Manual doesn't bother me in the same way. If I'm shifting gears, that's fine - the car does exactly what I expect it to do.
The thing that annoys me is shift pauses in automatic. The only thing I told it to do was go faster, and it takes a break do do something else. On some cars, this can be like a 1.5 second pause.
The Matrix is discontinued.
A 4-door Yaris will probably come in at $16.5k new. It'll give you 15.6 cu ft of cargo space and burn a gallon of gas to go 30/36 miles.
A Prius will come in around $25.8 new. It'll give you 21.6 cu ft of cargo space and burn a gallon of gas to go 51/48 miles, while having a much more comfortable interior.
A better comparison would be the Prius C, which will cost about $20.1k new. With that you've got 17.1 cu ft of cargo space and go 53/46 on a gallon of gas.
Toyota doesn't actually sell a car cheaper than the Prius C with more cargo space.
I've got a 2002 Prius which still runs great. It's still using the factory battery pack, which isn't showing any signs of needing replacement.
Admittedly, they're expensive. I recently got a 2013 Prius C as a second car, and the reasonable alternative would have been a Honda Fit for about two thirds of the price. But after driving a car with a no-shift transmission there's no way I'm going back to the stuttery shifts of an automatic. When I hit the gas, I want the car to go - not start going and then pause to think about what gear it should be in.
Do not forget that ObamaCare was rammed through without a single Republican vote in the House or Senate.
It's the unfortunate case that Republicans don't generally support Democratic bills. Witness the recent student loan bill. There is not much question that a better educated populance means a better economy and a stronger nation. It's a truism that we could just pay for college education in a number of fields and reap economic benefits of many times the spending. Indeed, we used to do more of that and the country was stronger when we did.
You meant "you wouldn't approve" rather than "you wouldn't understand".
Positioned correctly, it isn't all that socially reprehensible to state the sentiment that you don't believe you should pay for people who drive their motorcycle without helmets, people who self-administer addictive and destructive drugs, people who engage in unprotected sex with prostitutes or unprotected casual sex with strangers, and people who go climbing without using all of the safety equipment they could.
You don't really even need to get into whether you hold human life sacred, etc., to get that argument across. It's mostly just an economic argument, you believe yourself to be sensible and don't want to pay for people who aren't.
The ironic thing about this is that it translates to "I don't want to pay for the self-inflicted downfall of the people who exercise the libertarian rights I deeply believe they should have."
OK, not a bad position as far as it goes. Now, tell me how we should judge each case, once these people present themselves for medical care, and what we should do if they don't meet the standard.
Citation needed.
I just looked for a minute and found This NIMH study. If you look at the percentages per year they are astonishingly high. 9% of people in any particular year just for mood disorders, and that's just the first on the list. Then they go down the list of other disorders. The implication is that everyone suffers some incident of mental illness in their lives. And given the number of psychiatrists, psychologists, and lay practitioners in practice, it seems like much of the population try to get help at times, if only from their priest or school guidance counselor.
You are not a rock. Can you honestly tell me that you haven't ever suffeed a moment of irrationality?
I'm curious what his stance is on most martial arts practitioners.
I've never heard of one invading a school and karate-chopping a dozen young kids to death. Have you?
Yes, seeing a doctor really is a human right.
Does that mean we should bear the burden of your bad lifestyle choices? Well, we do today. Either those folks are in our emergency rooms, or they are lying on our streets. Either way, we all pay a cost.
It's not clear to me what you propose to do with them. Perhaps you should explain that a bit more clearly.
Hi AC
One would hope that a real scientific study would shed light on the situation. Unfortunately, this isn't it. It's a paper published by a Harvard student club and written by a gun industry lobbyist and a gun enthusiast. No balanced perspective that could lead to a real scientific paper here. The first refutation I found of the paper is certainly not peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal either, but makes a pretty good case that the statistics are cooked. It's here.
Please find a real scientific paper from a researcher without bias and then we can discuss it. This one doesn't quite meet the standard.
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do. -- Jerome Klapka Jerome