The MSF courses all tell you that you need to never enter a corner going too fast. You can speed up a bit or maintain, but having to use the brakes in a corner means you're splitting your traction between cornering forces and deceleration. Also, using the front brake makes the bike want to straighten back up from a lean.

This guy dropped his speed by 30mph from when he entered the corner to when he went off the pavement. I don't believe him when he claims that his steering locked up.

Totally agree about the target fixation. First thing I learned NOT to do in the MSF

Also good facts about the motorcycle vs car thing. I figured that was the case.

*humanitarian for MSF. This makes me so incredibly mad. Thank you for posting this @marinara, this sort of corruption needs to be continually exposed.

Not true at all. Being hot helps to be sure, but the TheAmazingAtheist has more than twice as many subscribers to his YouTube channel, Thunderf00t nearly has twice as many subscribers, AronRa is short of her subscriber count by only 14,000, dprjones who is the main host of the charity has over 28,000 subscribers more than half of hers... the list could go on. All those guys are just fairly average looking guys, though being a guy myself may make it harder to judge. People care what she says because she, like many of those guys, speaks truth.

>> ^quantumushroom:

If she was 70 no one would give a sh!t what she's blabbing about but would still like to see that halter come off.
Hail Satan!

wow, no one has given me such homicidal urges as this braindead bigot has...

One thing that really pisses me off is when christians use the "humanitarian aid" and "charity" argument. All the main and most widespread humanitarian aid groups are secular (UN, CICR, MSF, Amnesty International, etc.), while a lot of those "missionaries" do much more harm than good, feeding on the misery and lack of education of people in need to push their sick beliefs, some of which are counter-humanitarian (I'm looking at you, pope).

Tags for this video have been changed from 'adam curtis, charlie brooker, newswipe' to 'adam curtis, charlie brooker, newswipe, 2009, biafra, ethiopia, msf, cold war, rwanda' - edited by Eklek

This is why new riders need

#1. Proper Instruction ( http://www.msf-usa.org/ )
#2. To Start on SMALL BIKES

It's that kind of passive indifference that makes the roads so annoyingly scary... drivers just pass it off on us bikers... Oh I see you guys riding like retards so you deserve what you get. That kind of backwards logic doesn't work with you car-tards... I see people driving their cars like they are friggin' RETARDED and I don't assume its all car drivers are like that. I have never ridden past an auto accident and think... well he was probably speeding... that's what you get. I ride my bike because it saves me gas and is easier to use in the city I live in. Not because I have some romanticized idea of being a bad boy. I wear full ballistics and armor... I have taken multiple classes about evasive riding and how to act in a major crash.

This advert is merely asking you guys to just keep a better look out for bikers because we are harder to see... is that so frikkin hard for you to understand??? Seriously? I wear a bright yellow suit on my bright yellow bike... I make sure not to ride in blind spots... I don't weave in and out of traffic yet almost once a week I have some unconscious assclown almost run me off the road because he was too dratting lazy to glance in his sideview mirror for more than a millisecond.

I can't count how many times I have had someone pull out in front of me because they are looking the other way... You guys to should take the MSF course or maybe ride with a friend if you can. Get a little perspective before calling this advert out for being a "scare tactic".

The real roads are far scarier than this.

For starters, you're misreading me and I think you're misinformed. I am not claiming to be an expert in the field, and feel free to disparage my comments, but I actually care about this issue and I'll actually read and respond to what you say so I'd suggest you don't make statements that you can't back up with solid information and/or experience, because I will.

I'm not saying Merck is the only player in the fight against river blindness (it is very much not), nor am I saying Carter is completely useless. I'm saying he's getting credit where he doesn't deserve it, as in your title of "Jimmy Carter versus River Blindness in Ethiopia". That is not representative of the situation at all.

