You're right. That's some rubbish writing there (and in many other parts of the movie). He says there's a lot of $ going into R&D, and that there's some Batmobile schematics. So yeah, Wayne Enterprises made "the Tumbler," and is probably working on other Batman stuff. That's all he knows. So yeah, Lucius screwed up big-time.
In fact, MIT and the University of Cambridge have a strong partnership. There are exchange programs, joint research, etc. If you're an MIT graduate then it's not that hard to be accepted to the Uni. of Cambridge provided you weren't a failure.
The presentation I did for my MPhil thesis (NLP processing, Uni. of Cambridge) was the equivalent of what I used to do at science fairs when I was 15 or 16. I guess I did make it clear enough that I knew what I was talking about and that I did the work, but it wasn't anywhere near the pressure or scrutiny of a viva. Vivas were reserved only for people who failed the presentation epically. Though to be fair, our supervisors were busy people, and I suppose anyone who can't be bothered to do his/her own research wouldn't have made it into the program anyhow.
Not if the non-altruistic one destroyed the altruistic group. The point made was that altruism, and other "virtues" that some believe are inspired solely by religious tenets, can be explained by other means -- means with a basis in science rather than religious texts. I can't prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural. Rumors of its existence have existed since the early times of our species. I find it hard discount its existence just because you have found no natural evidence of the supernatural. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Its fine if you don't believe in it, but to try and prove those who disagree with you as being wrong is somewhat silly. I don't know if you're right or wrong, or for that matter, who is right or who is wrong. I do know that trying to claim one as 100% certain (which is silly from a scientific view, since science normally never claims 100% certainty of anything) is ridiculous unless you offer something much more substantial than anything I've ever seen posted on Slashdot. Let the believers believe. Lets the nonbelievers not believe. And let them not call each others names, unless warranted (which applies to both the religious zealots and the science zealots). While you may find it hard to discount something that has no rational explanation or evidence that stands up to scrutiny, I find it extremely easy. This is because I take a rational, scientific approach to the question. Is there evidence for a deity (direct or indirect)? Are there reliable observations that suggest the likelihood of a deity (be it Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, or something more ephemeral)? The answer to that question is 'no.' This makes a deity exactly as likely as other things that have no evidence for their existence -- firebreathing dragons, fairies, and so forth.
People like to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That's true, but it doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance of existence/absence (as I'm sure you would agree if we applied the same argument to fairies). At some point you have to ask yourself, how do you tell the difference between utter "absence of evidence" and actual "absence" altogether? The answer is, of course, you can't. And you may also ask, what then is the probability of existence, given this impression of absence?
For a deity, some may present the argument from ignorance -- "I don't understand x, which leads me to believe it has supernatural origins" (or something to that effect). Looking at history alone should be enough to show how ridiculous a statement this is (as it once applied to thunder and lightning, and then to species diversity, and then to the origin of life, et cetera). But even on its own, the statement is utterly meaningless, as it attempts to explain something using the unexplained. Using what appears to be unexplainABLE, even, as some theists will agree and yet be satisfied.
A belief that the supernatural for which there is no evidence serves as explanation for anything, is irrational.
Finally, the "religious zealots and science zealots" parallelism is irresponsible. I'm paraphrasing an insightful quote, but basically: when two sides argue with equal fervor, it does not mean that the truth lies midway; it's possible for one side to simply be wrong.
With a rational thought process, it becomes quite clear that one side is indeed wrong, and which side it is.
Whether your stance that evolution and God are not incompatible only seems valid to me if you see God as a philosophical rather than scientific question.
From a scientific standpoint, God does not play into evolutionary theory in any way, period. To say evolution is divinely guided is akin to saying that 2+2=4 because God willed it to be so. Well, 2+2 does indeed equal 4, whether or not the reality was "divinely willed" or not. The question of "compatibility," then, can only be allowed at a purely philosophical level.
Those people that take a scientific approach to God would look at this question on a scientific level, and would say that divine guidance and evolution are indeed incompatible.
You betray something of a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory when you say things like "the mechanism and process is the same regardless of whether it's random or guided." You should know that really, it is neither.
As for whether believing in God's divine guidance of evolution affecting one's work in evolutionary research, well I submit that it absolutely *can* have a bearing. One pitfall in scientific research, particularly in evolution, is ascribing intent when there isn't any. I am less inclined to presume that those that already ascribe irrational intent (divine guidance) are as likely to avoid ascribing intent where there is none, as are those who avoid the former.
