On 16/02/2016 18:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:47:44 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:12:19 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 15:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:13:30 -0000, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/15/2016 01:06 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Now that's surprising, I didn't know there were many Germans over
there. Didn't you guys fight the Germans in WWII?

Yeah, and WWI too. If we'd let the Kaiser knock some humility into
you
you couldn't have screwed up the mid-East, the Balkans, and triggered
WWII by that slimy deal at Versailles in cahoots with the French.

There was dissent about the US entry into WWI but Woodrow 'He kept us
out of war' Wilson was fast on his feet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenc...nd_of_the_case




If the Germans and the Irish had their way, you'd be speaking German
now. Like your royal family, come to think of it. Windsor is so much
easier to say than Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

I like the Germans, they are way more sensible than most. Plus they
would have cleared up the mess.

Merkel has created a mess with her immigration policies

Modern Germans are too PC.

and VW have completely cocked up, big time.

No, the environmentalists cocked up big time. I will from now on ONLY
buy a VW, they had the guts to cheat the stupid greenie laws.

No, they had the stupidity to cheat. Pretty stupid in my opinion.

You drive 98mph, you told me so. You are a cheat.

If I get caught, then it only affects me. VW affected millions and is
costing them many millions of pounds and ruined their good reputation.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 16/02/2016 18:06, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:59:35 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:23:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:07, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 9:16 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 05:58 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/15/2016 9:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/15/2016 12:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

The whole world shares the internet. I watch a lot more Swedish and
Danish movies than British. If I want to watch Wallander, I'll
go to
the
source.

We watch Wallander. Never heard of anyone else watching it, much
less
even knowing about it.

I like Mankell's books and the series is better than most US crime
dramas. That's the Swedish one with Krister Henriksson. I've never
seen
the BBC version.

I haven't read the books, I'll have to check them out.

Do you get one of our very popular programs called QI?
Up till last week Stephen Fry hosted it.

What happened last week? Don't tell me, he's been jailed along with
Harris....

He's had enough of presenting the program.

Is someone else taking over, because I can't see anyone else filling his
shoes.

I think it's Sandy Torsvig (spelling ?).

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 2/16/2016 12:02 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:37:30 -0000, Muggles
wrote:

On 2/16/2016 11:33 AM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:28:55 -0000, Muggles
wrote:


Variety is the spice of life, after all. Perspective is everything.

I never took Philosophy.


Me neither.

You sounded philosophical.


I guess I do sound that way, sometimes.

--
Maggie

On 2/16/2016 11:23 AM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 17:07, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 9:16 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 05:58 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/15/2016 9:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/15/2016 12:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

The whole world shares the internet. I watch a lot more Swedish and
Danish movies than British. If I want to watch Wallander, I'll go to
the
source.

We watch Wallander. Never heard of anyone else watching it, much less
even knowing about it.



I like Mankell's books and the series is better than most US crime
dramas. That's the Swedish one with Krister Henriksson. I've never seen
the BBC version.

I haven't read the books, I'll have to check them out.


Do you get one of our very popular programs called QI?
Up till last week Stephen Fry hosted it.

Doesn't sound familiar so I don't think so.

On 2/16/2016 8:21 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 06:20 AM, Don Y wrote:
I used to like to drive -- I think I've done the coast-to-coast three
or four times. I can recall first encountering Kansas:
"OK, this is .... different."
Then, several hours later:
"OK, enough already!"

The US would be a much nicer place to drive across with a little origami
folding so the Rockies were aligned with the Mississippi. I once mislaid
Oklahoma. Or I should say I hallucinated that Arkansas directly led to Texas
like it does at Texarkana rather than a dreary 180 miles or so of Oklahoma
along I40. The Nth time you've driven between LA and Dalton GA it gets a little
old.

Growing up in New England, the sizes of "those big square states" was
simply incomprehensible. E.g., NYC to Boston in 4 hours (3 states)...
4.5 if you want to swing by RI!

Likewise, I recall first flight over great lakes. Pilot announced
our location ("And, on the starboard side of the aircraft...")
and I looked out, expecting to see "them" laid out like on a map!

"WTF??! Where's the LAND???!"

Having been through that exercise, flying over the canyon many years
later was something I was prepared for!

On 2/16/2016 11:17 AM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 16:51, Muggles wrote:
On 2/16/2016 1:33 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:06:04 -0700, rbowman wrote:
We may be divided, but we're still connected with
ties we'll never be able to break.

More's the pity.

Why do you say that?

I have no reason to like Britain. I suppose the people
are okay but their leaders did their best to screw up
the world and sucked in fools like Wilson and
Roosevelt.

Ok. I understand... Not much we can do about the past. I like people,
or at least try to find a reason if I can. Governments .... not so
much.

I am not good at driving on the wrong side of the road, LOL!

I don't think I would be, either. lol

I've driven in the USA and it didn't take long to get used to
driving on the right.

I found adjusting to driving on the left pretty easy.
I had a bigger problem remembering which side of the car to get in g

On 2/16/2016 7:47 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 12:27 AM, Don Y wrote:
Yes, but I was referring to "Americans" (having different ancestries,
yet essentially "American").

E.g., most of the folks that I grew up with were 2nd generation -- having
first generation AMERICAN parents (GRANDparents who were immigrants)

Now that you mention it, I did work with one man who went out of his way to
proclaim he was northern Italian, nothing like those other Italians. Another
friend maintained he was Prussian rather than Polish although given the history
of that area it's hard to make a distinction.

And all were "native born Americans"? (see my point?)

First time I traveled abroad, customs official (Manchester) queried me
on my last name: "What nationality is that?" I looked at her
dumbfounded: "American".

In both of those cases I don't think it had much to do with the old country or
ethnic pride. When I was growing up Italians and Poles were the new kids on the
block and nobody wanted to be one. Even pizza was suspect; mostly it was found
in dingy dives run by gangsters, or so the feeling went.

And so it goes with every wave of immigration.

I knew a couple (he sicilian, she abruzzese) who fought constantly about
their respective ancestral regions. You'd never guess both were born
in the USA. And, *married* to each other (some 50+ years).

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:19:16 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 18:04, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:47:44 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:26, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:12:19 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 15:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:13:30 -0000, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/15/2016 01:06 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Now that's surprising, I didn't know there were many Germans over
there. Didn't you guys fight the Germans in WWII?

Yeah, and WWI too. If we'd let the Kaiser knock some humility into
you
you couldn't have screwed up the mid-East, the Balkans, and triggered
WWII by that slimy deal at Versailles in cahoots with the French.

