Comment Re:About Fucking Time. (Score 1) 367
Nissan has eliminated all manual transmissions for CVT's instead.
Wow, even in the Z and GT-R? That kinda sucks...
Nissan has eliminated all manual transmissions for CVT's instead.
Wow, even in the Z and GT-R? That kinda sucks...
I've smoked too many S-2000s in my stock (as far as engine and drivetrain are concerned) Corolla, my mods extend to creature comforts and luxury features only. One guy was so pissed off at losing the first time that he burned out his clutch trying to keep his engine speed up for torque off the start on our second run. Perhaps I've just encountered a series of bad drivers in S-2000s; but, if bad drivers are frequent owners of S-2000s, I'm not sure I want to put that label on myself. That said, my PM, who also happens to be one of the best drivers I know, loves them, so I'm torn, honestly.
S2000's are like most Hondas; they have no torque to speak of. That little car has to get above about 5000 RPM before it actually makes any power. Coming from a turbo car (gobs or torque), they are frustrating to drive for me. But they handle really well. Really well. In anything but a straight line an S2000 would beat your Corolla.
Hey, the ole double nickle was for FUEL EFFICIENCY, not for safety or anything else. It was about getting better MPG with all those thirsty V8's and was extremely frustrating for all involved.
Carter (a.k.a. Obama's first of three terms) was all over that Arab Oil embargo thing and this was his best shot at a fix. Yea, it was stupid, but what else do you expect from a peanut farmer/Community organizer....
No, speed kills, okay? If you drive over the limit you are needlessly endangering all around you so that you can get where you are going 5 seconds sooner. You selfish prick! The speed limits were calculated scientifically and are there for your safety. If you speed you are worse than Hitler and only a little better than Ted Nugent. What makes you think you're so special? Huh? HUH?
So, after receiving this response on a number of posts I have to ask, is there a generally accepted interpretation for such a comment? As best I can tell it originated on a Simpsons episode in a not-completely-ironic context, but I really, *really* hope at least some of the responses I've gotten have been heavily ironic. After all they've mostly been in response to deliberately inflammatory posts. (What can I say, sometimes I feel the need to stir the pot. A good argument is far more enlightening than an echo chamber.)
You are correct as to its origin. The generally accepted interpretation is that you are a crackpot and the responder is ironically playing the role of the gullible dupe who is actually interested in your ridiculous ideas. Homer is kind of an idiot. He bought Lisa's rock to keep the tigers away after all. So it's not as ironic in his situation.
Please note I am not actually calling you a crackpot, just explaining the gag.
I call BS on that, or having passengers talking to you cause accidents.
It's not the same. A passenger is a second set of eyes, helping the driver avoid accidents. The conversation in the car will also naturally pause when the driver must concentrate, and the passenger expects that. Talking on the phone, the driver must do it all by themselves and the other party expect there to be a flow in conversation which the driver must keep up.
Holding the device always makes it worse, especially when dialing. Especially in a stick-shift.
People still drive stick-shifts? I drive a stick-shift, but most people couldn't drive my car for that very reason.
And studies where people are actually driving in real world environments find that talking on the phone does not increase accidents. They did find that operating the phone does, at a similar rate to any other activity that takes one's eyes off the road for a second. The dialing is dangerous, the talking not so much so. In the real world that is, because in the real world people aren't hyper focused on driving, the phone cuts into that other part, not the driving part.
It's the day dreaming, the trying to place a song, drinking of coffee, adjusting the radio, etc. Part of the brain that the phone deprives in real life.
In the study you mention, all that is artificially focused on driving.
I'm not sure about that. From Wikipedia: "Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers."
Personally, I can feel the lack of focus when I'm talking on the phone while driving. As a result, I hardly ever do it. I pull over or do not participate in the call. I can say that I am definitely distracted while driving and talking on the phone. And from what I see in my fellow drivers, I'm not the only one. It's not about hands-free or looking at the phone. It is a neural resources thing. The human brain can't split its attention between driving and following a conversation and give it's full attention to both.
Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates.
That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars. e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?
My thoughts exactly. I'd rather see a study on how the number of tickets issued for cell phone use lines up with accident rates. The law can be on the books, but if it isn't enforced it may have no effect.
A cynic might even suspect that this particular expansion is a way to take the heat off the NSA by moving its domestic operations to a different agency.
That way they could shut down the NSA program to great fanfare and quieted fears. Brillinant, I love it!
For all the ways that Walmart is evil, this is not one of them. They are extremely frugal when it comes to executive perks. I don't know if this policy has changed, but as recently as a decade ago, traveling businessmen had to share hotel rooms. And we're not talking about 5-star penthouses where each person gets their own room. These were motel rooms with two queen beds.
Considering the profits made by this company, that actually makes them look worse in my eyes.
The company's actual strengths are logistics and marketing.
Logistics yes, marketing no. Logistics is only an advantage in retail if you can lower costs and thus prices as a result. And marketing? Nobody is dazzled by Walmart's marketing. People go there because they sell stuff for cheap prices.
And how do they know that Walmart is the place to go for low prices? How have they solidified themselves in the public mind as the low-cost leader? Marketing!
How is that not probable cause for a warrant?
How is it?
But Obummer is keeping you safe!!!
Most people here understand that the issue of the creeping security state is not left or right, Republican or Democrat. The parties have shown us that they are both interested in increasing surveillance and curtailing our rights. Why have you not grasped this yet?
Maybe. But I have yet to encounter a system that cannot be subverted by determined people. You say checks and balances work, but I see a government out of the control of the people it's supposed to serve, and in the control of wealthy special interests. I see a justice system in which money and skin color matter more than guilt or innocence. I see an executive branch hell bent on spying on everyone and a congress and judiciary that don't seem to mind too much. I see an economic system that concentrates money and power at the top and leaves most of the rest behind.
I guess you could say that our system works. But there are many levels of working. A body riddled with cancer still works, technically speaking. But it is so sub-optimal that we say it is sick. So while our system works, I'd also characterize it as sick and in need of healing.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
