Mallard

Again? I guess the real question is, if a modified diesel truck could beat a stock BRZ 0-100 mph while pulling a trailer, who the fuck cares? The BRZ isn't built for straight line speed. Ya know, I bet the diesel truck can fit more in the bed than the BRZ can in it's trunk too. That car's a total piece of shit.

Gotta love CR winter. Did I seriously just read 'a modified 12 sec diesel truck would be faster than a stock BRZ' as a reason why the BRZ sucks? Hopefully I just misunderstood the point trying to be made...

Technically, I think Jayfressh is correct. While his car is on jack stands with the wheels off it's elevated above ground and has more potential energy than any of your cars that are firmly planted on the ground. When it falls off his jack stands this potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy (just enough energy to smash hopes and dreams). At that time your vehicles will finally have equal potential energy, but until that day comes he's still in the lead.

For example, the 2nd Amendment with no limits means you can buy a nuclear warhead. I think we can all agree no one should have that. (but then again maybe no one would mess with eachother if they knew we all had warheads). This is just what the Supreme's Court ruling means. There can be a limit imposed. It's just a matter of where to set the bar. I actually LOL'd at this because for one thing you were trying to compare me to a gay tiger trainer, but also because this analogy could be used against you position. The tiger could be anyone carrying a firearm, while Roy is your average citizen. Day after day they interact with eachother and nothing happens, but someone has a bad day and they snap. When that happens should he be a tiger or a house cat? Now, let's just get this straight, I'm not advocating removing the 2nd Amentment, taking away your guns, stopping the sale of firearms, or disallowing CCW permits. I am, however, tired of bullshit analogy's being used to compare a firearm to a spoon, or saying I could kill you with anything so it doesn't matter if I have an assult weapon or not. I read these and I see a person that has no solid position on the matter and is probably just spewing out trash he saw posted on Facebook or in a chain email. These arguements hold no water, give no leagal arguement FOR your stance on the issue, and amount to finger pointing other objects in an attempt to distract people from the issue. There's no need for me to multi-quote every reply and continue the back and forth because no one in here is going to change their position on the matter. I see the points you are making, and you see mine. At this point I'm really not sure what the total 'solution' is, but I think it's going to come in the form of stricter requirements for who can purchase a firearm. This will go beyond the current background checks, but I'm not sure what's really feasible (if everyone should/could be given a psych eval). It will also most likely result in an "assult weapons" ban being re-instated, but that's going to be a hotly debated issue on the floor. I personally don't want to see teachers carrying guns because I think too much can go wrong in that scenario.

This is true, but how many people can it kill in x amount of time? It's going to be far less than the semi-auto rifle. If every citizen has a CCW and someone tries to shoot up the place with a handgun the number of casualty's is going to be extremely low before other draw on him. Even people without a firearm have a chance to rush him. I'm sure the number of crimes committed with semi-automatic rifles is low compared to hand guns, but the number of innocent people killed in random public shootings is going to be higher with the semi-auto. As of Nov. 29 Detroit had 354 homicides (although that includes people stabbed), but that doesn't include the Sept 10 stat of 863 non-fatal shootings. I would bet that that nearly all of there were not committed with a semi-auto rifle, but I would also say that a majority were not random acts of violence. They were a target that someone decided to kill, and they would find any way to do it. Where would it end? That's what the whole debate is about. Do you never impose any limits for fear of future limits that no one's even talking about? The 2nd Amendement isn't going anywhere, and you can bet money that any limit imposed will not be drastic. The gun lobby is too powerful and the US representatives are too split on the issue. Anything that gets passed will be fairly predictable and tame for fear of getting challenged and thrown out by the supreme court.

I'm tired of hearing the counter-arguement against gun control about banning spoons for making people fat, or cars for killing people in accidents, or knives for cutting people. It just doesn't hold water. A gun was designed for one specific thing: killing. Forks, knives, spoons, diesel fuel, fertilizer, or whatever else you come up with has been designed for a purpose other than killing. Anything in the environment can kill you if used properly (or improperly if you prefer) so it's not a matter of 'I could kill you with a toothpick too, so it won't make a difference if you take my semi-automatic rife with 30 round magazine off the market.' Nobody is advocating removing the 2nd Amendment. You will always have a right to bear arms, but even the Supreme Court has ruled that there can be limits put on what type of weapons citizens can posses. The debate is about where to put that limit and should everyone in the population be subject to the same limits. Had the shooter not had this type of weapon it's plausable that the staff that confronted him could have put a stop to it while sacrificing their lives. For all the people killed they said each one had between something like 3 to 11 rounds in them. That's a lot of gunfire in a short period of time. None of them stood a chance. The ongoing or upcoming issue is should anyone on the street be allowed to possess something that can lay down this much fire. Hand guns, hunting rifles, and shotguns are going nowhere. Yes, crazy people are everywhere and they are unpredictable. And a guy in China did just stab a bunch of elementary school kids. But guess what? They lived. All it took was one failed shoe bomb and we all take our shoes off at the airport. How many mass shootings in public have taken place in the last few years (or even the last month) but we advocate going forward with business as usual? Also, let's put to rest this idea of arming the teachers. A teacher has no business carrying a firearm into a classroom. Way too much can go wrong, and I don't want a teacher making a kill/no-kill decision, or even worse, have their gun stolen from them by a student. The only guns allowed in schools should be on a police officer.

shit.

The anticipation is giving me..... goosebumps.

FYI - Constitutional amendments are list listed in order of importance. They are all equal. And I agree with Tilly. Gun-related discussions on CR never go well. Take it to the kitchen.

http://blog.instagram.com/post/38252135408/thank-you-and-were-listening Supposedly they say it's false. In for pics of sister-in-law.

Saved a gallon of gas, died hitting a speed bump.

Welcome. Good intro.

Agreed. Paint the hood input you kid in a damn booster seat.

Autism is not associated with violent behavior, so if you're suggesting that autistic people need to be committed, or undergo serious psychiatric therepy, your wrong.

They said on the news this morning that the office did not buzz him in, he broke the glass to get inside. But this has been conflicting. The doors also are not locked until 9:30, and the first 911 call came in at 9:30, so he may have been in the building beforehand. There's also a story floating around Facebook that a first grade teacher hid her students in cabinets and told the gunman they were in the gym. He killed her and moved to another room. p.s. the .223 is now reported as being in the school with him, and there were 3 hunting rifes in his car.

That's under $150 per kWh, while current cost estimates for the battery back are around $550 per kWh. Even it's it's estimated to cost 30% more, that's still a large decrease when compared to today's prices. I agree that the BRZ should be among the top vehicles released this year, but I agree with MT's decision.

The corporation's only have the "upper hand" by shipping jobs overseas because the unions require 3 people to do the job of one, creating inefficiency and added costs. The unions philosophy needs to change so their worker base can be competitive in the market, and that doesn't necessarily mean wage cuts. I expected that to be followed by "...which has no place on this forum."

Close, but the kid's even more sick than your story tells. The Shooter was 20 year old Adam Lanza. For some reason he was carrying his brothers ID so he was originally misidentified. Ryan Lanza claimed he has not had contact with his brother since 2010. According to NBC, he lived with his mother and shot her in the face, then went to the school afterwards. The school had security doors where you have to ring a bell and the stadd inside has to buzz you in. They think he was allowed in becuause the staff recognized him. He was carrying two handguns and supposedly "100's" of round of ammunition. The 0.223 was in the car. Supposedly his girlfriend and her friend are still missing.

While I think there are some very poor unions out there (the UAW comes to mind), I don't think they are irrelevent in concept. They were founded on the principle of using strength in numbers to negotiate for fair compensation and safety standards in the workplace. Now it's nearly impossible to fire a crappy employee, even if they are blatently insubordinate, the job descriptions/divisions of labor are ancient causing horrible inefficiency and driving up costs. I think these bills are what the union needs to better serve the worker base since now they will have to compete for membership. They have to actually offer something beneficial to the employee. It's not that unions should disappear, it's that they need to modify their business plan. Just my opinion, but in today's working climate, a union could best serve their membership by using their strength in numbers to offer better health coverage and retirement plans to people who join, in addition to negotiating their compensation.

Lol. Not sue if serious.

The legislation says that you cannot require union membership as a condition of employment. An employee can decide whether to join or not. The unions are upset because they collect A LOT of money in dues and they stand to lose revenue and bargaining power if people opt out. They have fed their membership a lot of material meant to scare them so they see it as a war on their wages. The only complaint I see merit with is that employees that opt out could possibly benefit from wages negotiated by the union, without contributing to the organization. In my opinion that is a narrow view and fails to capitalize on the opportunity unions have. The business model of the unions needs to change, and they need to take care of their membership better if they want to retain membership.

I liked that the day before the bill was passed this came out in the news. http://jalopnik.com/5967123/chrysler-had-to-rehire-the-workers-caught-getting-stoned-during-lunch?utm_campaign=socialflow_jalopnik_facebook&utm_source=jalopnik_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow I found some footage from the protests...

True, it's a bigger deal on a 35 mile battery. I will be interested to see how your range decreases in the winter, not that you'll be pushing 350 mile drives a lot.

Another question: The Volt has a remote start button on the FOB so I can pre-heat or pre-cool the cabin. This is especially helpful with the Volt since the heater uses a lot of battery power, so I can pre-heat the car while its plugged in. You said the S's FOB only has trunk and lock/unlock, so can you not do something like this? Or can you program the car for a departure time so it will do this automatically?