There was dissent about the US entry into WWI but Woodrow 'He kept us
out of war' Wilson was fast on his feet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenc...nd_of_the_case




If the Germans and the Irish had their way, you'd be speaking German
now. Like your royal family, come to think of it. Windsor is so much
easier to say than Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

I like the Germans, they are way more sensible than most. Plus they
would have cleared up the mess.

Merkel has created a mess with her immigration policies

Modern Germans are too PC.

and VW have completely cocked up, big time.

No, the environmentalists cocked up big time. I will from now on ONLY
buy a VW, they had the guts to cheat the stupid greenie laws.

No, they had the stupidity to cheat. Pretty stupid in my opinion.

You drive 98mph, you told me so. You are a cheat.

If I get caught, then it only affects me. VW affected millions and is
costing them many millions of pounds and ruined their good reputation.

They affected only themselves, WTF are you talking about?

--
Mental Health Outsourcing -- I was depressed last night so I called Lifeline. I got a call centre in Pakistan. I told them I was suicidal. They got all excited and asked if I could drive a truck.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:20:29 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 18:06, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:59:35 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:23:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:07, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 9:16 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 05:58 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/15/2016 9:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/15/2016 12:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

The whole world shares the internet. I watch a lot more Swedish and
Danish movies than British. If I want to watch Wallander, I'll
go to
the
source.

We watch Wallander. Never heard of anyone else watching it, much
less
even knowing about it.

I like Mankell's books and the series is better than most US crime
dramas. That's the Swedish one with Krister Henriksson. I've never
seen
the BBC version.

I haven't read the books, I'll have to check them out.

Do you get one of our very popular programs called QI?
Up till last week Stephen Fry hosted it.

What happened last week? Don't tell me, he's been jailed along with
Harris....

He's had enough of presenting the program.

Is someone else taking over, because I can't see anyone else filling his
shoes.

I think it's Sandy Torsvig (spelling ?).

Oh FFS, she's ****.

--
I had amnesia once -- or twice.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 05:00:33 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:01:45 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:54:36 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:40:11 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:34:24 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:29:24 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:57:13 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:30:08 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:25:09 -0000, trader_4 wrote:

On Friday, February 12, 2016 at 12:14:18 PM UTC-5, philo wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Breeding more of them in your area too?

Sorry to bother you all. Had to vent somewhere.

My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.

Those stupid things should be banned, they're a distraction. Lights are to inform you of.... someone making a turn, an ambulance, etc, etc. If everybody has lights, you no longer notice things you should, you don't see unlit things like pedestrians, etc. In countries like Austria where they did proper surveys, they found that they INCREASE accidents by 12%.
Mr Parrott. you are crazy.
Daylighting makes ALL vehicles more visible.. If other cars on the
road are a distraction to you, you should quit driving and stay aff
the road.

Says the person who cannot see an object which doesn't have bulbs all over it.

I'm a photographer, I know all about contrast and apertures, so shut up until you have a clue please.
You may be a photographer, mabee even a good one - but I have my
doubts about your driving.

We're discussing the ability to see objects.
When we are driving in real world conditions - not looking through
the viefinder of a high end professional camera.

You say "shut up untill you have a clue" then tell me to "grow up"
when I tell you the BS you smell is coming from your own posts.

3 words.

Pot

Kettle

Black

You do realise your eye has an iris which works like the aperture in a camera?
Sure do

Clearly not. The point is if a bright light is shone into your eye, everything else becomes darker. The amount of light required to attract your attention is an order of magnitude less than the amount required to illuminate what's in front of you. That's why dipped beam brightness of lights should only be used in the dark.

but when you are taking a picture you are not travelling at
100kph through mixed sunlight and shadow, taking a picture of a
subject doing the same coming towards you that you are not expecting
to be in the picture, generally speaking.

You don't expect cars to be coming the other way?!

And not seeing something in
the picture doesn't mean you will end up dead and demolished because
you didn't see it.

Pulling out to pass on 2 lane blacktop tends to have serious
consequenses when that unseen object ends up in your "viewfinder" just
after you "click the shutter"

You don't pull out unless you can see there is clear road.

--
I failed my audition as Romeo through a misunderstanding over a stage direction. In my script it clearly said, "Enter Juliette from the rear."

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:52:28 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:34 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
I don't do laws. I do what I think is right. Some things are legal,
like shooting deer, but I don't do that. Some things are illegal like
[CENSORED] but I do that copiously.

You would go far in the states.

Huh?

I imagine what you think right closely
corresponds to the laws unless you're very familiar with the living
arrangements at HMP Perth.

No, I disagree with probably 50% of laws.

--
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention in human history--with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."

On 16/02/2016 18:25, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 11:23 AM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 17:07, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 9:16 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 05:58 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/15/2016 9:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/15/2016 12:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

The whole world shares the internet. I watch a lot more Swedish and
Danish movies than British. If I want to watch Wallander, I'll go to
the
source.

We watch Wallander. Never heard of anyone else watching it, much less
even knowing about it.



I like Mankell's books and the series is better than most US crime
dramas. That's the Swedish one with Krister Henriksson. I've never seen
the BBC version.

I haven't read the books, I'll have to check them out.


Do you get one of our very popular programs called QI?
Up till last week Stephen Fry hosted it.

Doesn't sound familiar so I don't think so.

Ok.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:09:22 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/14/2016 6:40 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Not that simple. What is a law in Connecticut has no bearing on
situations in Arizona. All states have laws requiring auto
registration, driver's license. Tax laws differ since the budgets
differ considerably.

Unless there is some physical difference, like one has a lack of water
so you have laws about washing your car, then there is no need for
differing laws.

You lack of knowledge of the US is showing. Fifty states over many
thousand miles there are many physical differences. Our government was
set up to give the states some independence also.

But the differing laws are mainly nothing to do with physical surroundings.

Given your comment, the laws in your country should be the same as the
laws in France and Poland.

But we're seperate countries. The USA is one country with different
laws in different parts of it. A right royal ****up.

You are all part of the EU and the same continent.

But the EU doesn't set the laws to such an extent as your congress does.

A very similar
origin as the states came about at different times. It would only be a
Royal ****up if we had a Queen's ass to kiss like GB does.

The Queen is a figurehead who does **** all, she can be ignored.

--
Mary had a little lamb,
unfortunately it's dead.
So, now it goes to school with her
Between two bits of bread.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:08:22 -0000, Sam E wrote:

On 02/13/2016 02:24 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

The thing is, we shouldn't be doing 40 hours of work. Machines are
doing way more than they used to, we should be working a fraction as
much as we used to. What went wrong?
I spend most of my work time fixing the machines - - - -

But imagine those machines didn't exist and you had to do the work the
machines currently do. That would take longer.


