But Ron Paul is the only candidate who has an iota's chance of getting elected. You may not agree with 100%, but he is still 90% better than anyone else who is running. Let him cut as much spending as he can in 4 years and then we'll run another election. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination (and it's not looking promising right now) it will be the end of the republican party. Between the sellout (Gingrich), the liberal (Romney), and the religious nutjob (Santorum), none of them can win a general election. Heck none of them can win more than 30-some percent of republican votes.
Ron Paul if given the nod will get all of his supporters (who will vote for him regardless if he gets the nomination or not) PLUS: Anyone who votes for whoever has an (R) next to their name Anyone who wants real spending cuts Anyone who values states rights Anyone who wants to end wars Democrats who are pissed off at Obama
That all adds up to Ron Paul and Obama statistically tied for a general election win. And if he gets the Republican nomination, that will surely bump him over the edge.
Nope, sadly the Republicans are doing everything they can to put a big government idiot up against him. What do you do when liberals can't vote for a democrat and conservatives can't vote for a republican?
I don't disagree with your point that US drivers are idiots. However the solution isn't to make everyone drive slow. The solution would be to raise the requirements for getting a driver's license. But again, the requirements for that are set by a-hole politicians and vary by state. In any case, an inattentive or crappy driver can kill someone at 20mph, 40mph, 60mph, 80mph, or 100mph. Speed limits don't make people safe.
I will agree, higher speeds equal higher momentum. That doesn't necessarily mean more fatality risk though. If you've ever spent a lot of time driving you realize that it's the slow drivers that are the biggest hazard. It's not speed that kills, it's speed differential that kills.
Speed limits are set by people smarter than you are about the subject at hand.
Oh really? Who exactly would that be? I am a civil engineer who has taken traffic design classes and know how to design roads. Do people like me set speed limits? Nope... It's some a-hole politician who sets the speed limits. Do they do calculations based on sight distances, friction, population density, or any other factors into their speed limits? Nope. They set it to some arbitrary number and then people come and petition to lower it because "it's for the safety of my children". Heck look at Interstate Highways next to controlled access US Highways. Both are designed to the same standards, but the interstate speed limit is set by the state, and the federal highway by the feds. They will probably have different speed limits. Not because of different risks, but different a-holes deciding the speed.
Speed limits are not and have never been for safety. That is just the excuse that most people believe. Speed limits were originally set for fuel economy. Today cars are designed to be much safer and much more stable at higher speeds than the majority of posted limits, yet the speed limits have not gone up as a result.
1) I'm pretty familiar with cars, efficiency, and the EPA's crappy tests. However, I live in the flattest of the flat part of Ohio, at an elevation of around 500 ft. I have not noticed any noticeable difference in mileage depending on how aggressively I drive (I have kept fuel logs for the life of the vehicle). I don't have a sampling of other Pontiac G6s and Chevy Malibus to compare it with, but based on reports of other mid-sized sedans from other manufacturers in the same model year that beat their EPA estimates, I highly suspect some sort of shady deal with GM to inflate their EPA numbers. Call me a crackpot if you want to, but I am never trusting of government-corporate collusion.
2, 3, and 5) These are being repaired under warranty. But the fact that they are under warranty doesn't change the fact that there were problems. You can't call a car reliable if it keeps having issues but the issues are repaired free of charge.
and 4) I drive a lot of different vehicles as part of my job, and the slushbox on my car is by far the worst I've experienced... But I have noticed an overall downward trend of all conventional auto transmissions over the years. Hopefully they will soon be replaced by dual clutch gearboxes and CVTs in the near future.
I bought a G6, and yes I got a good deal on it since they were trying to get rid of the last of the brand. However, a Pontiac G6 is a Chevy Malibu with different body panels... So it's not like they were going to stop making parts. I do have some sour grapes, but maybe I did just happen to get a bad one. However, my family has owned a few GM vehicles in my time and if anything my old Chevy Malibu (1999) had some great reliability.
The things that are wrong with the car after 20,000 miles: 1) Never got the mileage the EPA estimate claims. I have fuel logs showing a peak of about 28mpg on highway drives. It's rated for 33 highway. ~20% less than advertised (odd that GM claims it has the most vehicles over 30mpg) 2) Blinker doesn't return after completing right turns 3) Suspension on driver side front wheel clunks over bumps 4) The transmission is a piece of shit. It has worse shifts than I did when I was learning how to drive stick. It also does a horrible job anticipating what gear I will need to be in after slowing down. Sometimes it will downshift to get up a hill on the highway and then forget to upshift again at the top of the hill, when I'll have to switch to manual, upshift, and then back to auto. 5) And this one's the kicker, water starting dumping out of the overhead console where the light and sun roof controls are located
On the other hand, I bought a used 1997 Miata with 100,000 miles on it, and it runs like a champ. Every part on it (except consumables like brake pads) are still stock. Also, unlike the G6, I drive the shit out of it (I take it to race tracks).