Guided Evolution isn't remotely controversial except to the most staunch anti-religionists ????
Man, you might need to wipe your arse after dropping that turd of a sentence. It's ridiculous. If evolutionary theory doesn't make use of a supernatural being guiding whatever, then it's not describing "guided evolution" in that sense whatsoever (and in fact int doesn't, as there is no evidence for supreme guidance of any evolutionary process). This makes the idea of "guided evolution" extremely controversial to any evolutionary scientist (or, indeed, anyone who thinks rationally).
Also, dismissing "guided evolution" as non-scientific rubbish is hardly the telling sign of a "staunch anti-religionist," nor is it unique to people you would group under that term.
Well, "evolutionary theory" (which includes natural selection) is in the scientific sense, a theory. In the colloquial sense, that translates to "fact." The colloquial sense of "theory" does not apply to the theory of natural selection any more than it applies to gravity, indeed.
I think that rather than defending the strength of the word "theory," we need to recognize that there is indeed more than one sense to the word, and creationists like to use the "weaker" sense when referring to evolutionary theory, when in reality they're wrong to do so. It's yet another disingenuity on their part. When they say "evolution is only a theory," they are either disingenuous or misinformed. There is no other alternative, because they are not using the word "theory" in the scientific sense.
Prove global warming false? Just what are you talking about?
The trillion-dollar question is what factors combine to affect the Earth's temperature, and whether/how these factors can be influenced by people.
There ARE "carbon cultists" in the sense the GP described -- people that truly have zero grasp of the science involved in climate change and in what practical effect any sort of change will have on the Earth's populations. Every climate model that suggests a strong correlation between human activity and mean global temperature also suggests that the effect of this human activity will linger for decades to come. This means that even the science that drives fools to invest in curbing carbon emmissions really says it's better to invest in dealing with the problems that we're supposed to see for decades to come *due* to future global warming. Better levees surrounding coastal cities, etc. Basically, whatever reasons global warming is "bad," we should be addressing those reasons because if those models are correct, we'll be dealing with those reasons soon enough. (Otherwise, what's all the fuss about to begin with?)
Mind you, cleaner energy, more efficient power generation, etc. -- that's all well and good regardless. Maintaining a clean environment is good regardless. However, this is NOT the same thing as "fighting" global warming (CO2 is not a *pollutant* any more than water vapor is). So people that say "hey, it's a good thing regardless" are not considering that 1) it may well be a meaningless thing if you're interested in a clean environment as opposed to affecting global temperature trends, and 2) it costs an enormous amount of money that may be put to far better, more practical use that is likely to be needed in the short run, at least if anthropogenic global warming proponents are correct.
To reiterate - if anthropogenic global warming proponents are correct, they're doing the wrong things about it. If they're wrong, they're doing the wrong things, period.
It's become too much of a political issue at this point for the science (and, in any case, reasonable action) to be relevant to most people, and that's not only a shame but truly an issue that will end up affecting us detrimentally. Because the unfortunate truth is that at the moment one cannot make billions of dollars mitigating the effects of [climate-change-driven?] natural disasters and ecosystem changes, but one certainly can by "trading carbon offsets" or creating biofuels (at the expense of food shortage).
That's a very particular situation. You're a pirate who has invested everything into a ship that ganks miners. For *your* death penalty to be so brutal is perfectly fair, given your vocation.
How does it average out, though? I haven't played it, so I'm curious.
Rubbish. If potential customers are *unwilling* to buy a product, it is the vendor's problem. More so than the consumers', even.
If I am unwilling to purchase an XBox 360 for whatever reason, opting instead for a PS3, is that really my problem? No, if it's anyone's it's Microsoft's.
Guild Wars has a good PVP system as far as "competitive PVP" goes, but it's of no consequence to the players' characters, and that I think is the distinction the story is trying to draw. So, GW falls into the same PVP category as does the Conan MMO in that there is hardly a "death penalty" when killed in PVP, whereas in EVE (as far as I know) there's a significantly bigger one. Maybe not as bad as in Ultima Online, but I think it's felt.
World of Warcraft, as far as I know, is also much like Guild Wars / Conan in this regard.
I wonder how Guild Wars 2 is going to approach competitive PVP, given that they don't plan on having a real level cap. Maybe PVP will be even more removed from PVE than it is now, which I don't doubt given the bigger rift ArenaNet keeps on creating (now with the PVP-specific skill settings, etc.).
