on the subject. The article places it in 1990, so that means the search was probably somewhere between 1988 - 1994 (hey, I've slept since then). If you replied expecting to call my bluff, I believe you failed. If on the other hand, you are sincerely interested, you should have enough information to either find stuff online or to directly contact MD Anderson. I'm assuming we can both agree MD Anderson qualifies as a reputable medical research facility? I'm also assuming it's the research you are wanting to chase and not the FDA raids.
Do a Google on "MD Anderson vitimin cancer". I show, "765,000" hits.
A little back story for you:
At the time, my mother had already received her maximum lifetime dose of radiation which left her skin burned where her breast once was. When her cancer came back, knowing radiation was not an option, she began looking at alternative treatments. Convensional treatment expected her to die within 6-months to a year; two on the outside, if she was very, very lucky. The alternative treatment was a radical change in diet and massive vitamin doses plus a non-FDA approved solution which was injected into the tumors. The injections proved to be somewhat effective but the FDA later came down hard, early 1990's, on the MD that was providing it to her. At which time, she was left strictly with dietary and vitamin treatments. She was in state with cancer from 1986 until she died on Christmas of 2001. That statement is unrivaled with
We have as many compounds that fight cancer as we have compounds that cause cancer. If you want to really cure people, we're talking scientific medicine, not feel-good natural herbal supplements.
Except there is some historical basis to support the line of logic...which is not to say I believe its one giant conspiracy standing on dozens of cures. Back in the late 80s and early 90s, MD Anderson did a lot of research into alternate treatments. Some of those treatments included mega doses of vitamins and minerals. The results? They were able to obtain cure rates of some cancer, in humans, only several percent less than traditional treatments. At the same time, someone (guess who) wound up the FDA which started raiding shops at gun point, DETAINING CUSTOMERS, and lobbied to get new suppliment legislation passed. Shortly after, MD Anderson's funding for alternate treatments went away. Oddly enough, the number of artificial vitimans (basically, chemically-like, patented, and fully synthesized; which BTW, has a much higher death and illness rate, generally cost 4-8 times of the real thing, and requires a Rx). Oddly enough, this all happened at the same time Kessler was publically campaigning against suppliments of any kind. He made many such anti-suppliment statements such as, "American's have the most expensive urine in the world", and, "Mega-doses of any vitamin is bad or worthless". The second is a paraphase as I don't remember the exact quote. While at the same time, lots of studies directly contradicted him. Studies by crediable organizations. When pushed with these studies he remarked with something like, "Well, they are only effective in non-first world countries as every American receives proper nutrition", which we all know is well documented as factually incorrect.
Lastly, it was reported that mega-doses of vitamins, when used in conjunction with traditional radiation treatment resulted in yet higher cure rates (some single digit percent), faster recovery, and fewer side effects. The studies were halted before they could determine if continued suppliment treatment, post-cure, would result in a lower recurrence rate.
So on and so on...
Long story short, factually speaking, research into cheap cancer treatments using suppliments has been kneecapped by the pharmaceutical industry and razed by the FDA while it was still in a very promising infancy. Its no wonder there are many conspiracy theories bounding about of many hidden cures.
If they were that good, and that rare, they'd be able to charge much more for their services. If you think you're being paid below your worth, but you're unable to get a higher paying job, then you're simply not as good as you think you are.
That's a over simplification. Doctors and lawyers are both licensed which means I can't bring an Indian in at $5.00/hr to represent me or to give me medical care. If I could, their prices would fall over night. Needless to say, I could write a book explaining how you errored in your analysis. Hopefully the above will point out what is obvious enough. Having said that, there are those of us that make a pretty living. But between the bottom feeders and the imports (usually bottom feeders too), we're not making what we should.
Or blame IT workers who think that computer programming is such a rare, special skill that they're more important than plumbers or car mechanics.
Or blame Dr/Lawyer workers who think that their service is such a rare, special skill that they're more important than plumbers or car mechanics.
Like it or not, good IT people are as hard to find as a good Dr or Lawyer. Likewise, a good IT person has often worked long, long hours at crap pay to do jobs that the majority of people in the country can't do. Likewise, most of these people paid for a higher education. Simple market economics demand that their servies are more costly than a plumber's or car mechanic.
