My downstairs neighbor is from PA, and whenever he goes to visit, he brings home a case or two.  I've had the regular and the black and tan.  Neither knocked me on my butt, but both were perfectly good.

If you want some genuinely regional beer, and you happen to live in Massachusetts (especially western MA), try anything made by Berkshire Brewing Company.  They're small, but getting larger, and starting to distribute more widely in Boston.  Their Steel Rail pale ale is their signature, and it's one of the only pale beers I'll gladly drink.  They also make one of the thickest porters I've ever seen.

They're also interesting in that one of their signatures is that they don't bottle in 12 oz bottles.  Their smallest is a 22 oz, and they mainly do growlers, which is best described as a jug o' beer.  A (lousy) picture, showing the growlers on the left and right.  Note that the other bottles are the 22 oz. variety.

Highly recommended to try any of their stuff if you see it.  The Cambridge Common bar regularly has their stuff on tap.

Also, one of the shocks of moving to Boston from western MA was the sudden uptick in the price of beer.  The two liquor stores near me both charge $7-9 for decent (Sam Adams-level) beer 6 packs, and $15 for a 12.  I miss the days of a dollar a bottle decent beer.

 

BBC is my favorite all-around brewery, period. I can usually get Steel Rail Ale at a Weymouth pub called Union Brew House. Other than that, drinking BBC's lineup is one of the main attractions of my annual week-long vacation in the Berkshires. Last year I brought nine growlers back home with me. A growler being a gallon jug of draft beer. Steel Rail, Lost Sailor IPA, Berkshire Ale...it's all good.

Yeah, I didn't realize it wasn't available out west. That's why the thread sort of struck me as slightly strange. Sort of like saying, "Today I tried an exotic beer called a Mil...ler.....Lite?"

It's so common around here I figured it was everywhere. On tap, in the grocery store, etc.

I agree it's nothing that will make you sit up and go, "WOW!" but it's reliable, like a well-worn T-shirt or a comfortable pair of shoes. I consider it our "house beer." It's the stuff you pull out for company and say, "Here, have a beer" without feeling a twinge of selfishness.

Ahhhhh, so it's Sam Adams! The bottom rung of good beer. I ought to trademark that.

looks like Locke is setting up to be the big head guy next season. unless he totally fs up and gets killed off

Personally I love my world and the internet, but if I was trapped on a tropical island that healed me up and provided whatever i needed...whatever I needed.....Id not mind staying there a bit.

Kate's desire to leave is the least believable of all. She's a fugitive with no family or prospects back in the big wide world. But then, she's turned into a pretty inconsistent character in many ways.

I wonder who's bankrolling this? I don't think either Caesar IV or SimCity Societies were very successful, although I don't follow such things anymore. CotN didn't exactly hit it out of the park, either. Maybe they can take the Stardock approach to self-publishing and earn themselves some good coin from this game, but I'm skeptical unless their company philosophy has become more open and entrepreneurial than it used to be.

For you who don't know me: I was the writer on CotN. I was laid off at the end of the project, along with a bunch of QA guys, because they lacked financing for a follow-up and the writer is always the first to go when there's no major writing to do. Previously, I worked on most of the Impressions citybuilders in capacities ranging from tester to producer. I left the industry after that layoff to found Kraken Enterprises. So you can see why I'm curious about their financing and strategy. Anyway, I honestly wish them the best, and I look forward to seeing the update. Nobody else is making passable citybuilders these days so maybe they can make a good living by owning that niche.

That you've said this shows how little you understand how much health care has progressed.

That's possible. I'm interested primarily in the physical sciences, and very little in medicine. But I'm not alone in the opinion that cancer treatment has not progressed terribly far since 1971.