Distributing music / downloading music (infringing on copyright) is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Unless you want to change the legal definition of these words, and you're welcome to try and do so, what you say is INCORRECT.
They have very different consequences on all parties involved, and they carry far, far different penalties by law.
People with wholly inaccurate views on this matter, views skewed by media corporations -- people such as yourself -- are a big part of the problem when it comes to moving forward from the fiasco that online media distribution is becoming.
Did you ever play Jedi Knight II? Heck of a game on PC, especially with how much work the mod community put into it. Fantastic online multiplayer where I used... Link with the Master Sword (in place of a lightsaber) hehe. That, Shadows, and KOTOR are probably the 3 best SW games I've ever played.
NCLB doesn't raise the bar of public education, it lowers it so that people who are otherwise too stupid to pass would now do so. That's how it's handled due to punitive measures the act imposes against schools that do not improve based on its standardized tests. The achievement gap is lowered, but not by briging the bottom higher; rather it brings the top lower. It doesn't force underachieving students to rise to the occasion.
Agh, lame. Well, I don't know how he plans on fixing it, either, but Obama's plan is ridiculous in my opinion because he's taking money away from something that would educate us on a global scale (space exploration) in order to ensure the lowest common denominator being catered to in schools.
Basically NCLB is a horrible idea that I despise and anyone supporting it is misguided in my view. Since both McCain and Obama like NCLB, it'll have to as usual be a comparison of two evils.
I only know Obama's stance on NCLB (haven't looked into McCain's) -- he plans on "rescuing" it by cutting NASA's budget. So... if you want NCLB gone (and I certainly do), then Obama isn't your guy. McCain may not be, either, but so far I haven't heard anything about it from him and his plan certainly can't be *worse.* Still, it's far from the only issue out there.
Have you ever played an actual sports video game? Doesn't sound like it to me.
It's the Xbox 360 not Xbox2. And it's brought a bit more than sweat... in fact, that's mostly what the Wii is trying to sell people, what with Wii Fit and all. And for the record, the Wii IS a rubbish console. If it weren't for, as usual, the decent first-party offerings, it'd be a complete waste of money. Really, it's the Gamecube with a gimmicky controller that isn't used to nearly its full potential and which has 10x longer load times (Smash Bros Brawl's are abysmal compared to Melee).
Mario64 DS (touchscreen obviously not necessary, and certainly less so than a joystick/thumbstick) Mario Kart DS (touchscreen not even used really) Castlevanias (touchscreen only used to finish off bosses -- insanely annoying) Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (I admit the screen works... but I don't think it is an improvement over traditional handheld Zelda controls, and has almost no bearing on how much I enjoyed the game (except that my touchscreen is old and fubar so all my item selection was off by 5mm which made the game harder, hah)) New Super Mario Bros (touchscreen not used)
Not my fav: MP Hunters (I'm left-handed... so yeah this game is like a big FU to me)
Wii Sports is a tech demo at best, given how little content there is. It was fun for like two days.
I agree with the OP that the Wii has really not been used to its seeming potential. Either it really is just a rubbish console, or developers are just too lazy. I submit it's both (developers too lazy to make the most of a rubbish console). I'm not an uninformed hater, either. I have a Wii, but the games I like on it are Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros -- both basically Gamecube games. (I have Twilight Princess, but actually *for* the Cube). That is, the Wii's good games are IMO ones that have no need for the gimmicky wiimote. Just like my fav games on my DS have no need for the gimmicky touchscreen (though they desperately try to incorporate it, such as with Castlevania).
Doesn't work in Japan, either, from what I remember. More manuals there than in the US, and if you're a car thief in Japan you're probably prepared to drive off with a manual. I have no numbers to back that up, just an impression.
Good lord man, are you being serious? First we have a 5-year-old CNN review of Cadillac's *gimped-on-purpose* (so as not to cannibalize the Corvette) XLR with an SL500 in which it becomes basically a subjective "umm Mercedes wins" despite it being a comparison between performance convertibles in which the Mercedes get outperformed. Next we have Motor Trend, which frankly I wouldn't even wipe my arse with, and quote an excerpt where they compare LEATHER. Leather, my good man. Again, wholly subjective and unrelated to the rest of the vehicle's quality (Ford has always had some of the most comfortable seats, for instance).
The notion that Mercedes are built better is outdated. It is not necessarily that they've gotten worse (though I've seen some C-series lemons), but the competition *has* gotten better, Cadillac in particular as far as American autos go (well, GM in general really, since Ford and Chrysler are still struggling to make their non-trucks anything but rubbish).