Simple fact is, most all *common* plumbing or mechanical jobs are step 1, 2, and 3. Little to no complex thinking is required. Most all trouble shooting can be looked up in a book or diagnosed via a computer. There is a reason why these trades can be taught in 3-6 months. None of that is true for IT, save only for level one (usually frustraiting and worthless) help desk support. And yes, I often do my own plumbing and mechanical work except when I don't have the time to mess with it.
Comments like yours seem to imply that all doctors are the same. If you ever need brain surgery, make sure you go with the guy that has never done it before and is right out of med school. After all, they are all the same. Better yet, save your self some bucks and hire your plumber.
Hmmm. My recent house repainting seems to disagree. I find it hard to believe painters were being paid thousands for a couple of days work some 20-years ago. If it were anywhere near true, the market would be saturated with painters and I would have paid much less for my house's paint job.
Long story short, I paid a fair price to my house painter based on current market economics. I imagine 20 years ago, they were paid a fair price given the economics at the time. At any rate, I'm sure yesterday's and today's prices would not be anywhere near the same.
Hunh. Why would trained millitary personell leave their armies of their respective countries to live/fight/die for the shithole that is Iraq?
Shesh guy. Read a newspaper and watch the news once in a while. What I stated is pretty common knowledge about the quality of many of the soldiers coming into Iraq. You're asking questions like any sane, reasonable person would. That's good! What you're missing is these guys are not sane and not reasonable. They are coming to Iraq to fight The Great Satan and their glorious death will bring them a life time of pleasures and virgins. Not to mention, often their families are financially rewarded and revered by the community at large, for their child's "martyrdom."
Are you millitary, per chance?
I'm not. My oldest son is a Marine. My oldest brother was (Army). My youngest brother is (Army) and did serve in Iraq. My father was (Army). I was CAP (Aux. Air Force) and a youth. Several close friends are/were military (mostly Army). A close friend of a close friend was a Navy Seal and is currently an independant in Iraq. Needless to say, I've been around lots of military people for most of my life.
Even the media doesn't use terms like "combatants"; and I've never heard people calling troops "our guys", even my best friend who was a marine in iraq. From the vauge writing and unsubstansiated 'facts' you present, you sound an awful lot like a plant for the millitary.
Now that's friggen funny. Paranoid much? A "plant for the military". I see. Now please tell me why the military would be planting such posts, which more or less stated commonly known facts, on a geek web site? Seriously, I'd really love to know what your spin on this is.
You're under the impression that these guys are completely untrained. Many of combatants are from Iran, Syria, and other surrounding countries. While some of them are new to the world of combat and simply come because they were recruited to die, many come because they have a long militant history with lots of real world combat experience. In fact, in Iraq, during some of the large sweeps through their cities, the vast majority of combatants were well trained and very highly motivated. These guys used everything from AK47s, sniper rifles, grenades, RPKs, to mortors and RPGs.
There are several things which are generally considered to be the life saver of our guys. First, better weapon, the M16. Second, superior firepower because of the support weapons (203s, javalins, and SAWs), allowing their riflemen to do their job. Third, speed of movement. Lastly, superior logistics. This, all despite the fact that the enemy is much more mobile and can fall back to various weapon caches.
Having spoken to quite a few people in the Israeli army who've used the M4 extensively, I can say that I am less than impressed with the reliability record of this assault rifle.
Contrary to popular myth, the M4 is not a short M16. There are key differences.
There's 2 types of combat on the modern battlefield - the close-quarters 100m max range, and the defensive long range. In close quarters, the M16s accuracy is rather irrelevant, and during more long range engagements the goal isn't to kill your enemy, but rather to suppress their fire until you can bring in heavy weapons large-caliber machineguns, artillery, or aircraft (actually that's often the goal in short-range engagements as well).
So much for arm chair theory. Current weapon use includes both Afganistan and Iraq, which completely disprove pretty much all that you said. In city fighting, you get everything from CQC to max range...AND everything in between. You'll find that for CQC, nades are king and the soldiers are kept well supplied. For everything else, the M16 does its job...including surpression and kills until you can bring squad support weapons to bare. But for the most part...it's the m16 kill...squad weapons are largely used for suppression so your riflemen can make those kills. Basically, riflemen suppress until the squad weapons can take over that job. Once supression is possible, it's the riflemen that generally make the kills of what is still exposed.
Long story short, the M16 is the workhorse and not the other way around.
