StrangeSox

It's not. The markets took a beating today.

FWIW, he received something like .4% of the vote last time, compared to 2.75% in 2000.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 02:24 PM) im in his camp cuz he's the only one who could beat mccain and nader. i was in the hillary camp till the nader thing happened. Ok, so who's supporting him for the right reasons? Those chanting crowds that are enthusiastic about his message, or the people supporting him because he can "beat McCain?"

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 02:08 PM) i dont loathe the man... i'm in his freaking camp now. i wouldn't be if i loathed him. and it's scary because they care about him for all the wrong reasons. and he knows that, and he manipulates that. look, i'm not saying that i'm worried that Obama will turn out to be satan in disguise, i'm saying that this kind of mentality is scary in GENERAL. I'm applying it to the whole, not just specifically Obama. After supporting Edwards and Hillary in losing efforts. You're only supporting him because hes the last Democrat standing.

QUOTE(Reddy @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 01:33 PM) you dont find that terrifying? people chanting the dudes name over and over and over with this fanaticism? it's like they f***ing worship the guy and that's just dangerous. remember that silver tongued guy named hitler? people felt the same way about him as they do now about Obama. I'm not saying Obama will be like Hitler, obviously, but i'm just kinda wary when something like this happens. Blind and lemming-like devotion is NEVER a good idea. You wouldn't have loved the same sort of attention for Edwards? Hell, more people were chanting Dave Grohl/ Foo Fighters at their concert this week.

The Clinton campaign just doesn't like to make sense. So, if Obama doesn't manage to erase ALL of your 20+ pt leads, and you still hang on to a small victory, that's a bad sign for Obama?

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 11:53 AM) What if we trade crede and fields sucks? What will we do in 2009 if Fields sucks? What will we do if Fields sucks and Joe still has back problems half way into the season?

QUOTE(Jenks Heat @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 09:45 AM) My $.02 was that the episode is not really time travel, at least I hope not, bit more along the lines of Desmond kind of..........oh to hell, I have no clue what is going on but it was done pretty good. Jack is starting to annoy me. Jack has annoyed me since the start of the 3rd season. He acts like a moron 95% of the time and makes decisions that don't make any sense.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 08:28 AM) Yeah, it cost them even more than that price to make them. Furthering the point. Car companies may indeed be sitting on technologies, but they are also constrained heavily by cost. And as you point out, American companies are far more constrained than others due to their labor situations (and other old, inefficient practices as well). Also, I believe the 959's flat 6 was normally aspirated, wasn't it? No, it was a 2.8L twin turbo. Sorry, I'm a car guy and a bit of a Porsche nut. That little 20 year old6 cylinder 2.8L put out more HP than my big two year old 6.0L V8 from GM.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 08:17 AM) Back in the early 90's, Porsche produced a limited run of cars called the 959. The general idea was to build a sports car that used whatever materials and technology were available at that time, pretty much regardless of cost, to make the car perform (in all facets) better than anything else ever made for the street. It achieved many of those things. It was the first street car to clock a 0-60 time under 3 seconds (which is just mind-boggling), it could stop 60-0 in like 90 feet, it had all kinds of airbags and other safety features, and it actually got pretty good gas mileage by sports car standards. And they did all of that with a Flat 6 engine too. The car cost about $400,000 in 1992 dollars. I'd guess that's over half a million in current money. That's the issue, as you point out - you COULD make a car that is high mileage, near-indesructible, high performance... it would just cost a fortune. Porsche also sold the 959's at massive losses. Around ~500 were produced. They also were not allowed in the US until Bill Gates got the law changed to allow imports of rare automobiles like the 959. Porsche has been kicking butt with relatively-low displacement turbocharged flat-6's for years. They also went into a bit of financial trouble in the 90's partially because of the 959. Edit: it was the late 80's, not the 90's. From this article: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/porsche-959-history.htm

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 08:13 AM) Uh huh... nice comeback... You know, I could never solidly 100% say, Ford is sitting on technology... but you could strongly infer it by some of the stuff our team drudged up. They were saying that they could not roll it out because the costs would be too prohibitive UNDER THE CURRENT STRUCTURE at Ford. If they could shed some of the crap (read: labor) then they could almost get there at a cost that wouldn't be so prohibitive. It was quite interesting... Ford, GM, and Chrysler have some crippling labor structures right now, but to my knowledge, those don't exist at Toyota and Honda. We do see them move to new technologies before the American companies, but even they haven't reached 50-60 MPG in a medium or full-sized car. I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see it as a possibility on a gasoline engine. That sort of economy will be acheived with diesel-electrics, though: (From wikipedia, take it for what its worth) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicle Peugeot's new 307 d-e hybrid prototype gets 80 MPG, but its still a small car.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 07:59 AM) You're somewhat on the right track, IMO, on the cost, but if they mass produced some thing to lighten the weight of the care even by 15-20%, the MPG gained would be that same 15-20%. In looking at some studies when I did a pretty lengthy strategic plan for Ford as a part of my MBA program, I ran across quite a bit of stuff to suggest that they have some technologies that they're "sitting on"... I don't have the sources with me, and you're partially right, cost was a factor, but then, if they did the right labor moves, you could sell the "new car" at the same cost as what the old ones sell for now, ironically. A 15-20% weight reduction would be HUGE. Unless some exotic materials, like carbon fiber, plummet in price, its not very realistic. These materials also don't really lend themselves to massive-scale mass production. With all of the safety standards the require more and more airbags, more and more electronic controls (stability control and ABS aren't lightweight components!), and consumers demanding more and more gadgets in their cars (do we really need 6 TV screens and a video game system?), it'd be very hard to get the weight down while still building a safe car that people would buy. And if Ford is sitting on these technologies, its no wonder they're going bankrupt. I wasn't on the inside working directly with Ford, but I did take a ME course on internal combustion engines at U of I. The professor worked in the Ford lab and frequently talked about the work they were doing. It was advancements on stuff that's hitting the market now like direct-injection gasoline engines. BTW, it's usually you business-types that us engineers are b****ing about!

