Hmmmm? Firstly isn't the Ballistic Eagle a twin jet bike? I'm sure there are probably others. Secondly (and more importantly) where is the evidence that this thing has done 200mph? The seller doesn't even present any evidence that the thing runs at all.
@sage firstly if you can't spot the inherent humour in that post then it's true what they say about irony. Secondly if you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_format_by_country you'll see that most of the world follows the British date format and very few use the American date format.
@Blah the law is for Wales which, like the rest of the UK, has the national health service. A state health service and the donation register applies to the NHS - not private medicine. As such your comments about people who are rich enough to afford transplants are irrelevant. Nobody is talking about this law in the US AFAIA so there's little point in discussing it as if they were.
And as for the question "Why do I need to pay to opt out?" well you don't. You pay your contributions to the NHS through your taxes as normal you don't pay more if you opt out of organ donation.
"Why is it OK for me to be auto opt-in on organ donation, but I can't get universal health coverage to keep said organs healthy?" In the UK there is universal health coverage, funded through taxes so the poor pay less than the rich. But of course US citizens apparently don't want that sort of system.
"How did Steve Jobs get a transplant at his age and with his additional health problems?" Well if he lived in the UK he'd have been just as likely to get it as anybody else.
"So why is it OK for rich folks to use the normal folks as organ donators, while the normal folk can't depend on the rich to get universal healthcare in place?" I think you know the answer to that. The US is a state where most people didn't want a system that would present exactly what you're talking about.
@harleycowboy it's a nice idea, but it's a synthesized whisky flavoured drink rather than whisky with the alcohol removed. Which is why it will probabl taste nothing like whisky.
I've been trying to get my hands on some to give it a try, but so far no luck. I've never tasted alcohol free "beer" that tastes anything like beer, so I don't hold out much hope. Although I am willing to be surprised.
@Shannon it may be a common trick in a high winged prop trainer, but it's not so common in jet airliners. It's pretty easy to work out the stall speed of something like a 172, not so easy in a jet airliner. In particular you don't have a nice simple documented stall speed for an A330 or any other airliner, it depends on all sorts of things like the loading to a much greater extent than a light aircraft. And bear in mind that a jet engine doesn't work like a prop engine. It takes a lot more pilot skill to run a jet that slowly with the nose high at such a low speed than to run a light prop plane close to it's stall speed.
And obviously the consequences of failure are somewhat more expensive if you stall an A330 at low altitude than if you do the same with a 172.
Yes the pilot is flying as close to a stall as he can get. A risky trick to pull, but it's an airshow and doing risky stunts is bread and butter to airshow pilots. If they didn't do this sort of thing they wouldn't get the paying audience.
Furthermore the text is somewhat misleading. The apparent hover does not take place during takeoff, but during a flypast.
1) Interestingly being infected with chickenpox is not nearly as effective in guaranteeing immunity as the vaccine. In the UK at least some 13% of patients presenting with chickenpox report that they have had the disease before.
2) The few risks which are associated with the vaccine are much smaller than the risks from the disease itself. Futhermore somebody who has been vaccinated does not put others at risk. Newborn infants, pregnant women and those with a weakened immune system are at greater risk of complications from the disease than other groups. If you deliberately infect your child you are potentially putting those people at risk. Remember chickenpox is infectious for approximately two days before symptoms appear so even if your child does not show any symptoms they may be infectious. Deliberately infecting your child is selfish because they may come into contact with other children before symptoms are obvious and your child may infect the children of a family who do not share you views on the disease. Worse still your child may infect a child who comes into contact with somebody in one of the high risk groups. What if your child infects a child who has a newborn infant sibling or pregnant mother?
Taking points 1 & 2 into consideration, if you want your child to be immune to chickenpox it is much better to have them vaccinated than to deliberately infect them with the disease. Even if vaccination is not available free where you live it is usually available and not expensive.
The efficacy of pox parties is an old wives' tale. Do you trust other old wives' tales?
@Lemur Lady I also live in the UK and the advice if the NHS is very much against trying to infect your children. So I don't know upon what evidence you base your claim that the "general medical advice" is to contract the disease as a child.
Varicella can have quite serious complications in children, but these complications are very rare and as such the risk is not considered to be high enough to warrant a widespread programme of vaccination. Adults do have a higher risk of developing complications, but since almost 90% of adults are considered immune it is also considered that the risk is too low to warrant a programme of vaccination.
One of the main reasons that deliberate infection is not recommended is that the disease needs to be controlled in order to protect act risk groups. Since these groups include pregnant women and newborn babies you can hopefully see that deliberately spreading the disease is not to be recommended.
In the UK medical advice is still that you keep children away from school, nursery or other children generally until they are no longer infected. This clearly argues against your idea that doctors recommend deliberate infection. Why would they recommend deliberate infection AND recommend that you keep infectious children away from other children?
@Stephanie it's funny, but I wouldn't call that art as such. To my mind art requires quite a high degree of interpretation on the part of its creator. Photorealistic images are draftmanship. Incredibly skilled but draftsmanship all the same.