You are correct, it is two years old and not a new car. However, if you are only basing reliability on one year or whatever you define as a new car period then you sir (and the author) are fools.
Also, reading the article it becomes apparent that what he is actually referring to is that new models are more reliable. I don't see any mention of a brand new Chevy Malibu (the same car as my G6) being reliable. Maybe now the new designs are coming out that are built worth a damn.
I went to catholic schools my whole life as well and they surely never taught that. I mean I was so skinny in high school I could have counted my ribs and proven that wrong right there in class.
I'm pretty sure space combat would consist of humans trying to kill each other in space considering if there are aliens, we are unlikely to ever meet them, and if they make it this far, they aren't going to waste their precious resources trying to kill us.
And as far as mankind on mankind action, I'd guess it would amount to throwing small masses at high velocity at each other (throwing rocks in a glass house).
3) forget the EULA... For the love of god, why the hell do I get a new icon on my desktop every time I update Adobe Reader. Forget that no one launches Adobe Reader from the icon, but lord almighty, if you don't bother asking me during the original install and I delete your damn icon, why would you put it back again during an update?
Climate science is not science, it is the equivalent of voodoo. A bunch of superstitious beliefs built around rituals of illusion, deception and desire.
Feel free to try and identify a control group for climate, if you can.
Exactly this! I don't think anyone denies climate change... Climate has never been and will never be constant. The earth will get colder in the future, it will get hotter in the future. Which way are we going? How far will it go? Are we affecting it significantly? Those are the questions people argue about.
However, the questions I want answered that no one will seem to address are: Which way is better for human life? If the earth is going to get colder or warmer in the future and we can affect it, which way should we be affecting it? If we can affect it and push it in a certain direction, what should we be doing that has the least consequences to human life?
Personally, looking at the globe and seeing where land is situated on earth and which parts of it have more prolific life, I tend to think a warmer planet will increase human life.
Umm citation? Isn't he the one who says it should be up to the states? I'm pretty sure that's what the Constitution says. Something like the 10th Amendment...
Annex Canada? Obama just told them to sell their oil to China. We don't want to pipe it through our country! Maybe politicians like war, and the oil just gets in the way?
If oil money is so important to politicians, then why can't we drill in Alaska, or in the Gulf, or build a pipeline to bring in oil from Canada? Oh right, because politicians are assholes and incompetent. Maybe they like war for war's sake and the oil is just an excuse?
I'm not sure how you think electricity generation works... The coal power plants are not throttleable. They don't produce power on demand, they just produce power. So if you are putting energy back into the grid, and the power plant is already producing more than the demand, the energy is wasted. Maybe if there are enough solar panels and it offsets the total peak need, then less fuel could be used, but in that case, wouldn't the market offer you some value for the sold energy rather than the government mandating that power companies HAVE to pay you for energy pushed back to the grid?
Ahh yes, pushing useless energy back into the grid in order to get useful energy back when you need it and aren't producing any. That is a much better system than storage. The electric companies really get screwed when they are forced to pay you for sending excess energy back to the grid. They aren't using any less fuel, and they end up paying you for the transmission losses and network maintenance that they should be charging.
If you are considering hydro as solar because the energy ultimately came from the sun, then I've got news for you... Pretty much everything aside from nuclear and geothermal (and even those if you want to be really pedantic) is solar. Coal and crude originally got their energy from the sun. Wind is obviously solar driven. Ok, tidal generation plants I could give you as not being solar powered.
Yes, the federal deficit under Obama's 2 years is a smidgen less than Bush's last year. However, push it back through his entire presidency and it is definitely much more than it was. The point is, Obama AND Bush spend too much. The real Tea Party are those that actually support putting the government on the chopping block and reducing its size. Just because idiots show up to protests doesn't mean that the cause is idiotic.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes because shitty jobs are equivalent to taking a shit in your neighbor's yard.
Yes that made no sense, but it made as much sense as your statement.
