Geeto67

Ben, what's your license plate? I think I see your car on 270 sometimes when I am leaving easton after work. Nice Job tim, white cars are hard to improve because white hides so much.

I had a buddy that used to work in a salvage yard in NY and they had a service they used to do "title searches". Ask the local guys who they use to do title searches and see what comes up. As for zoning, the country auditor's site should have that information for free as to the zoning. You can ask some of the local shops about waste oil and fluids and who does it and how. Or you can go to a shop look at the sticker on the tank and call the company and ask them.

I was just reading this article. It's an interesting story, and good for you guys for helping him out. Looking at the pics of the car, it's all there and shouldn't be too hard to find parts for. One of the things that struck me as funny is when I was a kid these things littered the landscape, but I realized I haven't seen a datsun b310 of any kind in probably a decade. not even at car shows.

That is the primary risk but.... As much as it pains me to say anything nice about him, cdk 4219, is right. It's not just stolen but liens also have a risk. If a car is secured collateral on a loan, the person who "junks" it can get in serious trouble for devaluing or interfering with the lien-holder's right to repossess the collateral, but they may still repossess the vehicle - which means the lien-holder possibly can take the car from you and you are out the purchase money plus the costs of any labor. Plus if you have done irreparable damage to the car they might seek damages against you because you had a responsibility to verify that the car had no open liens before junking it. Some states have more protections than others so it pays to look up and know what your responsibilities are in receiving the cars. Start by talking to the local yards there and see what they say. Only other thing I can add is make sure you are doing this in an area that is zoned for it and what your responsibilities are concerning fluids. Just because it is commercial doesn't automatically mean it allows auto repair/dismantling. Also, dismantle sites can become EPA hazmat sites pretty quick if you aren't paying attention, and the local EPA can hit you with serious fines for not adhering to waste disposal, or worse damage you do to the environment and the cost of cleanup.

Car is neat and I'm glad you had some fun with it in Japan before importing. Sounds like it's going to be awesome when you are done.

Because it’s the cheapest to make. They make color wetsuits but they are usually the more expensive ones

These types of lawsuits against the parents post school shootings are common. How it usually goes down is the parents settle and the plaintiffs go after the school board or some other group. Parents usually don’t have enough money and judgements against them can usually cause them to file bankruptcy instead of getting them to actually pay damages. Before someone jumps in and make a comment about how it is all about money and victims profiting, remember there are costs associated with healthcare and death and someone needs to pay those costs. If your kid is murdered don’t you think those responsible for his/her murder should pay for the funeral?

How about next time you just try and ya know...actually use words you know the definition of?

It's a fucking middle school too. unbelievable.

Ok, if you meant correlation then it is clear that your implied sarcastic statement is not conveying the message you mean to convey. Also the context of your statement still suggests you should use the word causation and don't understand the meaning of the words. I agree they are correlated, but assuming that I am saying there is no link when I am saying that there is no guarantee is a clear indication you meant to use the word causation and are just confused about their meanings. This isn't correcting your grammar, there are these things called dictionaries and it's pretty cut and dry. If you are confused you should use one and it will clear it up. It's also not hard to see you have also fallen into the questionable cause logically facially that correlation proves causation. You think that A causes B therefore B is caused by A which is not always true. Hard work (A) can cause success (B) is a true statement, but Success (B) is the product of hard work (A) is not a true statement. Why? because the first statement does not assume an exclusivity through the use of "Can", where as the second statement does through the use of "is the". I'd make some crack about you not getting it because ESL but honestly, there are many Americans that don't understand this either, and it feels like most of them are republicans. Agree that if you desire success working hard increases the chances (but does not guarantee success)? yes. Agree that success is exclusively guaranteed by hard work and that lack of success is an indicator someone isn't working hard? no we do not.

I think you mean causation, not correlation. You are using the word correlation, but treating it like causation - one is any kind of link (correlation), the other is a direct cause and effect connection (causation). Words have meanings, it helps if you use the correct one. And yes there is not always Causation between hard work and success. Hard work increases the probability of success, but it is not a guarantee. Stop treating it like a guarantee. There are plenty of people who work damn hard and it doesn't make them any more money or advance them in their career. There are plenty of people who don't work all that hard and advance and keep making money. It's a factor, but stop treating it like it's THE factor because it isn't. Networking, experience, nepotism, cronyism, money, education, and pure dumb luck all play as much as a factor in increasing the chances of success. but yeah, if you believe that hard work on it's own without any other factor can provide success every single time - man I don't know what to tell you other than you are a sucker. I'm not saying people shouldn't work hard - anything you can do to increase your chances of success you should do, but I am saying that if you think not being successful is an indicator of not working hard...that is some pretzel logic.

