>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^zombieater:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!

As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.
The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.
It just doesn't happen.
Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.
Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-n
umbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html

Before we start pointing the "inherently flawed" finger around, maybe you should get your own ducks in a row.
First off, the numbers that they use in the source you cited are skewed. They used the numbers of batteries that failed out of warranty and compared that with the total cars made (as opposed to the total failures out of warranty) makes fapping motion
Second, there seem to be gobs of people on the site you cited (heh homonyms) that have had battery problems:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/civic-hybrid-own
ers-disappointed-battery-software-fix-28450.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/important-info-honda-ima-warranty.html

http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/ima-battery-and-fix.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/2003-hch-battery-t1155.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems.html

http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems-i
i.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/replacing-hybrid-battery-t1289.html http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/first-gen-hybrid-batteries.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/cold-weather-or-corrupted-battery.html

fap fap fap
Shall I go on???
So much for "It just doesn't happen."
At your request, I'll look up some more scholarly research on the subject. Until then:



You do realize that car companies can create fake identities and post them. Hell the oil companies probably pay for a service that does this. I'm sorry but a bunch of links to ONE SITE isn't going to prove a fucking thing. You should be smarter than that.

>> ^zombieater:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!

As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.
The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.
It just doesn't happen.
Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.
Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-n
umbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html


Before we start pointing the "inherently flawed" finger around, maybe you should get your own ducks in a row.

First off, the numbers that they use in the source you cited are skewed. They used the numbers of batteries that failed out of warranty and compared that with the total cars made (as opposed to the total failures out of warranty) *makes fapping motion*

Second, there seem to be gobs of people on the site you cited (heh homonyms) that have had battery problems:
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/civic-hybrid-owners-disappointed-battery-software-fix-28450.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/important-info-honda-ima-warranty.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/ima-battery-and-fix.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/2003-hch-battery-t1155.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/civic-hybrid-battery-ima-problems-ii.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/replacing-hybrid-battery-t1289.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/news2/first-gen-hybrid-batteries.html
http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/cold-weather-or-corrupted-battery.html
*fap fap fap*
Shall I go on???

So much for "It just doesn't happen."

At your request, I'll look up some more scholarly research on the subject. Until then:

>> ^JiggaJonson:

My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!


As far as your complaint goes, I think you're reasoning for leasing is inherently flawed.

The rate of failure for Honda's hybrid battery: 0.002% of cars ever sold.
The rate of failure for Toyota's hybrid battery: 0.003% of cars ever sold.

It just doesn't happen.

Moreover, in Toyota, the warranty covers any hybrid battery failure for 100,000 miles (in CA it's 150,000 miles) and the cost of replacement (if that should occur) has dropped to under $3000.

Source: http://www.hybridcars.com/components-batteries/first-numbers-hybrid-battery-failure.html

>> ^JiggaJonson:

My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.
My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.
When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).
WIN!


I'd prefer a diesel over a hybrid.

My wife drives a hybrid and pays $60 a month filling up her tank twice a month.

My advice to you sirs, is to get a hybrid and LEASE it for 3 years. If you lease it, then, yes, you're not building equity with the car, but it alleviates the biggest complaint about hybrid cars: replacing the battery means you'll negate any savings on gas.

When her lease is up, we simply roll it over into another lease, with another 3 year warranty (which covers the battery during those three years as well).

WIN!

Thanks for the insight in your replies.

It's kinda nitpicky, but in all the stuff I've read about the Finnish system (including the article in The Atlantic), the director of public schools describes the system as equity, not equality. There is the big difference between them and the US system. The US system is totally based on equality, i.e. No Child Left Behind. It's a huge cultural difference to support equity, not equality.
>> ^CreamK:

