Geeto67

My wife just said the same thing and she hates Buicks because her grandfather drove only them

An entire lineup of Cadillac Cateras. Yeah that sounds like a recipe for success. </sarcasm>

nah, Caddy is already doing this with a TT v6 that is a caddy only engine. And they have a history of doing this, just look at the Northstar. If it does make it into something else, it will be detuned and put into something like Buick's top of the line model (which is what again?). Edit: Holy shit buick's most expensive vehicle is an Enclave, and their biggest car is a regal!!!! WTF happened buick? you used to be somebody?

Kids with learner's permits are required to take driver's ed in most states prior to getting a license. Also driver's ed is part of almost all high school education programs (as elective). When I went through driver's ed our car had dual controls, and actually some states require driver's ed cars to have them these days. I don't know of a single state that allows a kid with a learner's permit to operate a motor vehicle without another person present, and likely that person will exercise good judgement and pick a less challenging route for that kid to drive. And now Az will have to fall in line with CA. And actually, if that was known and a motivating decision in attracting Uber to AZ, then don't you think the state is culpable in this as well, and not just for the pedestrian hostile nature and confusion of that intersection? And honestly, Uber should have looked at this state, with it's relatively high accident rate, and made a judgement call as to whether it was the appropriate environment for them instead of trying to dodge being caught for faulty tech in another state. But I think I have made my opinion clear on Uber's ability to make good choices (it's like they are physically incapable of it as a corporate culture). sounds like a poorly signed 35mph zone to me. All human drivers are capable of being ticketed of the thing, but due to known technology limitations (i.e. most cars speedometers being flawed) and a general understanding of human error it is the discretion of the officer issuing the summons to make that call. But in the case of the machine? no this is one area I expect the machine to be 100% accurate on, no exceptions. That is the point of autonomous technology - to eliminate the human error factor. Once autonomous tech becomes common place I expect the speed limits to increase because we have standardized the driver, if it can't hold a speed within 1/2 a mph then keep working on it till it can (preferably not on public streets). good to know.

Not true. One of the many functions of regulation is to influence of the individual behavior. Not every regulation/law is a prohibition, sometimes regulations are intentionally a hassle but still permit an activity to shake out those who are easily discouraged and those who are not. It's a model based on economics that's as old as time, and one that already exists in this space with waiting periods and similar laws. I have never said the person is not the problem, nor have I absolved them of any responsibility. If we agree that the person is at the heart of the problem, and a solution is in influencing in their behavior - then gun control regulations are just one tool in that arsenal. And research is an essential component to all of it. Let's be clear. The constitution is not absolute. To treat it as absolute is to flat not understand the powers and limitations of the document itself or the government charged with executing on it. As long as it is not a ban, it is not infringing on the overall rights enumerated in 2A, any other interpretation is false. There is 200+ years of jurisprudence to back it up, including the Heller case. If you are not open to the idea that some of those laws and regulations need to be focused on gun control, then you are just not open to a solution to the problem. If you are so hellbent on it not affecting the rights of gun owners, then the other option was industry self policing. This is where the industry gets together and sets standards to personally address the problems outside government intervention. You see this plenty in other industries and hobbies and it often works at keeping people at bay. Unfortunately the general attitude of the industry is one of independence rather than collaboration where nobody wants to work in collective for the good of all and so it's left to the government to do. Honestly, this is what the NRA did for decades before 1977 (when the extremists took over), and you know what? it pretty much worked - guns and gun control was a non issue. Now I won't defend the pre-1977 NRA either because one of their reasons that led to the coup was their decision to back Governor Ronald Reagan's obviously racist gun control laws in the wake of the Black Panther's protests. But that's a different conversation for another time. The fact that you think it is just a "fishing expedition" means you don't value research knowledge as a whole. I can't explain it any clearer. What we disagree on is the value of information.

The fundamental difference between you and me Tim, is that I recognize that this is a multifaceted problem with many factors including current gun regulations and you simply refuse to believe that the gun and the world surrounding it is part of the problem. It's a core tenant and one we probably won't ever agree on. I believe we should work the problem from all sides, and that regulation can work as an incentive toward people's behavior and you refuse to work the problem from all sides because in your mind the thing itself isn't part of the problem. You keep talking about meeting in the middle, but if you middle doesn't include some research and some sensible gun control laws, then you aren't interested in meeting in the middle and I am not interested in meeting you further than center. our closeness might as well be the length of the Sahara desert. Wow Tim, that is a gran canyon leap of logic. I said here in this thread specifically that research and controls laws played a significant part in the change in social attitudes and the development of community programs. I honestly genuinely want to call you retarded right now but I know you aren't, but I can't believe this mis-characterization isn't malicious. You beat me up all the time here on spin but this is beyond spin - either you didn't grasp what I was saying at all (hence retarded) or you are lying about what I said to make your point. I believe it is the latter.

LOL not gonna lie, this movie sounds either awesome or like a spectacular train wreck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Theory

Because you are crazy and afraid. Ok. got it. Ban isn't going to happen, Supreme court has said it, even the most liberal politicians have said it, the law doesn't support it, and it would take a constitutional amendment to even start to make that happen - and even if it did, there are enough conservatives in power in the courts that would interpret it away from a ban anyway. The only people I really hear talking about a ban like it is realistic are NRA disciples who are fear mongering that "they are coming for your guns", to drum up support. Sure there are dipshit liberal extremists that shout it occasionally, but most of them aren't in power and can't get their shit together like the NRA. Which raises the question "end goal for whom?". From my standpoint, the overwhelming majority's end goal is to just get some form or progress in place in the form or reasonable and common sense gun control. The people that are talking about an outright ban as a serious solution are fringe, and small, and not realistic or using fear tactics to drum up support for their position. Global Nuclear fucking war will happen before this country sees a ban on firearms, so slow your roll there Cochise. ok, so your emotional feelings in doing a job (which is clearly having a toll on your mental health) is more important and more credible than the reported experience of everyone like you nationwide? no wonder you think a ban is plausible. Do you think studies happen in a vacuum? they do not. I'm sure you have even been part of them and had your chance to tell your story and probably didn't even realize it or notice. And it all becomes part of the narrative. But you don't speak for the whole of the industry and the numbers don't lie. I am not denigrating your experience (even though it looks like that in the preceeding paragraph), I am sure you feel this way and you have every right to feel the way you do. However, your single experience does not make you an expert on the whole of a problem that exists beyond your industry and is only one small piece of a much larger puzzle, it ain't the whole puzzle. Ok, if alcohol is in the realm of discussion then it is the model for control. It is a regulated substance, and because of controls the rates of a negative outcome associated with it have plummeted. Sure alcohol deaths are still higher than gun deaths in this country but alcohol use is far and away more widespread and accessible, and you know what, progress in reducing the harm on that front hasn't slowed at all. Because there is progress being made in an incremental and cautious manner and at all levels of the government - it really isn't a hot button issue in politics anymore. Police are constantly improving techniques to address drunk driving, health care is improving to help treat those suffering the affects, government funding is going to treatment programs (although under republican administrations those sometimes get cut so maybe don't vote for those people), new scientific development is coming out all the time toward treatment, new laws are coming out as to the standards and labeling at the federal level, etc....you get the idea? Working the problem from all sides and moving forward without a ban in sight. If you ask me what I believe, I am perfectly fine with alcohol control laws and I am perfectly fine with gun control laws. But then again, I am not stupid enough to believe that a ban on guns will actually happen so..... A ban on alcohol worked out horrifically. That alone has kept us from having a one again, and would probably have the same effect with guns - which is another reason why a ban is implausible. No I am not, but then again progress in regulating alcohol and providing programs to help with that situation hasn't been halted like it has with guns. We are improving and we will continue to improve on that point, research is being done, new programs are popping up every day. We aren't getting anywhere with the other subject. My point from day one has been let's start up the research and support for getting some progress in this area going again. If you want to talk with one of those crazies that think a ban is plausible then I suggest you go out and find one, because I don't think there are any here. The reason you don't understand it is because: - you assume progress isn't still being made on alcohol as a controlled substance, which is false - you assume people in favor of gun control aren't in favor of alcohol regulation, which is also false - you have this set up as a one or the other proposition, which it is not - you can both regulate alcohol and regulate firearms, and do both without an outright ban being the goal. yeah with the number of incorrect assumptions you make I'm sure you could. would make about as much sense too.

Let's rephrase this a little shall we? how about: one bad actor who intentionally acted below common sense and developing industry standards because it saved them money shows that the industry can't be trusted to act competently without standardization. It also highlights how the existing laws are inadequate to address these particular wrongs. You can't treat pedestrians as part of your R&D without their consent or at the very least without taking every reasonable precaution to prevent a bad outcome. Me an others are calling for MORE OVERSIGHT and BETTER SAFETY STANDARDS (NOT A BAN) because we tried it with minimal government interference and this happened. There is always going to be that one dipshit that ruins it for everyone, and in this case UBER stood up and said "I'll be that dipshit that cuts corners and jeopardizes this thing we have, because money and fuck the government". this wouldn't be as much of an issue if the Uber Autonomous car wasn't speeding, Uber's testing standards were the worst in the industry, and as we are now finding out uber's tech may have been not ready for prime time anyway. Just an observation. that street view isn't very recent. there are some saying it can be over a year old (although most put it at July 2017). Still, the police are the ones saying it is a 35mph zone so it could very well be a recent change - which then begs the question: how does the autonomous car model handle updates to the road regulations? If they are operating with information that is at least 6mos old that is causing them to break the law and there is no capability for the machine to read road signs in real time, then is the system really ready for on the road testing? Think about all the temporary signs that get placed in places like construction zones and such - if the machine can't read them then how do you stop it from plowing through a 35mph construction zone at 60mph? And once the regulations are in place and the training done, it will probably come back. The whole of the skydiving industry relies on the door open flight (and there are helicopters that get used for jumps - though less often), and the FAA is not about to put those people out of business without a fight.

amazing, just flat fucking amazing.

anybody wanna guess the fall out from this? My prediction (which I fully expect to be wrong): - Pedestrian's family files suit against Uber, which uber isn't going to win and is going to cost them a large fortune. - States are going to re-evaluate their autonomous car policies and start writing laws with regard to testing that require both two operators and provability that the tech is road ready. Uber may lose it's ability to test autonomous tech on the roads. - Uber is going to say a lot of shitty things in the press about how they are being oppressed by the government a year from now because apparently the entire company is run by fratboi douches. let's not forget this is their fault. Edit: looks like I missed this: https://jalopnik.com/why-uber-could-be-held-criminally-liable-in-fatal-crash-1823901514 also, anybody want to make some hay about how the uber car was speeding? preliminary reports indicate the car was going between 38 and 40mph in a 35mph zone. https://jalopnik.com/video-shows-pedestrian-in-fatal-uber-crash-stepped-in-f-1823922228 BTW, in case anybody (specifically libertarian fanboi's wo can't understand why there is so much government regulation) is wondering where government regulation comes from - this right here is the origin. This is what is meant when people say laws are written in blood. The free market can't correct for this because the product being tested isn't on the market yet.

I believe that was a complaint at the beginning of his presidency when he was mentioning companies more often. Nothing to stop him, but if his friends acted on that the SEC has no problem with fines/jail. The nice part about being president is that you are a public person 100%, there is no expectation of privacy from the government itself so if he was telling his friends "Hold my beer, I'm gonna tank Boeing's stock" before tweeting it out, the SEC has no problem finding out (in fact he would have to self report). If you notice, he kinda stopped mentioning companies and business affairs that are not the media in his tweets. My guess is his cabinet or advisors put a stop to that shit quick.

I can’t even follow the chasm of logic that has you comparing the ban of alcohol to reasonable and prudent gun control laws. We currently regulate alcohol more than we regulate gun, and you know what? It’s had an appreciable positive effect on American society. Alcoholism has been in decline since the end of prohibition thanks to the combination of regulation, community programs, and general changes in Sosial attitudes. We’ve also been able to study it the whole time and make meaningful changes and discontinue programs that don’t work. Things like Drunk driving and fetal alcohol syndrome have become less of a problem too over time. And you know what? You can still buy alcohol in your grocery store. What’s wrong with having that kind of meaningful change in the gun space? I don’t know what the anti gun people think, you should go out and ask them, but as far as I see it there aren’t any on this forum. Just because someone supports moderate and reasonable restrictions doesn’t mean someone is anti gun - it does mean they are anti stupid NRA absolutist nonsense. In my eyes a 100% ban is just as stupid as the no gun control at all position of the NRA, but I don’t have to worry, neither is ever gonna happen.

anybody who remembers when this was the best a cadillac showroom had to offer.... Isn't complaining once inch about a 600hp+ cadillac sedan. We are just happy it exists in the world and look forward to the luxury car depreciation in the used market.

A bottle of Tequila and a really high cliff to jump off of is the cheapest way to get the same sensation but you can only do it once. Repeat-ability, comfort, enjoyment, and access carry a premium.

just read this: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/02/upshot/what-should-government-study-gun-research-funding.html It's worthwhile. Unfortunately because it is the new york times you'll probably dismiss it as some pussy rag pushing a liberal agenda rather than give it a fair shake.

Tim, they hated your long winded posts long before I ever got here. All I did was give you an excuse to write more. This conversation is mostly for us, embrace it. I've not said this anywhere, nor have I implied it. There are always going to be some deaths, the question is are we at the lowest number we can possibly be at. You say yes (your "Cost of freedom" mantra), I say no (my "we can always improve" mantra). again, your opinion not mine. I don't know if they are effective or not. yes, because that is the difference between speculation and fact. or "your best guess" vs "actual evidence" if you prefer. that's where we are now, nobody is spending money because it won't do any good because the dickey amendment prevents the research from being used. One of the universal arguments on both sides against most gun control laws is that they are woefully uninformed. This will solve that problem - when we look at the problems of mass shootings, violent crime with a fire arm, et al we can actually make smart decisions and legislation and some of it may not even be gun laws. The gun violence conversation in this country is just plain stupid on both sides - having information and research will solve that problem. that's a question for the researcher setting up the study, they determine the parameters. I want detailed information on it all. I don't want broad strokes and I don't want detail for just one demographic. enforcement within the industry itself (background checks), enforcement within the community, anywhere there is a regulation surronding access already in place, can we look at it and see how effective enforcement is around it? common factors in general. Types, access, etc... Is a ban on "scary" guns even the right approach though. That is what data will tell us. you keep saying these problems are a one kind of thing, and really they are not, they are a mental health issue and a gun control issue. What is so wrong about understanding both sides of the problem so the changes we make are specific to addressing the needs of that situation in the most efficient way possible. It just may not be feasible to fix this only working from one side of the problem and research might just tell us that - until then insisting we need to fix only one element that we don't know if it is fixable or not is disingenuous. I've pointed out that the dickey amendment handicaps the study of it from the mental illness side in a severe way, so your argument here is null and void. Root cause analysis is not blindly fishing. It's a very specific process that starts at an outcome and looks at all the contributing factors. You work in large corporation don't you? this shouldn't even be something you are confused about, it's a standard of any large company's audit department. If you don't value data and don't understand how it can improve than you will never see it as anything but. I can't help you there other than to say your blind devotion to 2a (and no other amendment) is keeping you from having an enlightened position on this. no you just don't want any form of gun control and claiming that it is a waste of money is just one tactic you think invalidates the argument for making some progress here. The government has experts for this, I just want them to be empowered and financially backed to actually study this instead of twiddling their thumbs while the rest of us talks about how stupid the last assualt weapons ban was. I'd rather look at it not from the end game of some extreme side, but from the most reasonable and prudent course that will get us to a happy medium in the middle. Everyone can agree that some gun control measures are drafted more from the heart than the head - well let's fix the intelligence problem around the conversation. let's be clear about what I am saying here: I'm not asking for a ban, I'm not even advocating for gun control, I am saying that let's collectively get smarter about what the problems really are (not just your bullshit conjecture) and make smart decisions as to how to address them. Only someone who doesn't want any progress made would take issue with that.

this is what American cars used to do really well: http://www.imcdb.org/i001955.jpg Cross the desert at top speed to get to your destination before the acid kicked in. this is the 1970 Cadillac sedan deville: http://automotivemileposts.com/cadillac/images/1970/cadi1970sdvhardtopprod.jpg It made 400hp and 550 ft/lbs of torque, you could seat 8 in it with the most modern comfort of your living room in 1970. It had electric everything, a car phone (as an option), auto dimming headlights, surround sound, adjustable ride control, dual automatic climate control - it was fancy. now that Cadillac has their shit straight and are making cars people want again in the lower priced models - what's wrong with them making America great again with a really fast sofa? they stand a better chance with it than some other people I know.

the new BMW m5 is 4,370 lbs dry. Audi RS7 is 4,497 lbs.Current CT6 is 4,498 dry. AMG E63 S 4matic is 4,587 lbs. so... weight isn't the problem. It's not a corner carver, buy an m4, or m3, or m2 for that. This is a personal bullet train, a car to cross the country on the freeway at 100+. It's a cannonball. The Europeans dream about cars like this and then build them and send them here because outside the autobahn the magic is lost on the rest of Europe. Not everything has to be a precise surgical instrument, some things can be a big shit flinging stick. while I agree, manual all the things....name me the AMG models that come with a stick? How about the comparable audi products available in the US in a stick? BMW is the only one left offering manual trans on M cars, and that may be going away soon. Be thankful we have a stick Cadillac at all in the ATS-V - 15 years ago that wasn't even a twinkle in GM's eye. you are thinking a lot about old man penis. Are you ok? I guess you are.

you keep asking this question, and I keep answering it. It is getting tiring. It makes me realize you don't actually read anything I write but rather just skim for sentences that trigger you and then just launch off from there. The point of social science research is to study an area and determine the root causes behind certain actions/outcomes. It doesn't start out with a traditional hypothesis like natural science studies, but rather a question. So asking me what I think will be discovered is the wrong question to be asking, because you are asking me to guess at conclusions. Unlike you I am not looking for evidence to fit my conclusions, I would rather let the data lead me to the root cause and go from there. To that end, the more appropriate question is: "What questions am I looking to have answered?" so here are a few: - How effective are our current policies? Are more shootings being prevented by current regulation? or is it making no difference? A subset of this is how effective is our enforcement of current policies across the board? - What are the most common weapon elements of mass shooting? is there a connection? can regulation affect that? - Child access in suicides and accidents is heavily studied, but in violent crime and mass shootings it isn't studied at all. What are the most common ways minors are getting access to weapons to use for violent crime? - What factor do concealed carry laws play in all aspects of gun violence? - are background checks effective in preventing mass shootings and accidents? - do minimum age requirements have an effect? - is there any value to the waiting period I think you get the idea. The problem with not having a steady revenue stream for research isn't just in that the above questions aren't getting answered, it is that what little research is being done isn't complete, or sometimes so broad as to be easily picked apart by both sides. now I know you are going to start in on your hatred of lawyers (why did you marry one again?) and how I am not answering your question, but changing the question and then answering my own, and to that I say fuck you. don't ask such stupid questions. We both know this old cross examination trick and you aren't even subtle about it.

Now you know how every performance motorcycle rider feels.

So far, GM is making it a Cadillac exclusive engine. Maybe down the road, but to be honest - the vette already has engines that do what this one does in their top tier cars. I think they are doing it at bowling green because the ZR1 engine is hand-built there, which means the facility and support to mass produce a hand built Cadillac engine is already in place. I have to say, as a lifelong 60's BOP fan, I think it is actually nice that GM is going back to proprietary engines for their lines, or at least for their luxury line. Compared to 1990's Cadillac they really are starting to get a handle on the luxury car market and what makes the Europeans so good at it.

