search results matching tag: mileage

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (12)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (3)     Comments (142)   

Magician Flying Over The Grand Canyon!

BSR says...

What would be the best foods to eat to get the best mileage?

What role does the sphincter play in control?

cloudballoon said:

Jet technology exists, but jet-pack wasn't. So my bet's on farts, very strong, continuous farts.

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Oh sweet zombie Jebus….Boebert was a hooker in Colorado and had multiple abortions. Her weak denials are less believable than Cawthorn’s, and the evidence is her “sugar daddy meets.com” page with provocative photos of her looking for “pay to play” dates, and an unreported $70000 “donation” from Ted Cruise after her sugar daddy introduced them and she visited Ted in Texas (when she was still an “unlicensed escort”).

The investigators that made this public have BEGGED her to sue them so they can depose her under oath about these charges. She’s toast.

This on top of the revelation recently that her mileage fraud, where she was reimbursed for her claim that she drove almost 40000 miles in a few months campaigning in Colorado, was perpetrated because she was bankrupt and needed $20000 to save her family restaurant (she hadn’t been paying taxes and the state was going to foreclose on her), almost exactly the amount she was overpaid for her fake travel expenses. Now under investigation.

And let’s not forget she was with her husband when he exposed his penis to two 15 year old girls in a bowling alley and defended him over it, making her complicit in child sex abuse.

This is the Trumpist heroine, his “best people”. Oof.

The Ford Bronco - 10 Key Features (off road)

newtboy jokingly says...

At 15 mpg, you won’t get anywhere near the middle of nowhere.
Pretty sad that my 51 year old V8 Bronco gets the same mileage.

bobknight33 said:

Great, now I need to move to the top of the mountain in the middle of nowhere just to take full use of this very cool car.


Impressive

newtboy (Member Profile)

StukaFox says...

Newt,

This is in response to your comment on my statement about Biden needing to lose in '20.

I recently wrote this as a reply to one of my readers (I write under a number of different names in other places).:

Dear <name>,

>I took some time to absorb what you wrote. It's a lot to juggle. The Atlantic has an article in the July-August issue on the worst and best case scenario in CLO defaults. I'll read more.

I read the article you mentioned, and while it's certainly good, it also misses a very important point that explains the mess we're in: the collapse of Lehman and Bear-Stearns, while catastrophic in their own ways, were not the nightmare that caused the Fed to freak out in 2008 -- AIG was. Had AIG gone under and the counterparty default contracts triggered, we'd be on the barter system right now. We came within hours of not having an economy in the western world. The $700b ($.7t) the Fed coughed up to stop this from happening calmed the panic, but did nothing to resolve the underlying issues. These issues continued to compound during the 2011-2020 stock run-up and now we're at the point where the Fed is throwing trillions of dollars at every piece of bad debt they can find just to keep the whole thing from imploding into an economic black hole. It is important to note that in September '19, the credit markets started freezing because of the debt that was already on the books then, -before- CV-19 started rolling, and it took $3t just to get them unlocked again. Absolutely nothing has gotten better since then, and I would argue things have gotten dangerously worse.

In an odd coincidence, the NYT ran an article today about the looming bankruptcy crisis. They're calling for 30-60 days before things start imploding, but I'll stick to my estimate of ~90 days. There's some talk about extending the $600 benefits (we'll see) and chatter about another stimulus check, but that's kicking the can as well as telegraphing how bad things really are. When the Republicans are getting behind free money, you know we're in some uncharted territory. For all intents and purposes, Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) -- the reason the Fed is backstopping debt and printing money like crazy -- is the hill the US economy will live or die on. Should the US dollar come unpegged as the world's de facto currency or should inflation begin (and there's already worrying signs this is happening), that's game over.

Please don't take anything I say as the Word of God; please do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Everything I've said is an opinion based on my education, experience and way of thinking. Your mileage may vary.

Here is the article I mentioned: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/business/corporate-bankruptcy-coronavirus.html -- might be paywalled, but clear your cookies for the NYT and you should be able to read it.


>Frankly, it's the physical danger in my area of the States that concerns me. There are the guns and bullying. During some BLM demonstrations in the Midwest, locals were standing around with semi-automatics. I drive a Prius for the fuel efficiency. Pick up trucks enjoy tailgating, trying to intimidate me. This behavior isn't going to change with a change of President but will get worse is we don't change. This ideological push to takeover the country instead of ruling by compromise started around the same time we came to the US in 1981, Reagan's first year. I was so shocked when I heard talk radio for the first time; this wasn't the country I had left in the 1970s.