:dumb: What about earning potential? what about credit rating. $10K is an average, so that is not a minimum. What about risk of life interruption (health, prison, etc), how do you account for those. This is a dumb conversation because a) right to reproduce is constitutionally protected so you couldn't implement anyway, b) it would take a lot of diversity out of our population. Seriously, when you hear black people talk about a "Black Genocide" these are the kind of stupid ideas they are talking about. Seems our definition of "those who need it" are different. I think Children born into poverty need it and you don't. Poor people are not lazy. You honestly should feel ashamed for thinking that. The only public assistance programs that don't have job reauirements are the ones that benefit children, the disabled, the sick (including addiction), and short term ones like unemployment. So who is lazy? Stricter requirements on a vulnerable population usually harm the most in need, and in this case it is often single mothers and their children (and before you say something dumb about having kids out of wedlock, it is quite common for married women with children to be abandoned by their husbands or to be widowers who are not receiving death benefits). Your moral/immoral judgements are irrelevant to the conversation because it doesn't discuss a solution. So fucking what you think it's immoral, that ain't going to fix the here and now, and it isn't a path forward. Its as useless as tits on a bull. Ok, lack of funding creates more waste through substandard education than social welfare programs, and the effects are far more longstanding. Why aren't you angry about the government investing more in education than about people getting government assistance? I think your priorities are misplaced. Why? because you say so? who the hell are you to tell me not to be a douche? You have every right to be a douche, but don't expect the world to respond positively to it. It isn't my place to tell you not to be a douche, but I don't have to interact with you either because that's within my control. You want to talk about social pressure - that's the crux of it, work on what you can control and try to be part of the solution, not just another dipshit judging performance from the sidelines. People respond to deterrents and incentives, laws are part of that structure, and are used within reason and have pretty serious limits. Just telling someone to be something or do something vague without providing the how isn't a plan, it isn't a solution, it's barely identifying a root cause.

and the beat goes on.... https://jalopnik.com/ubers-autonomous-car-had-six-seconds-to-prevent-fatal-c-1826290552 I have to say, the more I read about it, the more I kinda feel Uber really screwed the pooch in this one, but tell me why I am wrong....

ok, you want to hear something really fucked up? There is this thing called the school to prison pipeline: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School-to-prison_pipeline basically, over-policing of schools in disadvantaged neighborhoods leads to higher rates of incarceration for disadvantaged youths. This isn't speculative, this is fact, and one that gets a lot of airtime in criminal justice legal circles but few places else. Because of this, fewer school shootings happen. Why? sheer numbers. Stricter enforcement means that you pick up some of the bad kids in addition to a whole lot of kids that don't need to be picked up but are anyway. generally you don't have this in suburban schools. policy enforcement is much more lax, penalties are less harmful, it's a different environment. If you started applying the same zero tolerance polices and over-enforcement to the suburbs - school shootings would go down but a heck of a lot more middle class and affluent white kids would be going to jail. And no, just because they are middle class doesn't mean they commit less crime - the increased rate in disadvantaged youth crime is directly linked to over-policing and how the system treats poor people different from middle class and wealthy people. fucked up right? so a racially biased policy that nobody knows how to fix, is actually preventing more school shootings in disadvantaged neighborhoods at the cost of future opportunity. Talk about a Sophie's choice.

