Geeto67

It's a pretty uncomfortable state of affairs when 1) someone named "mad dog" is the reasonable one, and 2) "Mad Dog", whose career is marked with an eagerness for confrontation and bloodshed, resigns over "ethics"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocatus#Latin This is literally what the internet is for (after porn).

Do you know the current regulations regarding "frivolous" lawsuits? There are already lots of rules regarding these at both the state and federal level, but generally speaking a suit is frivolous if it is without legal merit, or brought by a party known that the claim is insufficient or to harass without presenting a question the law can address. What about this do you think needs more regulation? This isn't anything, like literally "lawsuit regulation" doesn't refer to anything specific. Do you think the rules of court during trial need to be addressed? the rules of Evidence? what part of the lawsuit do you think isn't being regulated enough? Please elaborate more. Generally speaking I find that people that refer to "common sense" as a standard usually have no concept of what common sense is. 60 years ago common sense was that smoking was good for you, but I doubt you will find anybody today who will agree with that. So really "common sense" is a myth, It's this thing people apply to their individual code of morals that they assume they share with everyone else. What you are doing is applying your moral code as a standard. I suspect you do this because you lack the theoretical nor practical knowledge as to how the codes of laws we are governed by operate. And that's ok, most people don't, the body of american laws has been growing for almost 250 years and while young as compared to Europe we have one of the oldest continuously function and still functioning representative democracies in the modern world. The longer it operates the more the blank pages of code get filled in through Jurisprudence, so in actuality as we move forward into the future the law becomes more clear as to its "morality", not less. Like many Americans, I suspect you are frustrated with how the legal system works because of a lack of understanding and that manifests itself in a hatred of those who have knowledge and experience that you lack. I am sympathetic, truly, because as a kid I had that same frustration. The solution however is to seek out knowledge and let go of your anger. You have to accept you don't really have a good bead on the legal system and it's not anything to be ashamed of, and then move forward in obtaining that knowledge. By the way, we haven't even discussed yet how lawyers are only advocates for their clients. You can't bring a lawsuit without a client. They are just technicians of the law, assisting and facilitating their clients wishes.

Still waiting for an answer as to what regulations you think the legal industry is missing.

Don't wait on this man, get on the stick (pun intended) and get to that point where you can fly on your own. I had 35 hours when I ran out of money doing it in college. I still regret not getting my license.

this is my Christmas gift to you - to give legit answers to your partially incoherent ramblings and I am assuming meth fueled rage posts, merry xmas. Ok, what "regulation(s)" do you propose? How do YOU feel the legal industry is under regulated? What is it that you think the law isn't addressing currently that it should? Please, be specific. Also how do you get that I feel more regulations are not needed from my statements that the legal industry is already heavily regulated and I'm fine with it? Honestly, I don't have a problem with regulation in the legal industry and I think it, like every other industry should keep moving forward toward improvement. I think you are just saying what you want to hear instead of actually using those reading comprehension skills.

Absolutely I would, but let's be clear - I highly doubt Clinton would use her public office as sitting president to profit. Do you understand the difference between making a legit paycheck after the person is out of office and making a paycheck while in office? and why one is corruption and one isn't?

hoonitruck is my new favorite thing. That was a pretty great vid, plus loved some of the more creative bits (like the cosworth running at night on bare rims).

I feel like this is a good opinion piece on the corruption of the trump political machine: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2018-03-05/how-is-donald-trump-profiting-from-the-presidency-let-us-count-the-ways

I imagine that's part of it, but I feel like there is something else here too. there are lots of US engineering projects that would have a massive positive effect on the US and not nearly be as contentious as the wall. He could re do the entire water delivery and plumbing system of Flint, complete with a host of public park fountains that could look like his ejaculating penis for all I care (named after him of course) and he'd be lauded as a hero. But he has no desire to do that. Also George W bush basically got the "the wall" with the Secure Fence act of 2006 and honestly - nobody is remembering W for that. I feel like there is a way he has made money off this somehow. I can't prove it, and it's completely speculative, but if he gets it, somehow he's going to get something of value out of it. Maybe it's giving the construction contracts to his buddies to clear debts to them, or maybe he has a stake in the materials supplier, who knows. He's going to profit from this though, he will find a way.

It's as heavily a regulated an industry as any other, and more than most. It's one of the few industries that has a very active and powerful ethics board. Also the majority of attorneys donate services pro bono and in a large number of states there is a minimum required number of hours of community service. All attorneys have a duty to their clients so they don't brag about it much. I know you made your comments just because you are envious of people who have more knowledge about law, government, politics and ethics than you, but it's Christmas and I felt like you deserved a serious answer to your probably facetious question.

I am doing power tour in 2019. I don't know how yet, I don't know with which car, but I am committed to doing it. Esp since the last day of power tour is at Summit. I am going to try to long haul it too.

In before someone regurgitates this tripe: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/liberal-hollywoods-first-man-gets-it-all-wrong-neil-armstrong-was-a-proud-american

Finally you say something intelligent Tim, even if you meant it sarcastically. FYI, not for profit doesn't mean government run, you could require all the medical insurance companies to operate as charities and it would significantly change their approach to conflicts of profit vs care. Dr.s in most socalized medicine Countries do earn less than their American counterparts but in the majority of those countries its sill six figures. The cost of the education is the deciding factor, people aren't going to spend the money to go to med school if there isn't adequate compensation on the back end.

wow that's awesome. I wonder what they are using for an AWD setup?

