Y2HH

Just remember that months ago I said the Euro was heading for disaster and you all called me crazy. Keep in mind that this is just beginning.

QUOTE (jasonxctf @ May 26, 2010 -> 09:36 AM) Is it hypocritical for those who scream for smaller government, to be critical that the federal government hasn't stepped in to take over the oil spill efforts? Depends. Though some of us prefer smaller government, it doesn't mean we want or expect *no* government, which equates to lawlessness/anarchyl. These are the types of situations where the government should be stepping in to protect our lands/waters, IMHO, as it's the reason we fund them in the first place. Though this threat wasn't from an enemy, or a bomb, per say, it *IS* a threat to our waters and land nonetheless, and it's their job to protect/defend it above all else. If they could step in and prevent further damage and/or fix this, but aren't, that would probably make quite a few people angry, myself included. However, I'm not sure what they can do apart from what they're already doing as I do believe they are assisting in this and have been for quite some time.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 25, 2010 -> 09:41 AM) I really do not want to carry a full laptop on vacation, but I need to store some video shot from a Flip Cam and perhaps check email, driving directions, etc. I am researching something small, hopefully cheap, and convenient to use. We will be spending some time backpacking and it will be locked up in a trunk for days or a week at a time. Netbook.

If this engine is electric, runs only 50 miles, dies out -- then switches to conventional gasoline -- this is NOT an alternative technology at all. It's a crappy stopgap, nothing more. It's another version of a hybrid...it's NOT the answer. Let's stop talking about nickle and diming our way with expensive crappy cars like this one -- we want alternative means that WORKS. How about an electric car that recharges in 5 minutes and can drive 300+ miles on a single charge that has 300HP and 300FPT, able to carry loads upwards of 2500+lbs?! THAT'S a viable alternative... This?! Give me a break. Like I said in my original post -- the reality is that this is 10+ years off still...so please, don't respond with some retarded little electric car that can carry 90 lbs and drive 50 miles before becoming an underpowered rice burner.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 19, 2010 -> 08:13 AM) Did you even read my post? Yes, I did.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 19, 2010 -> 08:12 AM) The Chevy Volt, first production plug-in hybrid will be out later this year in the U.S. Runs 40 miles on electric power, which, in most markets, will cost you the equivalent of $.80/a gallon and which produces vastly less CO2 than the inefficient internal combustion engine. Then, once you drain the initial batteries down to a certain evel, it switches over to a normal gasoline engine to allow you to run a full day trip if you need that distance. The Chinese got their version to the market 2 years before the U.S. Yes, it's just a passenger vehicle and you said you needed an SUV. I have no problem with that; the distance on the battery is all about weight. If you double the weight, perhaps the battery only lasts you 20 miles instead of 40. People have done the math on this actually. ON average, if you can give most American drivers 40 miles on battery power, you eliminate 90% of American's need for oil and you can do all of that off of the electric grid. If you give them about 20 miles, you eliminate about 80%, because most trips to work, the store, etc., are less than 10 miles and a lot of the gasoline is wasted while sitting in traffic or stopping and going. And, you can power it with wind power all you want, because wind keeps blowing at night. This is exactly what I'm talking about NOT needing. These are garbage. They don't go far enough...they take too long to recharge...and they don't have enough HP or torque. Move along now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 19, 2010 -> 08:05 AM) Nice to see you finally admitting it and endorsing paying slave-labor level wages. The future of the American Worker according to Republicans? $2.50 an hour. You want a bathroom break? Here, let me shoot you in your bladder, that will drain it automatically. I think that was his point -- in NOT endorsing it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 19, 2010 -> 08:03 AM) There was a huge impact on driving habits when gas prices spiked in 2008, and that was only in the $3-$4 a gallon range. There was a temporary small impact...I wouldn't call it huge. I still drove, the expressways ACROSS AMERICA were still jammed...so um, just no.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 19, 2010 -> 08:04 AM) Eh, maybe if our auto industry paid what the Chinese one paid, we could have done that much R&D. I need to see these "vehicles" so I can laugh at them...they're nothing like what I'm even describing I bet. And btw, China is soon to be the #1 consumer of OIL...so for all this fabled technology they have (at least, according to you), they seem to also love that oil!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 19, 2010 -> 08:03 AM) Considering that China already has those vehicles on the market in car form and the U.S. will by the end of the year, and once those take off it'll only be a year or two before the SUV versions start hitting for you...stop yawning. Hell, we'd be at the point you wanted already if we'd spent the last 5 years putting as much money into R&D as the chinese. WTF cars are you even talking about? Please elaborate...