I bring it up because it is a factor. Part of the problem is that it gets forgotten in these discussions. Sure there are poor whites and they are swept up too, but a big part of the race relations discussion in this country involves access to education. Ignoring it doesn't mean the problem goes away. If you said you are going to punch in the face everyone who owns a Chevrolet, and 80% of the Chevrolets in the world are brown, are you really going to be all that dumbfounded when the owners of brown cars are pissed at you? probably not, so why be confused and dumbfounded when you make a statement about education and people point out that it has major racial implications? That all depends on your definition of "good parents". You can be a good person and a good parent instilling good values in your kid and not know anything about the education, the education system, etc...heck you don't even have to be poor for that to be a problem. Ok, what's the standard financial position? if you say it's clear that you can't afford it what's the number? Is it situational dependent? or one number for everyone? No I said that if you grow up poor you can still be raised in a loving environment and have good values. That is not the same thing as education, opportunity, reputation and and financial stability. They are different things. Except for people who don't have a choice as to whether they have kids (rape victims, religious restrictions, people in abusive marriages, etc), right? Say it as many times as you want, it isn't going to magically sound smarter through repetition. Forgetting the implication that you basically are saying "fuck the racial concerns" or that it is fundamentally classicist in that creepy old world imperialist way, or that a person's right to choose to reproduce is a fundemental protected right under the constitution, how would you even enforce this? Seriously, how would you make sure that only those who can "afford it" can only have kids without it sounding Orwellian in the first sentence? you can't, because it's not a solution - it's a moral judgement that just shits on the poor. That's a nice ivory tower you have there. The basic disagreement we seem to have here is whether it is the responsibility of government to provide education to it's citizens, and further the same quality of education to all classes and races of people. I think it does, and you don't seem to agree. So tell me, why do you think the government shouldn't provide education to it's citizens? I should add here that there is no requirement that parent's have to send their children to public school, but many states have minimum education requirements and student competency requirement for home schooling and alternative education. Parent's have choices, but parents aren't always in the best position to provide education or even know what good education vs bad education is, or even have the situational fluidity to move away from bad education to good.

here is the problem...because of systematic and ongoing racism and sexism that has been baked into the system for 200+ years the majority of the poor are also racial, ethnic, gender, or religious minorities. So, it's very hard to read the above statement without hearing "if you are not white, a religious weirdo, or a woman, don't have fucking children", even if YOU aren't thinking about it that way. Also, plenty of poor people have good parents - the positive of good parenting isn't going to make up for the negative of a bad school. You kinda need both, or at least some of each. Pretty clear sign of what? that you are going to be a bad parent? hardly. Again, just because you are poor doesn't automatically mean you are a bad person or are going to be a bad parent. I said it as sarcasm, but you are saying it in serious. If you really believe that only "not poors" are fit to be parents - then you are broken in ways I can't fathom. Bullshit. You do understand that school funding isn't in the control of the parents. And that school funding in poor neighborhoods is a national epidemic, not just isolated to a few incidents. This isn't a "everything bad that happened to me is someone else's fault" situation - this is a "yeah, the government is responsible for educational funding at the local, state, and federal level and the system needs more resources to be more effective". I mean, it's not even a question - when the government poured money into the educational system in this country the country prospered on all fronts, and yet it's somehow the parent's fault the system is broken because Ronald Reagan and every conservative politician have cut more out of educational spending than any democrat has been able to put back in. be serious.

haven't you heard? all poor people have bad parents, that's what makes them poor. vote republican so we don't have to waste money on their schools!!!!!

So do you think you are the only one? I guess so. Look there is nothing wrong with being proud of how you were raised, where it gets dicey is thinking you are some how the exception to the rule rather than the rule without proof.

Enlighten me then....when exactly "decades ago" did you think people took more personal responsibility than they do now? Most Major events in American History you can always find a group that is "dodging" personal responsibility for things - so I have to ask, if you think things were so much better in the past than they are now, when exactly in the past are you referencing? It's can't be the eras of wild west, the great depression, WWII, Vietnam...etc because they all have it. It makes no sense to you because this idea that we somehow took more personal responsibility in the past then we do now is a nostalgic lie, and you would rather believe the lie and be cynical about humanity than see the good in people and the forward march of society.

yeah....I'm pretty sure this country as a fucked up racial problem because a whole bunch of farmers and plantation owners didn't want to take responsibility for their farms, and then take responsibility for the people they enslaved to work those farms once freed....but you keep telling me how things were so much better in the past and people were more "personally responsible".

man that looks sharp!!!!

Because they are terrible cars for people who love to drive. I love all sorts of cars that don't usually get a lot of love, but as someone who grew up in the era when these kind of cars were hand me downs, they are just awful driving cars. These and the impala/caprice/electra/parienenne wagons from GM. The downsides: - They aren't fast due to the left over malaise engineering that coaxed 150hp out of 5.0 and 5.7 liter iron block v-8s with computer controlled carbs, - they had 20 degrees of play in the wheel even when new, - they floated down the road in a straight line but any kind of corner and you felt like you were dragging the door handles on the ground (over sprung and under dampened), - they got 10mpg no matter where or how you drove them, - they either had vinyl interiors that burned you though your clothes in summer or that weird mouse hair fabric that would staticly charge you like a battery every time you got in or out, - they dragged the rear bumper on exiting any decline the overhand was so long - They all smelled like every previous owner was in the car sweating to death at the same time. Those weird 1980's interiors soaked up all the smells and somehow amplified them. Also if anybody ever smoked within 10 feet of the car with the windows down that's it, your car smelled like cigarette smoke for ever. - they rotted like they were painted with a road salt based paint. And the interiors were all warped, cracked, and falling apart. Some of the headliners fell down so hard you had to pin them up with safety pins in front so you could see enough of the windshield to drive. Now the plus side was: - they had so much room you could have a party in the car. Not an exaggeration, a literal party. We had 12 high school kids in my buddy's 1984 buick wagon once, for comparison the most I ever stuffed in my dad's 1999 suburban was 9. - you could screw in them. In fact there are tons of 1980's movies where people do exactly that: fold the rear seat, inflate an air mattress or put down a heavy blanket, and go to pound town. If you were going hard enough the car's rear would rock and you could get in a rhythm where you didn't need to work that hard to get maximum pushing. - unless you were sideways and on fire with 10 people hanging out the windows, they were invisible to police officers. - They were indestructible. everything was so overbuilt and under stressed that you could hoon the shit out of it and it wouldn't even notice. This was also before crumple zones so if you hit something you were either going through it or leaving a lasting impression. - Everyone I have ever seen had A/c and it always worked. Dome lights, wouldn't work, headlights would be out, gauges do that thing where they look like they are doing jumping jacks when you hit the gas, but that A/C blew cold every time. Now I get that some of this could apply to 1960's-1970's land yachts, but honestly, They are actually better. the interiors were better and those cars were at least interesting to look at. 1980's design embraced the cube. Everything is a god damn cube or rectangle. You fall asleep from boredom just reading the gauges.

Fixed it for you. There has never been any proof that beating a kid improves their behavior. There is plenty of proof that beating a kid causes them to continue a cycle of violence with subsequent generations and society at large. How many generations are we talking about? Would you say 20 years is a generation? because school shootings have been declining since the 1990's. How about 30 years? Because even though the number spiked in the 1990's it's still lower than it has been since the 1980's. School shootings have been happening regularly since the 19th century, so I would not say they have been "non-existent". Well I agree with this to a point, but you can't just say the government should do nothing because it is all on the parents. It's a combination of things - people can work harder to be better parents, schools can improve (usually through funding so vote for politicians who spend money on schools), and some legislative restrictions can make things better. Saying it's one thing and not another is :dumb:

I've discussed this before, but there are plenty of situations in politics where legislation, budget amendments, executive orders, etc....can have a "chilling effect" on certain actions without banning that specific action. This is one of those things. It specifically bans funding research that can be used for advocating gun control legislation. Because of this, nobody has funded it, and the CDC even when it has a budget surplus won't allocate it to this type of research because if the research does lead to gun control legislation after the fact (even if not intended initially) - they will have to pay the money back. This is the strategy of politics most people don't usually see or understand, but it's pretty common, and used in every area from free speech restrictions to federal spending. You understand that this has no real practical effect right? The statement you highlight...this one: ...is kind of just a "captain obvious" statement of fact without any legal effect to overturn or broaden the scope of the Dickey Amendment. Yes, it is a true statement of fact that the CDC can conduct research...as long as it doesn't get used to write gun legislation. Show me what part of the above statement removes that restriction? I'll save you the time - it doesn't. here, read this, I'm tired of typing: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/23/596413510/proposed-budget-allows-cdc-to-study-gun-violence-researchers-skeptical

Step 1: Research and collect data Step 2: Analyze data and draft legislation accordingly Step 3: profit? Notice how I didn't say draft gun control legislation accordingly but generally "legislation", why? because part of the analysis will also reveal what are red herrings and better served through legislation or gov't programs in other areas. Some will be gun laws, some will be physical security laws, some will address other health concerns. Yup. It's still there then it is still frustrating meaningful research. At this point gun related deaths are least researched health epidemic with the most amount of deaths. Consider it step 0.5.