Why Newfoundland has Ruts in the Roads? You won't believe it.

Well its studded winter tires of course! News flash: studded tires have been known to cause ruts in pavement and concrete roads since the 1970's. That's right, for over 40 years, Public Works departments from all over North America have known that studded tires causes millions of dollars of damage to roads that taxpayers then have to pay to have repaired. Studded tires were introduced in 1962. By 1972, numerous jurisdictions started to ban their use because of the accelerated damage being caused. Check my sources, I dare ya.

Numerous scientific studies have been conducted on North American roads that have concluded two very important and indisputable facts. 1. Studded tires grind out ruts in pavement and concrete. Sure Consumer Reports won't even test studded tires because of the damage it would cause their test track! 2. Studded tires have a net negative effect on traction. That's right, studded tires actually reduce over all traction.

How can that be? Studded tires are useful for only one single condition: smooth ice at temperatures near 0°C. For all other conditions, studded tires are proven to have either reduced or equal traction to a mid-range set of studless winter tires. For that one condition that studded tires do improve traction? Well out of the 150 days of the year you are allowed to wear studded tires (in this province), that condition exists for about 5 of those days. Thats 3% of the time you are using your studded tires, you have an edge over someone who isn't using studded tires. for 97% of the rest of the time, your traction is no better, and much of the time, even worse than studies tires. 


The most tractive force is obtained when rubber meets pavement cleanly. Studs on pavement reduces the amount of rubber reaching the surface of the road. This is especially hazardous on wet roads since water greatly reduces traction, now further reduced even more with studs preventing rubber making contact with the road surface.


Rebuttal?

Ruts are caused by heavy trucks pushing down the pavement. 
LOL! This is by far the most ignorant and apologetic of lines that come from studded tire defenders. And it is the easiest to debunk. First, the ruts are clearly being caused by vehicles of the most common wheelbase, passenger cars. Big rig trucks wheel bases do not match, not even a little. Also, Transport trucks use dual rear wheels to distribute the load. So if it was being caused by overweight commercial trucks, there would be 4 ruts in the pavement, not 2. Lastly, the ruts form over concrete bridges on both concrete and asphalt. If the ruts were caused by pavement being pushed down by weight, well it wouldn't happen on concrete, or on asphalt applied onto concrete. 

Also, I've been to Ontario. Their pavement is actually SOFTER than ours, and sees much much more traffic than our roads. While I haven't spoken to the engineers here or in Ontario on their respective road construction practices, and given the 10 times the amount of traffic, I'm unconvinced our roads are constructed that badly. 


Sources!
1. Bridgestone: Studded vs Studless
2. Popular Mechanics Magazine, November 1971; This Year Your Studded Snow Tires May Be Illegal!
3. Oregon Department of Transportation, December 2000; Analysis of Pavement Wear and Cost Mitigation
4. Washington State Transportation Centre, October 2002; Overview of Studded and Studless Tire Traction and Safety
5. TireRack.com, September 2009; Winter Testing at the Arctic Circle

Time to Ditch That FibreOp Router

If you are a Bell Aliant FibreOP user, you may have noticed by now how spectacularly crappy the Actiontec Wifi router can be. I used to have to reboot mine once a week because it would randomly just stop working. I tried to swap it out with a router I had picked up when I was still using ADSL, but it wouldn't work. Seems only the Actiontec can speak the language that is required to talk to the FibreOP service. 

Actiontec Router: good riddance.

Or so I thought. Enter Asus, with a line of routers that will allow you to just throw away* that Actiontec and replace it with a powerful router that will supercharge your FibreOP experience. Even if you are using FibreOP TV you will notice a difference. And its not that expensive. 

ASUS RT-N56U, $99

Here are your step by step instructions on how to replace your Actiontec router. 

1. Head to Staples and pick up the ASUS RT-N66U router for $99 (cheapest place I've seen it). Or for future proofing get the ASUS RT-AC66U and upgrade your Wifi from n speeds to the new fangled ac speeds!

2. Log into your Actiontec FibreOP router and click on the "Status" tab, and copy down the MAC address, you'll need it later. Then click the "Release" button. 

3. Unplug the Actiontec and remove all cables from it. Set it aside. If it all goes well, you won't need it anymore. Ever. 

