Trivia and other useless but interesting items

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

No. Seat belt fitting rules are not retrospective.

And Federal law only supersedes state law in areas that are withing the power of the Commonwealth under the constitution (or which states have passed on to the Commonwealth. There is nothing in the Constitution about motor vehicles, and since any powers not specifically mentioned in the constitution remain with the states, the only powers about motor vehicles that the Commonwealth has are those which have been agreed to by states or which exist because of specific federal powers.

Hence, for example, the Commonwealth can prohibit the import of vehicles which do not meet ADRs under its powers on international trade and treaties, but these ADRs only apply to vehicles being registered to the extent that state legislation says they have to meet ADRs.

---

Here in Queensland, if a car was manufactured sans seatbelts or blinkers there is no legal compulsion to retrospectively fit either. If however, either or both have been voluntarily fitted, it is illegal to remove them.
Hence, we have otherwise concourse, old vehicles that predate blinkers, fitted with such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Close.

It's a bang bang.

---

No, that's a trade name, not the generic - a bit like a vacuum cleaner being called a Hoover or a PA system being called a Tannoy in Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Polish, and he was a national hero of the poles, but I don't recall why the peak was named after a Pole.

---

He also fought in the American Civil War.

I wonder how the easily offended are surviving Care needed as " the worms as "10-inch" (or 25cm) and described them as "pulsing"," could be misinterpreted[biggrin]


'Penis fish' wash up on Californian beach by the thousands after storm disturbs sand burrow

Or in this case dig up your dead

Quadriga: Lawyers for users of bankrupt crypto firm seek exhumation of founder

You have some strange surfing habits, James. [bighmmm][biggrin]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NavyDiver

I wonder how the easily offended are surviving Care needed as " the worms as "10-inch" (or 25cm) and described them as "pulsing"," could be misinterpreted[biggrin]


'Penis fish' wash up on Californian beach by the thousands after storm disturbs sand burrow

---

QUICK QUICK, where can I buy a Couple for the weekend?[biggrin]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

You have some strange surfing habits, James. [bighmmm][biggrin]

---

Whats wrong with my mini malibu and how did you know I had it Ian? [bigrolf][bigrolf][bigrolf]

I guess he just sees you as the sort of chap that would have one. [biggrin]

O joy- I can be a trivial smarty pants again [thumbsupbig]

"
So, marathon running is actually protective for your knees. There’s been a few long-term studies. Meaning they followed runners who run marathons and run marathons on a regular basis, and then they come back to them 20-30 years later.

It actually decreases all-cause mortality, meaning these people are living longer. They have fewer diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes. But it’s actually protective for their knees. They have fewer instances of osteoarthritis. Which is when the bones wear away.

So running, in general, is extremely beneficial. It’s very healthy for you. And it protects against other diseases.

Running isn’t bad for your joints. It’s not bad for your ankle, your knee, or your hip joints. However, if you already have an injury, then you are far more likely to get injured moving forward with a training program.
So arthritis, for example, where there’s bone-on-bone contact and a degradation of the bone and the cartilage in between, where those two bony surfaces come together. Certainly, you don’t want to cause increased forces within that joint itself. But that’s not to say that you can’t run. If you get your muscles good and strong to support that shock wave that travels up to your body with every step, then you can mitigate or minimise those forces just fine."