Tomm

There's pretty big variety in Shimano shoes. Some SPD shoes are pretty flexy (E.g. Shimano DX) whereas others are basically carbon fibre and rigid. Shimano also make some non-SPD shoes which don't look to bad, and are supposedly pretty grippy. I saw Danny Mac was wearing some Shimano DX shoes (presumably the non-SPD version), so you know they're gonna make you ride like a hero. But sometimes grip and comfort aren't enough. For the ultimate in stylish footwear, look no further than THESE.

CRC do looooads http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Categor...?CategoryID=563 I think this is the one you want: http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=13720 But unfortunately it's out of stock. There are loads of different brands but they're MOSTLY compatible so just get the cheapest that's in stock - from skimming through I think that's the Hayes front 8" IS to post mount one. I had some problems when I was trying to use a Hayes caliper with a Shimano 160 mount (the caliper fouled the mount) so it's not foolproof. But if you're using a bigger adapter (I.e. 203) then they're much less likely to be incompatible. Alternatively Google it to find somewhere that has an Avid one in stock. Or get a smaller front disc.

What a shit thread this is. Has ANYONE (besides Inur) actually said anything related to the question asked in the thread? No. Just without thinking, people spout off a load shite about things they know f**k all about. That's what's wrong with this country. I think TheCircus was onto something. QFT

1) Yeah, that's pretty worrying. That's the first I've heard of it. 2) That's just funny. I remember they did a similar sort of thing on the estate near me. There was a Spar (local shop) and all the local scallie kids used to hang around there. They weren't particularly abusive or violent or anything, just a nuisance and fairly intimidating. So to stop them from hanging around outside the shop, the manager decided to play classical music really loudly. The kids hated the classical music so they went away. 3) Yeah, that's also kinda worrying. I saw the ads on the internet first, and thought they were a joke, but I actually saw them the other day on a board in an airport. 4) Hmmm. I don't really know what to think about this one. I guess the thing is that in the UK, we have a lot of problems with teenagers just simply hanging around looking menacing. I don't think you really have that in the USA? So those papers are presumably for this reason specifically. There is a pretty bad culture of fear here (those London Metropolitan adverts are particularly bad though), but I'm surprised that you think that - coming from the states. I was under the impression that the US was really bad for inciting fear with the whole 9/11, Guantanamo, Eye-raq and the 'War on Terror' things. You hear facts that Britain has the most CCTV per person in the whole world. I'm sure that's true but I don't really believe it's too different to anywhere else. Also remember that the UK is a tiny area compared to the states but still has 60 million people. Proportionally more people live in urban environments so that may go some way to explain why there is more CCTV around per person. I don't know. I guess it is worrying but I've not noticed a big change recently.

Bonkers. This morning it was pissing it down really hard, then this afternoon there were no clouds in the sky, it were lovely - I went for a walk down by the waterfront. Houseboats!

It's 9pm here in Vancouver, and I've been getting them for the last 10 minutes. Stupid time difference.

If you are in a public area you can be photographed, permission or not. The people on that forum are obviously narrow-minded morons. But I can't really see that anything illegal has happened - It's just some idiot mouthing off about something that is none of his business? I would just get over it, and have a chuckle at how stupid they are.

What do I win?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not convinced. For one thing, with this regime you wouldn't get any deep sleep. It takes about 20 minutes to fall into a deep sleep so If you're then waking up, you'd be missing out on this phase. I don't really know if you can survive without deep sleep, but I'm sure it's not good for you. For one thing growth hormone levels are higher during deep sleep, and GH is quite important (obviously for growth when you're younger, but also for muscle bulk general mental well-being). It would be pretty interesting if anyone actually did some trials, though. As for me - I'm trying to train my body to work on 6 hours sleep. Basically I have to get up at 6am at the moment and I can't seem to sleep before midnight. So I'm running on 6 hours/night throughout the week. It's OK, as long as I can have a lie-in at the weekend. I feel a bit tired throughout the week but it's manageable. But as soon as I have even slightly less than 6 hours, I just feel awful the next day and keep falling asleep.

You know they're pretty much all treatable?

It might be worth getting 1x2gb now (and still binning the 512, probably). So you'd have 2Gb now and space for another 2Gb in the future. Running matched pairs doesn't make THAT much difference.

I've heard that a lot of times. Seems kinda weird to me.

And if that doesn't work, try switching it off and on again.

Yeah, free ones only please. For a blindingly-good start, how about Grand Theft Auto (I or II) for free, legally? http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/ Quake 3 live? I've not actually played this but it seems like a good deal. http://www.quakelive.com/

What the hell? He looks like a fatty

No, it IS fun, but it's not necessarily the things you would think would be fun. For example I still really enjoy taking people's blood - even though I've done it loads, it's quite satisfying. On the other hand I did a surgical procedure by myself (under supervision of course) which didn't really float my boat.

I don't understand, you were the one who first said the sleep thing, and you didn't put it in quote. Regardez: Anyway, since I know you want to apologise (but can't bring yourself to back down), I'll just imagine that you have. Apology accepted. I spent some time in neurosurgery and it's not all that exciting really. The brain is too complex for anyone to really understand, so all they can do is basically chop out any bits that are cancer and try and leave as much of the rest as possible. Whereas there are other things that we do understand pretty well (the heart is a pretty good example), and in my mind those specialties are more interesting because you're understanding what you're doing. Different strokes* for different folks I guess. * intentional neurology pun alert!