I don't really like time-travel. They're going to have to do a very good job of explaining what's actually going on to avoid all of those pesky paradoxes that come with it. I'm as confused as ever with this show now.

QUOTE(YahtzeeSox @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 08:11 PM) Vote Ron Paul. He is the only honest candidate! Fixed it for you.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 07:47 AM) And there's your key, right there. Take your pick: $100,000 family sedan made out of carbon fiber, or sub-compact lightweight. If you've got 3 kids to haul around, you need a vehicle larger than a SMART car. You don't need a Yukon Denali, but a car weighing under 3,000 lbs is a pretty small car. Think Honda Civic. Even then, the Civic only gets 30/40 MPG. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drive...01/pageId=67700 A Camry weighs in at 3200lb curb weight. We're not talking about huge cars and SUV's here, just your typical sedan. What's this technology that they have? Who has it? Why wouldn't the automakers want to be the first company with a 50 MPG Camry-sized car? They'd sell faster than they could ever hope to make them.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 07:05 AM) They have the technology. They just do not want to advance it. That's about as true as the "100 MPG carburetor." The automakers are spending millions upon millions of dollars to research better fuel economy. An entire wing of the Mechanical Engineering Building at the University of Illinois was paid for by Ford. They're making strides with direct injection, smaller forced induction engines, small diesels, etc. A decent-sized car that got 50-60 MPG with 200HP would be the best selling car in the country. Unfortunately, thermodynamics says that it really isn't possible. The chemistry of the fuel limits you to a maximum engine efficiency, and then you have to throw in all the mechanical losses in trying to move around a 3500lb. car. 50-60 MPG just isn't going to happen with gasoline engines. Diesel-electric hybrids, maybe. But not gasoline.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 03:20 AM) Also, you can't tell me with today's technology and advanced fuel injection systems that almost every vehicle on the road could be 50 or 60 mpg if car companies wanted to make cars like that. Yes, I can. Unless you want to be driving around in tiny cars (sub-compacts or smaller), the laws of physics limit the maximum efficiency of a gasoline engine. And you'll have an engine with

QUOTE(NUKE @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 11:27 PM) No. Ethanol is a really bad idea. It takes more energy to produce it than we get for burning it and it is driving the price of food through the roof across the board. About the only people making out on this are the big farmers who have tons of it planted. That's not true. The return is ~1.3 units of energy out for 1 unit in. The claim that it takes more is based on one bad professor who has worked for the oil companies for years. BTW, oil is ~.8 units of energy out for 1 unit in. That said, ethanol from corn is still a terrible idea for many other reasons.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 03:09 PM) And falling under "two can play at that game..." Obama could be disqualified based on how you read that same law that would disqualify McCain. How stupid. http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/pos...mRlMDYyMWVlYjI= That's not true, and I'm not sure why the author asserts that. At best, Obama would have dual citizenship, but he was still born to an American in America, making him a natural born citizen.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:45 PM) I just don't see how that will help Obama in the General Election. Why not someone like Edwards, that may appeal to some of the southern states or red states more? Edwards didn't help Kerry at all last time. I think Obama benefits most from a VP with a strong economics or foreign policy background.

Question: what happens to all of this money if a campaign loses/ drops out?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 02:08 PM) ok, that's fine. But let's just pile on MORE threats and costs... Punitive damage awards are a fine line. It's ok, but to a point. I'll admit that I don't fully understand the precedents/ implications of awarding them punitive damages as opposed to whatever alternative there would be.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:54 PM) Would the Slurpee machine be affected? Cause that might affect my decision. Come on now, that would make it a no-brainer!

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:49 PM) Depends if the people robbing the 7-11 had such little regard for human life that they shot the clerks and/or customers that may have been there, just 'because'. Let's say that both crimes are non-violent. No one gets hurt.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 28, 2008 -> 01:26 PM) They DID change their practices (for the most part... before Balta goes googling). There's more double-hulled ships now, and some things have definitely changed. I see your point... but there's a fine line there. And it CERTAINLY gets passed on. It was all reactionary after they did immense damage, though. Without the threat of these large penalties, why should they be proactive?