Geeto67

Let's change the subject, shall we? It occurred to me that it seems some of you seem to confuse "Protest" with "Protest Rally/Demonstration" as if the entirety of the protest is the march/demonstration/rally etc...and nothing happens before and after. A protest is basically an objection to something and has many tools at it's disposal. Think of a protest as a military campaign where the majority of it happens behind the scenes. Usually the way it works in the political spectrum is an individual, group, or groups oppose something so they put together a plan of action. Their actions might include legal action (lawsuit), lobbying lawmakers, raising funding to privately offset the harm being done, and raising awareness through small community action (flyering, public speaking, etc). This is where the meat of the protest usually happens and is most effective, but unfortunately the majority of this is not always visible to the general public. What is visible are Demonstrations, marches, picketing, Rallies, etc. The value of these are several: - Recruitment: Since these actions are highly visible it often brings out those that are socially supportive or at least sympathetic. This allows the group to recruit more volunteers to do the behind the scenes work by interfacing with a collection of like minded people. It's ok that most of the people that show up to these things don't volunteer much - the goal is to get them to do that and a successful rally can often make a significant difference in an organization's manpower. It also allows different groups working on the same or similar issues to network where geography might have prevented it otherwise. For those big marches on Washington this is one of the most valuable aspects along with the show of force. - Inspiration: Often the people working on the other campaigns of the protest are doing it semi-isolated or at least not in groups. A large demonstration, march, or rally helps to recharge morale and solidify that the tireless work they do is appreciated by others. It's often very hard to fight and loose consistently until you win so knowing there is a larger group that supports you can reinvigorate efforts and sometimes kick people's motivation into high gear. - Publicity: Often a large gathering can bring an issue to a broader audience through media coverage. This can sometimes feed into recruitment too but more importantly if the higher up people who can assist in making a change weren't aware of the concern before then will be now. Any exposure is good. - As an engine of change. This is what most people think a protest does but actually is the least valuable thing because it is so difficult to pull off. Often the nuisance value of a protest (how much it inconveniences everyone) can recruit unwilling advocates. Maybe you don't support the cause but you really want the road you take to work open again so you complain to the government office and say "fix this". A great example of this is the Montgomery Bus Boycott where the protest rallys and overally boycotts crippled the bus line from operating at all - meaning any individual wanting to use the bus was now protesting whether they liked it or not. Often the Demonstration can serve as a show of force to law makers who don't think the issue has support and frustrate the behind the scene work. Say a a rights advocate lobbies a senator to sponsor a bill or they will convince their constituency to vote against the senator in the next election and the senator says you don't have that much support. The advocate might then stage a rally to demonstrate their reach across the constituency. So then next time you guys say - I don't understand what a march to washington or a demonstration in fromt of city hall hopes to accomplish this is what it really means.

A couple of questions: - Are you shooting narrative landscapes where the car is a focal point? or are you trying to shoot a car portrait with an interesting background? - How did you light the scene? First of let me say that these are very good, and kudos to you for pulling these out of an 18-55 lens. I like them a lot. But everyone is a critic and here is my criticism: - Subject: I think the car overall needs to come closer to the camera. It's a great backdrop and a great color contrast, but the car just takes up too little space in the picture. How much forward depends on whether you want to shoot a portrait or a landscape and how much field of depth blur you want. the 18-55 lens is not great for depth of field . - Lighting: It looks like you only lit the front part of the car, and as a result the back of the car starts to dissolve into the background. I don't know if that was intentional but if it was then maybe make it more dramatic or contrasting. I think if you pulled the car closer to the camera this might solve for it as well. Your VW picture does these things much better, my only feedback there would be try to color correct the snow to the right of the frame out. It's too close to the car and fighting for attention.

