Marxists? No, they were mostly Democrats, not Republicans.
Republicans have consistently increased spending and the size of government during their tenures. 8 years of George Bush, with 6 of them having all branches of government dominated by Republicans, and we've got trillions of dollars of extra debt and a new federal department of pork.
We HAD a choice. Ron Paul was just sitting there, saying "Hey, let's just cut the crap. If we cut the crap, let states handle their own governance, we can eliminate the personal income tax and replace it with nothing, and greatly increase personal liberty."
I think he got 7% in the polls. That's how many Americans give a crap about what you're talking about.
Americans WANT socialism. They WANT to be controlled. They DON'T want freedom; What they want is someone who can win an election with warm fuzzy platitudes.
Yes, every democratic government since WWII has run tighter budgets than republicans.
Liberalism, apparently means economic conservatism. Conservatism, by contrast, apparently means stealing a billion dollars a day from your kids because you're too cheap to pay for all the services you recieve.
Don't kid yourself. The one student of the austrian school of economics I'm aware of is pariah, shunned by both parties for his ridiculous ideas of lower taxes, lower spending, and smaller government.
That's not true! There's also the ability to piss off anyone who knows anything about computers by telling them that you're running vista and you don't intend to upgrade to XP!
"Capable of" doesn't mean anything. That's the problem. We're not talking about engines in the abstract, we're talking about motors used in existing motor vehicles.
I know from the experience of driving my F250 Turbodiesel vs. much newer F250 Superdutys with about twice the horsepower, the diesel is far more confident at the lower-end. I can take off from third in my diesel with the same feeling that I get taking off from first in the SD gassers.
I make most sharp turns declutched. As I said, the physics says you'll have more total traction available to the tires reducing the chances of oversteer from a RWD vehicle or understeer from a FWD vehicle or 4WD vehicle.
If I punch the gas on an icy day in Winnipeg in my F250, I bet you I'll be in front of anything else on the road. In fact, that's exactly how I control my driving area in Winnipeg in the Winter.:P
Why does it sounds like a good way to get yourself killed?
Simple physics says your ability to steer will be much improved if you're in a front wheel drive vehicle and you take away the extra traction required to propel the vehicle, and the likelyhood of oversteer in a rear wheel drive vehicle drops dramatically if you eliminate the traction on the back wheels being used to propel the vehicle.
In winter, my first rule if I'm losing control is "declutch.", for that very reason. It's never done me wrong.
It's not something to be argued. Vehicle companies openly admit that they can do things in certain jurisdictions they can't in others because of environmental regulations.
The problem is that EPA regulations don't just cover carbon. If you kept carbon emissions to the absolute minimum, you'd be keeping fuel consumption to an absolute minimum. The problem comes from particulate, NOX, and CO emissions, all of which require efficiency robbing devices to control.
Best example is the Daihatsu copen. In Europe, they were forced to go from a 660cc turbocharged motor to a much less efficient 1.3L. The stated reason for the change is that the 660cc motor was too tough to get through emissions testing, because it released more particulate emissions, despite being massively more efficient.
90% of accidents are caused by sloppy driving; Not controlling your road space, acting unpredictably, not being in control of your vehicle.
I've found that even in cities, it's not impossible to control your road space, and accidents which do happen will be the non-violent sort; minor scrapes in parking lots, during lane changes, and at stop-lights.
Your arguement isn't logical. Government screwed up the standard....so we need more, bigger government? Yes! Let's let incompetent government screw up the ENTIRE country instead of just one state!
I think it means Californians need to write their congressmen and get the law changed.
Nice fallacy. "No criticizing the president until you're a president!"
Hell, you're right! Why even have elections? All these people who aren't president thinking they know what it takes; Let's abolish elections and just let George W. Bush rule forever, to be succeeded by surviving presidents until we run out of former presidents!
It's not neccessary to investigate all theories. At all. Ever.
In fact, investigating theories is the opposite of how theories work.
The proper process is as follows:
1. Gather data 2. Create theory to model data 3. Create falsifyable hypothesis to test theory 4. If falsifyable hypothesis is perfect, end cycle. 5. If falsifyable hypothesis is flawed, reconsider theory to account for irregularities,head back to step 3. 6. If falsifyable hypothesis is false, continue back to step 2.
One ought not to 'investigate theories', as it does not lend itself to proper theory building processes.
There is no "moderate dead". It's a pretty binary thing.
Actually, you could probably say one of the only truly binary things in the world. After "am I dead?", which can be answered with a definitive yes or no(and if you can ask the question, I'm betting you're going to answer 'yes'), pretty much any non-abstract question you ask has to be answered with a degree of "In some cases it can be tough to say for sure".
That's probably why it's so difficult to be moderate about the war. The decision to kill people has a certain finality to it. In fact, the moderate decision is usually not to kill anyone at all. Just look at the muslim world; Who are the "moderate clerics"? The ones who are saying "Let's not destroy the Satan America".
Slashdot Mirror
Marxists? No, they were mostly Democrats, not Republicans.
Republicans have consistently increased spending and the size of government during their tenures. 8 years of George Bush, with 6 of them having all branches of government dominated by Republicans, and we've got trillions of dollars of extra debt and a new federal department of pork.
Be fair.
We HAD a choice. Ron Paul was just sitting there, saying "Hey, let's just cut the crap. If we cut the crap, let states handle their own governance, we can eliminate the personal income tax and replace it with nothing, and greatly increase personal liberty."
I think he got 7% in the polls. That's how many Americans give a crap about what you're talking about.