And now we come to the giant pile of sweaty dynamite that's just waiting for the right shock to set it off. I could give you a prolonged lecture about how this all started in 1978 with California's Proposition 13, or how David Stockman's tragically prescient warnings were blatantly ignored, but Haynes Johnson does a far better job at this than I ever could in his 1991 book "Sleepwalking Through History", as does Kevin Phillips in 2006's "American Theocracy". Honestly, at this point, the prelude is academic. The reality of the situation is that a large swath of adult Americans are appalling ill-educated, innumerate and devoid of even the most basic critical-thinking skills. These people are now locked out of the Information Economy. They lack the most basic skills required to compete in the 21st century job market and thus will watch their standard of living sink into the abyss. These people are not blind to this fact because they're living with the reality of their situation every single day. They're totally without hope, cut off from all avenues of control over their own lives and they feel utterly abandoned by the very people who're supposed to be helping them. The reason you're seeing bullying and behavior like that is because these same people are totally removed from any avenues of recourse and the only people they can take their anger out on are people like you and me. Their anger is being stoked on a daily basis. FOX News and the GOP are experts at this and have a host of boogeymen to keep the anger from being pointed their way: ANTIFA, BLM (black Americans have always made a perfect target), "coastal elites" and, of course, Liberals.

Trump's election was a warning, not an outlier. Trump was the primal scream of these people and Liberals and the Democrats as a whole chose not to listen because they found the sound so abhorrent. The rage will only get worse and the number of people enveloped by this rage will only grow as economic conditions worsen. At this point, it no longer matters who wins in '20. Winning the election will be like winning the deed to the World Trade Center one second after the first jet hit. The damage has already been done and no steps are being taken to repair it; if anything, people are actively making it worse either through ideological blindness, deliberate malfeasance or outright stupidity. It took almost 50 years to get to this point and the endemic issues will not be undone in a single generation, much less a single election. Until the people who voted for Trump feel a sense of real hope, a sense of control over their lives and a genuine expectation of recourse for their grievances, they will keep right on voting for Trump, or people like him.

My unfortunate suspicion is that this country will rip itself to shreds long before those reforms are enacted.

Side note: the fundamental difference between the United States and Europe is that European history has forced the nations of Europe to live with the consequences of their actions. Not so the United States. Europe has suffered for her sins. Not so the United States. The two bloodiest wars in human history were fought on European soil. Not so the United States. The United States has never faced true suffering, nor has it ever had to live with the ramifications of its own actions. Both these facts are about to change and a nation whose character is built on a mythology of individual action and violence is going to have to face reality. The people of this nation are not prepared for this and they will not like it.

Second side note: many people are erroneously comparing the current situation to the Wiemar Republic. This is a lack of historical understanding. A more apt comparison would be to Spain in late 1935.


>As for re-opening, we could have gotten some control if the "leader" had simply donned a mask and used realistic thinking. People could go back to work more safely, wash hands, stay a certain distance. But his hubris led the way, so now we'll have a roller coaster for months and years that will affect the economy even more. France is a good comparison because they were unprepared also, having slashed the public healthcare budget for the last twenty years. But when they laid down the rules, troops patrolled the streets to be sure they were followed. So far, they've flattened the curve (for now), and used different economic incentives, such as paying part of employees' salaries to keep them employed.

At this point, the pace of re-opening is a difference between very bad and much worse. Had $3t been used to pay the yearly salary of every American, we could have saved lives and the economy, but we didn't. The history of 2020 will be littered with "what-ifs". However, the first thing you learn when studying history is that what-ifs are useless because things are what they are and you can't change that. It's already obvious we're going into a second wave. If previous pandemics are any indication of what's to come, this second wave will be many times worse than the first. The wait for a vaccine is indeterminate, but if we're going for herd immunity, ~70% of Americans will need to catch the virus. To date, ~1.5% have. If the US population is ~330 million, ~230 million will need to catch the virus. Call the mortality rate 2%, that means ~4.6 million Americans will die. That's a lot of dead Americans and grieving families.

Take care,

(my actual name)

Why Ford And Other American Cars Don’t Sell In Japan

eric3579 says...

I think poorly made cars that get horrible gas mileage and are not the right size is more than enough reasons why they don't buy American cars. Also Japanese cars ARE fuel efficient, the most reliable cars made, and the right size. I think pay back for American protectionism seems far fetched when all the above reasons are so overwhelming, but just my opinion of course

psycop said:

My understanding was that this is an example of American automotive industry protectionism coming home to roost.

Tesla Towing Silverado Truck Out Of A Charger Station

Payback says...