That reminds me of something I heard once:

A company has 2 employees to produce an employee newsletter. They get a
machine that allows the newsletter to be produced in half the time. What
do they do:

A) Allow both employees to go home in the middle of the day, and
continue to pay them the same (since they're getting the same amount of
work done).

B) Fire one or the employees.

C) Require a more complex newsletter, so it still takes them both all
day to do it.

B (or A with half pay), but presumably C is what happens.

--
*Squawk!* Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine! [Parroty error]

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 20:24:06 -0000, Don Y wrote:

On 2/14/2016 1:08 PM, Sam E wrote:
On 02/13/2016 02:24 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

[snip]

The thing is, we shouldn't be doing 40 hours of work. Machines are
doing way more than they used to, we should be working a fraction as
much as we used to. What went wrong?
I spend most of my work time fixing the machines - - - -

But imagine those machines didn't exist and you had to do the work the
machines currently do. That would take longer.


That reminds me of something I heard once:

A company has 2 employees to produce an employee newsletter. They get a machine
that allows the newsletter to be produced in half the time. What do they do:

A) Allow both employees to go home in the middle of the day, and continue to
pay them the same (since they're getting the same amount of work done).

B) Fire one or the employees.

C) Require a more complex newsletter, so it still takes them both all day to do
it.

D) Retrain one of them to REPAIR the machine when it breaks.

Very funny. Machines usually output more productivity than they take away with repairs.

--
*Squawk!* Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine! [Parroty error]

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:41:35 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:40:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:08:02 -0000, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/14/2016 5:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Very absurd. All states should have the same laws.

No way, no day. For example, almost all of my firearms would be illegal
in New York state because of regulations pushed through by Cuomo. If the
people of NY want to put up with his liberal, gun-grabbing crap, that is
their prerogative. It will not fly in Montana.

No offense, but you could stick Great Britain out in the eastern part of
Montana where not too much lives except prairie dogs and rattlesnakes.
This is a vast country and as you might gather from US politics, the
different regions have as much use for the others as some Scots have for
England.

Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Not that simple. What is a law in Connecticut has no bearing on
situations in Arizona. All states have laws requiring auto
registration, driver's license. Tax laws differ since the budgets
differ considerably.

Unless there is some physical difference, like one has a lack of water so you have laws about washing your car, then there is no need for differing laws.

Given your comment, the laws in your country should be the same as the
laws in France and Poland.

But we're seperate countries. The USA is one country with different laws in different parts of it. A right royal ****up.

Like the UK - English, Welsh, Irish,, Ulstermen, and Scotsmen - and
fully half of them can't stand the other half.

Our laws don't differ that much.

--
The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:42:51 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:41:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:38:29 -0000, Don Y wrote:

On 2/14/2016 4:34 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I conclude
the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Positive law is not 'correct'; it is merely law.

And, by extension, all countries should have the same set of laws!

Extrapolating from that, all countries should speak the same language, have
the same currency, etc.

Right?

Yes, and that language is English. And it's already happening courtesy of the internet.
So all you Scorsmen are going to be Englishmen? That'll go over real
good in Aberdeen.

Most Scots speak English, not Gaelic.

--
The easiest way to find something lost around the house is to buy a replacement.

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:47:40 -0000, Don Y wrote:

On 2/14/2016 4:39 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:34:03 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:32 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:


Take two states. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. The
other one should follow suit.

Take two countries. Compare their laws. One of them must be correct. I
conclude the UK should adopt the Ugandan legal system.

Uganda is a bit more backward than us. They should take ours.

Maybe we should use population as an indication? Would you like
instructions on the how/when/why of *bowing*?

Why should we do that?

--
The biggest difference between sex for money and sex for love is that sex for money usually costs a LOT less.

On 16/02/2016 18:26, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 11:17 AM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 16:51, Muggles wrote:
On 2/16/2016 1:33 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:06:04 -0700, rbowman
wrote:
We may be divided, but we're still connected with
ties we'll never be able to break.

More's the pity.

Why do you say that?

I have no reason to like Britain. I suppose the people
are okay but their leaders did their best to screw up
the world and sucked in fools like Wilson and
Roosevelt.

Ok. I understand... Not much we can do about the past. I like
people,
or at least try to find a reason if I can. Governments .... not so
much.

I am not good at driving on the wrong side of the road, LOL!

I don't think I would be, either. lol

I've driven in the USA and it didn't take long to get used to
driving on the right.

I found adjusting to driving on the left pretty easy.
I had a bigger problem remembering which side of the car to get in g

Lol, I can understand that. A few times a walked round to the wrong side
in the States.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:36:22 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:04:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 03:29:09 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:47:05 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:



I've never had a toothache, and until this past year, I'd never had
any other dental emergency, but if something happens on Friday
evening, I'm not going to wait until Monday.

That's what 24 hour dentists are for.

How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.

Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.

Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain for at least a few hours.

Even if it does get rid of the pain but it doesn't get rid of the
problem. Infections should not be allowed to stay in the body. AIUI
there are recent studies that correlate dental problems (meaning
infections) with heart diseases and death. If the pain is only
physical, and not accompanied by infection, maybe it's okay to wait,
but I don't think I can judge.

Yes, but a few days isn't long for a bad tooth.

If the sepsis gets into the bload you could be dead in 12 hours.

What a load of bull****. Toothache usually goes untreated for weeks until someone can be bothered enduring a dentist.

If an antibiotic will stop the infection when a day or two won't, that
might be all that's necessry, but if there's a physical problem in the
teeth that is promoting the infection, that should be taken care of by
the the dentist.

Never used an antibiotic for teeth. I use painkillers until get to the dentist, who drills away the bad bit and puts in a filling.

And in my case it was a sharp edge cutting into my lip and no pain
killer was going to make it stop hurting unless it made me
unconscious.

Then be more careful with your mouth! Surely you're capable of not rubbing a certain part on another certain part?

Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW.

It's hardly suffering. Toothache doesn't appear just like that, it's gradual. It won't get really bad over a weekend.

You want to bet on that???

I have plenty of experience of it.

--
Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 09:13:14 -0000, Jack Hammer wrote:

On 02/14/2016 08:36 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 23:04:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 03:29:09 -0000, Micky wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 23:47:05 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

I've never had a toothache, and until this past year, I'd never had
any other dental emergency, but if something happens on Friday
evening, I'm not going to wait until Monday.

