Seems like a different type of "kill" switch, in fact more like "mute" than "kill" - more sinister one at that too. From the article you linked it seems a bit unclear if this can be used for specific devices only or if it's a general "Mute" All Phones In 100m Radius only.

...even the less sinister use case examples of it sound unacceptable to me, for example: I'm generally against phone use in movie theatres, however I can stand a person who's work demands him to be "on call" (provided it's closer to "in case of emergency" than "I work on sex-line) to be in movies, phone set on vibrate, and excuse him-/herself in case there is a call.

It doesn't have to be one extreme or another, and I feel very strongly about missing information (such as who attempted to call at what exact time. Or perhaps SMS messages, which get delivered later but are easy to peek at without bothering others) because a movie theatre decides to ban phone use but are too lazy to actually do any work on it and too nazi to cut everyone's connection instead. Throw out people who disturb other customers (there's more to it than just phone use, and cutting the network still leaves those problems to be) and I'm all for it, but stay the fsck away from network connectivity of the silently active phone(s) in my pocket. Heck, I could be using it for a big download I didn't think of at home, expecting to have it finished by the end of the movie - even the strongest "do naught at movies or go home" purists should have nothing to say against that. Luckily where I live disturbing the network connectivity isn't something a private business can legally do to others - also the police aren't currently allowed to do anything like cutting off the network on area of police bru... I mean, riot, but these days such "rights" can be given to authorities and taken from people no matter where you live - or what your constitution says about it - unless people get/stay informed and active.

Worked OK then (more than a few memory leaks). Works much better now.

Kind of amusing the people who want to get rid of it just because it's old. Especially amusing are the people who seem to think they could re-write it in a week. Delusional but amusing.

Cheers,
Dave

You know what time it is.

When I view the stereoscope images off camera, they "don't match" with regard to color. Just a slightly different hue but very noticeable. A 2D shot of the same scene matches neither of the stereoscope pair and matches the "real" colors.

Stereoscpic photography has been around for a long time. It just takes shooting the same scene twice but from two slightly different points. My family at one time had a 35mm film camera that had two lenses,etc and could be used to take stereoscopic photograph pairs. You needed a special viewer to view them to get the 3D effect and you burned twice as much film but it was really cool. The lenses were about as far apart as an adult's eyes.

How far apart were the levses on your 3D EVO? The twin lenses on the Thrill are only maybe half an inch apart. Don't know if LG had to resort to some other trickery to get 3D effects with the lenses that close.

Cheers,
Dave

Most car enthusiasts get a manual in a sports car for control, not "engagement". Triptronic is just the old style automatic with options to "slowly" select gears. This is not the same as Porche's PDK and the likes.

If you've payed attention, all the high end sports cars are going to automatics in the form of "automated manuals" such as Porche's PDK. They're superior to traditional manual transmissions in all ways. Shifts in these advanced transmissions happen in about a tenth of a second. I've driven a Porche Panamera and a Mclaren MP4-C and had no want for a "stick shift" in either one. I think some Lamborghini and Ferraris don't even offer stick shifts any more.

As for noise, that's just baseball cards in the spokes. If see Mustangs and Pickups making lots of noise while hardly accelerating. And as a tech, you should know that sound is wasted energy. I'm over it. Give me instant torque all the time and great handling. That's the real fun.

I readily agree that there's potential for confusion on the interpretation of the definitions, and it seems some numbers simply don't add up when multiple sources are considered. I'm keenly interested to see what I can do to get clarification on the data, and preferably access to raw data (presumably anonymized/scrubbed). Likewise, I don't have a firm explanation for the drop in vaccinations rates in 2013. The WHO 2013 data is listed as provisional of course, but given the tendency toward the fastest reporting coming from the most heavily populated/metropolitan areas in any given nation, I'm not anticipating a serious shift in the percentiles by the next update period.

I've lived in multiple U.S. cities with large Hispanic populations and also recall a positive attitude toward immunization in those communities. As you noted, upper-middle to upper class white families are indeed disproportionately likely to avoid vaccines in some areas. I happen to strongly disagree with their views, especially given the fact that I have a family of my own whose health matters immensely to me. The harm caused to communities caused by avoiding vaccinations is undeniable.

With specific regard to the drop in Mexican stats, I can't help but wonder if anti-vaccine fear-mongering has gained a stronger foothold in the country, although I certainly can't speak directly to that. There may be other factors as well; perhaps policies of the Enrique Peña Nieto administration (assumed office in 2012) are pertinent, or maybe large-scale destabilization associated with cartel activity has made a difference. This is simple speculation; I honestly have no idea why it's happening. I do note that in 2012, approximately 6.05 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants were residing in the United States, and the previously seen recession trend of declining Mexican illegal immigration appears to have reversed after 2010.