Sorry, I'm definitely only referring to the coal-rolling shitstains that have nothing better to do than passive-aggressively bully other people.

If you don't like electric vehicles, don't buy one.

Don't see anyone blocking diesel pumps.

Ps. I don't own or want an EV, and my Mustang definitely gets worse mileage than any diesel, by design. If someone looks down their nose at me, I'm not going to do shit to innocent bystanders just because I'm a whiny little bitch like the ICEing dicks.

ChaosEngine said:

That seems a little harsh given the vast majority of the car owning public can’t afford a BEV.

Although parking in a charging station is definitely a dick move.

10 Songs You've Heard and Don't Know the Name

MilkmanDan says...

A few of those didn't actually ring a bell in terms of having heard them before, and I knew the names of a few that I had heard:

(spoilers, I guess?)
1. I instantly knew that was the William Tell Overture, I would think a lot of people know that one?

2. Know the song, but didn't know the title without seeing it. But I'm sure that I've heard the title (Entry of the Gladiators) before.

3. Didn't know the song (or the title -- Liechtensteiner Polka).

4. Know the song, knew it was Strauss, didn't know it was "Fruhlingsstimmen". Gesundheit. As an aside, the stare plus the eyebrow action in this one is hilariously well-suited to the song.

5. Knew a variant of the song, didn't know it was "The British Grenadiers". Pretty sure I first heard this one as music in the old-school NES game "Pirates" by Sid Meier.

6. Knew the song, knew it was Chopin's "Piano Sonata No. 2 Op. 35", also know that it is commonly referred to as "Marche Funebre" (although that title can be applied to other songs also). Dude also gets a lot of mileage out of the creepy stare at the camera on this one.

7. Don't think I've ever heard this one, didn't know the title (A Dog's Life).

8. Knew the song, knew it was by Strauss, didn't know the title (An Der Scthonen Blauen Donau).

9. Knew the song, knew it was the "Chicken Dance". I'd think that anyone that's ever been to a wedding pretty much has to know this one -- but maybe that's just a midwest US thing?

10. Eventually recognized the song, but not until he got a bit into it. Didn't know the title (Colonel Bogey March). Still think it should 'properly' be titled "Lisa, her teeth are big and green. Lisa, she smells like gasoline."

The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party

If High School and College Textbooks Were Honest

MilkmanDan says...

Interesting. When I was in college, I got good mileage out of (in order of preference):

1: Not buying the book listed on the syllabus at all. LOTS of courses didn't assign any homework from the book, and covered all the information that would be on tests in lectures. So I never bought a book before it became clear that I would actually have to use it.

2: Buying used books, if at all possible directly from a student who took the course the previous semester. I never ran into the "new edition" problem mentioned in the video, and my major was Computer Science, which I'd think would tend to change more in a short period of time than most disciplines.

3: Sharing a single book (and the purchase price) between 3-10 other students. Even in the few courses that did have homework (Engineering Physics and Calc 2 had a lot for me), it was quite helpful to share a book with several other students and work through the problems together whenever homework was assigned.


So this never really seemed like a big problem for me, although I guess that doesn't help much for High School textbooks, where we generally only have to pay for them in the form of taxes.

teacher schools a businessman who doesn't get education

StukaFox says...

Quoting Sniper007:

" A child is put at a tremendous disadvantage when they are taught that they can not learn anything except through formal schooling."

-- I completely and 100% agree with this, except . . .

" This is the inevitable life lesson all children are taught in schools (public or private)."

-- Reeeeealllly? Can I get some kind of cite on this? FWIW, I attended public schools -- good and bad -- and never came away with this lesson at all. Nor do I know anyone else who has. In fact, I'd say my view is the polar opposite of your own: as a self-made man, the most valuable lessons I've learned have come from experience (better known as The School of Hard Knocks).

"But for those who do wish to so delegate the sacred honor of teaching one's own child to a third party government agent(...)"

-- So you can't do both? You can't have trained educators teaching your child important fundamentals like math, science, languages and arts while you teach them social skills and whatever form of ethics and mores you want to instill them? To do the first is the cede the second?

Here's a little anecdote on my experience with home schooling:

My sister, now 30, was home-schooled by my parents. Her entire work history, up until now, has been a disaster. Lost jobs, conflicts with managers and co-workers, absenteeism -- everything shy of stealing from her employer. Why? Because she expected the world to revolve around her once she had her GED. She thought she was smarter than everyone else because she never had the social experience of encountering different levels of competence. Because home schooling catered to her needs and wants, she figured employers should do the same. Because she never had to learn classroom structure, she never learned to play nice with authority and know her place and work within it.