That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.
Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.
Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain for at least a few hours.

Even if it does get rid of the pain but it doesn't get rid of the
problem. Infections should not be allowed to stay in the body. AIUI
there are recent studies that correlate dental problems (meaning
infections) with heart diseases and death. If the pain is only
physical, and not accompanied by infection, maybe it's okay to wait,
but I don't think I can judge.
Yes, but a few days isn't long for a bad tooth.
If the sepsis gets into the bload you could be dead in 12 hours.
If an antibiotic will stop the infection when a day or two won't, that
might be all that's necessry, but if there's a physical problem in the
teeth that is promoting the infection, that should be taken care of by
the the dentist.
Never used an antibiotic for teeth. I use painkillers until get to the dentist, who drills away the bad bit and puts in a filling.

And in my case it was a sharp edge cutting into my lip and no pain
killer was going to make it stop hurting unless it made me
unconscious.
Then be more careful with your mouth! Surely you're capable of not rubbing a certain part on another certain part?

Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW.
It's hardly suffering. Toothache doesn't appear just like that, it's gradual. It won't get really bad over a weekend.

You want to bet on that???
When I lived in NY, on a Sunday afternoon, I went with my girlfriend
to the apt. of a friend of hers, and his girlfriend had had a
toothache since Friday or Saturday, getting worse and worse. She
couldn't eat, could barely talk. I said, Why don't you go to the
dentist! They said, Monday. I said, Why don't you go now? It's
Sunday. I said, That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
I've put off visiting a dentist for toothache for 2 weeks, at which point I was getting fed up of taking so many painkillers. Two days is not a problem.

So NYC has over 2 million people, not counting the other boros (and
why count them?)
What is a boro?
Usually spelled borough. NYC has five of them.
NYC is better than everyone else? Got a big ego?

and in the yellow pages were about 20 24-hour
dentists. One of us called them one by one and learned that the first
seven didnt' do that anymore. Because they only do that until they
get enough patients to keep busy. No one wants to be bothered on
weekends or the middle of the night. But the 8th guy said come on
over. It took less than 30 minutes for her and her boyfriend to get
there, less than 30 minutes for the dentist to fix her. and she was
back in less than 90 minutes. And he didnt' charge any more than her
regular dentist would have charged, or maybe 10% more.

And I assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw that he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.
People should employ receptionists and not take calls themselves.
He does have a receptionist during office hours.
My vet has a 24/7 number, a pet could be in danger of dying. You don't die of toothache.
Most dentists have emergency numbers. This one did too. It's just
that HE was the only dentist reachable at the emergency number and he
wasnt' always reachable.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.
......
The switch is on all the time, and the lights go on when the engine
goes on. The photocell on the dash determines which lights go on. But
maybe if I turn the switch off and back on again, the lights really
will go on even if the engine's not running. I'll try it. I had
this all settled two or three years ago, but then I forgot how it
works. This plan doens't ring a bell, but maybe.
Are you saying your car won't allow headlights if the engine is off, or it won't allow them if it's light?
Only that I don't know how to do it.
If it's when the engine is off, go in the fusebox and change the incoming wore to the headlight fuse from IGN to BATT.
Change the wire to the fuse? Do you know how much effort that is?
Virtually none. Takes about as long as changing a wheel.

Of if you mean run a wire from the hot end of one fuse to the cold end of
the other fuse, that's a lot of effort too.
No, just change the hot end of the fuse to the other input. There's 2 inputs to a fusebox, one is only on with the ignition, the other comes straight from the battery. There will be unused fuse containers, use one of those if it's easier.

I'm looking for a way
to turn the lights on when the engine is off, just like all cars
worked until 1995. Not a whole project.
AFAIK all Vauxhalls do that anyway. Bloody annoying as you can more easily run the battery flat. Plus when I park the car for two minutes and don't turn the lights off, I've got a parked car dazzling people unnecessarily. I already removed the bleeping thing in anger that warns me I dared to open the door and left the lights on.

If it's when it's daylight, I don't know why you need that,
To see how well the lights are working, to see if changing a bulb
really fixed it, etc.
Just turn on the ignition?
If you really think that is the right answer, why did you just spend
several lines explaining your much too difficult way to turn the
lights on without the engine.
Because I thought you wanted to do it regularly.

but just cover the light sensor up, then you can use them as if it weren't automatic.
There are two sensors and I've forgotten which is which. I suspect
if your method, turning the switch off and on, works, it will work day
and night.
If I ever got a car that decided itself when it was dark, I'd disable it immediately, or at least adjust it to when I think it's dark.
I like it. And while I've thought about making the intermittent
wiper wipe less often, I've been fully satisfied with the light
sensor.
Is it anything like half the drivers who turn lights on when it's not even dark enough for me to be able to tell it's got darker? A camera could, but not my eyes.
If it did something wrong, I'd probably notice. I had a list of 30
things I didn't like about this 2000 Solara convertible, 15 because it
was a convertible and 15 because it was a Toyota. Previous cars have
never had more than 2 or 3 things wrong. So I'm not easy to please
but the photocell is fine afaict.
I've never moaned about more than 2 things with one car.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.
LOL
My "random" sig generator seems to pay a lot of attention to the discussion in hand
I've never had a toothache, and until this past year, I'd never had
any other dental emergency, but if something happens on Friday
evening, I'm not going to wait until Monday.

That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
How can anything dental be that much of an emergency? It's just sore, take a paracetamol.
Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.
Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain for at least a few hours.

Even if it does get rid of the pain but it doesn't get rid of the
problem. Infections should not be allowed to stay in the body. AIUI
there are recent studies that correlate dental problems (meaning
infections) with heart diseases and death. If the pain is only
physical, and not accompanied by infection, maybe it's okay to wait,
but I don't think I can judge.
Yes, but a few days isn't long for a bad tooth.
If the sepsis gets into the bload you could be dead in 12 hours.
If an antibiotic will stop the infection when a day or two won't, that
might be all that's necessry, but if there's a physical problem in the
teeth that is promoting the infection, that should be taken care of by
the the dentist.
Never used an antibiotic for teeth. I use painkillers until get to the dentist, who drills away the bad bit and puts in a filling.

And in my case it was a sharp edge cutting into my lip and no pain
killer was going to make it stop hurting unless it made me
unconscious.
Then be more careful with your mouth! Surely you're capable of not rubbing a certain part on another certain part?

