If you're talking about shoes for hiking, you can also add that they're designed to protect against broken ankles. Same thing for motorcycle boots, as well as hold up to extreme adverse weather and impact resistance.

All of the euthanasias in the US are against the will of the person dying, we just use the euphemism "death penalty". I'm constantly amazed at how the side that's "Pro-Life" is so intent on killing adults.

And I see nothing in that link that suggests that the EPA is interested in legislating, controlling or regulating human breathing. I do notice, specifically, that motor vehicles are singled out. It doesn't mention Methane gas from livestock, coal power plant emissions, or any other industrial emissions. There is no one out there trying to regulate the CO2 in the air you exhale. Motor vehicles emit far more CO2 than you do when you breathe.

I'd say that I should have seen the WSJ link and should have remembered not to feed the trolls, but that would be an abusive ad hominem fallacy. Your argument isn't wrong because I think you're a troll. Your argument is wrong because it contains a fallacy. Your fallacy is the classic Straw Man. The EPA says CO2 from cars falls under their jurisdiction and will be regulated. You over simplify and twist that to suggest that all CO2 produced then falls under the EPA's jurisdiction. You attack the misinterpretation with your breathing example.

Sources owned by Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp are no longer considered non-biased. Anyone could then counteract your argument citing moveon.org or a lefty publication. I do believe that regulating breathing is a good idea, though. Everyone should do it before responding to this type of FUD. No legislation necessary.

Now listen here, Anonymous Coward
We present to you this marvelous award:
For trolling on Apple and Anti Disney gibe
You have earned the right to buy a Mazda CX-5

The publicity is worth far more than they're paying in the suit. Streisand was already famous in 2003, this campground's 15 minutes of fame were over once the headlines stopped. Suing Google gets their name alongside Google's name, and the press coverage it brings is significant. I'd say they've already won. All they need to do now, as someone else mentioned, is build something that is very tasteful and respectful of those who died. Perhaps they could sponsor legislation for better safety standards after their lawyers are done losing a suit they don't expect to win.

It looks a lot more like Blender to me, too much 3d in there to be Photoshop.

"Standing on what little land exists here, you watch a giant red [valid soul with a high degree of vertical challenge] sink slowly into the horizon of a hot ocean."

Sure, the average has been cut in half, but there's still an average of more than 1 problem per vehicle sold. How can they claim that "Bad cars have gone extinct"? I'd like to see that tagline when it's measured in under 9 problems per thousand cars.

As far as more effective at letting air into the engine, I noticed a significant improvement in my wife's Mazda Protege, which had 30k miles on it when the filter was installed. It's had the same air filter since then, cleaned 8 times, and now has 268k. I think it's also as effective at filtering the air as the paper filters.

Yep, court battles, just what we need to make power less expensive.

You're the constant because you're the one narrating that story. The problem with that theory is that no one is constant. You grow, learn and get better at how you handle life. Either that or you stab someone for cutting off your drug money, get incarcerated, and learn life's lessons the hard way.

That's precisely why I love K&N air filters. They cost 3 times as much, but they took something that had been disposable and gave it a lifetime warranty. It's on the shelves next to the cheap air filters, costs 3 times as much. You have to clean them every 50k miles, but it's easy to do and you may only buy one cleaning kit during the life of your car.

I'm not saying you're wrong about people's inclination toward cheap stuff. When you know something better is coming out within the next 4 years, it makes no sense to buy something that lasts for 10. If I can pay double for something that will last 10 times as long, and won't go obsolete in that time, I do.

The problem is that crooks are always on both sides of the ballot. The question is weather you want the murderous crook or the amoral crook.