But Ron Paul is the only candidate who has an iota's chance of getting elected. You may not agree with 100%, but he is still 90% better than anyone else who is running. Let him cut as much spending as he can in 4 years and then we'll run another election. If Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination (and it's not looking promising right now) it will be the end of the republican party. Between the sellout (Gingrich), the liberal (Romney), and the religious nutjob (Santorum), none of them can win a general election. Heck none of them can win more than 30-some percent of republican votes.
Ron Paul if given the nod will get all of his supporters (who will vote for him regardless if he gets the nomination or not) PLUS:
Anyone who votes for whoever has an (R) next to their name
Anyone who wants real spending cuts
Anyone who values states rights
Anyone who wants to end wars
Democrats who are pissed off at Obama
That all adds up to Ron Paul and Obama statistically tied for a general election win. And if he gets the Republican nomination, that will surely bump him over the edge.
Nope, sadly the Republicans are doing everything they can to put a big government idiot up against him. What do you do when liberals can't vote for a democrat and conservatives can't vote for a republican?
I don't disagree with your point that US drivers are idiots. However the solution isn't to make everyone drive slow. The solution would be to raise the requirements for getting a driver's license. But again, the requirements for that are set by a-hole politicians and vary by state. In any case, an inattentive or crappy driver can kill someone at 20mph, 40mph, 60mph, 80mph, or 100mph. Speed limits don't make people safe.
I will agree, higher speeds equal higher momentum. That doesn't necessarily mean more fatality risk though. If you've ever spent a lot of time driving you realize that it's the slow drivers that are the biggest hazard. It's not speed that kills, it's speed differential that kills.
Depends on your definition of average. I could also say that only 2 people scored above average if I call the "mode" the average.
Speed limits are set by people smarter than you are about the subject at hand.
Oh really? Who exactly would that be? I am a civil engineer who has taken traffic design classes and know how to design roads. Do people like me set speed limits? Nope... It's some a-hole politician who sets the speed limits. Do they do calculations based on sight distances, friction, population density, or any other factors into their speed limits? Nope. They set it to some arbitrary number and then people come and petition to lower it because "it's for the safety of my children". Heck look at Interstate Highways next to controlled access US Highways. Both are designed to the same standards, but the interstate speed limit is set by the state, and the federal highway by the feds. They will probably have different speed limits. Not because of different risks, but different a-holes deciding the speed.
Speed limits are not and have never been for safety. That is just the excuse that most people believe. Speed limits were originally set for fuel economy. Today cars are designed to be much safer and much more stable at higher speeds than the majority of posted limits, yet the speed limits have not gone up as a result.
1) I'm pretty familiar with cars, efficiency, and the EPA's crappy tests. However, I live in the flattest of the flat part of Ohio, at an elevation of around 500 ft. I have not noticed any noticeable difference in mileage depending on how aggressively I drive (I have kept fuel logs for the life of the vehicle). I don't have a sampling of other Pontiac G6s and Chevy Malibus to compare it with, but based on reports of other mid-sized sedans from other manufacturers in the same model year that beat their EPA estimates, I highly suspect some sort of shady deal with GM to inflate their EPA numbers. Call me a crackpot if you want to, but I am never trusting of government-corporate collusion.
2, 3, and 5) These are being repaired under warranty. But the fact that they are under warranty doesn't change the fact that there were problems. You can't call a car reliable if it keeps having issues but the issues are repaired free of charge.
and 4) I drive a lot of different vehicles as part of my job, and the slushbox on my car is by far the worst I've experienced... But I have noticed an overall downward trend of all conventional auto transmissions over the years. Hopefully they will soon be replaced by dual clutch gearboxes and CVTs in the near future.
I bought a G6, and yes I got a good deal on it since they were trying to get rid of the last of the brand. However, a Pontiac G6 is a Chevy Malibu with different body panels... So it's not like they were going to stop making parts. I do have some sour grapes, but maybe I did just happen to get a bad one. However, my family has owned a few GM vehicles in my time and if anything my old Chevy Malibu (1999) had some great reliability.
The things that are wrong with the car after 20,000 miles:
1) Never got the mileage the EPA estimate claims. I have fuel logs showing a peak of about 28mpg on highway drives. It's rated for 33 highway. ~20% less than advertised (odd that GM claims it has the most vehicles over 30mpg)
2) Blinker doesn't return after completing right turns
3) Suspension on driver side front wheel clunks over bumps
4) The transmission is a piece of shit. It has worse shifts than I did when I was learning how to drive stick. It also does a horrible job anticipating what gear I will need to be in after slowing down. Sometimes it will downshift to get up a hill on the highway and then forget to upshift again at the top of the hill, when I'll have to switch to manual, upshift, and then back to auto.