As a Finnish citizen and being in one the first to gain from the new system, i can say without a doubt that the main point here is not the way we teach: it's about equality!! Every kid has equal opportunity to educate them self for FREE in a schooling system where every school has the same resources and same level of teachers. No matter what color you are, no matter if your parents are rich or poor, you get the same chance in life.
For me, it's been always granted: everyone gets educated, in fact, here there is no chance of not getting educated. Everybody have to get 9 years of basic education, it's in the law. As a parent, you have to extreme lenghts to not get your kid educated. Our "No kids left behind" really means what it says. Literacy is close to 100%, everyone knows how to do basic math, know about the history, geography, all the basic knowledge we humans need to survive.
As for the cost of this system, well, it's cheaper than what US have. By a large margin too. Even when our teachers are considered to be in the upper middle class, one meal per day for free for kids in school, no tuitions until University, all the reading material is free for the first 9 years, you get pens and pencils, rulers and paper, all for free... As for University tuitions, they are not in the range of tens of thousands, it's in the range of hundreds. So by the time a person has got 16 years of education, his student loans are about 10 000€, living and eating here is not free but nobodys forced to do two jobs to pay up for tuitions or parents getting a mortgage to give their younglings a fair chance.
Did i say it's cheaper than what US have? How about treating your citizens truly equal and giving everyone the chance of that American Dream?

Right QM. However, objective karma requires that there be a level playing field from the start. This is clearly not the case with social equity, political equality and racial equality. Liberalism is therefore an attempt to identify and correct imbalances be they natural or social.

What it seems to come down to is a pragmatic versus idealistic world view with each side claiming the higher ground.

That's one way for an Irishman to put equity back in their property....

Currently we produce enough food for everyone in the world to eat about 2700 kCal per day. The main reason there are still starving people is that, either they don't have the money to purchase said food, or they don't have the land to grow it on. >> ^Peroxide:

Recently heard on the radio, there is more than enough food for everyone, distribution is the only problem, probably equity too.

I recently heard on the radio, there is more than enough food for everyone, distribution is the only problem, probably equity too. This is why I don't like historians that much, because while the past is important, the ethics of the now and future are what seem most important to me.

THIS IS IT IN A NUTSHELL.

Buffett Blames Congress for Romney's 15% Rate


Warren Buffett, the billionaire calling for more taxes on the rich, said Mitt Romney's U.S. tax rate of about 15 percent reflects poor laws rather than failings by the candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

"It's the wrong policy to have," Buffett told Bloomberg Television's Betty Liu in an interview today. "He's not going to pay more than the law requires, and I don't fault him for that in the least. But I do fault a law that allows him and me earning enormous sums to pay overall federal taxes at a rate that's about half what the average person in my office pays."

Buffett, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/A) , supports Democratic President Barack Obama and said Congress needs to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to close the budget deficit. Romney has agreed to release his 2010 tax return tomorrow, under pressure from Republican opponents, after saying he pays about 15 percent. Romney co- founded Boston-based private-equity firm Bain Capital LLC.

"He makes his money the same way I make my money," Buffett said. "He makes money by moving around big bucks, not by straining his back or going to work and cleaning toilets or whatever it may be. He makes it shoving around money."

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Frye in New York at afrye@bloomberg.net.

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Dan Kraut at dkraut2@bloomberg.net

I see some good points, but they lose alot of credibility by calling Bain a venture capital firm. It was a private equity firm. There is a huge difference between the two types of firms.>> ^bareboards2:

Factcheck.org takes on this doc in an email today:
Summary
A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.
Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.
But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.
The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.
The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.
Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.
More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

Factcheck.org takes on this doc in an email today:

Summary

A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.

Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.

But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.

*The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.

*The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.

*Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.

More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

Although factcheck.org just issued a debunking email today:

Summary

A 28-minute political documentary released this week by a pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC presents a one-sided, often distorted and misleading view of Mitt Romney's years leading the venture capital firm Bain Capital.

Interspersed with appropriately eerie music, the video focuses on four Bain-financed companies and features heart-wrenching interviews with people who portray Romney and Bain as ruthless, quick-buck corporate raiders who reaped huge financial rewards at the expense of faithful employees.

But a closer look at the companies highlighted in the video reveals a murkier picture. The video often overstates, or outright distorts, Romney's culpability for job losses or bankruptcies.

*The film talks about layoffs at DDi Corp. and discusses questionable manipulation of stock prices after the circuit board company went public. But Romney had left Bain Capital a year before any layoffs and a public stock offering that ultimately netted Bain and Romney a big payday. The company's subsequent bankruptcy filing came two years after Bain had largely divested from the company, and was the result of the dot-com bust. Moreover, the company emerged from bankruptcy, and its current CEO credits those early Bain investments for setting the foundation for the company's current success.