I was being a bit of a smartass there, but I guess you could have also finished the sentence - "if you were not already a woman activist" I get that this is a little bit of a stump issue for republicans but in reality Federal funding only pays for 6% of abortion and not directly. Planned Parenthood nor any other federal funded domestic charity cannot use federal funds under the hyde amendment for that purpose. So 0 federal funding goes to pay for abortion directly. Where it happens indirectly is Medicaid. Medicaid as a form of health insurance is required to cover the costs of those tests, and you can't separate funding out that pays for medicaid - you either pay for the whole coverage or you don't. Now 17% of the overall costs for abortion come from state taxes, again through the funding of charitable organizations that provide healthcare services to poor or uninsured people (like students). Although not bound by the hyde act and can pay directly for these procedures, it varies wildly from state to state. But let's talk for a moment, if you ever came inside a woman without a condom without thinking about what the next consequences would be, it's probably not a great idea to shit on programs that thought ahead for you when you were too busy just trying to crush puss, bro. Esp when these tests cost between $400 and $1000 if you had to pay out of pocket. Also, if you really don't want to pay for this how about increasing the funding for people to get access to contraceptives and counseling? you know like planned parenthood (who again can't use federal money to perform abortions) provide. Where Federal funding does pay directly for abortions is for charities performing health care work outside the US that receive federal funding (like Doctors without Borders). Remember these are healthcare providers giving care to non-us citizens as foreign humanitarian aide, and often they are doing it in response to much larger social problems the US doesn't have. But you don't have to worry about that because Trump stopped that, just like every Republican president does when they get in office. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#5118495e7709 Well....This is also a complex issue. It wouldn't be about the government telling you how much you are worth so much as transparency in wages to help with equality in enforcement. Right now the further down the skills ladder you go (toward unskilled) companies have more leverage in the negotiation process. Add in that traditional negotiation tactics tend to favor men because they were developed by men for men and have not evolved much since, and there isn't a lot of standalone negotiating training it puts women at a natural disadvantage. Personally I am divided about this myself. On the one had the wage transparency would make it a lot easier to enforce discrimination violations, but at the same time, it chips away further overall at a worker's ability to negotiate. For a lot of women however, there is another problem they are trying to solve, in that they represent 60% of the college and advance degrees in the work place but overall still earn less than their male counterparts. I honestly don't know what the root cause of this might actually be but it certainly is a problem when a generally more qualified population earns less just because of a difference in gender. So far the government has been mostly silent on solving this issue.

no, and how you get there took some logic acrobatics. Although this has been a highly publicized in many women's rights organizations, yes there were probably people there who were there for protection of abortion rights or equal pay and not aware of this issue either. Doesn't mean it doesn't affect them though.

yes, among other things like protection of the federal laws that pertain to them which some current republican politicians have made noise about repealing.

Constitutional protection. Think of it this way, when a man brings a suit for an unconstitutional action the court's question is "was the activity in violation of the constitutional amendment?", but when a woman brings the same suit for the same activity the question than becomes "is the individual intended to be protected by this constitutional amendment?". For some areas of federal law case law has settled this issue, but there are lots of areas where the courts have not made a determination or a challenge has not made it to a high enough court yet. Think about this hypothetical for a second - a woman and a man could bright identical suits for say 2nd amendment rights violations, and the outcomes could be different based on their genders and whether the judge presiding thinks women should own guns or not. (BTW this is just an example - I don't know if the 2nd has been settled as to gender equality or not but I bet it has). now most of the major issues (e.g. employment) have sort of been settled by case law, but even that can change via legislation if you can get a congress that is really really anti-gender equality.

You would have to be a bit of a constitutional scholar to know this but Women aren't actually guaranteed rights in the constitution. The 15th Amendment makes these distinctions on behalf of race and color but there is no constitutional protection against gender discrimination. So name a right denied? technically all of them. This is why the Equal Rights Amendment has been put before congress every year since 1923.So far it has failed to pass and opponents of this measure have said everything from it disadvantages housewives to destroys traditional gender roles. Some extremist feminists actually oppose it because they fear it might undermine special protections for pregnant women and other healthcare issues specific to women already in place. It's not a "simple" issue, and it is one that gets more complex the further from 1923 we get. Now, there are specific discrimination laws that include gender discrimination protections, but the difference between these an others is that if there is a constitutional objection to them it becomes a matter of the court to decide to whether the word "Men" or "person" means to include women or not. From this perspective you can see why a republican philosophy of "original intent" and textual reading (which often seeks to read "men" as men the gender - as in all men are created equal) can be problematic. If it were in the constitution it would be settled and issues like selective service and military would go away. Until then any gender protection to women in federal law is exposed to whatever party is in control at the moment.

I don't think he sold any of them. I think I saw something on the tdi forums about the guy being an arbitrage owner - that he went and bought 7 cars from used car lots just before the settlement happened and this was his last car to turn in.

I feel like "potential grizzlies" should be the name of a really good indie band.

90% of his moves have been what any Republican president would have done. If you hung a red tie on a log and stuffed it in a suit it would still make the same decisions. The exception in the group was the TPP which was really a Sophie's choice nobody wins - if we participate our workers suffer, if we don't China gets a major upper hand in the marketplace. Either way we lose something. More concerning are his pics for cabinet people. Steve Bannon has no place in politics full stop. His education pick, DeVos, is so unqualified I would almost prefer that log in a tie I mentioned before. Neither Supreme court pick is even slightly compelling - Gorsuch is very intelligent but a fanatic originalist, and Pryor is just a jackass who think the LGBT community is our to convert/corrupt everyone. Trumps biggest problem is he has to get the lying under control coming out of his office. You can't really claim you voted for the more trustworth candidate if every press conference has actual verifiable false information. The "Alternative facts" thing is just laughable.