Anyhow THAT'S WHAT 24 HOUR DENTISTS ARE FOR. Maybe in small cities,
including Baltimore where I live, you can't find someone between 10PM
and 8AM but WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO SUFFER WHEN THERE ARE PEOPLE YOU
CAN PAY TO END YOUR SUFFERING, I DON'T KNOW.
It's hardly suffering. Toothache doesn't appear just like that, it's gradual. It won't get really bad over a weekend.
You want to bet on that???
When I lived in NY, on a Sunday afternoon, I went with my girlfriend
to the apt. of a friend of hers, and his girlfriend had had a
toothache since Friday or Saturday, getting worse and worse. She
couldn't eat, could barely talk. I said, Why don't you go to the
dentist! They said, Monday. I said, Why don't you go now? It's
Sunday. I said, That's what 24 hour dentists are for.
I've put off visiting a dentist for toothache for 2 weeks, at which point I was getting fed up of taking so many painkillers. Two days is not a problem.

So NYC has over 2 million people, not counting the other boros (and
why count them?)
What is a boro?
Usually spelled borough. NYC has five of them.
NYC is better than everyone else? Got a big ego?

and in the yellow pages were about 20 24-hour
dentists. One of us called them one by one and learned that the first
seven didnt' do that anymore. Because they only do that until they
get enough patients to keep busy. No one wants to be bothered on
weekends or the middle of the night. But the 8th guy said come on
over. It took less than 30 minutes for her and her boyfriend to get
there, less than 30 minutes for the dentist to fix her. and she was
back in less than 90 minutes. And he didnt' charge any more than her
regular dentist would have charged, or maybe 10% more.

And I assumed he did. I assumed that any decent dentist has that*** and
later I saw that he had an emergency number on his webpage. But the
number was, I guess, his number, not some service that would find the
dentist on call.

**For example my brother is a radiologist, and even though it was
known when he started that he would take vacations, iiuc when he went
out of town, it was his responsibility to arrange with another
radiologist to work for him. Fortunately there was one who didn't
work full time because she had a young child, and she would work two
weeks for him or two days, as she did sometimes for other radiologists
in town. But not 50 weeks a year.
People should employ receptionists and not take calls themselves.
He does have a receptionist during office hours.
My vet has a 24/7 number, a pet could be in danger of dying. You don't die of toothache.
Most dentists have emergency numbers. This one did too. It's just
that HE was the only dentist reachable at the emergency number and he
wasnt' always reachable.

***which implies he's not a decent dentist, and he's not.
......
The switch is on all the time, and the lights go on when the engine
goes on. The photocell on the dash determines which lights go on. But
maybe if I turn the switch off and back on again, the lights really
will go on even if the engine's not running. I'll try it. I had
this all settled two or three years ago, but then I forgot how it
works. This plan doens't ring a bell, but maybe.
Are you saying your car won't allow headlights if the engine is off, or it won't allow them if it's light?
Only that I don't know how to do it.
If it's when the engine is off, go in the fusebox and change the incoming wore to the headlight fuse from IGN to BATT.
Change the wire to the fuse? Do you know how much effort that is?
Virtually none. Takes about as long as changing a wheel.

Of if you mean run a wire from the hot end of one fuse to the cold end of
the other fuse, that's a lot of effort too.
No, just change the hot end of the fuse to the other input. There's 2 inputs to a fusebox, one is only on with the ignition, the other comes straight from the battery. There will be unused fuse containers, use one of those if it's easier.

I'm looking for a way
to turn the lights on when the engine is off, just like all cars
worked until 1995. Not a whole project.
AFAIK all Vauxhalls do that anyway. Bloody annoying as you can more easily run the battery flat. Plus when I park the car for two minutes and don't turn the lights off, I've got a parked car dazzling people unnecessarily. I already removed the bleeping thing in anger that warns me I dared to open the door and left the lights on.

If it's when it's daylight, I don't know why you need that,
To see how well the lights are working, to see if changing a bulb
really fixed it, etc.
Just turn on the ignition?
If you really think that is the right answer, why did you just spend
several lines explaining your much too difficult way to turn the
lights on without the engine.
Because I thought you wanted to do it regularly.

but just cover the light sensor up, then you can use them as if it weren't automatic.
There are two sensors and I've forgotten which is which. I suspect
if your method, turning the switch off and on, works, it will work day
and night.
If I ever got a car that decided itself when it was dark, I'd disable it immediately, or at least adjust it to when I think it's dark.
I like it. And while I've thought about making the intermittent
wiper wipe less often, I've been fully satisfied with the light
sensor.
Is it anything like half the drivers who turn lights on when it's not even dark enough for me to be able to tell it's got darker? A camera could, but not my eyes.
If it did something wrong, I'd probably notice. I had a list of 30
things I didn't like about this 2000 Solara convertible, 15 because it
was a convertible and 15 because it was a Toyota. Previous cars have
never had more than 2 or 3 things wrong. So I'm not easy to please
but the photocell is fine afaict.
I've never moaned about more than 2 things with one car.

--
My car is a hybrid. It burns petrol AND oil.
LOL
My "random" sig generator seems to pay a lot of attention to the discussion in hand.

This post needs to be trimmed.

So why didn't you do it?

--
Smith & Wesson -- the original point and click interface.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:02:40 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/15/2016 01:57 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

What do you guys call them?

Retirees. I past the age and still working so don't get in the way of my
motorcycle when I'm on my way to work or you'll have knobbie tracks up
your back.

Motorcycles only have two wheels, you can easily fall off if pushed.

--
Two crows together is an attempted murder.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:09:40 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/15/2016 12:14 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
So you're admitting you're just young uns?

The US is trying to set a new record from birth to third world country.

Agreed.

--
Two crows together is an attempted murder.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 05:13:38 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/15/2016 05:27 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
I never said he was ugly. Anyway I just stated a fact - I also might
say "I'm going to buy some food at the Chinky restaurant" - it doesn't
mean I don't like the Chinese, if I didn't like them I wouldn't eat
their food! What does surprise me though, is in the country who is most
racist against blacks, that you voted for a black president.

Watch your collective personal pronouns and I won't ask how Cameron got
into power.

You can say anything you like about Cameron, I never voted for him.

--
Got myself a new Jack Russell puppy, he's mainly black and brown with a small white patch, so I've named him England.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 04:50:01 -0000, rbowman wrote:

On 02/15/2016 02:52 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
I blame the Irish part.


HAHA!

https://youtu.be/8C1z7OlhJJ4

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gxQaKYFx-4

The Irish simply need to understand they are in Britain and we are in control.

--
Heaven forbid that we allow men and women to become heroes.
Too many regulations exist to keep cowards from being embarrassed.
"Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once." -- Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 09:08:37 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 04:50, rbowman wrote:
On 02/15/2016 02:52 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
I blame the Irish part.


HAHA!

https://youtu.be/8C1z7OlhJJ4

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gxQaKYFx-4

Oh dear! Memories of the barbaric IRA crippling young men by
drilling through their kneecaps because they caught them smoking
cannabis to teach them a lesson, etc. There are still a few IRA
that still do those evil horrible things. 99.9% of Northern Ireland
folks want peace, but there's s few stubborn idiots that won't let go of
the past.......very sad.

They're all religious nutters.

--
I know you believe you understand what you think I said,
but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not
what I meant.

On 2/16/2016 1:05 PM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 18:26, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 11:17 AM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 16:51, Muggles wrote:
On 2/16/2016 1:33 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:06:04 -0700, rbowman
wrote:
We may be divided, but we're still connected with
ties we'll never be able to break.

More's the pity.

Why do you say that?

I have no reason to like Britain. I suppose the people
are okay but their leaders did their best to screw up
the world and sucked in fools like Wilson and
Roosevelt.

Ok. I understand... Not much we can do about the past. I like
people,
or at least try to find a reason if I can. Governments .... not so
much.

I am not good at driving on the wrong side of the road, LOL!

I don't think I would be, either. lol

I've driven in the USA and it didn't take long to get used to
driving on the right.

I found adjusting to driving on the left pretty easy.
I had a bigger problem remembering which side of the car to get in g

Lol, I can understand that. A few times a walked round to the wrong side
in the States.

The only time I drove on the left was when I lived in Bermuda. The
roads are small, the cars are tiny and the speed limits are pretty slow.

While there I came back to the States a few times to visit, and had a
real problem trying to adjust back to the right.

On 16/02/2016 19:28, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 1:05 PM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 18:26, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 11:17 AM, Bod wrote:
On 16/02/2016 16:51, Muggles wrote:
On 2/16/2016 1:33 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:06:04 -0700, rbowman
wrote:
We may be divided, but we're still connected with
ties we'll never be able to break.

More's the pity.

Why do you say that?

I have no reason to like Britain. I suppose the people
are okay but their leaders did their best to screw up
the world and sucked in fools like Wilson and
Roosevelt.

Ok. I understand... Not much we can do about the past. I like
people,
or at least try to find a reason if I can. Governments .... not so
much.

I am not good at driving on the wrong side of the road, LOL!

I don't think I would be, either. lol

I've driven in the USA and it didn't take long to get used to
driving on the right.

I found adjusting to driving on the left pretty easy.
I had a bigger problem remembering which side of the car to get in g

Lol, I can understand that. A few times a walked round to the wrong side
in the States.

The only time I drove on the left was when I lived in Bermuda. The
roads are small, the cars are tiny and the speed limits are pretty slow.

While there I came back to the States a few times to visit, and had a
real problem trying to adjust back to the right.

Ha ha, yes I can imagine.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:26:00 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 21:35:03 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 22:07:54 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:49:01 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 20:40:44 -0000, wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 17:31:04 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 03:58:47 -0000, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 23:31:49 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Fri, 12 Feb 2016 17:38:53 -0000, Tony Hwang wrote:

philo wrote:
On 02/12/2016 11:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:



My car is set to automatic and the lights go on and off as needed.

That said, if it's very dark, it's odd they don't notice that they can't
see anything

This can't be much of a problem anymore, can it? The vast majority of
cars on the road now have daytime lights on, ie if the car is running
the lights are on. Not sure if it's a law though.
Probably should be though.




Yes, even with my lights in the "off" position there are still "running
lights". I don't know if there is anyway to turn them off completely

What about tail lights? There are still many older cars/trucks on the
road yet.

An even stupider thing about daytime running lights is they don't turn the tail lights on, which means there are now loads of people driving around at night with only the front lights on, not realising they are unlit at the back. If you have no front lights on in the day, when it gets dark you notice.
You don't have lights on your speedo and other guages either, dummy.

That would be because I can see them without lights all over them, just like I can see other cars without lights all over them.

Again, why do you want the front of cars lit up but not the back?
Pretty obvious to anyone who actually drives. The front of the car
is comming towards you

On the other side of the road, it's far easier to hit the back of another car than one going the other way on the wrong side.

Not all roads are "devided coachways" like your motorways. There are
millions of miles of "2 lane blacktop" in the world - and a whole lot
of them are in North America (also lots of it in Europe and Africa -
as well as the rest of the world)
Without seeing approaching cars, pulling out to pass can be a very
deadly move.

Pulling out to pass when you can't be sure the other side is empty is ****ing stupid.
You are right - but you would think it was all clear because you can;t
see the car hiding in the dhadows with no lights.

You can't see something in the shade? How did you even get a license?

Even if your eyesight IS that ****, just don't overtake until you can be sure that it IS clear.

at the combined speed of the car approaching
and your car. He's doing 100kph and you are doing 90, the closing
speed is 190kph.,

Oh no, you don't actually believe that do you? Answer this simple question:

Situation 1: You drive at 50mph into a brick wall.
Situation 2: You drive at 50mph into another identical car going at 50mph the other way.

Which causes more damage to your car and you?

Most definitely 2 vehicles meeting at 50kph. The same as 100kph into a
solid brick wall.

WRONG, they're precisely the same. If you think of it in terms of kinetic energy, there is twice as much energy dissipated in twice as many cars, so each car gets the same. If you think of it in terms of deceleration, in both cases each car decelerates from 50mph to 0mph in the time taken for its own crumple zone to crumple.

I will respectfully dissagree with you. You are more likely to punch
through the brick wall, diissipating the energy in the wall. Now a
solid concrete wall or earthen embankment might - that is MIGHT equal
the score.

I said solid brick wall, ok , I should have said immovable concrete block, lets say the support of a motorway bridge. That is PRECISELY the same as hitting an identical car coming the other way at the same speed as you.

The only reason they'd be different is if one vehicle was heavier than the other. Then the lighter vehicle would end up moving backwards after the collision, so experience more deceleration. The heavier vehicle would still keep moving in the same direction but slower, so experience less deceleration.

But that is NOT the issue. It is the amount of time you have to react.
You are just as dead when you hit at 100 as you are at 190. The secret
is in NOT being dead.. Closing speed is not as important as closing
TIME.

But if you stay on your own side of the road, you only have to worry about cars going the same way as you.

Then front end or head-on colissions wouldn't be an issue - and they
ARE.

Nope, I know of nobody who has ever hit the front of anyone else, but I know many many people who have hit the back of someone else.