Erm, it was you who was using the phrase 'putting people to sleep'. I only used that term when I was dumbing it down for you. Of course it's more complicated than that. Wikipedia says: "Anesthesiologists are perioperative physicians ("peri-" meaning "all-around") who provide medical care to patients before, during, and after their surgical procedure." However, like I said, a lot (if not most) will be invovled in other things (E.g. ITU medicine). They put people to sleep, and they also manage the patients while they're asleep, any complications. They need years of medical school because human physiology is kinda complicated, and anaethetists basically have to know physiology inside-out. You seem to think that 'putting people to sleep' for an operation involves a bit of NO and a bedtime story. Dr Nick - Nah, GP is about the bottom of my list of stuff I want to do. Maybe slightly higher than Obs&Gynae and psychiatry, haha. Hospital medicine for the win.

You should really be warned for that. It's abusive enough as it is, even without considering that you're completely wrong. There are thousands of anaesthetists in the UK. At the moment doctor's training involves 5 years (or more) at medical school, and then two 'foundation' years where you have to do a wide variety of different jobs. After that you would specialise into whatever you want (General practise, Surgery, dermatology etc etc) and anaesthetics is one such specialty you can go into. A lot of anaesthetists will do other stuff besides just 'putting people to sleep' - they will work on ITU (intensive care unit) or doing pain control clinics or whatever. Some will choose to ONLY do operating lists (putting people to sleep) though. As it happens it's actually what I want to do, so yes I'm pretty sure it exists as a job I don't really have an explanation for this, doesn't seem right to me at all. There is no way that the A&E (?!) doc or surgeon (?) that saw you would be the person putting you to sleep.

Well, there ARE doctors who specialise in Anaesthetics alone When a doctor is looking after someone, they are looking after that person and no one else. What you're talking about is beneficence (doing good) but for the bigger picture, which is fair enough, you can argue that there may be a 'greater good'. But a doctor's duty of care is to the patient they are treating at that moment. Also in killing the patient, you'd have to break two other rules of medical ethics (non-maleficence and autonomy), which are pretty fundamental in themselves. Otherwise people wouldn't ever go to the doctors. Imagine going there and the doc deciding that you were a waste of space and your body should be harvested for organs! What I'm saying is that a doctor would have to look past what may be the 'greater good' and treat their patient as best they could. That's the medical point of view, which (paradoxically) looks further than the 'greater good'. Hmmm. As far as I know, you have to swear an oath but it's not the original one (most of which is kind of irrelevant now), and I don't think it's legally binding. It's not too formal either - it's just done in a group, not individually with your hand on a bible or anything.

Not really, just some people who are (understandably) very upset about their son's death, trying to find solace in a lawsuit. Stupid American litigation culture. From that article, there's no suggestion that he had any hope of living, so it's a different scenario to your question. From a medical point of view, your scenario violates a lot of ethical principles which are taken as being fundamental, ever since the days of the old Greek philosophers. The three major components of any ethical argument are Autonomy, Beneficence, and Non-Maleficence: A person has ultimate autonomy, I.e. they have control over their own body and what is done to it - whether or not the doctor agrees with their decision. That is a very difficult principle to argue against, for the simple reason that you wouldn't like someone else making decisions about you without asking, would you? The anaesthetist has a duty of care to his patient, and no one else (I.e. not the potential recipients) - that's another fundamental medical ethical principle - "first, do no harm." This would be the 'non-maleficence'. You couldn't kill your patient without violating this principle, obviously. Even if she is a superficial vain idiot (which everyone seems to have assumed!). So in killing the cosmetic surgery patient, you've already violated two out of three fundamental principles. Although I suppose you could argue that beneficence (I.e. doing good) could mean taking a world view and treating the five other people, you'd be on shaky ground. I'm fairly certain the beneficence applies to your patient only, not the other five. There are also a lot of other more practical issues like (as Elliott pointed out) the recipients wouldn't necessarily expect to live a full life etc. So you've basically got two components (the principles of autonomy and non-maleficence) against, and possibly one (kinda shaky) component for what you are suggesting. Basically it could never happen.

Nah he says the allen key bolt, which I'm sure is just the bleed screw

Going to A&E probably isn't the right thing to do. I can tell you now that they almost certainly won't x-ray it, and they will advise rest, ibuprofen and ice for any swelling. Which isn't really that helpful. The best thing would probably to go see a sports physio or someone, but you'll probably have to pay. Maybe go and see your GP and see what he advises? Some areas have self-referral for NHS physio, but not many.

I'm sure that's difficult and all, but it looks like how you ride (bike) trials when you're a complete beginner

Yeah, I think so. Certainly almost all primary schools (age 5-11), and most secondary schools (11-16) will make you wear uniform, although how strictly they enforce it varies a LOT. For sixth form/college (Age 16-18+) it's split, but I'd guess that most places would let you wear your own clothes. Like just about everything in the UK, it's a class thing. People think that a uniform makes people, well, more uniform - the idea being that pupils will get treated the same no matter how much money they have. Although schools that are a bit more posh are more likely to have a strict policy on school uniform, so work that one out?!