4. Unbox and plug in your new Asus router. Connect the cable coming from the FibreOP box to the Internet port on the ASUS router. Connect your main FibreOP TV set top box into port 4 on the router. If you have other Wireless TV set tops, plug the Wireless VAP into port 3 on the ASUS router.

5. Skip the setup wizard on the ASUS router and go straight to the main page. Click on the images below for screenshots of the configuration page. Click on "LAN" in the menu on the left. Then click on "IPTV"

6. Set the values on this page to match the image above. Choose "Manual" for the ISP Profile. 

Internet, VID is 35, PRIO is 0
LAN Port 4, VID is 34, PRIO is 4
LAN Port 3, VID is 34, PRIO is 4 

Hit "Apply" and the router will reboot.

(LAN Ports 3 and 4 only need be configured if you have FibreOP TV) 

7. Click on "WAN" and copy the MAC address from the Actiontec you copied down from step one and past into into the box highlighted below. DONE. Hit the apply button, the router will reboot. Enjoy supercharged FibreOP!

Notes

If you are using FibreOP TV, ports 3 and 4 can only be used for the TV service and internet will only be available on ports 1 and 2. If you need more than that, you will need to get a gigabit network switch ($40).

Also, this guide omitted setting up the Wifi. I'm assuming you will know how to do that. just click on the wireless button, name your Wifi network, put in a password and hit Apply. Easy.

* Do not actually throw away the Actiontec router, Bell will want it back one day.

Source: http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=134496

It's called a PARKING Brake

Anyone ever notice that little hand lever in the center of your car? You've probably ignored it all your life. I did an informal survey where I tracked how many people actually use this device, known as the Parking Brake. Guess what? Hardly anyone uses it.

It seems many people believe it's an "emergency brake" or that it only needs to be used on vehicles with a manual transmission. This is simply not so, it's called a Parking Brake. 

Go ahead, go grab your car owners manual and see what it calls the device and when you should use it. Got it now? That's right, engage the park brake every time you park. Not just when on a hill, or on a ferry or when you decide to get underneath it to change the oil. Every time you park. 

"Well I've never needed to use it before." "That's not how I was taught at driving school." "My father never uses it, he would know."

Since I am such a nice guy, I've decided to show you the relevant sections from five different automakers owner's manuals.

Ford Focus 2014

Chev Cruze 2014

Mazda 5 2014

Chrysler 200 2014

Nissan Versa 2014

So if you are going to say that it isn't necessary to use your park brake, your owner's manual disagrees with you. There is simply no excuse for the lack of safety you are putting you and others in by not setting the parking brake. This is what can happen when you don't set it:

The above picture is the result of the parking pawl failing to keep the jeep immobile. Is that what you want? Do you really want to have to explain that you caused an accident because you didn't know you were supposed set the parking brake?

Oh, never mind then.

Reference: http://www.driversedguru.com/driving-articles/car-auto-maintenance/always-set-the-parking-brake/

Sony DSLR Cams and External Microphones.

So I settled a question today that I hard a hard time finding the answer to by performing pure research (Google). I shoot video with a Sony A65 DSLR for a handful of weddings. Typically, I'll set up various microphones and record the audio separately and then dub it in after. But wouldn't it be nice if it was recorded directly onto the footage?  YES IT WOULD. My older Sony HVR-V1U HDV camcorder had XLR mic inputs. It was not an issue. The A65 DSRL cam has a single 3.5mm mini jack. What can you plug into this jack?

Well Sony of course does provide a few options. Rhode too, has products that work quite well. Well I can tell you that you can also just buy an XLR to 1/4" adapter and plug a standard pro mic right into that jack and you will get great audio quality.

So go out and pick up this cheap little adapter, and you can have a quality Mic jacked right into your Sony DSLR.

Why the 9/11 Truther Movement will Never End.

But it should.

Richard Gage, a California architect, is in St. John's, April 3, 2014, is holding a lecture at Memorial University where he will explain why we need to reopen the investigation on why and how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed. He is, along with many others, convinced that the official story is not only incomplete, but downright incompetent. He alleges that not only is NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ignoring key pieces of evidence, that they are actively covering up the truth of what actually happened that day. Shall we have a look?

The video shows a remarkable spectacle: in only a few seconds (6.7 according to Gage), the building collapses without any good reason at free fall speeds. This is impossible they say, unless all supporting core columns were removed simultaneously.

