|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 19, 2014 4:50:21 GMT
Can i drop off jamie "i'm from essex" oliver here? His 15 minutes meals were already a joke without a full prep team, but his "cheap" food series is taking the p*ss.... Cheap food when you buy 26 pound/kg salmon from the fishmonger instead of the supermarket...... Ps. you are not a chef, you never graduated from any chef college, you can't even fry a burger without ramming a spatula on top of it.. you tw*t {Watch the language please - CM}The "Food Revolution" guy?? He's actually been banned from stepping anywhere near several school systems in the US. In theory, serving kids food that is fresh & healthy is a great idea, but not cost effective. When a city/town is running low in its annual budget, the American way is to cut funding to schools first (rather than the mayor, councilmen, etc). |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 19, 2014 9:12:18 GMT
So thats why the need to see the footage.
If you head-but a concrete lane divider, or anything "Solid", its not going to hurt, its going to KILL.
Motorway speeds (freeway) into a head-to-head will KILL you, so your car should not go above 30 mph.
Are people liable to want that car any more?...
After Knowing that?...
Perhaps not, so perhaps the makers will go for a better NCap design if no one wants the dangerous one.....
Or am I just being idealistic again?
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Feb 19, 2014 9:15:09 GMT
NO!.....
This is for useless objects, not dangerous ones, we dont want a loose plank in here polluting everything, send HIM to the ginger mines.
I agree with your sentiments, he is a twitter user.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 19, 2014 14:25:55 GMT
So thats why the need to see the footage. If you head-but a concrete lane divider, or anything "Solid", its not going to hurt, its going to KILL. Motorway speeds (freeway) into a head-to-head will KILL you, so your car should not go above 30 mph. Are people liable to want that car any more?... After Knowing that?... Perhaps not, so perhaps the makers will go for a better NCap design if no one wants the dangerous one..... Or am I just being idealistic again? we are not that far away from cars that would drive the steering column through the driver's chest in a collision like that. care for some truly bad ones? |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 19, 2014 18:32:21 GMT
Is this what you're talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 20, 2014 1:40:59 GMT
Is this what you're talking about? okay, so... 70MPH > 30MPH. yes, probably not survivable. but... hey - I think i might have found the source of the snowplow cuts car in half myth! but yeah - back to the topic - I've see enough crashes at under 70MPH that compromised the passenger compartment enough to threaten the life of the occupants. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 20, 2014 3:31:19 GMT
The ugly thruth about car crashes is that no matter how many safety features you put into a car, you'll never be able to guarantee that someone will be able to survive a crash, regardless of speed.
Does the probabilitly of dying in an accident go up with increased speed? Yes, but driving at 15 mph instead of 50 mph doesn't guarantee you survival. Neither does wearing a seat belt or having air bags.
While I was training as a medic in the army one of our instructors had a series of slides from car accidents and made sort of a game out of it. He gave us some additional info on the damage to the car and the injuries to the occupants and then we had to venture a guess on how fast the car had been going when it crashed. One slide in particular fooled an entire class of 22 people.
There was one of a two car collision (two regular 4 door sedans, a BMW and a Toyota IIRC) I especially remember. Car one had been at a full stop at an intersection near a bend on the left side. Car one had just started crossing the intersection when it got hit by car two coming out of the bend from the left. There were no passengers in either car, just the drivers who were both wearing seat belts. Both cars had front air bags.
The driver of car one had his carotid artery severed and bled out in a matter of minutes. The driver of car two broke his neck and died on impact.
Guesses on impact speed ranged from 30 mph to 55 mph. We were all shocked when the instructor told us that it had actually only been 15 mph. Had car two gone any faster, he would have driven off the road due to the angle of the bend (which we couldn't see in the picture).
I don't recall what it was, but something jagged had flewn off car two on impact, penetrated the driver's side window of car one and severed the driver's carotid. Crash investigators had concluded that the only way the driver of car two would have been able to break his neck in the violent fashion that he did, was if he had leaned forward and turned his head to the side just as the impact occured, being jerked forward and taking the full blast of the airbag right under his jaw at the same time. According to the report, the angle of the impact suggested that he had been reaching for something on the floor.