This is an anecdote and therefor does not equal data. But I think had my parents decided to send my sister to a public school, she'd be a lot farther ahead in her work-life than she is now and she would have had an easier road getting there.

Your mileage may vary, and hopefully will.

Farm of the Future Uses No Soil and 95% Less Water

Chairman_woo says...

Think about it this way. Stack the corn trays just once and you just doubled your output for a given area.

You're right about getting less mileage from taller crops. But every vertical layer would in theory still double the area you have to work with each time you added one.

Scale this up to a skyscraper sized building and you could supply any city with all the food it could need locally.

It probably could start to skew the market towards squatter plants as you say, but I can't see why most if not all of the things we grow now couldn't be viable. (doubly so if they ever nail the process of growing meat)

MilkmanDan said:

Good Stuff

The Rotary Engine is Dead - Here's Why.

newtboy says...

The main advantage, power to weight...this one is HUGE for performance vehicles. Also in it's favor; reduced vibration (over piston engines), only two moving parts, no valve train, and the fact that it's 'exotic'.

EDIT: Cons: terrible mileage, bad emissions, loud (it's can't handle much back pressure, so you can't put on much of a muffler, and the unburnt fuel 'pops' loudly as it leaves the exhaust), hard to replace Teflon seals requiring a full teardown to replace, hard to find a mechanic that can work on them (especially if you need machining done), hard to find period (they're quite 'rare' compared to piston engines)....I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting or don't know.

notarobot said:

So, what was the advantage of this engine type?

The Rotary Engine is Dead - Here's Why.

eric3579 says...

Ill take a stab. Engines ran forever(much longer then others). More reliable. Less repairs. Plus back in the day when they were popular the gas mileage and emissions were most likely on par with the cars that were out at that time. Back then mileage and emissions weren't as important as they are today.

notarobot said:

So, what was the advantage of this engine type?

Pro-lifers not so pro-life after all?

RFlagg says...

I'll cover IUD's first. While there is some evidence that the older style copper ParaGard might have a slightly increase in preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, the evidence for the Mirena. Here are two medical journals documenting as such:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4018277
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13625180903519885
If those are too much reading, they are summarized in http://videosift.com/video/Myths-About-IUDs

Remember Google gives personalized search results. No two people get the same results, even when signed out of Google... More details at http://videosift.com/video/There-are-no-regular-results-on-Google-anymore

I'd also agree that there are many things America gets right. Overall it's a good country.

And I think I started out by pointing out it isn't about guns, or just about guns.

Now I'm not sure what you mean assigning attributes to the right. I was pointing out policies that are consistent with the conservative right, Republican platform positions that are not pro-life.

The Death Penalty. This is a typically Republican strong stance position. And has been at various times part of the party's official platform. The Democrat party official position supports the death penalty too, after a DNA testing and post-conviction review. The point isn't wither or not the Death Penalty is right or wrong, I'd personally argue it's wrong, it's the claim of being pro-life while supporting the death penalty. There can be no way to reconcile those two positions.

One needs only to look at how Bush and the present day regime of Republicans in Washington think of handling issues in the Middle East to see what that they support a strong military and an interventionist doctrine (http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Republican_Party_War_+_Peace.htm). One of the key factors of the Bush Doctrine is preemptive strikes. While one normally wouldn't cite Wikipedia, I'll let their page on the Bush Doctrine and their references clear things up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine. Heck Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize largely just because he wasn't Bush... sadly he did little to lower US involvement in the Middle East, a situation we should have left alone ages ago. Again the Democrats aren't as peace loving as they should be, and generally the most peace loving people in Congress tend to be Libertarians (who object more to the expense of war than war itself, and love pointing out how the war in Iraq from 2001 to 2011 cost more than NASA's entire history to that point, even after adjusting for inflation (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA)) and Libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/). Again, war isn't pro-life, it is perhaps one of the most anti-life things one can support short of supporting murder itself.

It's also Republicans, aka the right, that are trying to undo the Affordable Health Care Act, a program that ironically enough is modeled after the ones they tried to pass twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton as to oppose Democrat plans to push for a Single Payer system. Prior to the passing of Obamacare, the US was spending nearly twice as much on healthcare as a percentage of it's GDP than the next nation, and getting only the 37th best results . Just listen to the crowd at the September 12 2008 Republican debate that chant over and over "let him die" as a solution to a guy who needs medical care but elected not to buy private insurance. These same people are the one's who claim to be pro-life. Affordable health care should be a right, as it is in every civilized nation but the US. Obamacare is far from ideal, but much better than the previous policy of only those with good jobs could afford health care everyone else, die or go bankrupt, driving the costs of healthcare up more. One can't say they are pro-life and oppose affordable healthcare, including for services you don't support such as IUDs (it doesn't matter that I object to our overly huge military budget that is much bigger than the next several nations combined, so it shouldn't matter if some medical services such as IUDs are supported), as quality of life matters as much as being alive.