I've been having a debate on Twitter on some of the specifics of the WTC 7 collapse. As expected, refusing to acknowledge my specific questions on the demolition theory as well as ignoring key pieces of evidence that specifically refute the possibility of explosives, did not sway my opponent's opinion. Here is a short excerpt from that debate:

Here is the trouble with debating a Truther. You present evidence, anything that might contradict their strong held beliefs, and it gets ignored. How are you supposed to have rational discourse about anything when your opponent is so blinded by their ideology?

Claim: Buildings can't fall at free fall speeds unless you use explosives to take away all the steel supports.

Claim: The building fell almost symmetrically into its own footprint, in less than 7 seconds.

Claim: Ground-zero dust samples show evidence of Thermite reactions having taken place.

The only thing that will answer these claims, say the Truthers, is a new fully independent investigation. Of course, what they don't care to mention to anyone is that such investigations have already taken place. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) published a report in their peer-reviewed journal titled, "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" in 2008. While this report does not directly talk about WTC 7, the Truthers are only using WTC 7 to get your attention so they can talk about WTC 1 and 2. Any guesses on what ASCE had to say?

... the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered.

These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

Do you think the above statement will carry any weight with a Truther? Of course not. This is just even more evidence that ASCE is a part of the cover up!

The above response was particularly funny. This is the kind of response you will get from a Truther who has no clear understanding of how scientific investigation works. I got that response from him multiple times after he failed to acknowledge any of the points I made countering his statements. 

NIST prepared a 10000 page report detailing the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. They consulted with the designers and builders of the two buildings, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and well over 100 of the world's leading experts from both the private sector and from academia. They interviewed over 1000 people, reviewed tens of thousands of documents, and the final report on the destruction went through rigorous peer review.

NIST then spent 3 more years hypothesizing how WTC 7 collapsed. In their investigation, they noted that the South side of the building was extensively damaged which would have very much weakened the structural integrity of the building, but that it probably would have collapsed even without that damage. It turns out that the heat expansion of a key long-span floor Column started a chain reaction that could not be stopped. Heat expansion is of course the well known physical phenomon whereby metal expands as it gets hot, which allows us to open a stubborn metal lid when poured under hot water. In the case of WTC 7, NIST estimates that most pockets of fire in the building reached 300°C and caused Column # 79 to expand as much as 4.25 inches. This caused the bolts holding on to this column to get sheared off and become unseated from the rest of the steel structure. Combined with the loss of steel strength due to the extreme heat, this caused the collapse of a number of the bottom floors, none of which could be seen from the outside. Then the upper floors started the collapse while the stronger outer perimeter of the building continued to remain, until finally the load core of the building was gone and the sudden load redistribution brought down the rest of the building.

But why believe any of that when you can loop a video that shows a 7 second collapse?

Besides the official NIST investigation, the American Society of Civil Engineers, Protec Demolotion Services, Popular Mechanics, and more have completed their own peer-reviewed investigations of all the evidence. None of them have been able to find any physical evidence of explosives, and were in fact able to specifically rule out its possibility. 

Not that it matters to any truther. They believe in explosives. So what ever they have to do to make that conclusion work is what they will do. Sure they will admit that explosives will probably pre detonate when exposed to fire, so obviously that means they were contained in some kind of fireproofing! And obviously explosives make loud booms when detonated, so clearly the government must have invented special new silent explosives or that new fangled fireproofing they put the explosives in has sound suppression technology too, whatever is easier to sell it to themselves. 

I figure that this fight for truth will end at approximately the same time the Apollo Hoax crowd get their truth too. 

sheesh.

NIST FAQ on the WTC investigation

Hello there blogger, I think I missed you.

OK, been a while. I was a little scared this little blog of mine was possibly even deleted by now. *WHEW*

Does anyone know how hard it is to take good interesting shots of the moon in this province? It's like cloudy ALL THE FRICKIN TIME.

Christmas joke

I want people to ask themselves one question. If some teenage chick came up to you and said she was told by angels that her pregnancy was a result of God, would you believe her?

The first person to have believed this was an utter moron. Joseph was the greatest of dumb asses to have believed his wife got knocked up before he managed to make good on his wedding night.

If you can't see how gullible you are in believing that over her just covering up the possibility that she got down with some other dude before joe, there is no hope for you.

We have Christianity because someone believed the pregnant teenager. (Or someone else made the whole thing up)

Merry Xmas!