This isn't true anymore, and hasn't been for some time. Cadillacs are very high-quality these days, and while the S-Class is very well put together, so is the CTS. You're not really paying for higher quality with luxury Euro imports anymore. With Japanese ones (Lexus in particular) I suppose you are, but not so with the Germans (and forget about the rest, heh).
So, it's NOT a bad analogy for me because if you knew what you were talking about, you'd just nod and move along instead of bringing up Merc's "reputation" (as opposed to, say, Consumer Reports scores or at least something to point to).
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. That's some rubbish writing there (and in many other parts of the movie). He says there's a lot of $ going into R&D, and that there's some Batmobile schematics. So yeah, Wayne Enterprises made "the Tumbler," and is probably working on other Batman stuff. That's all he knows. So yeah, Lucius screwed up big-time.
In fact, MIT and the University of Cambridge have a strong partnership. There are exchange programs, joint research, etc. If you're an MIT graduate then it's not that hard to be accepted to the Uni. of Cambridge provided you weren't a failure.
deprecated
It's from The Matrix: Retarded err I mean Reloaded.
The presentation I did for my MPhil thesis (NLP processing, Uni. of Cambridge) was the equivalent of what I used to do at science fairs when I was 15 or 16. I guess I did make it clear enough that I knew what I was talking about and that I did the work, but it wasn't anywhere near the pressure or scrutiny of a viva. Vivas were reserved only for people who failed the presentation epically. Though to be fair, our supervisors were busy people, and I suppose anyone who can't be bothered to do his/her own research wouldn't have made it into the program anyhow.
I draw no line at all. ID is a term pushed by the Discovery Institute, but it's really just creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
People like to say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That's true, but it doesn't mean there's a 50/50 chance of existence/absence (as I'm sure you would agree if we applied the same argument to fairies). At some point you have to ask yourself, how do you tell the difference between utter "absence of evidence" and actual "absence" altogether? The answer is, of course, you can't. And you may also ask, what then is the probability of existence, given this impression of absence?
For a deity, some may present the argument from ignorance -- "I don't understand x, which leads me to believe it has supernatural origins" (or something to that effect). Looking at history alone should be enough to show how ridiculous a statement this is (as it once applied to thunder and lightning, and then to species diversity, and then to the origin of life, et cetera). But even on its own, the statement is utterly meaningless, as it attempts to explain something using the unexplained. Using what appears to be unexplainABLE, even, as some theists will agree and yet be satisfied.
A belief that the supernatural for which there is no evidence serves as explanation for anything, is irrational.
Finally, the "religious zealots and science zealots" parallelism is irresponsible. I'm paraphrasing an insightful quote, but basically: when two sides argue with equal fervor, it does not mean that the truth lies midway; it's possible for one side to simply be wrong.
With a rational thought process, it becomes quite clear that one side is indeed wrong, and which side it is.
Whether your stance that evolution and God are not incompatible only seems valid to me if you see God as a philosophical rather than scientific question.
From a scientific standpoint, God does not play into evolutionary theory in any way, period. To say evolution is divinely guided is akin to saying that 2+2=4 because God willed it to be so. Well, 2+2 does indeed equal 4, whether or not the reality was "divinely willed" or not. The question of "compatibility," then, can only be allowed at a purely philosophical level.
Those people that take a scientific approach to God would look at this question on a scientific level, and would say that divine guidance and evolution are indeed incompatible.
You betray something of a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory when you say things like "the mechanism and process is the same regardless of whether it's random or guided." You should know that really, it is neither.
As for whether believing in God's divine guidance of evolution affecting one's work in evolutionary research, well I submit that it absolutely *can* have a bearing. One pitfall in scientific research, particularly in evolution, is ascribing intent when there isn't any. I am less inclined to presume that those that already ascribe irrational intent (divine guidance) are as likely to avoid ascribing intent where there is none, as are those who avoid the former.
Man, you might need to wipe your arse after dropping that turd of a sentence. It's ridiculous. If evolutionary theory doesn't make use of a supernatural being guiding whatever, then it's not describing "guided evolution" in that sense whatsoever (and in fact int doesn't, as there is no evidence for supreme guidance of any evolutionary process). This makes the idea of "guided evolution" extremely controversial to any evolutionary scientist (or, indeed, anyone who thinks rationally).
Also, dismissing "guided evolution" as non-scientific rubbish is hardly the telling sign of a "staunch anti-religionist," nor is it unique to people you would group under that term.