The conclusion was that it was a one in a million freak accident, but we were all astonished at the amount of those our instructor had on file. This one was just the most freakish and as such, the one I remember in most detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 20, 2014 3:39:23 GMT
The ugly thruth about car crashes is that no matter how many safety features you put into a car, you'll never be able to guarantee that someone will be able to survive a crash, regardless of speed. Does the probabilitly of dying in an accident go up with increased speed? Yes, but driving at 15 mph instead of 50 mph doesn't guarantee you survival. Neither does wearing a seat belt or having air bags. While I was training as a medic in the army one of our instructors had a series of slides from car accidents and made sort of a game out of it. He gave us some additional info on the damage to the car and the injuries to the occupants and then we had to venture a guess on how fast the car had been going when it crashed. One slide in particular fooled an entire class of 22 people. It was a two car collision (two regular 4 door sedans, a BMW and a Toyota IIRC) where car one had been at a full stop at an intersection near a bend on the left side. Car one had just started crossing the intersection when it got hit by car two coming out of the bend from the left. There were no passengers in either car, just the drivers who were both wearing seat belts. Both cars had front air bags. The driver of car one had his carotid artery severed and bled out in a matter of minutes. The driver of car two broke his neck and died on impact. Guesses on impact speed ranged from 30 mph to 55 mph. We were all shocked when the instructor told us that it had actually only been 15 mph. I don't recall what it was, but something jagged had flewn off car two on impact, penetrated the driver's side window of car one and severed the driver's carotid. Crash investigators had concluded that the only way the driver of car two would have been able to break his neck in the violent fashion that he did, was if he had leaned forward and turned his head to the side just as the impact occured, being jerked forward and taking the full blast of the airbag right under his jaw at the same time. According to the report, the angle of the impact suggested that he had been reaching for something he'd dropped on the floor. The conclusion was that it was a one in a million freak accident, but we were all astonished at the amount of those our instructor had on file. This one was just the most freakish and as such, the one I remember in most detail. when airbags first came on the scene there was an increase in broken necks until they figured out that this is a potential result of being in the deployment area of the airbag. since, there have been improvements made in both airbag deployment and in training of the general public. the most striking detail from the proliferation of airbags was a significant increase in people being admitted to the hospital with broken legs. some pundits started blaming the airbags for the broken legs until a slightly more observant pundit pointed out that there was a matching decrease in patients admitted to the morgue. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 20, 2014 3:40:58 GMT
It is not a right now thing - because I understand there are powerful forces involved - but I would love to see smoking and chewing tobacco ultimately end up in room 101
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Feb 20, 2014 7:11:58 GMT
It is not a right now thing - because I understand there are powerful forces involved - but I would love to see smoking and chewing tobacco ultimately end up in room 101 As a moderate-to-heavy smoker who has 'quit' numerous times, so would I. |
|
|
|
Room 101.
Feb 20, 2014 13:31:33 GMT
via mobile
Post by OziRiS on Feb 20, 2014 13:31:33 GMT
It is not a right now thing - because I understand there are powerful forces involved - but I would love to see smoking and chewing tobacco ultimately end up in room 101 And I'd like to see alcohol in here, but that's even more unlikely to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 20, 2014 14:48:14 GMT
It is not a right now thing - because I understand there are powerful forces involved - but I would love to see smoking and chewing tobacco ultimately end up in room 101 As a moderate-to-heavy smoker who has 'quit' numerous times, so would I. I have found that most smokers are among the first to try to talk a new smoker out of it. - almost as much so as ex-smokers, but not as strident. every time I see a teenager smoking, I have to grit my teeth to keep from saying something about it. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 20, 2014 15:01:48 GMT
It is not a right now thing - because I understand there are powerful forces involved - but I would love to see smoking and chewing tobacco ultimately end up in room 101 And I'd like to see alcohol in here, but that's even more unlikely to happen. Should this one be conditional? Room 101 will be for the heavy drinkers who focus on making other people's lives miserable. The occassional drinkers who are able to control themselves are allowed out of the room? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 20, 2014 15:07:56 GMT
And I'd like to see alcohol in here, but that's even more unlikely to happen. Should this one be conditional? Room 101 will be for the heavy drinkers who focus on making other people's lives miserable. The occassional drinkers who are able to control themselves are allowed out of the room? I think it was the alcohol itself that should migrate in here - but yes, I have no quarrel with people who have a glass of something with dinner or for a special occasion. it is the ones who are controlled by alcohol and, more often than not, an annoyance to the rest of the world; who need to be cut off. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 20, 2014 15:37:34 GMT