Americans WANT socialism. They WANT to be controlled. They DON'T want freedom; What they want is someone who can win an election with warm fuzzy platitudes.
Yes, every democratic government since WWII has run tighter budgets than republicans.
Liberalism, apparently means economic conservatism. Conservatism, by contrast, apparently means stealing a billion dollars a day from your kids because you're too cheap to pay for all the services you recieve.
Don't kid yourself. The one student of the austrian school of economics I'm aware of is pariah, shunned by both parties for his ridiculous ideas of lower taxes, lower spending, and smaller government.
Oh, I'd pirate it, but it doesn't really sound like a great game.
That's not true! There's also the ability to piss off anyone who knows anything about computers by telling them that you're running vista and you don't intend to upgrade to XP!
Ooh, then ask them for tech support!
"Capable of" doesn't mean anything. That's the problem. We're not talking about engines in the abstract, we're talking about motors used in existing motor vehicles.
I know from the experience of driving my F250 Turbodiesel vs. much newer F250 Superdutys with about twice the horsepower, the diesel is far more confident at the lower-end. I can take off from third in my diesel with the same feeling that I get taking off from first in the SD gassers.
I make most sharp turns declutched. As I said, the physics says you'll have more total traction available to the tires reducing the chances of oversteer from a RWD vehicle or understeer from a FWD vehicle or 4WD vehicle.
I can start from a stop in third at the speed most people would take off from first.
don't tell me low-end torque doesn't matter.
If I punch the gas on an icy day in Winnipeg in my F250, I bet you I'll be in front of anything else on the road. In fact, that's exactly how I control my driving area in Winnipeg in the Winter. :P
Cars in Europe run on rich history and generations-old tradition. That's how they get such great gas mileage.
Why does it sounds like a good way to get yourself killed?
Simple physics says your ability to steer will be much improved if you're in a front wheel drive vehicle and you take away the extra traction required to propel the vehicle, and the likelyhood of oversteer in a rear wheel drive vehicle drops dramatically if you eliminate the traction on the back wheels being used to propel the vehicle.
In winter, my first rule if I'm losing control is "declutch.", for that very reason. It's never done me wrong.
It's not something to be argued. Vehicle companies openly admit that they can do things in certain jurisdictions they can't in others because of environmental regulations.
The problem is that EPA regulations don't just cover carbon. If you kept carbon emissions to the absolute minimum, you'd be keeping fuel consumption to an absolute minimum. The problem comes from particulate, NOX, and CO emissions, all of which require efficiency robbing devices to control.
Best example is the Daihatsu copen. In Europe, they were forced to go from a 660cc turbocharged motor to a much less efficient 1.3L. The stated reason for the change is that the 660cc motor was too tough to get through emissions testing, because it released more particulate emissions, despite being massively more efficient.
So drive better.
90% of accidents are caused by sloppy driving; Not controlling your road space, acting unpredictably, not being in control of your vehicle.
I've found that even in cities, it's not impossible to control your road space, and accidents which do happen will be the non-violent sort; minor scrapes in parking lots, during lane changes, and at stop-lights.
Your arguement isn't logical. Government screwed up the standard....so we need more, bigger government? Yes! Let's let incompetent government screw up the ENTIRE country instead of just one state!
I think it means Californians need to write their congressmen and get the law changed.
Nice fallacy. "No criticizing the president until you're a president!"
Hell, you're right! Why even have elections? All these people who aren't president thinking they know what it takes; Let's abolish elections and just let George W. Bush rule forever, to be succeeded by surviving presidents until we run out of former presidents!
If it makes you feel any better, I've got the same 90HP you do, but in a V6.
I think I get about 18MPG. Gotta love the '80s.
Peak power isn't really a useful number unless you intend to go ridiculously fast.
Diesel is different from gas in that the torque is where you want it, at the low end, so driving is still fun.
Get the fuck out, useless telemarketer. In THIS forum, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
Yes, but if I do that, you'll never learn to post sources for important data.
It is necessary to investigate all theories.
Whoah there! Hang back!
It's not neccessary to investigate all theories. At all. Ever.
In fact, investigating theories is the opposite of how theories work.
The proper process is as follows:
1. Gather data
2. Create theory to model data
3. Create falsifyable hypothesis to test theory
4. If falsifyable hypothesis is perfect, end cycle.
5. If falsifyable hypothesis is flawed, reconsider theory to account for irregularities,head back to step 3.
6. If falsifyable hypothesis is false, continue back to step 2.
One ought not to 'investigate theories', as it does not lend itself to proper theory building processes.
Amazingly, a recent survey has shown that a full 85% of Americans can't spell their first name.
And the same survey shows that 92% of made-up statistics without sources are made-up on the spot to support conclusions that are similarly made-up.
Ah yes, the "They were crazy and evil" defense.
You're right, Abu Ghraib was sadistic. It's amazing that the politicians are even defending the use of torture.
There is no "moderate dead". It's a pretty binary thing.
Actually, you could probably say one of the only truly binary things in the world. After "am I dead?", which can be answered with a definitive yes or no(and if you can ask the question, I'm betting you're going to answer 'yes'), pretty much any non-abstract question you ask has to be answered with a degree of "In some cases it can be tough to say for sure".
That's probably why it's so difficult to be moderate about the war. The decision to kill people has a certain finality to it. In fact, the moderate decision is usually not to kill anyone at all. Just look at the muslim world; Who are the "moderate clerics"? The ones who are saying "Let's not destroy the Satan America".
Oh crap, I left my cd folder in a hotel room in Atlanta!
Well, guess I'll have to spend a few thousand dollars replacing all this software now!
I'm such a happy consumer!