--
He saw her in her birthday suit swimming by the pier
She said, "Please go away," but he pretended not to hear.
"If you don't go I'll stay in here 'til it's dark."
'That's OK by me," he said, "I only came to feed the shark."
-- Benny Hill

On 02/12/2016 11:06 AM, KenK wrote:
Just about pulled out in front of a car with lights out early this
morning.
Not even parking lights. A few seconds earlier...

Why do these people drive with lights out? Save gas - engine runs easier
without generating electricity for lights? Seems I've seen many more of
them in the past year for some reason.

Pretty sure it's just cluelessness.

Fog, rain, or darkness, it just doesn't register on them that they need
to turn on their headlights, and not just their parking lights.

Another thing I see a lot is people driving with only their DRLs on,
with no rear lights at all. They don't realize that their actual
headlights are not on.

Forget the red light cameras, put in "no lights" cameras!

Just drove in the mountains this past weekend. Have to take a deep
breath. So many drivers don't know what "Slower Traffic Use Turnouts"
means. So many drivers constantly drifting across the double yellow
line. So many drivers constantly braking on steep winding roads rather
than driving in a lower gear and using engine braking on steep hills.

On 2/14/2016 3:04 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.

Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain
for at least a few hours.

paracetamol=acetaminophen

As long as you're not allergic to ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil, etc.) or
naproxen sodium (Aleve), it's best to avoid paracetamol/acetaminophen
(Tylenol, etc.). It's especially useless for toothaches since it does
not reduce inflammation.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:11:28 -0000, sms wrote:

On 2/14/2016 3:04 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Acetaminaphin has very limited pain killing power.

Never heard of it. I use paracetamol and ibuprofen. Removes any pain
for at least a few hours.

paracetamol=acetaminophen

As long as you're not allergic to ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil, etc.) or
naproxen sodium (Aleve), it's best to avoid paracetamol/acetaminophen
(Tylenol, etc.). It's especially useless for toothaches since it does
not reduce inflammation.

Wrong. Paracetamol simply works in a different way to remove pain. Some headaches or other pains go away with paracetamol, some with ibuprofen, it depends if it's caused by swelling or not. I just take both at once, that kills any pain in 5-10 minutes and lasts for hours.

--
I wouldn't need to manage my anger if people could learn to manage their stupidity.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:20:29 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 18:06, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:59:35 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:30, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 17:23:13 -0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 17:07, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/16/2016 9:16 AM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 05:58 AM, SeaNymph wrote:
On 2/15/2016 9:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 02/15/2016 12:31 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
Like what? We share the same films and internet, that's about it.

The whole world shares the internet. I watch a lot more Swedish and
Danish movies than British. If I want to watch Wallander, I'll
go to
the
source.

We watch Wallander. Never heard of anyone else watching it, much
less
even knowing about it.

I like Mankell's books and the series is better than most US crime
dramas. That's the Swedish one with Krister Henriksson. I've never
seen
the BBC version.

I haven't read the books, I'll have to check them out.

Do you get one of our very popular programs called QI?
Up till last week Stephen Fry hosted it.

What happened last week? Don't tell me, he's been jailed along with
Harris....

He's had enough of presenting the program.

Is someone else taking over, because I can't see anyone else filling his
shoes.

I think it's Sandy Torsvig (spelling ?).

You're only watching QI because I reminded you of it. Thank me profusely.

--
I had amnesia once -- or twice.

On 2/13/2016 8:48 PM, wrote:

The insurance companies definitely feel differently about it than you
do. And so do many other motoring safety groups In 5 minutes I could
likely find 10 or more studies showing there is a safety advantage to
counter every one of yours stating there is not.

A NHTSA study in 2004 entitled "An Assessment of the Crash-Reducing
Effectiveness of Passenger Vehicle Daytime Running Lamps (DRLs)" found
the followinng:

DRLs reduced opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by –6.3 percent
that is DRLs increase opposite direction daytime fatal crashes by 6.3
percent.

DRLs reduced opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal crashes by –7.9
percent that is DRLs increase opposite direction/angle daytime non-fatal
crashes by 7.9 percent.

DRLs reduced non-motorists, pedestrians and cyclists, daytime fatalities
in single-vehicle crashes by 3.8 percent.

DRLs reduced daytime opposite direction fatal crashes of a passenger
vehicle with a motorcycle by 26 percent.

Definitely mixed results, but not unexpected.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:33:11 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:45:39 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:48:13 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Y'all can keep on drivin' yer ****ty Merkin **** wiv yer 6 litre injuns
wat only put out ninety horses.

Actually, I drive a 1.5 liter Toyota. Back in the day, I drove an
Austin-Healey but those are history from the last century. Some of my
friends drove MGs. That marque lives on and I understand the Chinese
even sent the kits to Britain to be assembled for old times sake.

I do like some of the new Thairumph bikes though.

My first car was a Morris 850, and my current car is a 3 liter - my
truck is a 4 liter and the american 6 liters today put out in excess
of 600 horses

Watching Top Gear UK, they're always listing the horsepowers of American cars using the SAME ENGINE as a non-American car, and it's always considerably less.
If it's the "same engine" it's the "same Horsepower" If you mean the
"same displacement" , yes the horsepower may be different, but if a
highstrung Itallian sportscar is putting out 700HP at 8500 RPM that is
432 foot lbs of torque - it might put our 500 ft lbs at 5000 rpm which
is about 475 HP., and 300ftlb at 3500 RPM which is a paultry 200HP

The American "anchor" that is only putting out 600 HP is doing it at
5500 RPM which is 575 ft lbs of torque - and down at 3500 RPM it may
be putting out 725 ft lbs ) about 483HP

So the american "anchor" has lots of "balls" down deep where they are
useable on American roads - and still puts out more than adequate HP
at "sensible" engine speeds - where the exotic Italian needs to rev
like crazy to get any work done..

It's torque that makes a car quick.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 21:31:23 -0000, wrote:

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:33:11 -0000, "Mr Macaw" wrote:

On Mon, 15 Feb 2016 03:45:39 -0000, wrote:

On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 16:48:13 -0700, rbowman
wrote:

On 02/14/2016 03:33 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:

Y'all can keep on drivin' yer ****ty Merkin **** wiv yer 6 litre injuns
wat only put out ninety horses.

Actually, I drive a 1.5 liter Toyota. Back in the day, I drove an
Austin-Healey but those are history from the last century. Some of my
friends drove MGs. That marque lives on and I understand the Chinese
even sent the kits to Britain to be assembled for old times sake.

I do like some of the new Thairumph bikes though.