If we're considering placing cigarettes in here, should eCigarettes also go in here?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 20, 2014 15:46:23 GMT
If we're considering placing cigarettes in here, should eCigarettes also go in here? I think ecigarettes were always a marketing ploy to sell an alternative nicotine delivery system; rather than a stop-smoking aid. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Feb 20, 2014 15:54:41 GMT
If we're considering placing cigarettes in here, should eCigarettes also go in here? I think ecigarettes were always a marketing ploy to sell an alternative nicotine delivery system; rather than a stop-smoking aid. The biggest problem with eCigs is that they lack a controlled dosing system (such as the patch & gum are set dosages). While the instructions tell the user to add 2 or 3 drops, they may actually add 2 or 3 ml. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Feb 20, 2014 19:29:40 GMT
And I'd like to see alcohol in here, but that's even more unlikely to happen. Should this one be conditional? Room 101 will be for the heavy drinkers who focus on making other people's lives miserable. The occassional drinkers who are able to control themselves are allowed out of the room? It's either or, isn't it? Either it's all alcohol or it's none of it. Sure seems that's the opinion on smokers. I have no problem with people having a few beers as long as they're responsible about it and don't endanger others or themselves. On the other hand, even when I wasn't a smoker myself, I felt the same way about smokers. But as we've seen, the notion seems to be that smokers are devil spawn and there's no such thing as a conciderate smoker. Since we're clearly in the habit of generalization, in the spirit of that, I'm calling all drinkers as inconciderate as all smokers and suggesting that for the safety of all man kind, all alcohol be placed here alongside all tobacco. While we're at it, let's put all fatty and sugary foods in here as well. People obviously can't handle having them around, what with obecity and the related heart conditions being the only thing in the western world killing more people than smoking these days. And let's go ahead and put violent video games, violent movies, rock and rap music, pornography, guns, knives, anything else that's pointy or sharp enough to harm someone and those pesky manual cars in here too. We need robotic cars that take the possibility of human decision making completely out of the equation. Once that's done, let's get all the bikes and skateboards and rollerskates and skis and lump them together in a corner. Do you have any idea how many people are hurt using those things every year? Next we'll do trees. Kids climb trees. Kids fall out of trees. Clearly, people can't be trusted around trees! And while we're at it, we'll also need to get all swing sets, monkey bars, slides and other means of outdoor play away from the public. Tell ya what. Let's just remove the entire outdoors and all those dangerous animals in it! Much safer for everyone! I am SO SICK AND TIRED of everyone being so damn preoccupied with every little thing that they think everyone else is doing wrong all the time!!! If you don't like something, stay away from it! In 99% of all cases it IS actually that simple! On one hand nobody wants the infamous Nanny State, but on the other hand everyone wants any and all things they don't like or find offensive to be outlawed. You can't have it both ways, so it's either personal freedom with the option for everyone to f*** up every once in a while, or it's full on Nanny State where we're barely allowed to think for ourselves. Pick one! |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Feb 20, 2014 20:41:57 GMT
I wish I could stay away from smoke.
Unfortunately, it's in the air around smokers, making it literally unbreatheable for many (especially if you're unfortunate enough to have COPD). Plain and simple, it stinks, and makes everything it touches stink as well. If you think otherwise, you're simply deluding yourself.
Do I want them banned? If you smoke in your own house, or away from others, you should be free to do so. No skin off my nose.
If you smoke around me, consider yourself as welcome as someone burning trash, because that's what you smell like.
Ecigs I don't really care about. I haven't encountered enough of them to say if they're as obnoxious as traditional cigs. From what I understand, it's just odorless water vapor.
I tend to look at freedom issues in the classic manner: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Likewise, your right to smoke ends at my nose. If you want to smoke, keep it out of my face.
Alcohol doesn't affect me in the same way--it doesn't stink unless you breathe it into my face. I don't recommend that, either.
I don't really care if it damages your health, if you're making that choice. Smoking killed my parents, so I have no great love for the activity, but if you're bound and determined to kill yourself in an agonizing method, it's your life, not mine. In this day and age, I can't imagine you not knowing the results of smoking, but it's your freedom to do so.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 21, 2014 2:45:31 GMT
This is room 101, it is where we put things we wish were not around. therefore, we can put all tobacco, and only such alcohol abuse as is obnoxious here if we want to. in fact, as Lokifan says, a person has to be pretty drunk before they exhale enough residue to be patently offensive to those around them - and in fact, many places have rules prohibiting people from being that drunk in public-K
while we're at it, let's drop in people who upload "videos" to youtube without the video part.
|
|