Besides, my point is that if the M-16 had been superior, people would have selected it over the AKs.
Hate to tell ya, but the M16 is far superior; save only in the nature of wounds inflicted. The reason why people buy AK is because they are dirt cheap. The M16 is fairly expensive. Most countries simply do not have the cash to purchase M16s and keep their army plush with 5.56 ammo. On the other hand, AK's are cheaper than dirt and ammo is cheaper than sea water. Not to mention, you can purchase from any number of enties with conflicting with your national pride or polity if you go AK. On the other hand, M16s often idealogically conflict. I think you'll find that those that can afford a real weapon either go with M16 or develop their replacement for the M16 (still 5.56). After all, the M16 is getting long in the tooth.
Long story short, do not confuse quality with economic and idealogical preference.
Real world use seems to indicate the M16 is better for the grunt on the ground. Look at the videos coming out of Iraq and Afganistan. Listen to the documentaries; there are lots of them. You'll see AK shots landing all around solders, often missing by inches to feet...including from scope based, carifully aimed shots. Meanwhile, the guys with M16's and ACOG are making kills as they return fire with single shots. In closer combat but still not CQC, the kill ratios are still much, much, much higher for the M16. Lastly, in CQC, around tight corners, you'll find grenades have effectively nuked the only serious advantage the AK had. Long story short, the M16 has proven it self to be a better, real world weapon than the AK.
Put your self in a soldier's boot for a minute. Which is more important to you? Hit the threat when you fire, CQC to 400+ yards? Or to kick your rusty weapon and still be able to fire...but not hit anything? The first is what soldiers demand. The second is strictly for bragging rights. At the end of the day, it's the M16 that brings soldiers home and makes for high enemy body counts.
Now then, if you are not part of an organized army and you need your weapon to sit in a cache for months at a time without needing to clean it...suddenly the AK is a better option...but still not a better weapon. For real soldiers in real armies in real combat situations, the M16 is hard to beat. Now then, if you want to talk about modern replacements for the M16, the field is pretty wide.
# the m16 was tested and spec'd for ammunition made with a particular clean-burning powder (manufactured by dupont i think). production ammunition for vietnam did not meet this spec and was, in fact, significantly more dirty.
Leave it to the bean counters to save the day. A specific powder type was given but in order to save money by the "brain trust" (the same guys that could determine if we were winning or losing the war by the ratio of deaths on each side - thus the constant need for body counts), they decided they knew better. As a result, soldiers got different powder which left huge amounts of trash in the barrel and receiver. It was actually these same "brains" that decided a cleaning kit was not needed despite reams of paper which indicated otherwise. Worse, they opted to not chrome the some of the internal parts which meant rust, pitting, and more friction. Put a weapon like that into a high humidity environment (like say Vietnam), and you have a weapon that jams all the time. After all, pitted surfaces make great places to collect crap which builds up over time.
Long story short, anytime you have bean counters running anything other than a calculator, they'll find new and interesting ways to completely screw everything up in the name of saving a penny.
Swap at store, still no joy. Try to return, get hit with restocking fee - take DVD home irate.
Do a charge back. Being charged for a product which fraudulently claims to be compatible with an industry standard (DVD) is fraud. Expecting you to pay fees associated with that fraud is fraud. The credit card issuer will more than likely understand that and issue the chargeback. If the store needs money to cover their restocking fee, they need to contact the manufacturer for producing a defective product. The problem exists between the retail outlet and the manufacturer and not between the retail outlet and the customer.
Best of all, performing a chargeback is a great way for the retail stores to feel the pressure and pass it on to the manufacturer. Surprisingly, merchant associations have fairly heavy clout when they pull in the same direction. Try to make it work for you instead of against you.
Really? I thought that it was only against the law to distribute IP you don't hold the rights to.
In the US, that is where fair use comes into play. Of course, that's why they created the DCMA which effectively makes using your right of fair use illegal. That's why they want every song or movie to be encrypted in some form. In order to decrypt it, you would have to violate the DCMA unless you are using an officially supported player.
I would be concerned about proper identification. I know systems which are currently deployed do not properly identify threats. For example, a mobile home which has a sat. dish is classified as a SAM site and someone raking their front yard is classified as a shoulder fired AA threat.
Hopefully the systems these guys are talking about do a much better job of classifying threats.