Geeto67

Has anybody use a drive by wire throttle booster for their modern car? The laggy pedal in the BMW is driving me nuts. Thoughts?

ECS Tuning: 1000 Seville Rd, Wadsworth, OH 44281 I even had my skid plate the next day and that is a huge item. Jegs has this mcguard set: http://www.jegs.com/i/McGard/671/68032BK/10002/-1 Call them and see if they have it in stock in the in-town location

Yes because the definition of winning is getting me to make corney jokes at your expense. Seems like a Pyrrhic victory though.

And voter right to privacy is clearly another constitutional right that escapes you. When you guys spout off all this 'Merica crap, do you actually know what rights you have or is it all just an un-ironic version of the Colbert Report intro playing in a loop in your head?

I have been a registered independent since the 1990's. I have voted both sides of the aisle. I vote advocacy of issues not individuals, my only requirement if any political candidate is that they be a good advocate and they fall on the side of the issues I am most concerned about in that election cycle. If that doesn't answer your question then I'm sorry that my free thinking challenges your judgemental preconcieved notions and inability to stereotype me into some category you are comfortable with ( but that won't stop you anyway).

You are just a gem of intelligence and wit. :dumb:

Do you ever stop to consider why we have the laws that we do? Why is murder an illegal act? What are all the reasons? There are many cultures, some of them civilized, where murder is not illegal so it can't be that it is pure "evil". This is starting to get into an intellectual depth that I don't know your current logic can fathom. I am mildly amused that you completely miss why the shooters actions are illegal and immoral and yet completely nail it at the same time.

I have had both those things. I don't anymore. Not because of any ideology, I just view these things as tools and I no longer have a need for that tool. What's the point of these hypotheticals? They don't address any of the concepts I am talking about. I don't know what I would do in that situation because I am not in that situation. People who have been in those situations or the potential to be in those situations will tell you there is what you say and what actually happens and very rarely are they the same thing. If you asked me 17 years ago when I was in the fire department would I ever carry welding tanks out of a fully involved house fire I would have told you no freaking way. Didn't stop me from actually doing it when It happened.

The principles I am talking about are core to America and the identity of its citizens. How is it that I "hate America" if I am the one advocating fundamental principals of the constitution.

Classy. I don't. There are many here who are advocating we grant a blanket right to the police to execute people in these situations, instead I propose we develop standards and protocols for what is considered "active shooter" and lethal force and we evaluate on a case by case basis as the situation allows. NOBODY is sympathizing with the shooter OVER his victims. But I still recognize his rights as a human and an American. If you don't get that then I don't know what to tell you. Not even close to being an analogous situation but then again you missed a lot if what I am saying.

As Americans we have a duty to hold our government to the highest standards. As Americans we have an understanding that we offer inalienable rights to everyone without exception and that includes life, equal protection, and due process. As human beings we have a duty of empathy to mankind. When you say our government has a right to execute without trial in a broad sense you fail the duty to hold to scrutiny. When you say blanket statements that all people in this situation must be killed you fail to offer equal protection and due process. When you say someone deserved to die you fail at empathy. Why is it so hard to understand?

Then you also missed the part where we as a society are different from the shooter. To quote Clint Eastwwod: deserve's got nothing to do with it.

Oh Really? see below: Seems pretty caviler to me. I, and equal protection and due process, have issues with above bolded statement. I don't get what the big deal is, all I said was we have to be careful going forward and this should not become a standard and everyone gets their panties in a twist that we aren't killing enough criminals onsite.

was driving through pataskala yesterday and spotted these: http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/6F652E2A-5293-4F30-8A6C-EFF76E2E6DB7_zpsotys2op5.jpg http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/99D7DE31-C101-4EBD-9B28-E52F8CE33EEA_zps06fyi76t.jpg http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/C38299DA-8531-4D34-84F7-F7E37CA93FB1_zpsch6zckjs.jpg

nobody is talking about "innocent" life being the only life worth saving. Either all life is valuable or no life is valuable since "value" is a subjective term. I don't sympathize with "terrorists" or "mass shooters", I simply believe that we should not be cavalier about ending someone's life. If it is a necessary evil to preserve lives of others then so be it, but it should not be taken lightly. The preservation of life is at the core what separates us from them - without it we aren't really any better, just our motives for bloodlust are different. You are trying to simplify what has been an existential question for hundreds of years without an answer. These things are rarely simple.

An eye for an eye is not the law of the land. currently it is collateral damage. Both bombs and bots in the past have a tendency to set the structure on fire and cause unintended loss of life. If they just wanted to set the building on fire, why use a bot and a bomb? Every method has it's own risks. All I am advocating is that we as a society keep that in mind and that those who make the decision make sure they evaluated the risks. At the moment, there may not be a difference. In the future, there is the possibility for semi-autonomous and autonomous functions and that would start to remove the accountability. It is also more complex and that invites more risk for malfunction or error. There is a similar conversation that is going on in the death penalty world right now since lethal injection drugs have become more difficult to obtain for the purpose of ending life. even if the decision to use lethal force is made in the chain of command, it is still within the discretion of the police sniper pulling the trigger to determine if it is safe. Robot isn't really in that same place. Maybe they are pretty close now, but we are humans and we can't help but keep trying to make things "better", you can't really improve the police sniper but you can automate a robot.

Seems I am "complaining" more about people having a cavalier attitude about using this to take a life than I am about the situation. Maybe the do have something written down, would be an easy thing to disclose in the interest of transparency. Not hearing a lot in the narrative that suggests this but whatever. Again, I am talking about being careful about how we advance this. My guess is you read everything I write as a complaint and aren't really open to discussion. But what's a guess really worth? that's up to the department to decide since they have access to the most information and the experience - and then justify as the appropriate solution to the public. Every situation is going to be different - and I get that there may be times where it isn't even an option. As long as we maintain the emphasis on preserving ALL life wherever possible and don't just throw around this idea that every situation like this needs to end with a dead shooter we should be ok.

That is the decision that society seems to have been forced into if it wants to make progress on this issue. Yes, we should do that too, and to a certain extent that is happening already. However, how do we know if adequate precautions were actually taken? As part of de-funding research in this area we don't even know what precautions are effective or not. Hard to create a standard when there is no knowledge to base it on. I'm not really for banning things either, but the public got pushed into that area by the actions of those opposing gun control, probably because they know it would be a hard sell. The controversy is real but the diverseness is manufactured specifically to stall any progress in this area. We can't meet at a middle ground because nobody knows where that middle ground is. Agreed, which is why I would prefer to legislate behavior that closes those channels, but where are those channels? without research we can't tell. We know it is out there, we know the general size and the shape and that is about it. It's not a strawman, the NRA has been more effective in their goal than Jessie Jackson and that is kind of the point. Prior to 1993, gun control was a loser for politicians on both sides of the aisle. The first real federal gun control measures were republican (the brady bill). Democrats didn't get elected on gun control platforms, it was a non-starter. But in the modern era, now it is. Why? well I think the public has had enough time to not make progress at this issue and get frustrated that it is now a relevant issue in how people vote for their politicians. At the core of this is active work by the NRA to suppress information. It's hard to have a real debate about guns in this country because literally everyone (and yes I am including myself in this) is ignorant, and it is by design through the suppression of information. Every conversation is going to have a strawman to some degree because at some point the knowledge runs out and everyone has to just cling to something to keep afloat. To quote the movie "Repo man": Duke: The lights are growing dim Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am. Otto: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk just like me. Duke: Yeah, but it still hurts. Or more accurately, why are we trying to "blame" anyone? Why aren't we just fixing it and getting on with our lives? oh that's right, because we don't know what we can fix because we can't study anything. The moment any of the society driven behavioral studies start to touch guns their funding becomes questioned - anytime a conclusion comes close to the gun debate it is bullied back into it's scope by the money that drives research.

my point it that it is not any different...for now, and I am mostly ok with it. But where will be the next time? It's not unreasonable to ask for the utmost scrutiny in this sort of decision making when it is a new technology, to prevent abuse. Yes they should, with every situation. Either you believe in preserving life, equal protection, and due process or you don't. However, some situations afford that opportunity and some don't. It should be a last resort situation, not a when it is convenient situation. So other than being an ass what's your point? What idiocy of whining are you referring to when people say "let's be real careful with this new process so it isn't abused going forward"? I don't know that I would have done anything differently. The facts seem to support that this was the rare case where it was the correct option. However, in talking about future state I think there needs to be a documented and structured procedure and protocol so that the question of abuse is minimized. Approach with caution. Advocating that we should kill all these people to save resources, as Tim suggests, is basically advocating abuse of the system. Police have been using alternate methods for a while and have used both robots and bombs independently in the past. This is the first time it was intentionally used to kill an active shooter. Previous attempts to have the robots deliver non-lethal force has a spotty record of effectiveness and in a couple of cases increased the collateral damage by starting fires (e.g: 2011 police in Tennessee used tear gas which ended up setting fire to the structure, and that 1985 philly one you cite also caused huge fires and ended up killing 11). Why it is a "big deal" is: - in the past, this hasn't always worked well. It works for benign things for surveillance and pizza delivery but add in weapons and it has the potential to go pear shaped pretty fast. In this case it worked, but it might not always, and do we have the proper controls in place to make sure we are real careful for next time? - It may remove accountability or at least the gravity of accountability. Making the decision to kill someone should not be taken lightly, and with the police sniper situation that always rests with the individual pulling the trigger. Currently, I think it is still there, but there is potential for it not to be and that should be discussed. - because it is "new" it is undocumented, so it is harder to show that every possible option was considered and this was all that was left. Sure the police tell us that they considered every possible option, but are we supposed to just take their word for it? next time it will be more documented.

And yet you wonder why people like me call you a fascist? I just don't understand why you hate America Tim. I don't really mind that instead of a police sniper a robot with a bomb was used to bring conclusion to an active situation, but I leery of the precedent this sets in terms of standards for determining when lethal force is an absolute necessity. It should be a method of last resort and this feels like we are creeping away from that and into where it is more convenient than other methods. I am slightly uncomfortable with the idea that now that this has been used effectively does this set us down the path to development to autonomous lethal robots but on the other hand maybe it will help minimize risk and collateral damage. Also a I feel like there still needs to be human accountability for this and there is the potential to remove that through the evolution of this practice should it become common. We do live in interesting times. There is a lot to consider and a Tim's "kill them all and let god sort em out" approach is both callous and cavalier and undercuts the real strange new land we find ourselves in.

Because that's worked so well in the past ...ahem...Kent state....cough.... It's almost like this has never happened before...in the 1960s....as part of the civil rights movement...

Right, but remember the attention mass shootings are getting is causing an outcry to do something about mass shootings and the weapons used during them. Nobody is trying to cure all gun violence with any of this gun control legislation at the moment, they are just trying to reduce the body count at the next sandy hook or Orlando. Without being able to study in detail the habits of people who own guns, it doesn't leave many options to legislate - either its some form of ban or do nothing and let me tell you do nothing is not really an option because people are going to keep trying to do something. I mean we can't even tell if current safety requirements are effective, if locking gun cabinets really work at preventing accidental death or theft and things like that. if I don't know why anybody would oppose more information to fight ignorance in this area, I really don't. I mean I know why the NRA doesn't, they don't want to let go of the fiction that guns provide safety, but the average citizen? Why shouldn't we know more about it. By the way, anybody saying this is a cultural problem, well the rest of the world has been saying that about the US for years: that we have a culture that fetishizes guns and a culture that supports them being easily available. So in that regard I agree it's a cultural problem.

schedule says both, but the crowne plaza is usually the safer bet.

Pure. Comedy. Gold.

I don't know where he got his info either, all the online guides show the R600 as having been made from 1993 to 2004. But I guess it doesn't matter as his posts were removed. This would be a made in the USA bike right? ***discuss opinions on price via pm*** Its a shame its so small, I have been pining for another USA cannondale for over a decade now. I hope you find a buyer.