Well, "evolutionary theory" (which includes natural selection) is in the scientific sense, a theory. In the colloquial sense, that translates to "fact." The colloquial sense of "theory" does not apply to the theory of natural selection any more than it applies to gravity, indeed.
I think that rather than defending the strength of the word "theory," we need to recognize that there is indeed more than one sense to the word, and creationists like to use the "weaker" sense when referring to evolutionary theory, when in reality they're wrong to do so. It's yet another disingenuity on their part. When they say "evolution is only a theory," they are either disingenuous or misinformed. There is no other alternative, because they are not using the word "theory" in the scientific sense.
Prove global warming false? Just what are you talking about?
The trillion-dollar question is what factors combine to affect the Earth's temperature, and whether/how these factors can be influenced by people.
There ARE "carbon cultists" in the sense the GP described -- people that truly have zero grasp of the science involved in climate change and in what practical effect any sort of change will have on the Earth's populations. Every climate model that suggests a strong correlation between human activity and mean global temperature also suggests that the effect of this human activity will linger for decades to come. This means that even the science that drives fools to invest in curbing carbon emmissions really says it's better to invest in dealing with the problems that we're supposed to see for decades to come *due* to future global warming. Better levees surrounding coastal cities, etc. Basically, whatever reasons global warming is "bad," we should be addressing those reasons because if those models are correct, we'll be dealing with those reasons soon enough. (Otherwise, what's all the fuss about to begin with?)
Mind you, cleaner energy, more efficient power generation, etc. -- that's all well and good regardless. Maintaining a clean environment is good regardless. However, this is NOT the same thing as "fighting" global warming (CO2 is not a *pollutant* any more than water vapor is). So people that say "hey, it's a good thing regardless" are not considering that 1) it may well be a meaningless thing if you're interested in a clean environment as opposed to affecting global temperature trends, and 2) it costs an enormous amount of money that may be put to far better, more practical use that is likely to be needed in the short run, at least if anthropogenic global warming proponents are correct.
To reiterate - if anthropogenic global warming proponents are correct, they're doing the wrong things about it. If they're wrong, they're doing the wrong things, period.
It's become too much of a political issue at this point for the science (and, in any case, reasonable action) to be relevant to most people, and that's not only a shame but truly an issue that will end up affecting us detrimentally. Because the unfortunate truth is that at the moment one cannot make billions of dollars mitigating the effects of [climate-change-driven?] natural disasters and ecosystem changes, but one certainly can by "trading carbon offsets" or creating biofuels (at the expense of food shortage).
That's a very particular situation. You're a pirate who has invested everything into a ship that ganks miners. For *your* death penalty to be so brutal is perfectly fair, given your vocation.
How does it average out, though? I haven't played it, so I'm curious.
Rubbish. If potential customers are *unwilling* to buy a product, it is the vendor's problem. More so than the consumers', even.
If I am unwilling to purchase an XBox 360 for whatever reason, opting instead for a PS3, is that really my problem? No, if it's anyone's it's Microsoft's.
Guild Wars has a good PVP system as far as "competitive PVP" goes, but it's of no consequence to the players' characters, and that I think is the distinction the story is trying to draw. So, GW falls into the same PVP category as does the Conan MMO in that there is hardly a "death penalty" when killed in PVP, whereas in EVE (as far as I know) there's a significantly bigger one. Maybe not as bad as in Ultima Online, but I think it's felt.
World of Warcraft, as far as I know, is also much like Guild Wars / Conan in this regard.
I wonder how Guild Wars 2 is going to approach competitive PVP, given that they don't plan on having a real level cap. Maybe PVP will be even more removed from PVE than it is now, which I don't doubt given the bigger rift ArenaNet keeps on creating (now with the PVP-specific skill settings, etc.).
Distributing music / downloading music (infringing on copyright) is not theft, it's copyright infringement. Unless you want to change the legal definition of these words, and you're welcome to try and do so, what you say is INCORRECT.
They have very different consequences on all parties involved, and they carry far, far different penalties by law.
People with wholly inaccurate views on this matter, views skewed by media corporations -- people such as yourself -- are a big part of the problem when it comes to moving forward from the fiasco that online media distribution is becoming.
Did you ever play Jedi Knight II? Heck of a game on PC, especially with how much work the mod community put into it. Fantastic online multiplayer where I used... Link with the Master Sword (in place of a lightsaber) hehe. That, Shadows, and KOTOR are probably the 3 best SW games I've ever played.