*The film claims Romney was involved in the acquisition, management and demise of the now-defunct KB Toys. He wasn't. Bain bought the toy company nearly two years after Romney left Bain.

*Likewise, the closing of UniMac's plant in Marianna, Fla., occurred seven years after Romney left Bain and nearly two years after Bain sold UniMac's parent company to another private equity house.

More broadly, the video presents a myopic view of Bain Capital, cherry-picking some of the worst Bain outcomes to portray Bain in the worst possible light. Romney's record at Bain Capital also includes some success stories (see Staples and Sports Authority, to name a few) at companies that added new jobs.

You are a dolt. Red shift is a term referring to the Doppler effect. The Doppler effect is relative to an object and its observer. Of course to us the redshift shows us at the middle, we're the ones observing it. Furthermore I love when christians use science sometimes, but then try to denounce it other times. Fucking dummies.

The observation of red shifts having quantitized values is exactly the observation that their values are not due to a doppler effect. If you're going to call me stupid, at least know what you are talking about first. For your edification:

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setter.pdf

And no, I am not against science. I am against exactly what isn't science, which macroevolution, which can neither be tested or observed, but is accepted on blind faith. The whole proposition is a false dichotomy:



Ok, so you don't understand things...let's just throw a magician in the mix and all is answers. "Magnets, how the fuck do they work?" Must be magic, right? Oh no, we have an answer for that. And you're probably satisfied with that answer as it's commonplace and it doesn't contradict your belief in god.

There aren't any answers for it. What you believe is that one day science is going to explain out how something came from nothing. That's much worse than magic, and your blind faith.

As if you're not repeating shitty christian rhetoric. BTW, I've tried to read the bible...discovered I have a better time reading something good. That's right, your book fucking sucks. That's the biggest shame: it's not even fucking entertaining. I can't get passed genesis without getting angry that people literally believe that bullshit. Maybe you're right though, maybe I should waste my time on that crappy book. I mean I need something fictional in between all the technical stuff I'm reading.



Ok, the whole founding fathers being Christian, deal. You've probably read plenty of places that they were christian and I've probably read plenty places that they weren't. It probably has to do with where we're searching, and I'm positive that there's plenty of evidence on both cases (there's not, but I'm being nice). But guess what...I wasn't there. Neither were you. And I know it's easy for you to make up your mind about something based on little to no evidence. I do know that there is NOT.ONE.MENTION.OF.GOD in the constitution. So you're a christian, tell me, would you put the word of god in a constitution if you were writing one? probably would.

It does make mention of God, and Christianity, actually. First, if you pursue the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the first ammendment, you will find that it was put in place to rule out any particular Christian denomination from coming into power over the others, not for the equality of all religions. This was the wording proposed by George Mason:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

The framers intended that the federal government wouldn't interfere with the free practice of the Christian religion, as this makes plainly obvious.

Justice Jospeh Story:

"the real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to demand, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects."

Second, the constitution makes a provision for sunday worship, which shows the Christian orientation of America and the framers, and the political recognition they gave to that fact:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....”

Third, it is finished thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Notice what it says? If it was a secular document, it would have used a secular dating method. That is an explicit reference to Jesus Christ.

After the constitution was signed and finished, George Washington made this proclaimation:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html

So, if you think there is equity in our positions, by all means go find the ten or so quotes that atheists use to try to justify that this isn't a Christian nation, and then I will return with the hundreds I can use to prove otherwise.

Here's the deal with your "truth", shiny...your "truth" comes from an ancient text written thousands of years ago by man. Your entire "truth" is founded on the premise that the book is the word of a god. If one thing in that book is flawed, it compromises the entire premise. So you see, if you're intelligent enough, you should know that understanding science that has explained the world as different than the bible creates a conflict of interest for you. On the other hand, science is the act of testing a premise through the collection of data to form a conclusion. Science is wrong constantly, but every consecutive time it's wrong, it's more right than the time before. It doesn't base itself on the premise that it HAS to be right.

I understand that science functions as your religion, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you don't understand that the roots of modern science are actually in Christian Europe. The pioneers were devout Christians who believed we could investigate an orderly and lawfully ordained Universe and look for Universal laws that governed it.

http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm
http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/
http://www.rae.org/jaki.html

>> ^rottenseed:
Red shift is a term referring to the divisive