Those waterfalls are all blurry. That's gonna drop the beauty score a few points right there.

The Kentucky portion of that map is complete and utter horseshit. Here, it's farm and construction laborers. Oh, and, waitresses in Mexican restaurants.

Musta been based on legal immigrants.

When I saw teachers I figured it was legals.

When I saw 'teachers' I thought I misread it.

It strikes me as ironic that they use a scale from brown for ugly to green for beautiful and then label the dry brown places beautiful and the lush green places ugly...

Gooberment

I thought they might have based it on tourist activity, but I see Cape Cod is light green average, and that's swarming with tourists.

I couldn't help but notice that 'NYPD Blue' is not on this list. That was the best series finale, second only to 'Breaking Bad', that I've ever seen. It was perfectly fitting.

Attachment 53144

Heh, Six Feet Under had an excellent finale, but couldn't have a big arrow, because there wasn't enough room above it.

Maybe when they asked people if they liked the 'NYPD Blue' finale, the pollsters got punch by fans disgruntled it was ending. ;)

Oddly, I am indeed driving a Mitsu Outlander Sport. I've realized that I want to be driving and old Jeep CJ. How do I make that work?

Well first you salt the Mitsu and leave it out for a season until it rusts.

I'm with you so far.

Rip out all the electronics and amenities, put on uncomfortably stiff springs, and loosen the head bolts to lose power and make it unreliable. ;)

Here you go, Griff.

Well that didn't help one bit. :)

Despite 11 years of driving past the dealership that proudly displays one, my son saw an SSR for the first time yesterday and I thought his brain was going to explode. This led to a discussion of SSRs in particular and concept cars in general. On the return trip we passed it once more and again he went mental. I think he might become a motor head. We need to visit a good site with photos of customized SSRs. cough*Bruce*cough.

Good thing he isn't a dog or we'd forever be pulling quills from his muzzle.

This also led into a discussion of misbegotten cars (Pontiac Aztek) I promised to show him probably the ugliest car ever built

The best bet for maximum return on time invested, is Google SSR and click images. Lots of mild to wild paint jobs. I know who more than half of them belong to.

Was anyone held responsible for that?

We don't discuss internal personnel matters outside the company, now please leave before I call security. :crone:

Some people liked it, but most of them lost their drivers license when they were committed to Wolf's care. It was aimed a the young couple starting up the ladder of success, unfortunately it turns out those people had good taste.

I found this video instructive.

I used to own a Mazda RX-4 wagon with a rotormotor. It was deceptively quick. And that motor loved to rev, it was like an electric motor. You could just fling the tachometer needle around the dial.

Anyhow, it's been something of a mental mechanical blindspot for me as to how the force was transmitted from the rotor to the crank. This video helped. Especially the view at 8:40.


Also this video (which is ... it's not as tasty but still instructive) at 2:10.


Watching the position of the offset lobe of the crank "be pushed" by the rotor when the compression chamber was "behind" the lobe. It has been a stumbling block for me to separate the ring gear/crank gear function from where the power was being transmitted.

Anyhow, genius design, a treat to drive. I never owned mine long enough to bemoan the reliability problems. Still... quite an engine.

Mazda RX-4 wagon...Those were...uh...They looked...They had character?:o

It occurs to me that this bit of drift properly belongs in the Rims thread.

Not drift from the expanded scope, it's car related. My brother races those motors, they are impressive performers. GM paid a ton of money to license them but they couldn't find a way to make them emission compliant... neither could Mazda.

I watched several vids on the motor, rebuilding, remaking, porting, hotrodding, etc.

What's your brother's opinion of the spark slit versus spark hole discussion?

I haven't asked, we diverge in automotive paths of interest, although they sometimes cross.
He was always into sports cars, is a past president of the SCCA region #2 (northeast), then their rep on the National board.
I was into hot rods, customs, motorcycles, and drag racing... and a curmudgeon. :D

http://lifehacker.com/this-graphic-e...t-y-1730901381

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media...9896155794.png

What was his name, and why were you so into him?

:madhop:

Clarified...

Selfies kill more people than sharks.

Attachment 53476

Waitwhut?

Good.

I mean, uh, that was probably not the nicest thing to say, I'm sure I meant something nicer. Let me get back to you on that.

Knee jerk assumptions department: after 50 years of cleaning up vehicle engine emissions, what's worse for the environment: a 6210cc engine Ford F150 truck, or a 30cc engine leaf blower?