Here's an estimate of how much money we are spending and have spent:

We begin with the NCI budget. Set by Congress, this year's outlay (that's 2004) for fighting cancer is $4.74 billion. Critics have complained that is a mere 3.3% over last year's budget, but Uncle Sam gives prodigiously in other ways too--a fact few seem to realize. The NIH, technically the NCI's parent, will provide an additional $909 million this year for cancer research through the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and other little-noticed grant mechanisms. The Department of Veterans Affairs will likely spend just over the $457 million it spent in 2003 for research and prevention programs. The CDC will chip in around $314 million for outreach and education. Even the Pentagon pays for cancer research--offering $249 million this year for nearly 500 peer-reviewed grants to study breast, prostate, and ovarian cancer.

Now throw state treasuries into the mix--governors signed 89 cancer-related appropriations from 1997 to 2003--plus the fundraising muscle of cancer charities, cancer centers, and research hospitals, which together will raise some $2 billion this year from generous donors, based on recent tax forms. And finally, that huge spender Big Pharma. The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development estimates that drug companies will devote about $7.4 billion, or roughly a quarter of their annual R&D spending, to products for cancer and metabolic and endocrine diseases.

When you add it all up, Americans have spent, through taxes, donations, and private R&D, close to $200 billion, in inflation-adjusted dollars, since 1971.

Here's an overview of what that's achieved:

--Even adjusting for age, the percentage of Americans dying from cancer is about the same as it was in 1971 (when Nixon declared the war on cancer) or even back in 1950! Meanwhile, age-adjusted deaths from heart disease have been slashed by 59 percent and from stroke by 69 percent during that same half-century.

--The much-vaunted improvement in survival from cancer is largely a myth. "Survival gains for the more common forms of cancer are measured in additional months of life," says Leaf, "not years."

--Most of the improvement in longevity of cancer patients can be attributed to life style changes (the promotion of which has not been a conspicuous priority for the National Cancer Institute) and especially to early detection.

--The few dramatic breakthroughs (such as in Hodgkin's disease) mainly occurred in the early days of the war on cancer. There has been little substantial progress in recent decades despite nearly ubiquitous claims to the contrary.

--According to one biostatistician at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, long-term survival from common cancers such as prostate, breast, colorectal and lung "has barely budged since the 1970s."

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2004/03/22/365076/index.htm
http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/news/story.asp?newsId=140

I'm sure that we've learned a lot about cancer in the past 35 years. I hope that we are verging on some serious results, with this knowledge base and the new genetic and nanotech tools at our disposal.

Setting up a moon base or exploring Mars is suited to large-scale government projects with big budgets. The result is easily defined and the challenges are manageable, because there are no major mysteries to overcome. Cancer research does not work like that. If we had shut down NASA after Project Apollo and spend all of that money on cancer research, would we have half as much cancer now, or be twice as close to a cure? I am unconvinced. I don't think it's the kind of problem that yields easily to big wads of money.

Finally tried it when I was on the East Coast a while back... nothing to write home about.  More overrated beer flavored water.

Oh, so it's like...um...that other trendy beer that all the kids drink now? You know, the skunky green-bottle one. Ah yes, Stella Artois. If Yuengling is another fizzy yellow beer like Stella, it would explain why it made no impression on me.

It's not like Stella.

OK, that looks tasty. The next time I encounter it, I shall try a Yuengling.

Finally tried it when I was on the East Coast a while back... nothing to write home about.  More overrated beer flavored water.

Oh, so it's like...um...that other trendy beer that all the kids drink now? You know, the skunky green-bottle one. Ah yes, Stella Artois. If Yuengling is another fizzy yellow beer like Stella, it would explain why it made no impression on me.

The lack of updates has worn them out and some are suggesting they have info that implies things aren't looking very good. 

Everyone has info that implies things aren't looking very good. No matter how you cut it, no matter how much we appreciate Rip's service to OO, it can't be denied that this whole thing has been a failure of epic proportions. It's just ridiculous that it's taking this long and it's ridiculous that we're not being given updates.

