WheelsRCool

I would say sort of. Obama did quite a few anti-gun things with Operation Choke Point, the banning of surplus M1 Garands from South Korea, the making it where certain SS recipients would lose their gun rights, forcing ITAR on gunsmiths, trying to label gunsmiths as regulatory-wise the same as gun manufacturers, etc...Trump has undone much of this. On guns, he did ban bump stocks, but IMO that is indirectly an aid to gun people, because it is hard to say that automatic fire weapons are heavily regulated when you can take an AR-15 and put a bump-stock on it and get a very similar result. But yes, he has to (unfortunately) be watched closely on gun rights. One thing he HAS done to help gun rights however is his SCOTUS appointments and putting conservative (and hence likely much more 2A-friendly) justices on the various lower courts. I think he does mean it when he says he is pro-2A, I think the problem is that he is one who doesn't understand the issue very well and thinks that what constitutes a lot of "reasonable" gun control is okay when it is not. I don't think he is one who pushes for "reasonable" gun control as a stepping stone to banning guns over time.

HBO has done a miniseries on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster that occurred in the Soviet Union. Apparently it is the highest-rated series ever in IMDB's history, and having watched four of the five episodes thus far, it is really well done. They even made sure as to get actors and actresses that look very similar to the characters they portray. Definitely recommend a watch for the historical value.

So if this scam involved so many people, I wonder what made the head of it think it could be maintained without eventually someone slipping?

So I am curious on people's thoughts about the college admissions scam where wealthy people paid to have their non-deserving kids placed into elite schools. Most infamously caught up in this are actresses Lori Loughlin (Aunt Becky from "Full House") and Felicity Huffman (actress from "Desperate Housewives"). My question is, should these people go to prison or not? I see two opinions on it from browsing the Internet: 1) Yes, because otherwise it tells rich people they can still do it, get caught, and get away with a slap on the wrist at most, while taking spots away from truly deserving kids 2) No, the prisons are full enough as it is, we don't need to be adding more people for what is a much more lenient crime in comparison to things like rape/murder/theft.

The thing is, not only was she a fraud, but basically being outright evil. She claimed to have revolutionized blood testing, where they could take a small pinprick drop of blood and use it to test for all sorts of diseases and so forth. But the technology was never workable. Yet it was used on actual people, which means that they were playing with people's lives. One wonders why she didn't realize (or did she?) it would blow up eventually. I wasn't like a Ponzi scheme where hypothetically, you can keep it going if you can keep attracting new investors. With this, you needed to produce real results at some point. Very crazy woman.

Not a Netflix show, but a special, but check out "Fyre: The Greatest Party That Never Happened."

Is this going to come out on Blu-Ray/DVD/download? I have been Googling and some articles say it was released on DVD and Blu-Ray, but on Amazon, I only see some DVD/Blu-Rays that don't work on U.S. players and no streaming.

Merry Christmas

Keep in mind that if the jackpot is about $1 billion, Uncle Sam will take a nice slice of that first. Not that being maybe a $600 millionaire would be bad though.

Welcome back :)

Coolbeans

I am fine, trust me, no hard or hurt feelings at all.

The message that was up was funny: "LamboPower will be back in a few hours..." That was up the whole time! Also I notice you got rid of Wheels World (just kidding there seriously, I know that it was pretty inactive)

Same, I find the whiteness makes it harder to navigate and read.

Why do they rate the "available energy" as a certain amount of kilometers if the energy consumption increases and thus decreases the range? Or did you mean kilowatt-hours instead of km...?

Very nice, timeless design too, IMO easily looks like it could be a brand-new 2018 model.

Your original statement was the following: My point was that Apple is no different, their tech has been around forever too, just the particular execution hasn't. Same with Tesla. That is also why I used the rocket example. SpaceX has been very revolutionary, but "what technology did they invent?"

We've been launching rockets forever too, but it wasn't until Elon Musk that cheaper, reusable rockets that can land upright became available. We have been charging batteries forever too, but until Tesla, no one in the automotive industry had produced any kind of such automotive batteries and/or electric cars like Tesla has. Regarding Apple, what revolutionary tech did Apple invent? Personal computers were around before Apple came along, and so were cellphones before the iPhone. Apple executed on the concepts with existing technology and new developments and innovations they made to create truly unique products. Tesla has done the same. BTW, I am not myself comparing them with Apple, although I suppose they could be comparable to Apple's earlier years. I agree that Tesla can be open to the wolves and should not be cocky.

I understood you meant it as a figure of speech. I took it that you were saying that the tech Tesla is using has been around since the invention of the electric car, which was over 100 years ago (so "forever"). My point was that while the electric car itself has been around "forever," the electric car tech that Tesla has been using has not. Before them, no one had developed car batteries that had the range or the charging times that Teslas have.

Would disagree with you in one respect---the tech Tesla did hasn't really been around forever. Yes, "electric cars" have been around forever, but developing electric car technology to the degree that Tesla has no one had done before, and the automotive industry had claimed could not be done. Tesla has brought the concept very far, the problem is that it still isn't far enough yet. Elon Musk as of late seems to be cracking mentally which is not going to help things either. Too much pressure I suppose.

Teslas don't need brakes?

Electric cars as the technology is right now (not the price) I think are fine for DDs if you have a fixed commute and wouldn't have range anxiety, but for driving long distances, or taking trips, the technology IMO is not there yet. I drive about 26 miles to and from work each day, and would love to have a nice little electric car that had say a 300-400 mile range where I could just plug it in each night when I got home. I would have an older secondary ICE vehicle for taking long-distance trips, or escaping the area in the event of a natural disaster, etc...the problem is that the electric cars are still way too pricey. They have a ways to go still in getting the battery tech down price-wise.

If there was not any problem of people breeding certain "pitbull" breeds for fighting and violence, then yes it would be surprising. That analogy is wrong. Remember, "pitbull" breeds are not violent, with the exceptions of certain ones from unscrupulous breeders.