They shuffled him to the end of the line and he is still waiting. A federal judge said stripping the car was not in the spirit of the settlement, and cautioned people to behave or he would have to rule you can't turn in a stripped car.

To do that I would have to open the ECM. Even though it's an unsealed OBDI unit from the 1990's I'm a little leery of how to test it. none whatsoever probably, though someone mentioned to me the diode. I think they were thinking of 1991 and earlier jeeps which have an external diode.

Having a little charging problem with the Jeep (1995 YJ 4.0L Manual). A couple weeks ago the battery gauge on the dash started jumping up from 14-15 volts to 9 and back again. Last week I went to start it and the gauge is holding at 10v. I took the battery out and put it on the charger and it charged right up to 12.8v. Put it back in the car and started it up and it started draining again. Put the multimeter on the output terminal of the alternator and ground it to the alternator body and saw 10 volts output (did I test that right?). I am thinking that the voltage regulator has gone bad and is stuck at 10amps. Thing is I think the VR is part of the ECM. Is there a way to replace the Voltage regulator without having to replace the entire ECM? I have heard of people bypassing for an external voltage regulator, can I do that with the blown part of the ECM? or is it I have to replace and then switch to an external VR anyway. Also did I test the alternator correctly? How can I tell if the alternator is bad without taking it out of the car and to a parts store? How do parts stores test them? Finally, does upgrading to a 135Amp alternator make sense? the L6 in the GC uses a 135 peak amp alternator vs the 95amp used on the wrangler. It's a direct bolt in swap and the cost is about the same. I run two sets of aux lights - conventional cheapie 6" 55W halogen and a set of Cree LEDs. I was also thinking about wiring up a brighter reverse light.

1) BMW M3s are not AWD. Also the newest e36 M3 is like 17 years old. E46 M3s despite being one of the more good looking M3s to come out in a while have some real problems that you can fall into like the rear subframe/body tub cracking around the shock mounts. 2) Volt essentially becomes a game of step on the pedal but keep the green ball in the gauge cluster green. Even if you don't want to it turns you into a hypermiler before you even know it. 3) have you considered a Porsche 911 996 (1999-2004)? Manual, 4 and 4s models are AWD. I have seen manual models well below $20k with 50k-70k mileage on them (mostly cabriolets with the factory hardtop). Case in point here is a manual, AWD, 70k mile car at a dealer in Indy for slightly above your budget ($26k): http://tippecanoe.craigslist.org/ctd/5949411127.html

This was always my favorite

Yeah I realized after I said it it wasn't what I was trying to say. I guess my point is creativity will only get you so far on it's own merit. I don't think any creativity should be stifled but it needs to be augmented with some core training to make progress. Otherwise it can get to be circular. 101% agree. I guess my point is with CNC and other machine tools to standardize production in instrument making, quality is more affordable than it has ever been in the past. There are still cheap shit instruments out there but there are also great ones that don't cost gibson or USA fender money. Won it in a college dorm poker game one of the few times I ever won anything at poker. Is it a shit guitar? eh...it's got good pickups, a good trem, the neck is straight, and it sounds fine, can't ask for more. The point is you have to like what you are doing and the right instrument is the part of that... I think you made a similar point earlier. Make fun all you want, I'm a shit guitar player and I know it. Doesn't make it any less fun for me.

Not yet. One 2013 ZL1, One 2012 and one 2010 SS, and a 2014 RS 6cyl. To be honest I haven't seen more than maybe 2 or 3 6th gen camaros in the wild yet and only one of them an SS. I don't know anybody who has bought one. Of all of them the ZL1 was the most bonkers car and one that made me re-think my position on the horsepower arms race that is currently going on being a good thing with no downsides. It was also the best built of all of them. My buddy was using it as a daily driver and I had to wonder...how? It was the most efficient method to turn gas into tire smoke and noise I had ever seen but every on ramp was an adventure whether you wanted it to be or not. I originally gave him shit for buying an automatic but after the stability control more than once kept me from putting the thing into a tree, and him explaining that the manual doesn't have as good a stability control, I quietly dropped that complaint. To be honest the most frustrating time with the steering was when the car was crossed up and I couldn't really feel the feedback to keep it from swapping ends (it didn't but I couldn't tell where I was sometimes). Don't get me wrong, it wasn't sloppy at all, it went where I pointed it, but it was just kind of numb.

I'll take any progress I can get.

so where are they going to have the Oldsmobile car show come September? Can't say they didn't see this coming. $20 million in losses over 8 consecutive years means something had to give. Still it was kind of a fun place. Now I feel bad I didn't get my xmas tree from them this year.

I can't say enough nice things about Music-Go-Round, glad they sorted you out. Not that you asked but here are some pieces of advice about learning an instrument: - Lessons and training are more important than the instrument themselves. It provides structure, discipline, and patience. Remember, part of learning music is learning a foreign language, and having a good foundation is good for setting the stage of personal development and growth. Some people come to it naturally, just like math or languages, and some people need the training and practice, but all need to learn the basics, otherwise "creativity" is just noise. - The cheap instruments these days are 100 times better than instruments even as recent as 15-20 years ago. In 2016 I did a musical walkabout of sorts. I went to the rock and roll hall of fame, Sun Studios in Memphis, a weekend with a luthier friend of mine in nashville, various small musician museums, and a couple of classes on guitar making. I also assembled an instrument from nothing but parts. What I learned from all this is that it doesn't take much to make music, and some of the most famous legendary artists in the world made a lot of their early music with some of the shittiest instruments I have ever seen. Point is you can be thrifty with the tools and still see great results - just understand the value of the tools. To me something like a metronome is way more valuable than cymbals to a beginner just learning to drum. It's easy to get sucked in to thinking you need a Pearl Kit or a Gibson guitar but I have to say there were two session musicians I met in Nashville who play all their gigs (and some on some very well known records) on korean made $190 Squire Stratocasters. - make sure your son likes the instrument. Too many times I have seen people buy their kids something "cheap" that the kid didn't want and the kid never ends up playing it. My first lessons were in Classical and Flamenco guitar and I hated it so I never practiced and eventually abandoned it for a year or so in high school. I wanted to play electric guitar and learn rock and roll songs. When I got to college I decided I wanted to teach myself how to do that so I...ahem...acquired...a custom Yamaha Pacifica with a floyd rose and dual Seymour Duncan humbuckers and a bunch of tablature cheat books on ACDC, The Stones, etc....Sure I learned a lot from being forced to take classical guitar lessons, but I had more fun and wanted to practice more playing rock on "my" instrument.

It's a limited 191mph, where as the lesser Giulia's have the limiter at 155. the 191 is theoretical at this point, I don't think anybody has actually driven one that fast yet (I also think it's mostly italian bravado but what do I know?). My understanding was that it was limited there because the cooling system can't support a sustained high speed run over that number (the active aero on the car is to aid in cooling, not actual aerodynamics). With the limiter removed and a tail wind, it will probably get there, it is within spitting distance of 200. I think Dodge verified a charger hellcat at 204mph (206 one way 202 the other), considering what a brick the charger is it probably used all 707 horses to pull that off. Still it's massively impressive that we have potential daily driver cars that can post these numbers in largely stock trim. I think that's the larger point. powerful cars are getting more common but really engaging cars are getting slightly harder to find. I was talking to someone the other day about GM's vague steering and how the most engaging part of most of their LS cars these days is the drive train. Every new camaro I have driven I have felt the same way. The car is still amazingly good compared to the junk I am used to but still, when you get something that's really good it stands out.

The $72k giulia is the quatrafolio model, or in other words the direct competitor to the M3. It's a 505hp twin turbo v6 that will supposedly do 200mph and 0-60 in 3.8 seconds. It's also $40k more than the base Giulia, which is supposed to be a direct 3 series competitor. I hear the are fun cars but the two things I have learned from Italian vehicles are: 1) always buy them used because the 1st owner spends the money sorting out the bugs, 2) the only thing with worse depreciation is a British car, and the difference is literally pennies.

Did you read the F.A.Q.s? They seem to state it's an annual process not a one and done thing like Ziebart. I'm all for oil spraying the underside of the car, and even more for one that's environmentally friendly, so this still seems like a good deal, even if you do it bi-annually instead of the 12month recommended period.

It does if it is one of those competition only cars like the COPO Camaro, Dodge Drag Pak, or the Mustang Cobra Jet and won't see road use. As I understand it a 10" tire is the largest tire you can get under the rear of a new challenger so a wide body to fit a larger tire makes a lot of sense as a "Drag Pak" replacement (even if it does exclude the car from NMCA Factory Super Car classes). All this is kind of moot since the pic shows a huge 20" wheel spinning in a fender flare so I somehow doubt this is where they are going with it. There are already aftermarket kits for wide-bodies so I guess there is a need for it, esp with the tire clearance issue. Food for thought - anybody else don't get why the factory competition cars don't run Hellcat/ZL1/Shelby drive-trains? I get the class rules limit engine size to below 6.0L but the class was built for these cars to run it - couldn't they just amend the rules?

Are you bored with it already? Haven't seen it posted on CL yet - is it up?