All good points, but they bring up the questions: Was Uber deviating from the industry standard? And is there a clear industry standard? This is something the auto manufacturers understand really well, which is why you don't really hear much about their autonomous programs despite the fact nearly everyone in the auto industry has an autonomous program. It's only the "Tech" companies like Tesla and Uber that are playing fast and loose, and as a result we hear about their accidents all the time. If this tech is to have a chance, it needs to sell that it is safer than human drivers. Pedestrians don't sign up to be part of the R&D of a big company, so those big companies have to be more careful than what is generally expected of them in testing this equipment, and that is something I don't think Uber understands or even cares about.

It's no more "unsafe" than a usual distracted driver with an increased reaction time, which is a higher risk than the average driver. Most autonomous chaperones are required to monitor certain things so they are being asked to split their attention - so maybe some procedures need to change here. yeah yeah all the cynics will come out and bitch that everyone is a distracted driver on their cell phone these days, but that's actually not true, no matter how bad columbus drivers seem to be. Still, it's on the car companies now to prove to the public that testing in a live environment is still prudent and safe. Let's see how they do. Those would be a factor in a contributory negligence determination, but it's exceedingly, extremely rare, you will ever find a pedestrian to have contributed 50% let alone more than that in the fault realm.

He did in the wake of the Sandy Hook. In fact he directed the CDC conduct research and provided funds outside the budget bill (thus circumventing the Dickey amendment) to conduct at least one study. The end result study was on Urban Firearm violence that published at the end of 2015. If you remember 2016, Obama was already locked horns with a republican majority congress that was committing to objecting to everything he proposed (I'm not exaggerating - that was the strategy, fight everything) and generally obstructing government. In the environment when he couldn't even get his supreme court nomination vetted a lot of things didn't get the attention they deserved. If you want to read the report it's here: http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf A lot of state and local governments have used this report to shape their approach to gun violence in their states - which is the real value of something like this - esp in the suggestions of programs for contributing factors. But still this is ONE study, and a bunch of little children died before the climate was enough for Obama to get the support he needed to end run around the Dickey Amendment, with enough money to do one study. This issue should be studied every year until things improve - 1 ain't gonna cut it. Also there was a call for repeal of the dickey amendment in 2015, called for by Obama and spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi. Since it is a congressional budget bill all Obama can do is find someone in Congress willing to try to make the change, and he didn't have a problem finding one. It did not pass because not a single republican would back it, even though 110 Democrats in the house backed it. nope you are wrong, see above. He did exactly what you are asking "why didn't he do", and he got stopped by partisan politics. 1 research project in 24 years? I'd say the dickey amendment is quite effective. You argument is literally premised on the fact that you were just ignorant to the democratic efforts to repeal the amendment. If they can do it so easily, then when they tried to do it why didn't they succeed? oh that's right because you don't know what you are talking about. Not every study on gun violence is going to lead to gun control laws, and that's kind of the shame here. Some studies will identify areas that need more study and that isn't going to get done, and some areas may require other approaches as well. the NRA is so committed to preventing gun legislation of any kind that they are willing to stop any progress in this tracks even if it doesn't lead to gun control laws, because why take the risk. They just don't want to take the chance that they will be embarrassed again when scientific evidence proves one of their tenants and main marketing slogans false. I get that the concept of the dickey amendment is not easily accessible to everyone. To fully understand the issue you have to have some knowledge on how government spending and budgeting works and how "misuse" of funds (like what would happen if CDC research was used for support of federal gun control laws) could cripple an organization. Plus it's kind of obscure and there isn't a whole lot of sexy in it. Plenty have reported on it, and there have been efforts to repeal it, and almost every major medical and science based organization has condemned it, but it just doesn't get traction with the mainstream because...well...understanding it's effects is complex.