5) And this one's the kicker, water starting dumping out of the overhead console where the light and sun roof controls are located
On the other hand, I bought a used 1997 Miata with 100,000 miles on it, and it runs like a champ. Every part on it (except consumables like brake pads) are still stock. Also, unlike the G6, I drive the shit out of it (I take it to race tracks).
You are correct, it is two years old and not a new car. However, if you are only basing reliability on one year or whatever you define as a new car period then you sir (and the author) are fools.
Also, reading the article it becomes apparent that what he is actually referring to is that new models are more reliable. I don't see any mention of a brand new Chevy Malibu (the same car as my G6) being reliable. Maybe now the new designs are coming out that are built worth a damn.
I went to catholic schools my whole life as well and they surely never taught that. I mean I was so skinny in high school I could have counted my ribs and proven that wrong right there in class.
The author has obviously not driven a GM vehicle lately. Let me count the problems with my two year old Pontiac...
How about the entire Mass Effect series?
I have a new disciplinary policy I'd like to institute called "No Child's Left Behind". You spank them, but you can only hit their right butt cheek.
I'm pretty sure space combat would consist of humans trying to kill each other in space considering if there are aliens, we are unlikely to ever meet them, and if they make it this far, they aren't going to waste their precious resources trying to kill us.
And as far as mankind on mankind action, I'd guess it would amount to throwing small masses at high velocity at each other (throwing rocks in a glass house).
3) forget the EULA... For the love of god, why the hell do I get a new icon on my desktop every time I update Adobe Reader. Forget that no one launches Adobe Reader from the icon, but lord almighty, if you don't bother asking me during the original install and I delete your damn icon, why would you put it back again during an update?
Climate science is not science, it is the equivalent of voodoo. A bunch of superstitious beliefs built around rituals of illusion, deception and desire.
Feel free to try and identify a control group for climate, if you can.
Exactly this! I don't think anyone denies climate change... Climate has never been and will never be constant. The earth will get colder in the future, it will get hotter in the future. Which way are we going? How far will it go? Are we affecting it significantly? Those are the questions people argue about.
However, the questions I want answered that no one will seem to address are: Which way is better for human life? If the earth is going to get colder or warmer in the future and we can affect it, which way should we be affecting it? If we can affect it and push it in a certain direction, what should we be doing that has the least consequences to human life?
Personally, looking at the globe and seeing where land is situated on earth and which parts of it have more prolific life, I tend to think a warmer planet will increase human life.
Umm citation? Isn't he the one who says it should be up to the states? I'm pretty sure that's what the Constitution says. Something like the 10th Amendment...
Annex Canada? Obama just told them to sell their oil to China. We don't want to pipe it through our country! Maybe politicians like war, and the oil just gets in the way?
If oil money is so important to politicians, then why can't we drill in Alaska, or in the Gulf, or build a pipeline to bring in oil from Canada? Oh right, because politicians are assholes and incompetent. Maybe they like war for war's sake and the oil is just an excuse?
I'm not sure how you think electricity generation works... The coal power plants are not throttleable. They don't produce power on demand, they just produce power. So if you are putting energy back into the grid, and the power plant is already producing more than the demand, the energy is wasted. Maybe if there are enough solar panels and it offsets the total peak need, then less fuel could be used, but in that case, wouldn't the market offer you some value for the sold energy rather than the government mandating that power companies HAVE to pay you for energy pushed back to the grid?
Ahh yes, pushing useless energy back into the grid in order to get useful energy back when you need it and aren't producing any. That is a much better system than storage. The electric companies really get screwed when they are forced to pay you for sending excess energy back to the grid. They aren't using any less fuel, and they end up paying you for the transmission losses and network maintenance that they should be charging.
If you are considering hydro as solar because the energy ultimately came from the sun, then I've got news for you... Pretty much everything aside from nuclear and geothermal (and even those if you want to be really pedantic) is solar. Coal and crude originally got their energy from the sun. Wind is obviously solar driven. Ok, tidal generation plants I could give you as not being solar powered.
Yes, the federal deficit under Obama's 2 years is a smidgen less than Bush's last year. However, push it back through his entire presidency and it is definitely much more than it was. The point is, Obama AND Bush spend too much. The real Tea Party are those that actually support putting the government on the chopping block and reducing its size. Just because idiots show up to protests doesn't mean that the cause is idiotic.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2001_2011USb_13s1li111lcn_G0fF0f