Mouse balls are now available as FRU. Therefore, if a mouse fails to operate or should it perform erratically, it may need a ball replacement. Because of the delicate nature of this procedure, replacement of mouse balls should only be attempted by properly trained personnel.
Before proceeding, determine the type of mouse balls by examining the underside of the mouse. Domestic balls will be larger and harder than foreign balls. Ball removal procedures differ depending upon manufacturer of the mouse. Foreign balls can be replaced using the pop-off method. Domestic balls are replaced using the twist-off method. Mouse balls are not usually static sensitive. However, excessive handling can result in sudden discharge. Upon completion of ball replacement, the mouse may be used immediately.
It is recommended that each replacer have a pair of spare balls for maintaining optimum customer satisfaction, and that any customer missing his balls should suspect local personnel of removing these necessary items.
To re-order, specify one of the following:
P/N 33F8462 - Domestic Mouse Balls
P/N 33F8461 - Foreign Mouse Balls
Link to Original Source
I'd wager it'd sell like hot cakes, and be profitable. Because the entire Xbox 360 is now what $150-$200? Minus case, controllers, hard drive, all output components, they should of been able to pull it off.
The question I would have is how will this be an add-on? A daughter card or a separate module. With the daughter card, there comes into question cooling and engineering. With the module there comes into the question of power and bandwidth. Thunderbolt or external PCI might be the only two interfaces that could handle it but I don't know they could supply the power. Then there is the software side in that the OS has to two run on two different modes. All that into consideration, I don't think it would have been profitable.
While some might think it is a grand conspiracy by Sony and MS not to have backwards compatibility, it really is a question of cost. Xbox 360 and PS3 had much different chip architecture than x86. It is possible that Sony and MS could have developed adequate chips, but it would have been top of the line CPUs. That would add significant cost to the console possibly adding $100-150 to the base model. Also the chips would have required much more cooling than the current designs.
How Sony and MS did it in the last generation was not rocket science. Those chips were significantly better than the previous generation as chips in general were following Moore's Law. These days, significant performance gains are not without a great deal of cost.
The article/video was designed to explore that very question. And if you go back and read the first post, you'll see that it was indeed the premise:
Hello? Are you reading the same post I am?
How do you spread a disease? How about this: Inject a few million people with the virus and release them into the population. It's vaccinated people who now carry and spread sickness. Not those who are uninfected. Don't like the sound of that? Sorry. The science holds on this one.
The video also is not about secondary infections and is clearly designed to spread FUD about vaccines. It distorts the words of Anne Schuchat by only showing the parts of the statement and what she was addressing. In fact the end of video it advocates for the rights of parents not to vaccinate.
It seems you're letting ego obscure the matter, because it's a valid question and the observations collected from studies which may not have been designed to directly examine the issue, nonetheless still provide useful information toward clarifying our understanding of that point.
Please. The whole statement is tinfoil hat thinking as if there was a grand conspiracy to spread a disease by vaccinating against it. The question that was stated didn't have anything to do about secondary infections. It wasn't stated whether immunities last as long as once believed. Also one aspect ignored by the anti-vaccine crowd is even if immunities do not last as long, that doesn't negate the fact that the person had immunity and there are much less likely to be infected with a vaccine than without.
A study trying to determine the rate of disease in cats, by default suggests that cats really do exist despite that not being its primary critical goal. Lateral thinking.
Unless that is the entire goal of the study. Extrapolation is a tricky thing in science. The goal of the HIV study was to study how HIV affected particular vaccine by the manufacturer. Trying to extrapolate to what it means for the general population when decades of other research has already answered the same question is bad science.
You're missing the point. That collection of links was not gathered together in order to prove that vaccines were not 100% effective. They were gathered together to illustrate how secondary infection from vaccinated subjects to non vaccinated subjects has been observed to function and to invite thinking on the subject.
You are missing the point. A pertusiss vaccine doesn't protect against a parapertussis? HIV positive patients doesn't get the full benefit of vaccines? In my world, that's just fucking common sense. So what?
Your objections come off more as personal spin doctoring than anything else. If, for instance, an HIV patient can be infected by a vaccinated vector, then it demonstrates something very important. It doesn't matter that an infected party is prone to infection. That's like saying petri dish experiments are irrelevant because petri dishes are easily colonized by microbes.
You missed the point entirely. The study says NOTHING about the general population. It says something about a specific segment of the population. It's just scare mongering not to clearly state how narrow the study is. Just like a study that says a statin is not effective with people with high blood pressue. It doesn't say that the statin is not effective for most people.
Particularly in instances where live viruses are used in vaccines, why should the concept of secondary infections come as any surprise at all? That's how viruses work.
And how common is secondary infections? Minor or major? AND it wasn't the premise of the GP: "How about this: Inject a few million people with the virus and release them into the population. " It implied that vaccines themselves were the cause of disease not secondary infection.
Those are some amazing leaps of illogical thinking. One of the circumstances noted was a vaccine does not protect against a different virus. That doesn't take rocket science to understand. Another one was for individuals with deficient immune systems may not get the full benefit of a vaccine Again, this is common sense.
. Interesting, my question is this: With so many unexplained, unknown, or unintentional consequences, how can anyone say "vaccines are safe"?
Only if you are willing to ignore decades of science. But based on the rest of your post, it seems that you are willing to ignore anything that doesn't fall into your narrow thinking that vaccines==bad no matter what science is behind it.
At what point are we to be considered test subjects for filthy money grubbing corporations, who already break the rules on normal pharmaceutical manufacturing, efficacy testing, and safety testing?
FDR was paralyzed for the rest of his life after age 39 from polio. Many millions were also afflicted. Since the polio vaccine paralysis is from polio is virtually no existent. Yet people like you will continue to question the "safety" of them.
Glaxosmithkline was recently fined 3 Billion dollars for falsifying data for a product the FDA DID NOT BAN.
WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VACCINES.