Related to guns however is the Republican stance on stand your ground. Watch Fox News and how they defend the use of guns, or how mass shootings would be avoided if people were carrying concealed weapons and could stop the shooters... again escalating things to a death penalty. Now in the case of a mass shooter, ideally you want to take them down alive, but if death is the only option, then I personally don't object. However stand your ground typically expands to home invasion, where criminals typically aren't looking kill, just rob the place. Here they defend the homeowner's right to shoot to kill (I've been in firearm safety classes, generally the aim is to aim for the center of mass, which will likely result in death, but the odds of making a shot at the legs to impede the crooks is very low, so if you shoot you have to assume it is to kill). This position is contrary to the pro-life stance. All life is equal... which could get into a whole other argument about how they don't value immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, people who just want to improve their lives by moving to what they hope is a better country that will allow for a better opportunity for them and their families, but the Republicans are fighting hard to stop them from improving their lives here just because an accident of birth made them born in another country than the US... heck just look at the way Republicans lined the buses of refugee children fleeing war and gang torn areas of Latin America and they shouted at the children.... children... to go home that nobody wanted them. That isn't a pro-life statement, to tell a child that nobody wants them. The pro-life position would be to want to nurture and protect the children fleeing a dangerous area... We should be moving to a world without borders, as that is the pro-life position, to realize we are all humans, and that we all must share this world, and that we should do all we can to protect one another and this world and all that inhabits it (except mosquitoes, roaches, most parasites, etc... lol)

As to high poverty rates, the Republican policy of trickle down economics helps drive that. Helps spread the ever growing income and wealth gaps in the US. The Walmart heirs alone have more wealth than the bottom 40% of the US population (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/31/bernie-s/sanders-says-walmart-heirs-own-more-wealth-bottom-/). Now true, some could argue it isn't trickle down economic that is causing the growing wealth and income gaps, but the correlation is very strong, and one is hard pressed to find any other causative points beyond the rich paying less and less to their workers while taking more and more for themselves while the government eases the tax burden on the rich more and more.

Overall I think it's clear that the people who vote Republican because they are "pro-life" are hypocrites given the party's positions in key issues that aren't pro-life. I'm sure many, especially those on the right would disagree. They'd argue the death penalty is needed to discourage others from killing and therefore protects life, and that preemptive strikes ala the Bush Doctrine keep another 9/11 from happening (although the counter to that is fairly easily that we make more extremist the more we use those strikes). So one's mileage may very. For me, I think they are hypocritical saying they are pro-life if they don't value that life as much as their own after they are born.

harlequinn said:

Unless you have data supporting your claims, blanket assigning attributes to "the right" isn't good.

From an outside view (I'm not American) the issue isn't guns. It's that Americans see using guns as a solution to problems that they probably shouldn't be a solution for.

This partly stems from historical and cultural factors but also high poverty rates, a mediocre health care system, a mediocre mental health care system, etc.

FYI, there is evidence that IUDs stop the implantation of the blastocyst - just a google search away.

Side note: there are some things America gets so right. Like various freedoms enshrined in your constitution. And how the country tends to self-correct towards liberty (over the long run).

Typical Evo wunderkid...

Payback says...

Don't have to. I have white privilege.

Not really seeing any disagreement in your statement though...

You own an EVO or WRX. Do much rallying? Driven in Pike's Peak? Do you, as the "Bellend" in the video does, just bomb around town acting like you're the shit because you're going fast and getting decent gas mileage?
If you don't do any of that... you're a hipster. You completely wasted your money for "prestige". An EVO or WRX deserves to be driven. It's what they're designed for. At least the douchebag is getting close to using the tool properly.

It's like people who buy 1000cc twin turbo crotch rockets. Either they drive like retarded psychopaths, or they just like that people THINK they drive like retarded psychopaths.

Putting anything "race day" on the street without racing it is sad. Racing it on the street is stupid.

If -and I doubt it- you've actually purchased your vehicle, and you use it properly, congratulations, you're an exception. Nothing is black and white, but if you see one of those cars driving around town, it's a hipster or a douchebag behind the wheel, and you, as the exception, KNOW I'm right.

CrushBug said:

Apparently, just for owning one, I have been called a hipster and a douchebag. You don't even know me.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists