greg1647545532

Not something I'm planning on doing anytime soon, but I've seen it suggested elsewhere, and it seems like a solid idea, to put the new 305hp 3.7L V6 from the '11 Mustangs into an RX-8. I know LS1 swaps have been done, as well as SR20/2JZ things, but the 3.7L was a joint Ford/Mazda venture, so I'm wondering if the electronics would match up any better, or if there'd be any combination of Mazda6/Miata/RX-8 ECUs and harnesses that would have a chance of snapping in and running a V6 without rewiring the dash. I'm not sure where to start. I know a standalone would work, but I come from the Honda world where there's always an OEM part from some car that you can use.

Two Israeli film students made a fake video of a UFO. /explained

Your sense of reason and calmness has no place in modern American political discourse. FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR

There's hardly any government programs that can be characterized as "capitalistic." Actually, let me back up. Capitalism and Socialism are economic terms that describe an overal economic climate. In a capitalist society, private individuals own the means of production. In a socialist society, the state owns the means of production. The closest the US has come in recent years to anything that meets the classic definition of "socialism" is the takeover of GM. Even that was pretty short-lived though. In Europe when all the banks failed, the governments stepped in and literally took over the banks. In the US we threw money at them, but it wasn't the same thing. Social programs are an entirely different beast. If you want to talk about "capitalistic" programs run by the government, the only one I can think of is the Department of Justice, which attempts to create a level field for private businesses by preventing price fixing, monopolies, and other anti-capitalistic practices. Even government funded small business loans, which you might think support capitalism, are actually anti-capitalistic in that they give an unfair advantage to small businesses who qualify. What you're actually talking about in your OP are social welfare programs, which are only tangentially related to socialism. To answer your question about which social programs "work" or "work as originally intended," you'd need to define their original intent. I think there are two major purposes of social programs: 1) To provide a basic safety net for society because it's the right thing to do. You might (and probably do) disagree that this is the role of the government, but that's neither here nor there, because we're judging whether these programs are a "success" or not. So, do the current crop of social programs work to keep people from hitting rock bottom? I think that they do. There are millions upon millions of old people who are utterly dependent on social security and medicare to make ends meet. There are millions of disabled people who are dependent on disability, welfare, and medicaid. These millions and millions of people aren't currently living in squalor in alleys. The quality of life for poor people on the government dole in America is actually quite good. So I think we can say that these programs do indeed succeed in goal #1. Now, you might argue that a solid economy and private charities would also get people to that some point, and therefore social programs aren't necessary. That may be (although I'd disagree), but you didn't ask if we'd be better off or equal without social programs, you asked if they worked. And I think it's clear that they're not failing. 2. Another goal of social programs is to keep the US competitive in a global market. Both sides of this argument could fill volumes of books, so I'm not going to hash it out here, but the basic idea is that a worker is most productive when he (or she) is cared for. Private companies already know this, which is why they provide health care, sick days, safety equipment, vacation days, and a pension. That logic extends to the country as a whole. I can already hear you getting angry over there, so let me stop you. Social programs have been around for my entire lifetime, and generations before that in some cases, so we'll never know what "could have been." Opponents will argue that we're worse off with them, proponents will argue that we'd be worse off without them. It's just like the Bush tax cuts. Proponents said that the tax cuts would help the economy. When the economy tanked anyway, proponents said that it would have been worse without them. There's really no good way to answer that question. So, do social programs "work" to keep America competitive in a global economy? I think your mind is already made up. Let me put it another way. We spend more than half a trillion a year on the military. Does the military work? Hell fucking yes it does. Would it work if spent half of what we do now? Good luck answering that question. I never really follow the schooling debate that closely, but my understanding is that we don't spend the MOST and we're not the WORST, but we certainly spend a lot for what we get. All accounts suggest that the quality if someone's primary education is only slightly affected by the amount spent on it. The sad state of our schools is more likely a side effect of our anti-intellectual cultural climate.

I'd hit it.

gah. Replace "ForAppending" with "8" (no quotes) Apparently the constant isn't defined in windows.

What'd it do? (the space after Append was put in by the board, not sure why, so I wrapped it in code blocks. Good catch.)

Replace: Set NewFile = fso.CreateTextFile("c:\test1\FileList.txt", True) With: Set NewFile = fso.OpenTextFile("c:\test1\FileList.txt",ForAppending,True)

Instead of CreateTextFile, use OpenTextFile. It takes a few more arguments, one of which will be ForWriting and another will be True for "create if it's not already there" Note that you can also write the contents of a directory to a text file in the command line by just doing this: dir >> directory_contents.txt The >> operate redirects the output to somewhere else, in this case to a text file of your choosing. And you can get as fancy as you want with the dir command. dir /a /q >> directory_contents.txt eta: sorry, you'll want to use "ForAppending", not "ForWriting". My bad.

Hotels making money off porn is another one I usually mention. http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/06/the-mysterious-hdmi-cable-ripoff.html

That doesn't really answer the question, though. From bucd's site, here's a 10 foot 1.4 cable: http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=102&cp_id=10250&cs_id=1025008&p_id=6106&seq=1&format=3#specification for $4. The real answer is that every brick & mortar store in this country has some fucked up pricing scheme that keeps it in operation. Gas stations basically give away gas at cost and make their profits selling coke at a 1000% markup. Staples sells office supplies on a volume basis and then makes their money on printer cartridges and shit. Best Buy sells most of their big electronics at a pretty thin profit margin and then makes a ton of money on cable sales. Expensive cables is what keeps that store in business. Even knowing that cables are a ripoff, consumers will still buy them in the store rather than wait for shipping. I know I have. I've never ponied up $50, but I've knowingly paid too much. And I'm an informed consumer, most people just think that a 6' HDMI cable is supposed to cost $40. At the end of the day I guess it all works out in our favor, but I'd still somehow prefer a perfect world where Best Buy made the same profit margin on a 60" flatscreen as they do on a 6' cable. But cheap flatscreens is what gets bodies in the store, so I don't think anything's gonna change soon.

Is that a dig at my credit worthiness or my driving ability? If the former, I say I'll eat ramen while you eat your words! If the latter, good point. (Which was kinda my point, if nobody could see my tongue in my cheek there). Regardless, back in 1998 11 second LS1s weren't the sort of every day car they are now. And in 2020 you can all buy used 2011s and used ZR1s and you'll be scoffing at chumps in beater trans ams running 11s. Times change.

Aren't all these tuning shops turning out 2011 mustangs and camaros that are running low 9s/high 8s with full interiors? It's not 2003 anymore, your 11 second LS1 is not impressive. At this point, anything short of a 9 is just pussy shit. Hell, I can go buy a showroom stock Corvette and run a 10. If you want to call your car fast it should be faster than a stock Chevy.

One of the junk mailings I got today from the Ohio Christian Alliance directly contradicts this, saying that Kasich opposes both "Giving sexual preference a protected minority status" and "Domestic partner benefits for State employees." Guy must be pro-gay or anti-gay depending on who you ask.

If it's a big family sedan with a stick, possibly.

God, tell me about it. On both counts.

Well, you're not the only one who thinks I'm retarded. CL keeps "ghosting" the ad. The version that finally stuck isn't nearly as gay.

Sold.

There's a deadline?

What facts? You posted something demonstrably wrong ("my taxes went up because of Obama") and then followed it up with a cut and paste opinion piece from an opinion website, with a few facts strewn in but overall just a lot of nonsense. Want me to tackle that? 1. Failing Economy. Obama inherited an economy that was crappy, and of course, how much can the president do to fix an economy? This opinion piece comes up with the startling conclusion that the economy is doomed, despite the fact that all indicators available to us show that the economy has been growing steadily for the last 9-12 months. Could the economy be better? Sure, but this is the same thing as the Bush tax cuts -- namely, after the tax cuts, the economy got worse, and the Republicans were left arguing that they staved off an ever bigger recession. Obama can (rightly) argue that his stimulus shortened the recession and made an otherwise bad situation not so bad. You can argue specifics, but to think that some pundit can spout 8 sentences and magically declare Obama's economic policies to be a failure is... well, I don't have a nice word for it, but let's just say that the opinions of your author aren't carrying much weight at this point. 2. Losing Congress. There's no denying that a lot of Democrats benefited from Obama Fever, and they're not going to get that kind of push this year. On the other hand, this is entirely typical, and as evidence I cite every single Republican who ran in 2008 under the "I'm not George Bush" strategy. Voters are stupid, fickle creatures, and if someone as loved as Obama-the-Candidate can't carry the vote for 2+ years, nobody can. However, despite the apparent truth of this criticism, this is a failing of Obama, the Democrat, not Obama, the President. Why do you as a voter care that Obama has hurt (i.e., not single-handedly saved) the Democrat Party? You should be ecstatic! 3. Climbing Deficits. Believe it or not, the deficit is roughly the same as it was under Bush. Furthermore, the 2010 budget (signed by Obama) has a lower deficit than the 2009 budget prepared by the Bush administration. And on top of that, the CBO shows that Obama's administration has actually lowered projected deficit spending versus what they were projecting for Bush. I really wish this "tax and spend democrats" thing would just die. It's just not true. The government is massive, and despite all the big numbers being thrown around, change is very gradual. Obama has the deficit heading in the right direction, which is more than you could ever say for Bush. 4. Losing Iraq. I must have missed that memo. We lost Iraq? This guy basically cites no evidence of this. Garbage. Moving on. 5. Government Oversight Failures. Look, the President is always going to be a scapegoat for these sorts of things, whether it be Bush in Katrina or Obama in the Gulf. If you want to hold that office accountable for everything bad that happens, be my guest. It's not my thing, but whatever. Has Obama gone as far as he said he would in regards to change and government transparency? God no. It's depressing, actually, and as someone who voted for him it's my biggest complaint. But he's done a better job than anyone else who's held that seat in my lifetime, in my opinion. From there, the editorial turns into a raving diatribe from someone who is so biased it's not even worth listening to him. This is where you get your opinions from? Dear god. At least O'Reilly usually has legitimate criticisms.

I suppose it's not a huge deal, but it can only help you to post a link to the source, especially since you've got a track record for not knowing what you're talking about.

Just curious. Saw you posted it and then removed it for some reason. Just seems strange.

Yeah, he's just terrible. Why'd you get rid of the link to your source?

I'll correct misinformation and educate the ignorant (ahem), but I'm not gonna climb on a soapbox and campaign for someone who isn't up for re-election for 2 years. You don't want to hear it and I don't want to waste my time, so why bother? I just thought the interview was great. Jon Stewart was actually kind of a jerk to him. I was half expecting a softball interview and it was anything but. ETA: Yes, Bush did refund checks, and I got 8 grand from Obama for buying a house. That's not what you were talking about though, you said taxes on your paychecks went up due to Obama, which is demonstrably wrong.

Obama has cut taxes. I don't know what you're talking about, but you're wrong. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/us/politics/19taxes.html?_r=3