loki

i just kinda remembered the new engines few displacements....since the competition is phasing out their v6s... thought chryCo might be heading that way too?

we know what will power these cars? obviously some big 4 cyl. but will the v6 be a ...3.3? or what?

nice. i just recently saw an olds version... it had Grrr from invader zim painted on it. lol if the ass end gets f'd up ever, convert it into an elcamino-ish car. ...it's been done, i've seen one. sorry Camino.

dwight, has there been any recent press about HCCI in a "large" 4 cylider from GM? it must have been before the volt announcement that i remember last. didn't they get upto ~40% of engine load running it? you think they're still working on that alot? think there's a good chance the next engine upgrade for this or anything else that's DI'd already could be one of those hcci engines?

we do that now, it's just that they haven't chosen to take it all from you yet. all they have to do is eliminate tax forms and then let the tax rates float according to their whims.

i saw that someone has made cleaner baking soda from stacks... can't be too much harder than that.

then the DOE has to be put in that category too.

it's just sad the 1.8 seems so gutless on paper compared to the 1.4Turbo.

maybe Rearden metal will be made for this purpose. lol!!

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/092810-texting-bans-dont-work.html As more states ban the practice – Massachusetts will become the 31st to do so on Thursday – new research from the insurance industry claims that the prohibition of texting while driving does not reduce auto crashes … and may actually increase them. The research by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) builds upon similar results the organization offered in January regarding bans that address general cell-phone use while driving. HLDI president Adrian Lund was to present his organization’s findings at today’s gathering of the Governors Highway Safety Association in Kansas City. "Texting bans haven't reduced crashes at all. In a perverse twist, crashes increased in 3 of the 4 states we studied after bans were enacted. It's an indication that texting bans might even increase the risk of texting for drivers who continue to do so despite the laws," says Lund. As with the earlier HLDI report, this new one is being denounced as “completely misleading” by federal highway safety officials. “Lives are at stake, and all the reputable research we have says that tough laws, good enforcement, and increased public awareness will help put a stop to the deadly epidemic of distracted driving on our roads,’’ Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement issued to the Boston Globe. According to HLDI’s press release, its researchers “calculated rates of collision claims for vehicles up to 9 years old during the months immediately before and after driver texting was banned in California (January 2009), Louisiana (July 2008), Minnesota (August 2008), and Washington (January 2008). Comparable data were collected in nearby states where texting laws weren't substantially changed during the time span of the study. This controlled for possible changes in collision claim rates unrelated to the bans — changes in the number of miles driven due to the economy, seasonal changes in driving patterns, etc.” As for what might account for an increase in crashes, speculation centered on the possibility that drivers were even more distracted by their own efforts to conceal their texting from view lest it be exposed to possible law enforcement. LaHood has argued for effectiveness of such bans by pointing to data showing that highway fatalities attributed to distracted driving stopped rising for the first time last year. Lund told the Globe he was anticipating push-back at today’s conference: “I think they’re going to see it as an attack on their program, but it’s not meant to be,’’ he said in a phone interview. “Unfortunately, so far, whether we look at handheld cellphones or whether we look at the texting bans, they do not seem to be working.’’

if you think so...

In August, I wrote about Anthony Graber, who was charged with "wiretapping" after posting a police encounter on YouTube. This week, Harford County Circuit Judge Emory A. Plitt, Jr. threw out the charge for wiretapping, saying there was no expectation of privacy in this case. "In this rapid information technology era in which we live, it is hard to imagine that either an offender or an officer would have any reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to what is said between them in a traffic stop on a public highway," Plitt wrote. ACLU attorney, David Rocah, one of the attorneys representing Graber said: "This ruling upholds the fundamental right to hold police accountable to the public and constitutional principles they serve," Graber will still face charges for reckless driving and negligent driving. Nonetheless, this is an important ruling. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=38626

olds, this doesn't have the duramax on it... that will survive. but, if small trucks come back, the 1.5 turbo and the 3L. maybe the 2.1 T for an "ss" but otherwise, the 3L turbo and the V8 should work for the gas trucks. curious why 2.1L?instead of using the .5L/cylinder, or is it just a rounding issue?

http://superphotostudio.com/main.php?g2_itemId=132676&g2_imageViewsIndex=1

hahaha nice!

or the, you're stupid! am not, here's why. dude i was joking. lol

both of you are wrong...mostly. i believe GF's 32nm process was going to have to make them change the design somewhat because of process specs. 6000's are named "northern islands" and stays on 40nm while "southern islands" is going to stay at TSMC for their 28nm 1/2 node jump is what i understand, for mid/late 2011. the only thing that was confusing was that the codenames were switched for quite awhile, according to the widely accepted knowledge, where ever it came from

http://www.engadget.com/photos/amd-radeon-6700-series-leaked-specs/#3404452 looks promising.

haz a hazzy birfday

congrats and good luck!

congrats! hope you're liking it

not legally. and besides, the federal reserve might be psuedo government, it's still run privately. they control monetary policy, not the congress. discussed, it can be shown that from ~1800 to 1912 the dollar increased it's buying power by ~6% is what i've seen. since then it's lost greater than 95% of it. 2nd point. maybe that's why coins were only 90% silver or ~90% gold, one to add durability, and 2 to make them being minted worth just slightly more than the equivalent amount of base metal we use paper, cause coins lost their value, because of paper. 2 silver dollars should roughly equal 50 FRN dollars on the market today, how many people spend more than that every day, or every other day? 2 ounces would not be cumbersome. 1 once of gold could pay for most bills in a month for even some people paying on a mortgage. ~38 ounces would pay for a corvette, if you had to pay for it in $100 bills , going by the rough estimate of $100 bill weighing ~1gram, it would take just over 1 lb of bills to pay for a $50K corvette. so it wouldn't even take 2 lbs of gold to buy that same corvette. so, how much more cumbersome are coins to bills? not really that much, almost 2 times, but not quite. "also because counterfeiting measures need to keep the cost of making fakes above face value"... it costs the same to make a $1 bill as a $100 bill for the FED. why shouldn't it cost the same for counterfeiters? if it was a , say gold, it would cost the same to obtain the material, but it would take lots of skill to copy the design, which supposedly was done only once, i saw a show about it, the Omega counterfeiter, so good it's actually prized to be a collectible since the mints didn't make them and he was never caught. counterfeiting used to be considered so bad it was the death penalty for doing it, we've lost that sense of justice.

not all, you speak of federal reserve notes. the currency is actually the quarters nickels dimes and pennies. those are minted by the treasury by law under the congress. that's the official currency, and only the nickels are worth near face value. http://inflation.us/coins/ 1946-2010 Nickel face value=$0.05, actual metal value=$0.0575423 ~115.08% over face value a nickel is the only currently made and used coin that holds it's value, everything else is worth ~20% of it's value at best, other than a penny which is ~50%. if you hate the idea of a "gold standard" why do we still have coins and not paper notes for change?

sounds like they love it, other than the steering part. good for kia.

no, cause the check is just a piece of paper redeemable for money. a legal IOU... before '30's (when fdr confiscated all the gold) paper money was checks, one could take it to someplace, i'm guessing the FED, or a treasury bank, to trade the bill for a coin. my mom has a $5 silver certificate. back then it would have bought ~5 ounces cause they made silver dollars (or actually dimes, quarters, or half dollar) of 90% silver. now a days on the market i'm pretty sure it's just a much fancier $5 bill, which will buy ~1/4 ounce of silver. silver hasn't changed in what it is, or how it's used. the social collapse of not enforcing the legal tender law has made it just another piece of paper that will loose it's widely accepted value instead of actually enforcing the contract of the bill when it was made.