Now, as to your specific comments:

I find it extremely unlikely that they pay for the distribution of the drug or even for the initial diagnosis of the illness among the people living all over the goddamn continent.
You're flat-out wrong. The Mectizan Donation Program oversees the creation and distribution delivery of mectizan and is jointly supported by Merck and GlaxoSmithKline, both major pharmaceutical companies. The World Health Organization, the African Programme for Onchocerciasis Control, and several other governing bodies and programs see to the actual landfall distribution, the specific programs of which are open in a large part through donations from Merck and GSK. Diagnosis is a broad issue, but that is often performed through anti-onchocerciasis groups or broader organizations like WHO or MSF, or simply through common knowledge. River blindness is not a difficult disease to diagnose at the onset of morbidity.

Merck was "providing" treatment and people were still going blind, becoming victims of these "non-western" diseases.
Wrong again, although that's such a broad statement I don't know where to begin. Please back up your statements with an epidemiological citation, or refer the paragraph above, or both.

Should we all just sit still and say, "Merck has solved the problem. Damn those stupid Africans for not availing themselves of Merck's largess"? Your posting sure sounds like that.
You misread me then. I don't believe I said anything of the sort and I'd like you to point out where I said something that you think sounded like that.

Also, I noticed that you've twice implied that my opinion is biased because you're assuming that I carry what I can only interpret as an occidental viewpoint. I would suggest you think twice about making such assumptions, especially if you're going to misinterpret my views based upon my perceived nationality.

Jimmy Carter saw that there was a disconnect and worked to get it connected. Yes, because he is who he is, he can act as a figurehead, but he decided to do it, and he got it done.
What exactly did Jimmy Carter do again? What policies did Carter specifically enact, what program did he create, what did he specifically do that others did not and/or could not? Be good now and don't peek at Google. Seriously.

Was it getting done with Merck alone?
Please point out where I said that, and then please note the part where I said "put money into the research and public health organizations that actually matter". Then please tell me the part where "pharmaceutical company" factors into that equation.

Finally, I saved the best for last:
Jimmy Carter got those people a clinic.
A CLINIC? Are you serious? A clinic? A doctor, a translator, a box of food, and a box of drugs are a clinic, lol @ that being Jimmy Carter's contribution to the fight against river blindness. I don't think you have a clue of the scale of this disease, the general number cited is 37 million people infected worldwide. You're giving Carter far less credit than I'm giving him by noting his contribution as "getting those people a clinic", you're doing him a disservice in fact. Wacky indeed.

Very good idea. A non selfish donation. Even better!

Amnesty is a good idea.
I would also like to suggest Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without borders) as a worthy recipient.
http://www.msf.org/

This film explores motivations, attitudes, and challenges faced by Brett Davis and Mary Ann Hopkins who have joined Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) in order to assist people in such disaster-ridden areas as Darfur, Sri Lanka, Burundi, and DRC.

Médecins Sans Frontières is a secular humanitarian-aid non-governmental organization best known for its projects in war-torn regions and developing countries facing endemic disease.

Médecins Sans Frontières was created in 1971 by a small group of French doctors, as an aftermath of the Biafra secession. The organisation is known in most of the world by its French name or simply as MSF, but in the United States the name Doctors Without Borders is often used instead.

MSF is governed by an International Board of Directors located in Geneva, Switzerland, and organised into 20 sections. Annually, about 3,000 doctors, nurses, midwives and logisticians are recruited to run projects, but 1,000 permanently employed staff work to recruit volunteers and handle finances and media relations. Private donors provide about 80% of the organisation's funding, while governmental and corporate donations provide the rest, giving MSF an annual budget of approximately USD 400 million.

The organisation actively provides health care and medical training to populations in more than 70 countries, and frequently insists on political responsibility in conflict zones such as Chechnya and Kosovo. Only once in its history, during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, has the organisation called for a military intervention.

MSF received the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its members' continuous effort to provide medical care in acute crises, as well as raising international awareness of potential humanitarian disasters. Dr. James Orbinski, who was the president of the organisation at the time, accepted the prize on behalf of MSF. Prior to this, MSF also received the 1996 Seoul Peace Prize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9decins_sans_Fronti%C3%A8res

Until I can run MSFS with all of its customizations on a console, I'll stick with PCs for games.