My first car was a Morris 850, and my current car is a 3 liter - my
truck is a 4 liter and the american 6 liters today put out in excess
of 600 horses

Watching Top Gear UK, they're always listing the horsepowers of American cars using the SAME ENGINE as a non-American car, and it's always considerably less.
If it's the "same engine" it's the "same Horsepower" If you mean the
"same displacement" , yes the horsepower may be different, but if a
highstrung Itallian sportscar is putting out 700HP at 8500 RPM that is
432 foot lbs of torque - it might put our 500 ft lbs at 5000 rpm which
is about 475 HP., and 300ftlb at 3500 RPM which is a paultry 200HP

I can't remember exactly what the comparisons were but they sounded ridiculous. Maybe it was just the same engine size. Maybe it was better tuned in some makes, I don't know. But they always claimed the American cars never managed to get the HP they should do.

The American "anchor" that is only putting out 600 HP is doing it at
5500 RPM which is 575 ft lbs of torque - and down at 3500 RPM it may
be putting out 725 ft lbs ) about 483HP

So the american "anchor" has lots of "balls" down deep where they are
useable on American roads - and still puts out more than adequate HP
at "sensible" engine speeds - where the exotic Italian needs to rev
like crazy to get any work done..

It's torque that makes a car quick.

Hence diesel is superior.

--
Q. What did the sign on the door of the whorehouse say?
A. Beat it - we're closed.

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 11:03:15 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Per rbowman:
Years ago there was a well liked politician in Massachusetts who got
married and went on honeymoon to one of the British islands. He and his
wife were killed when they had a moment of confusion.

When I went back for a family reunion in 2002, a lot of my relatives
were living on The Continent - and *everybody* had a Left/Right story -
none of them good.

I wouldn't even *think* of driving a car over there, and what bike
riding I did I confined myself to sidewalks and paths.

My biggest worry was looking the wrong way before stepping off a curb
into the path of a vehicle.


Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman made a couple of motorcycle
documentaries. They started in the UK of course and I'd get a queasy
feeling from the video filmed from their helmet cams. I also have a
documentary by an Indian who rode his Royal Enfield up through the high
altitude regions near the Chinese border. I'd never thought about it,
but a few moments into the film I realized the Brits had left their
fingerprints in India.

I guess the Japanese inherited the oddity along with British railroads.
When I first started driving on the left at 21 it was a bit of a
challenge - it would have been wirse with a LHD car. At that age I
caught on pretty quickly. Driving a motorscyle was a bigger challenge
as you don;t have the "reference point" of which side of the vehicle
you are in.
When I came home in '75 I found myself always going to the wrong side
of the car for about 6 months - but other than that not a problem
adjusting back, and in 1988 when I was driving in the Caribean - with
RHD cars and driving on the left, it all came back as "second nature"
- no problem at all.

A friend has a lhd JDM Hilux Surf (ForeRunner) and had a JDM civic
here in Canada anf both he and his wife adapted fairly quickly to
"driving on the wrong side of the car"

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:41:52 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 14:59, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 12:33 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
I am not good at driving on the wrong side of the road, LOL!

Years ago there was a well liked politician in Massachusetts who got
married and went on honeymoon to one of the British islands. He and his
wife were killed when they had a moment of confusion.

Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman made a couple of motorcycle
documentaries. They started in the UK of course and I'd get a queasy
feeling from the video filmed from their helmet cams. I also have a
documentary by an Indian who rode his Royal Enfield up through the high
altitude regions near the Chinese border. I'd never thought about it,
but a few moments into the film I realized the Brits had left their
fingerprints in India.

I guess the Japanese inherited the oddity along with British railroads.

55 countries drive on the left.
Which leaves HOW MANY on the right??????

On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:43:05 +0000, Bod wrote:

On 16/02/2016 15:00, rbowman wrote:
On 02/16/2016 02:19 AM, Bod wrote:

Oh dear, you do realise that there are 55 countries that drive on the
left?

afaik, they all had some sort of British influence. I don't think any
invented it on their own.

Samoa chose to change to driving on the left in 2009.
Because virtually all cars in Samoa are used vehicled exported from
Japan when it gets too expensive to license them there due to age and
the strange Japanese road tax laws.

On 2/13/2016 2:17 PM, wrote:

snip

Not only can the average motorist not make the connection, nore can
an instrument like a "scanguage" or the fuel mileage monitors built
into many of today's cars - but in a lot of peoples "minds" there is a
large savings.

Never mind trying to convince them with facts - their minds are
already firmly set.

The reasons for the opposition to DRLs go way beyond the imperceptible
difference in fuel consumption. Yet it was interesting that General
Motors sought, and received, permission to disconnect DRLs for fuel
economy tests: "As a result, EPA will permit for now, emissions and fuel
economy testing with DRL systems disabled."
https://web.archive.org/web/20080516061438/http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/cd9402.pdf


The actual arguments against DRLs, at least in the U.S., have almost
nothing to do with fuel economy. They are the following:

1. Statistically, they increase opposite direction daytime crashes.

2. You lose critical traffic signaling methods.

3. You can't turn off your head lights when it is advantageous or
courteous to do so.

4. There are places where you need to drive with only your parking
lights. For vehicles with DRLs that can't be turned off, this is a
problem. Dealers will disable DRLs for owners that have this requirement.

5. Drivers with DRLs often forget to turn on their low beam headlights
in rain or fog and at dusk or dawn. This is especially dangerous because
on many vehicles the taillights do not come on until the low beams are
turned on.

6. DRLs make your bulbs wear out a little faster.

7. They annoy other drivers. “In 1998, after receiving hundreds of
complaints, NHTSA acknowledged that the intensity limits were too high
and proposed reductions in DRL intensity. NHTSA cited a study by
Kirkpatrick, et. al. (1989), that said that at 2000cd, the glare from
DRLs was rated at no worse than "just unacceptable" in 80% of the
responses. At 4000cd, the glare was rated no worse than "disturbing" in
80% of the responses. These subjective ratings are based on the DeBoer
scale. Corresponding to these ratings, they found that at 4000cd the
probability that the rearview mirror would be dimmed was about 70%. At
2000cd the dimming probability was 40%. At 1000cd, the dimming
probability dropped to 10%.” The NHTSA has now proposed that the
European standard for DRL brightness be adopted. Expect the automakers
to oppose this since it would add cost to do DRLs properly.

The advantage of DRLs, based on NHTSA statistics, is that they reduce
vehicle/motorcycle, and vehicle/pedestrian crashes.

This is only for the U.S. of course. More northern countries may have
different statistical results.