I had a friend who used to make the most remarkable carvings of animals. They were incredibly detailed and looked exactly like real animals rendered in wood. He used to be irritated by people who called him an artist. He was adamant that he was a craftsman. Art, he would say, is easy because you don't have to get it "right". He was an old curmudgeon, but there you go.
One of the things I love about blogs like Neatorama is that I am always learning. Not necessarilly big important lessons, but learning nonetheless.
Until I saw this particular post I had never heard of the game Duck, Duck, Goose or any of it's variants. Now I've read this I've looked it up elsewhere and now I can't believe I've never heard of it before.
By the way it's never a good idea to post criticizing someone's grammar, unless you check your own grammar first. The word note in your post should have a capital N, and a full stop should follow the word too. I suspect there is a name for the particular law: Any message criticizing grammar will contain at least one grammatical error of its own.
Feel free to point out any grammatical errors in my post.
Hedgehogs can swim, yes. But they don't do it for fun they do it out of necessity. You'll notice that all those hogs seem to be trying to get out of the basin and when one manages to escape their "kind" keeper puts them back in. That particular animal clearly did not want to be in the water or it would not have climbed out.
I keep animals and I bathe them regularly, but I do not force any of them to swim if they don't want to. Except the fish.
And as for the question "Why do I need to pay to opt out?" well you don't. You pay your contributions to the NHS through your taxes as normal you don't pay more if you opt out of organ donation.
"Why is it OK for me to be auto opt-in on organ donation, but I can't get universal health coverage to keep said organs healthy?" In the UK there is universal health coverage, funded through taxes so the poor pay less than the rich. But of course US citizens apparently don't want that sort of system.
"How did Steve Jobs get a transplant at his age and with his additional health problems?" Well if he lived in the UK he'd have been just as likely to get it as anybody else.
"So why is it OK for rich folks to use the normal folks as organ donators, while the normal folk can't depend on the rich to get universal healthcare in place?" I think you know the answer to that. The US is a state where most people didn't want a system that would present exactly what you're talking about.
I've been trying to get my hands on some to give it a try, but so far no luck. I've never tasted alcohol free "beer" that tastes anything like beer, so I don't hold out much hope. Although I am willing to be surprised.
And obviously the consequences of failure are somewhat more expensive if you stall an A330 at low altitude than if you do the same with a 172.
Furthermore the text is somewhat misleading. The apparent hover does not take place during takeoff, but during a flypast.
2) The few risks which are associated with the vaccine are much smaller than the risks from the disease itself. Futhermore somebody who has been vaccinated does not put others at risk. Newborn infants, pregnant women and those with a weakened immune system are at greater risk of complications from the disease than other groups. If you deliberately infect your child you are potentially putting those people at risk. Remember chickenpox is infectious for approximately two days before symptoms appear so even if your child does not show any symptoms they may be infectious. Deliberately infecting your child is selfish because they may come into contact with other children before symptoms are obvious and your child may infect the children of a family who do not share you views on the disease. Worse still your child may infect a child who comes into contact with somebody in one of the high risk groups. What if your child infects a child who has a newborn infant sibling or pregnant mother?
Taking points 1 & 2 into consideration, if you want your child to be immune to chickenpox it is much better to have them vaccinated than to deliberately infect them with the disease. Even if vaccination is not available free where you live it is usually available and not expensive.
The efficacy of pox parties is an old wives' tale. Do you trust other old wives' tales?
Varicella can have quite serious complications in children, but these complications are very rare and as such the risk is not considered to be high enough to warrant a widespread programme of vaccination. Adults do have a higher risk of developing complications, but since almost 90% of adults are considered immune it is also considered that the risk is too low to warrant a programme of vaccination.
One of the main reasons that deliberate infection is not recommended is that the disease needs to be controlled in order to protect act risk groups. Since these groups include pregnant women and newborn babies you can hopefully see that deliberately spreading the disease is not to be recommended.
In the UK medical advice is still that you keep children away from school, nursery or other children generally until they are no longer infected. This clearly argues against your idea that doctors recommend deliberate infection. Why would they recommend deliberate infection AND recommend that you keep infectious children away from other children?
I had a friend who used to make the most remarkable carvings of animals. They were incredibly detailed and looked exactly like real animals rendered in wood. He used to be irritated by people who called him an artist. He was adamant that he was a craftsman. Art, he would say, is easy because you don't have to get it "right". He was an old curmudgeon, but there you go.
Until I saw this particular post I had never heard of the game Duck, Duck, Goose or any of it's variants. Now I've read this I've looked it up elsewhere and now I can't believe I've never heard of it before.
By the way it's never a good idea to post criticizing someone's grammar, unless you check your own grammar first. The word note in your post should have a capital N, and a full stop should follow the word too. I suspect there is a name for the particular law: Any message criticizing grammar will contain at least one grammatical error of its own.
Feel free to point out any grammatical errors in my post.
I keep animals and I bathe them regularly, but I do not force any of them to swim if they don't want to. Except the fish.