NCLB doesn't raise the bar of public education, it lowers it so that people who are otherwise too stupid to pass would now do so. That's how it's handled due to punitive measures the act imposes against schools that do not improve based on its standardized tests. The achievement gap is lowered, but not by briging the bottom higher; rather it brings the top lower. It doesn't force underachieving students to rise to the occasion.
So, it's a POS.
Agh, lame. Well, I don't know how he plans on fixing it, either, but Obama's plan is ridiculous in my opinion because he's taking money away from something that would educate us on a global scale (space exploration) in order to ensure the lowest common denominator being catered to in schools.
Basically NCLB is a horrible idea that I despise and anyone supporting it is misguided in my view. Since both McCain and Obama like NCLB, it'll have to as usual be a comparison of two evils.
I only know Obama's stance on NCLB (haven't looked into McCain's) -- he plans on "rescuing" it by cutting NASA's budget. So... if you want NCLB gone (and I certainly do), then Obama isn't your guy. McCain may not be, either, but so far I haven't heard anything about it from him and his plan certainly can't be *worse.* Still, it's far from the only issue out there.
Have you ever played an actual sports video game? Doesn't sound like it to me.
It's the Xbox 360 not Xbox2. And it's brought a bit more than sweat... in fact, that's mostly what the Wii is trying to sell people, what with Wii Fit and all. And for the record, the Wii IS a rubbish console. If it weren't for, as usual, the decent first-party offerings, it'd be a complete waste of money. Really, it's the Gamecube with a gimmicky controller that isn't used to nearly its full potential and which has 10x longer load times (Smash Bros Brawl's are abysmal compared to Melee).
Well, with the DS my fav games are:
Mario64 DS (touchscreen obviously not necessary, and certainly less so than a joystick/thumbstick)
Mario Kart DS (touchscreen not even used really)
Castlevanias (touchscreen only used to finish off bosses -- insanely annoying)
Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (I admit the screen works... but I don't think it is an improvement over traditional handheld Zelda controls, and has almost no bearing on how much I enjoyed the game (except that my touchscreen is old and fubar so all my item selection was off by 5mm which made the game harder, hah))
New Super Mario Bros (touchscreen not used)
Not my fav:
MP Hunters (I'm left-handed... so yeah this game is like a big FU to me)
Wii Sports is a tech demo at best, given how little content there is. It was fun for like two days.
I agree with the OP that the Wii has really not been used to its seeming potential. Either it really is just a rubbish console, or developers are just too lazy. I submit it's both (developers too lazy to make the most of a rubbish console). I'm not an uninformed hater, either. I have a Wii, but the games I like on it are Mario Galaxy and Smash Bros -- both basically Gamecube games. (I have Twilight Princess, but actually *for* the Cube). That is, the Wii's good games are IMO ones that have no need for the gimmicky wiimote. Just like my fav games on my DS have no need for the gimmicky touchscreen (though they desperately try to incorporate it, such as with Castlevania).
Doesn't work in Japan, either, from what I remember. More manuals there than in the US, and if you're a car thief in Japan you're probably prepared to drive off with a manual. I have no numbers to back that up, just an impression.
Good lord man, are you being serious? First we have a 5-year-old CNN review of Cadillac's *gimped-on-purpose* (so as not to cannibalize the Corvette) XLR with an SL500 in which it becomes basically a subjective "umm Mercedes wins" despite it being a comparison between performance convertibles in which the Mercedes get outperformed. Next we have Motor Trend, which frankly I wouldn't even wipe my arse with, and quote an excerpt where they compare LEATHER. Leather, my good man. Again, wholly subjective and unrelated to the rest of the vehicle's quality (Ford has always had some of the most comfortable seats, for instance).
The notion that Mercedes are built better is outdated. It is not necessarily that they've gotten worse (though I've seen some C-series lemons), but the competition *has* gotten better, Cadillac in particular as far as American autos go (well, GM in general really, since Ford and Chrysler are still struggling to make their non-trucks anything but rubbish).
This isn't true anymore, and hasn't been for some time. Cadillacs are very high-quality these days, and while the S-Class is very well put together, so is the CTS. You're not really paying for higher quality with luxury Euro imports anymore. With Japanese ones (Lexus in particular) I suppose you are, but not so with the Germans (and forget about the rest, heh).
So, it's NOT a bad analogy for me because if you knew what you were talking about, you'd just nod and move along instead of bringing up Merc's "reputation" (as opposed to, say, Consumer Reports scores or at least something to point to).