The saddest thing is that there's no intentional reason for it. At least, none that I can grok. "It just happened." Hunh? 

I'm sure I must have had Yuengling before. It must not have made any impression on me.

I'm between favorites at the moment. I drank all the Sierra Nevada ESB I could get my hands on, but that's all gone now. SN's Summer Ale is merely meh. My normal summer go-to beers are Harpoon UFO (wheat beer) and Harpoon's IPA. Both are excellent fallbacks, but I haven't found that special seasonal yet.

I'm dealing with a dying Dell battery right now. I rarely use battery power, and my 9-cell lasted nearly 3 years. Not too bad for a disposable item. Dell wants $150 for a new one that comes with lots of bad reviews. Ebay wants $60. How much worse can eBay's battery be?

None. Dell is just ripping you off.

And BTW - my battery lasted 12.5 months, and I also rarely used battery power. And it magically went from its usual 2.5 to 3 hours of life to under 15 minutes overnight.

Mine died just as suddenly. Over the years it gradually fell from 3.5 hours to a still-respectable 2.5. Then, one day last week, my battery monitor went directly from showing 1 hour left to 6 minutes, and I started getting the "your battery is dying" popup every time I boot.

Batteries wear out. Although Dell seems to get a disproportionate number of battery complaints, the problem is hardly unique to them. The $60 eBay replacement comes with a 9-month warranty, so that's the way I'll go.

What "important thing" would NASA's $14B annual budget solve that outweighs surrendering manned space capability to the Russians and Chinese?

It doesn't bother you in the least that NASA's budget is 3x what the Federal Government sponsors in cancer research?  Or that 14 billion is 3 billion more than all of the cancer funding (private and public) conducted in the US?

It doesn't bother me. Underfunding of cancer research wouldn't get any better with further funding slashes to NASA and low cancer funds isn't linked to NASA funding at all.

Government financing is supplemented by private fundraising and drug company research. There isn't much incentive for private investment in space exploration. And would a big infusion of extra money lead to cures any sooner? We've been waging war on cancer since the Nixon administration. Cancer still shows no sign of surrender.

Stop trying to make it sound like NASA is the most obvious source of budget cutting in the federal government.  You could raise many times $14b by eliminating much less needed programs.

OK, it's a cheap shot, but I can't resist...for the cost of invading Iraq we could have colonized the moon, established outposts on Mars, sent expeditions to the moons of the outer solar system, and carpet-bombed the solar system with robotic rovers and landers. Oh: and the casualties for doing all of that could've probably been tallied on your fingers. Which would you rather have for your $trillions?

Either you're excited about space exploration, or you aren't. No argument can make you feel the wonder of seeing an alien environment for the first time. Please don't begrudge us who think that that exploring the galaxy is about the most noble thing that government can aspire to.

I have a question:

Why is it that google earth has access to sattelite images that allow me to see individual people standing on different levels of the Eiffel Tower in Paris but the best NASA can do is show me a blurry turquoise colored blob for a car sized lander on the surface of Mars?

Google has more money.

I'm dealing with a dying Dell battery right now. I rarely use battery power, and my 9-cell lasted nearly 3 years. Not too bad for a disposable item. Dell wants $150 for a new one that comes with lots of bad reviews. Ebay wants $60. How much worse can eBay's battery be?

Clearly, my email turned him around.

You and me both, there, metalboner.

I am relieved that I no longer have to oppose him (although I don't entirely trust his conversion). As long as the candidates are all on board with Ares/Orion, I don't care about all the boring minor issues like Iraq and health care and the children.

how about if NASA stops charging companies less than it actually costs to launch their statellites into space. If we weren't subsidizing these companies they would have to pay market rates and private companies would be able to compete against NASA. This would open up space operations into the private market.

While a robust domestic launch capability is undeniably a matter of national security, I'd be fine with private companies taking over that function...but I don't think they can compete without government subsidies. Not as long as the Europeans and Russians are offering subsidized launch services.