Not even close.

http://cellar.org/2015/leafbloweremissions.jpg

In fact the car and truck actually cleaned the air:

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/f...af-blower.html

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngu...9/badgraph.jpg

Remarkably dishonest graph. The two lines are on completely different vertical scales, which would be somewhat dishonest if both scales were labeled and started at zero, and more dishonest if they were labeled and did not start at zero. This is worse - unlabeled, and different start points, so both the position and slope of the lines is completely arbitrary. 900000 < 300000? The pink line goes down (by the numbers) about 50%, but the slope of the line is about the same as the brown line, which goes up a bit over 10%?

And why cancer screenings? It's not like Planned Parenthood only does cancer screenings and abortions. Answer - because cancer screenings have been downplayed in recent years, and decreasing them has been suggested by major medical groups. So it's one of the few things they do that has gone down over that period.

And, related to both issues above - they only took two data points, 2006 and 2013, but put all of the intervening years on the horizontal scale. This makes it seem as if the rates were (at least somewhat) constant. A more granular line might (note that I haven't actually seen a more granular version, so this is hypothetical) show, for example, the year(s) that cancer screening policies might have changed, which would lead to explanations.

I'd suspect with Obamacare, more poor women have insurance coverage which will cover many of the things they use to get from a Planned Parenthood clinic.

HappyMonkey accurately describes this graph.
It's important to follow the 2 links.

It was presented during Congressional Hearings (yesterday) on Planned Parenthood
--- and falsely presented as being from "Planned Parenthood's Quarterly Report".

But Ms Richards (CEO of PP) countered that the source was actually
the anti-abortion group shown at the bottom of HM's posting.

It was quite an embarrassing moment for Chairman Chaffetz.

.

I'm surprised, I didn't think those clowns ever got embarrassed by their fellow clowns antics anymore. :rolleyes:

WaPo charts what kind of dwelling people live in, single, attached(row and town), multi-units, or mobiles.

That is interesting to me. Do you have a link ?

I have issues comparing things just based on %.
That is, LA is spread out over an enormous area, compared with most other cities.
Also, the % of LA housing of >50 units doesn't seem right
compared with my image of an eastern city like Philadelphia.

Sorting the cities by size might be more informative.

Kevin McCarthy thought that what happens on Fox News stays on Fox News.

Oooooops ~

Gail Collins - The Opinion Pages: NY Times - 10/1/15

Sure, http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...-city-charted/
% of each type of dwelling in each city, is the point. Population is irrelevant. Occams razor.
See answer #2 above.

I'm still having a hard time with that link's description of LA.
It seems to be based on a sub-link to the following article...

Measuring Sprawl
A New Index, Recent Trends, and Future Research
Urban Affairs Review Thomas Laidley 33/2/15

I'm not quite believing this either.
It just doesn't fit what I remember about LA, SF, SJ and SD,
as compared with Chicago and Boston from my lifetime living
and working in or around those areas.

I'd love to be on this sociology student's Doctorial Thesis Committee.
[OJ] If it doesn't fit, you can't convict. [/OJ] :rolleyes:

I'll bet you would, how dare his facts and measurements not match you opinion and remembered perceptions.
Torches and pitchforks! String him up, hound him out of academia.
We won't acquit, 'cause he don't fit, we'll box his ears, the little shit.

Map of anthropogenic CO2 emissions

http://cellar.org/2015/co2-anthro-emissions.jpg

but that is neither a graph nor a chart.

What are the green lines, shipping channels, flight lines?

UT, when I read your posts such as these, I assume you are allusively addressing climate change.
And they give me the impression you believe that either it does not exist, it is not man-made,
it is not worth worrying about, and/or nothing can/should be done about it.

For example, in the earlier post cited above, your comment seems to be that
those autos' exhaust are less polluting than the exhaust from leaf blowers.
But the table in that post does not extend the quantities of pollutants to totals
based on number of units (cars vs blowers) and the number of hours each would be in (worldwide) operation.

Likewise, does the "CO" in your table refer to carbon monoxide only, or both carbon mono- and di-oxides ?
My understanding is that concerns over climate change are primarily an issue of carbon dioxide,
and so your table and comment do not seem to focus on climate change, per se.

Have you formed specific opinions for yourself about arthropogenic climate change,
and what, if anything, should or could done about it ?