QUOTE (lostfan @ May 18, 2010 -> 06:49 PM) He said "as soon as possible," he didn't say "now." And I understand that -- but that was a repost of a repost of a repost...and it's old now. We get it already, all of us get it, we want an alternative means of energy, it's been said ad nauseam around here for months on end and nothings changed it...we're still waiting, we're still wanting...and it's still not here. It's yet another post that does nothing but fuel the fire which generates responses exactly like he got. Kap's absolutely right in this regard -- yet another f***ing post which invokes the tired keywords "wind, solar, etc.", where any of these technologies in regard to gas powered automobiles (the biggest reason big oil still exists), are DECADES away from reality. So in that regard... *yawn* I'd like cancer cured while we're at it, since we're wishing for things. The only way the auto industry changes -- and it will change, but only in response to this -- if when gasoline costs 10+$ per gallon. As long as they keep it under 5$, it's not changing...because people don't really care about anything other than their own convenience.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ May 18, 2010 -> 02:39 PM) Which is a damn good argument for getting away from oil and on to non-toxic renewable technologies (solar, wind, geo, tidal, hydro, bio) as soon as humanly possible. If such a viable tech existed for my car, I'd probably already have it, but the alternatives that currently exist are just as expensive (if not more) than gasoline, and far less "real world" ready. I have no need of a car that can only drive 50 miles and then need to be plugged in for hours to recharge...just as I have no need of a car that has almost no room in it. I go on many camping/road trips throughout the year, and I need space, and I need the ability to go where normal cars fear -- off road. For this, I use my Jeep -- and there is no viable alternative to a gasoline Jeep for this, as of yet. I hope they invent something, someday, but even then...we're talking 10+ years before it's ready in a viable manner. Sadly, if the lure of money for such patients and inventions isn't enough to get such things created, an oil spill won't be, either.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ May 8, 2010 -> 04:45 PM) I largely have no issue with Flash in regards to interactive media such as games. But for things like web video and "navigation" i really dislike it. I agree with this. The problem with Flash in the mobile format will undoubtedly be in it's battery life effects, not to mention they've already compromised their promise of a "full web experience" with flash mobile in that flash sites need to be redone/reformatted for the mobile variety...that's not very "full web", IMO. The problem with non mobile Flash, that I have, is like stated above, it's used for many things it's simply not good at (inefficient), and never will be. Flash has a place in the developer community, there is no doubt about this, but it's not for every little thing you do on a website.

Freddie! :headbang

When my wife heard him talking on the radio on our way home from last weeks camping trip, she says to me, oh, it's Tom Paciorek! And I was like, "who the hell is Tom Paciorek?!" She told me it was Wimpy, which is the only name I ever knew of him having. As far as I was concerned growing up, he was simply Wimpy, no last name, either. I don't remember him sounding so...I don't know...wimpy?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:42 AM) I agree in most instances but I do prefer unsalted almonds over salted. This is another *VERY RARE* case in which I agree with you -- I do like unsalted but roasted Almonds. Not quite as big of a fan of non roasted, though...they lack that flavor. Not that I mind agreeing with you, but every time I do, it raises a red flag on my Kappie status and the board of Kappie's reviews my membership.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:02 AM) South Loop never boomed, it busted with over development and bankrupted contractors. Commercial is thin and its a buyers market through and through. And most of "historic" Bronzeville is a crime ridden ghetto. So don't buy there, either. heh