Is this you? If so, I'm concerned by the prospect of certain liberties having been taken with facts in your practice.

This plainly just isn't going to work out. I may print this entire thread out and mount it on a wall somewhere at the office, though. For now, I'm just going to go open a cider try to think happy thoughts. Cheers.

By the way, as a direct refutation of what you're attempting to portray with your last reply, please reference my recent reply to dmr001. Based on his comment history, I was already aware that he has claimed to be a physician in general practice, but felt it best to request he restate that in the context of that particular comment thread. You'll note that I did not simply accept his claims, and I offered contrary evidence following a suggested reason for the misrepresentation detailed in his comment. Perhaps he'll reply with something that will inform and surprise me.

I didn't accept anything. Please show me where I accepted anything at all rather than simply reject your own lack of rigor in posting your snarky, faux-superior dismissal of data, with my rejection being supported along the way via illustration of the continued ignorance of several of your statements. You're more than welcome to provide additional feedback on any of those points, provided you can back your positions with supporting data. Your fundamentally dismissive behavior is what I have been criticizing this entire time, and I just handed you a practical demonstration of the sort of initial response you could have made instead. Are you daft? For heaven's sake man, Bob Sears is a complete idiot at best, but you might just have him beat.

I believe you are misreading "Routine EPI vaccines financed by government (%) 2012" as indicating the population percentile that receives these vaccines. Instead, the statistics you've referenced are for the percentile of vaccination costs the Mexican government covered for the pool of individuals who actually received the vaccinations. This is also known as "how to push a particular social agenda using statistics while avoiding evaluation of its efficacy."

In 2013, the DTP1 (first dose) vaccination rate in Mexico was 90%, and the DTP3 (third dose) rate was 86%. In the same year, the DTP1 vaccination rate in the United States was 98%, and the DTP3 rate was 94%. It is also worth noting that to be maximally effective, three primary DTP (aka DPT) doses must be administered, per CDC guidance on DTP vaccination. Could you please clarify your specific role as a medical professional?

I'm greatly intrigued to learn of the existence of a myra bird who has been granted his MD or DO; please provide clarification if the degree conferred was another sort of doctorate (such as humanities). Further, I assume Dr. Bob made the assertion "it's bunk" in reference to a claim of an observed relationship between illegal immigrant communities and rates of transmissible disease infection. Please correct me if Dr. Bob's assertion was instead in relation to another field of study. Especially given the fact that the good avian doctor's finding appears to contradict data cited in this discussion that was sourced from publications which are generally regarded as reliable (or at a minimum not normally considered deceitful), could you please offer additional information on his observations, perhaps from a "bird's eye view" perspective? I understand that my data may be incomplete, or there may exist a need to allow for alternate interpretation of the present model. We eagerly anticipate this added insight, as we certainly won't be suggesting that Dr. Bob was merely parroting uninformed opinion. That would be for the birds; you'd have to be pretty high to believe such a flight of fancy would be possible for such an accomplished feathered friend. In any event, I'm glad you opened up this avenue for discussion on this very important topic.

You're lying. To be maximally effective, three primary DTP (aka DPT) doses must be administered, per CDC guidance on DTP vaccination. In 2013, the DTP1 (first dose) vaccination rate in Mexico was 90%, and the DTP3 (third dose) rate was 86%. In the same year, the DTP1 vaccination rate in the United States was 98%, and the DTP3 rate was 94%. Also, one presumes that for a variety of reasons, previously non-vaccinated illegal immigrants aren't going to rush to get their DTP shots once they're in the United States. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't see statistics like these.

Why are you lying?

You're lying. To be maximally effective, three primary DTP (aka DPT) doses must be administered, per CDC guidance on DTP vaccination. In 2013, the DTP1 (first dose) vaccination rate in Mexico was 90%, and the DTP3 (third dose) rate was 86%. In the same year, the DTP1 vaccination rate in the United States was 98%, and the DTP3 rate was 94%. Also, one presumes that for a variety of reasons, previously non-vaccinated illegal immigrants aren't going to rush to get their DTP shots once they're in the United States. Otherwise, we probably wouldn't see statistics like these.

Why are you lying? If your intent is not to deceive, and instead you are merely grossly misinformed, perhaps you should visit the link in your sig again for a bit of personal reflection.

You've just made your initial error all over again with your "from someone who might or might not have a clue what's going on" comment. The entire point here is that you shouldn't take a single experiential statement as full explanation of a phenomenon, but you also shouldn't dismiss things out of hand without good reason. Your lack of good reason is what has been demonstrated throughout this discussion, which has now gone recursive.

You're continuing to insist on exactly the sort of behavior that frustrates productive discussion on topics like this, encouraging people to ignore data points they may not like and consequently forgo further research and discussion on said data, based on a premise of ignorance masquerading as knowledge. It's sad, really.