.

Gotta be shipping. They go around land masses instead of across them.

LL my position on almost everything is Politics Makes Us Stupid.

What happens is, once an issue becomes political, we change the nature of how we discuss it and immediately the facts are less important than winning the argument on behalf of "our side".

Immediately we only digest the facts that are important to us, and interpret everything as if we were aiming to "win"

Even when we don't do that ourselves, everyone else does it; we get our information from everyone else; and after a while, we're ALL Stupid.

And the worst part: scientists are now political. Global warming doesn't necessarily doom us. Science becoming political DEFINITELY DOES. It's the very worst thing EVER. It's a total DISASTER.

That's my position.

I thought I was asking a straightforward question, not researching your philosophy of politics.

As far as that goes, you certainly can have whatever beliefs you want about politics.
In a serious way, that is what politics comes to... the interaction of beliefs.

There certainly are instances where scientists have entered the political arena, for various reasons.
But to argue that science has become political and is dooming us is only your own political spin.

If you have decided, for yourself, that "global warming doesn't necessarily doom us"
that comes closest to answering my question.

Of course, I disagree with your position that "Politics make us stupid".

Scientists don't "choose" to enter the political arena, they are all in it, as are you and I.
You don't seem to understand that what we call scientists are not gurus on a mountain top, but people who work for someone. As such, like anyone in any occupation, must to be concerned with their future groceries. They are told what to work on, what will be funded, and unfortunately in some cases the results desired.

While Joe Scientist may be pure as the driven snow(although that purity is in question), they are controlled by the people holding the purse strings. People who are always politically aware of the implications. Where the money comes from, and what it must be spent on to insure the reputation of the institution as a worthy recipient for more groceries. These days, the large sums of money trickled down to scientists is controlled by the politics of the benefactors.

When global warming was first investigated, it appeared to be happening, appeared to be influenced by human activities, and scientists seeking funding proposed investigating most every subject which could tie into it. This produced tons of reports on what human activity contributes to global warming. Although the predictions of how bad it would get, and when, were hotly debated.

Now what should we do to mitigate this problem? Ah, the fly in the ointment. Some people/industries will be greatly affected, if not devastated, by these solutions, so will fight tooth and nail. First we change the name to climate change, because global warming and the local weather reports, confuse non-scientists. Then the hundreds of contributing activities had to be pared down to the worst few. Fluorocarbons were tagged and there was not much resistance because it meant profitable solutions were an opportunity. Although methane is worse, they finally decided CO was the one to be named the bad guy, the one to grace their banners and shields as they rode off to battle the skeptics, who are fueled(financed) by those who would bear the brunt of regulations.

So from the scientist worrying about groceries, to the battles in the halls of congress, it's all controlled by politics(money). By nit picking mono vs Di, oxides, you show you completely miss what's going on here in reality, which is politics.

It very much informs me that this is the debate. Apocalypse is a narrative we humans are very attracted to, and we always share. The end of the world is nigh. When we believe something is the end of the world, it is extremely important that we share this information and convince everyone. Even rumors about the end of the world are widely shared. Every religion includes it. Some say environmental apocalypse is our modern replacement for religion.

That reminds me that I heard that somebody was saying the world was going to end like yesterday or today or something?

*does quick search*

Oh phew...
It was yesterday. Still here. We're cool.

Carry on.

Actually, UT, such is the result of excessive exaggeration. To wit:

The "scientific questions" are:
Is climate warming real (regardless of cause(s)) ?
If it is, what are the consequences ?
If these are serious, can we (mankind) do anything about it ?

My question to you was along the lines of how do you answer such questions ?
.

Let's put this discussion into this thread where I've already said a bunch of stuff:

http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=30453

Amtrack
 

Fun and games with tables and graphs... from here

Country___Population_______Area____Density__Spending/Density

China__1,313,973,713___3,600,927___365 _______0.351

US______298,444,215___3,539,225____84_______0.017

UK_______60,609,153______93,278___650_______0.009


.

But that link says:
Canada...... Population = 33,098,932..... Land Area(sq mi) = 3,560,217..... Density(per sq mi) = 9

But Canada aint got no sq mi, only sq kilometers. :p: :haha:

Trippin'

That's an interesting route. The speed they have to drive changes dramatically. During some months, they need to go car speeds, and during other months, they can go a walking speed.