Any nut with salt > without salt -- health concerns aside. If you were invincible/immortal -- you'd choose the salted nuts, or you'd have to be a communist weirdo.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:33 AM) And each judge likely does have hundreds more examples. The difference is...those don't get scrutiny because they're not controversial to the side doing the hard questioning during a confirmation hearing. Kagan, for example, has several writings and such on executive power and privacy rights (i.e. the Bush/Obama wiretapping programs) that have been highly controversial on the left. But since things that the left finds controversial don't matter, you're not talking about them. I don't care if they're scrutinized, so long as they can show a track record of balanced judgments, that's all I care about. If they cannot show this, it's probably because they don't have such a balanced track record, and in that case, these people shouldn't even be considered for such a job. And if republicans (just for examples sake) bring up one scrutinized ruling that looks political...tis' pretty easy then, for the other party to show just as many examples of rulings where they weren't political.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) For all I know, Kagan may think that Citizens United was 100% the correct decision or even didn't go far enough (God I hope not). But in her role as Solicitor General, it was her job to argue the case in favor of the current law, and she did that. But now, that case is a political ruling, and so her arguments in favor of the campaign restrictions are now considered political arguments. Sotomayor, for example, ruled on the unpopular "Kelo vs. New London" case involving a city trying to forceably take property for commercial development. Her ruling likely followed the law to the letter, but that case became a political case that became a libertarian Cause Celebre, and thus, her ruling, even if 100% technically accurate at her level, was an issue during her confirmation. You cite two examples that appear political -- both of them should have hundreds of more examples -- and *some* of them should show non political judgments, too. It's really that simple. If every judgment you make agrees with your party, you aren't qualified, IMO, for such a position. Period.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) Do the math. If you agree politically with one side on an issue, and you're forced to decide on that issue, even if you're 100% deciding based on the current law, what's going to happen? You're going to make some decisions that agree with your political beliefs. Immediately, that's going to set you up for attack from the other side. I did the math. So let me show you the equation you seem to be missing... Over the course of these rulings you speak of, yes, some will appear to be decisions that agree with your political beliefs...HOWEVER, you will be able to show a clear record of non political judgment as some of your decisions will also go against those same beliefs. Ignoring this part of the equation ignores the balancing act I'm requesting these justices be able to show. It's not that hard to understand what I'm talking about. For a supreme court nominee that's made rulings on hundreds if not thousands of cases throughout their judicial careers, if *every* decision they ever made appears political, then maybe somethings wrong, don't ya think?! That's my point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2010 -> 10:09 AM) Now, really, I understand viewing the growing polarization on the court as a problem, but I'm not exactly sure where you're going to find these candidates you speak of who show this record of non-political decisions on political issues? For example, even if a lower court is doing it's job 100% correctly, it is still ruling on issues that will go upwards to the Supreme Court, and it's doing so based on its reading of the current law and current Supreme Court rulings. So, for example, if an abortion case comes up before a judge, that judge can't just recuse him or herself because its a political issue, that judge has to make a decision based on the current law. And since we have an extremely activist supreme court right now, whatever decision that judge makes is going to be a political one and it's going to have a chance of being overturned. The only way to meet your standard would be to have a pair of dice out get nominated. If a judge is working his or her way up, he or she is issuing rulings that one party or the other will like, he or she is producing writings that one party will like more than the other. The idea that there is this large group of non partisan scholars out there to pull from is silly. Making the decision based on current law isn't the same as making the decision based on which party you're affiliated with, now is it? And if you're judgment gets overturned, so be it, that's a chance you take of calling it down the middle, and it would be easy to prove it wasn't a political decision based on other decisions going a different direction, again, based on the current law as written. The fact that you're ok with calling our current supreme court "activist" is insane. It's my very point of what's wrong and what continues to be wrong with these appointees. They're all "activists". They have no business being such. And if that makes it hard to find someone qualified for such A LIFELONG POSITION OF POWER, too f***ing bad.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 17, 2010 -> 09:43 AM) Judges with experience develop a logic pattern in making their decisions. The cases that get to the Supreme Court do not fit the routine stuff. If you look at the list of Justices that had no prior experience there are some outstanding justices. A partial list of the 40 out of 111 without any prior experience as a judge: John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Earl Warren, Louis Brandeis . . . Are you really suggesting they were mistakes? If that is the case, a third of the justices that have ever served are mistakes. I'm not suggesting they're all mistakes, and regardless, what worked then will NOT work now. In today's politically charged atmosphere where judges aren't about balance but about being empathetical, or political or whatever other catchphrase you'd like to include in this example, I think prior experience and track record are of paramount importance in making the decision of who we appoint. I'm not seeing any "balance" in any of the modern justices, to be perfectly honest, what I see is left or right leaning judges -- whatever the hell those are supposed to be. Supreme court justices should all be *required* to show a prior track record of non political, non empathetical judgments throughout their career in interpreting law in a completely down the middle, non-biased fashion, whether it be for or against any such cause or modern plight. If they cannot show this past track record, they have no business making final rulings on the laws of the land, regardless of how it was done in the past. The very fact that the modern supreme court is "weighted" with 5 "republican leaning" and 4 "democratic leaning" judges is so beyond stupid, it's unfathomable to me that we let this sort of political bulls*** infest our highest court. These judges have no business being affiliated with any party, or letting such affiliations weigh their judgments. I find it funny that just about every vote on the supreme level is 5-4 across the board. Gee, I wonder why that is. I add that this latest Obama choice is nothing more than a political chess move, and has nothing to do with wanting to choose the best and most fair justice for the highest court. I apply this to past administrations, too, so don't think I'm singling out Obama...he's just the latest to continue politicizing the highest court.

QUOTE (Tex @ May 13, 2010 -> 07:18 AM) In the 1950s (Brown V. Board of Education era) exactly none of the Supremes had prior judicial experience. It wasn't until the appointment became a political event, with party wins and loses associated with the confirmation that sitting judges became the norm. The list of judges without prior experience is amazing. Because we did something stupid in the past doesn't mean it's a-okay to continue doing it now or in the future. Supreme Court Justices should be *required* to have massive real world on the job experience in addition to classroom experience and/or teaching experience to even be considered for such a position. These positions are for-life terms, so it's not like a "trial run" to see if they can do the job, and if they can't, we replace them. On top of that, let's add in that they're appointed by government, NOT the people, and they can't be replaced by the people if they prove to be totally incompetent. I apply this to any important position in life, on the job or otherwise. I wouldn't want a medical professor with years of lecture experience performing a major surgery on me without prior surgical experience, just as I wouldn't hire a college professor with years of teaching experience to secure a banks network with no prior non-book field experience, either.

QUOTE (Soxy @ May 11, 2010 -> 01:44 PM) But you are okay with legal immigrants or citizens who fly the Irish, Italian, Mexican, Finnish or German flag? No, but the new flag they stand beneath as legal citizens says they can, even if I find it disrespectful. So even if I don't like it, I accept it. From illegals, however, I don't accept it at all...they should leave if that other flag represents something so great.