If he is going to use it for Uber, then he needs a 2009 or newer as their car requirements are 10 years old or newer (varies state to state so look it up). Also I am pretty sure retired fleet vehicles are a no-go as well, so it would have to be a private car and not an ex-police or ex-taxi. One thing I can tell you from my days driving a cab is - buy the most fuel efficient vehicle you can. If you are hustling, a 12-14mpg city mileage can eat into your profits quick. I drove an old 9c1 box caprice and it got crap gas mileage. if a panther is still on the table - my vote is for a Gran Marquis. Very few of them are fleet vehicles, the interiors are nicer than a hose it out crown vic, but they don't have the air suspension problems of the town cars. However, if you are open to anything - I'd consider a tahoe hybrid or some kind of minivan hybrid.

My Dad's a chevy/corvette guy, he wouldn't be caught dead in a pontiac. I mean I don't mind you being an asshole, but at least try to be a factual asshole.

this is a bit of a hot take but he does make some interesting points: https://gizmodo.com/the-deadly-recklessness-of-the-self-driving-car-industr-1831027948

I am also one of the 6 that would consider buying a modern muscle truck, so much so that I play with the configurators all the time to see what I can do. Here is some of what I have found out: Dodge: you can get a bare bones, no option 2wd shortbox single cab tradesman with a 5.7 v8 making 395hp, 8 speed trans, LSD, and 3.91 gears for right around $30K msrp. Forum posts put most of these out of the box in the high 13's second 1/4 mile range which isn't bad, and bolt ons could get you 12's. The only downside is that you can get a manual V8 challenger R/T slightly cheaper and it will have a nice interior. Also it's work truck spec so it's more of a carry your slicks in the bed kind of truck than a carve up an auto-x truck Ford: You can order a bare bones regular cab short bed F150 with the 5.0L v8 making 395hp, 10 speed trans, 3.55 e-locking rear, for $33,165. You have to take the tow package to get the 3.55 gears and they won't let you order the truck with the 3.73 unless it is a v6. Because it is a 5.0L coyote (albeit an iron block one) the aftermarket is somewhat open to you. F150 forums is estimating these trucks at high 13 second - low 14 second 1/4 mile times. Still for $3K more you get nicer things like a backup camera than the dodge. The 2014 Tremor which was the raptor v6 in a 2wd sport truck ran about a 14.4, made 365hp and 420 ft/lbs, so in theory the new 5.0 base model f150 should be quicker.....in theory..... Chevy: I haven't played with their config in a while because 5.3 lol, but I imagine you can get a low $30K base spec truck with a v8. Forums are talking about stockers running 14.7 out of the box and tuned ones high 13's. TO be honest, it's hard to care about chevy right now when dodge is the cost leader, and ford has the better equipment. That said, I have heard the 6.2 4wd truck is an absolute beast.

The "we" is the Royal We as in google. It gets programmed into employees, even the CEO, to think of google as a collective of "we" if you work there. I left my old job 2 months ago and I am still saying "we" for chase in conversation - a couple of other former chase people and I joke about it because our new place doesn't do that. I will agree it is confusing but it is also understandable to those who work for large multinational hive minds...um....I mean corporations. I agree, and I kind of think this is a bit of a waste of time on the part of republican senators to be chasing this conspiracy theory to ground and threatening google to tilt things in their favor. Also Shame on Ohio Rep Steve Chabot - first for going against net neutrality, second for voting yes on giving the telecoms retroactive immunity for warrantless wiretaps, and now for being part of this looney cabal that is accusing google of search result bias. Dude has been an Ohio rep since 1995, time to retire his jersey.

I'll own that, I have no idea how any of it works, but I did read quoted excerpts of what Sundar Pichai testified to in congress: https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/11/18136114/trump-idiot-image-search-result-sundar-pichai-google-congress-testimony

ok, but the congressional hearings are not about whether the company is biased, just whether the search engine is and the conservative message is being suppressed. For the most part the tech industry leans liberal as a whole with the exception of their position on government regulation, so it's not unusual for a conservative to feel outnumbered at google and companies like it. Also I have to imagine it depends on the type of conservative we are talking about - if you are James Damore then you kind of bring it on yourself, but if you keep to yourself and don't write anti-women manifestos then a lot of the treatment might just be in a sense of failure to relate to your co-workers. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/silicon-valley-politics.html https://www.seattletimes.com/business/google-vp-denounces-employee-memos-views-on-female-workers/

What do you base this opinion on? And is there an "acceptable bias"? What do I mean by that? well let's assume that it is as Sundar Pichai says and the algorithm does not contain inherent bias on it's face and draws its information from the popularity of searches and effective SEO. Well then, if there is a left "bias" it is because more people are searching for things that seem politically left of center and there are more politically left things that have effective SEO. Google isn't "steering", it is reflecting the pool of its users - do you think that is an acceptable position? Or do you think Google has to get into the content steering game to give equal air time to a less popular ideology? Personally, this whole thing looks to me like a bunch of old men with unpopular opinions who are struggling to find someone else to blame for their opinions being unpopular. Is google really responsible if fewer people are searching for conservative sites and fewer conservative sites have good SEO? How much and when is "bias" acceptable?

Switching gears for a moment..... can we talk about this for a second: https://gizmodo.com/steve-king-demands-list-of-google-staff-so-he-can-check-1831032193 I kind of feel like this crosses a line, esp since Google is a private, for profit company, and not a public utility. Although the source is somewhat inflammatory (unusual for gizmodo but not for it's related publications), I don't think it is wrong in drawing the Mccarthy parallel. How do you feel about this?