I don't know why space exploration shouldn't be privatized.  We've got enough problems on earth we could spend our money on.

Routine stuff like launching commercial satellites could (maybe should) be privatized. Exploration is always far more expensive, it's risky, and it's never directly profitable. Thank Eisenhower we have a civilian agency chartered to do it, or only the military would ever develop new techniques and infrastructure. And they don't share so good.

[2 feet shorter]

The internet says that a 2009 Forester has 68 cu ft max cargo capacity, vs. 42 cu ft for the Fit.

Considering the Fit is 2 feet shorter in length, 4 inches narrower, 5 inches shorter in height and 750 pounds lighter, it would be rather a surprise if it could match the cargo capacity.

  Well the Fit owners make it sound like a TARDIS, so I thought it might come closer than it does. 26 cu ft is a lot of space to give up...although I still intend to pitch the idea when I can get her interested in a new car. She really doesn't want to part with her old Forester, and probably won't until an emergency repair forces her hand.

It occurs to me to ask why you removed the RE050s from a new Miata after only 500 miles?

The RE050s are not suited for track/autocross driving. Typically, changing out the OEM rubber is the very first thing anyone can do to a car to steal a little more performance.   With a few exceptions, OEM tires are pretty much fair to middling at best, as far as performance goes.

I'd forgotten that you race Miatas. Although I've always toyed with taking mine out on a track, I doubt that I ever will.

I think that my Toyos are better tires than the Re050s, and I expect that I can get quite a few more miles from them, so I'm going to resist the temptation to store a set of backup tires in my garage. Thanks again for the offer. I hate walking away from a bargain.

The internet says that a 2009 Forester has 68 cu ft max cargo capacity, vs. 42 cu ft for the Fit. I don't think the Bride is going to go for that much of a downsize. Too bad...it's $5,000 cheaper and gets 8 more mpg. (sigh)

The plastic underbody strip yielded compliantly to my gluey ministrations, and a few small strips of duct tape should keep it nice and solid. The thing looks like it was designed to break away easily.

So all that's left is replacing the spoiler. No urgency there. Maybe I'll fashion one from duct tape and glue it on.

Today I took some Krazy Glue to the rubber flaps on my sidewalls, and did an admirable cosmetic repair on the gouges. The car passed inspection. My Toyos have 15-20k miles of tread life left, which is why I was so reluctant to replace them. I resolve to allow a lot more room when backing into curbside parking spaces from now on. The wheels and sidewalls on the right side of my car have many scrapes and scratches. Those on the left are like new.

This afternoon I'm going to see if Krazy Glue can also address that plastic skirt piece. I have great faith in Krazy Glue and duct tape.

We need to replace the Bride's Lesboru later this year. She loves her Forester and would drive it until the wheels fall off, which is great -- gives us time to save up a down payment now that my Miata is paid off. But it's 9 years old and has 125k miles...I'd like to replace it before snow flies this year.

I've been trying to talk her into looking at a Fit. She wants another Forester. She likes driving a beater with lots of space for hauling around her junk. I don't know if the Fit is in the same league as the Forester for cargo room. Anyway, the testimonials here are encouraging. I suppose I ought to scare up statistics on both vehicles.   

I'm driving a 1997 Subaru Outback, and I was worried about cargo space.  I think that the Fit will have compareable, if not more cargo space than the Forrester.  Plus the gas mileage difference between the Fit and the AWD Subaru's will be huge.  My Outback is a PIG.

Her Forester approaches 25 mpg, thanks to having a standard transmission. Not too bad, but obviously not in the Fit's category. I wonder how permanently carrying 100 pounds of assorted junk would affect the Fit's ride and mileage.

We need to replace the Bride's Lesboru later this year. She loves her Forester and would drive it until the wheels fall off, which is great -- gives us time to save up a down payment now that my Miata is paid off. But it's 9 years old and has 125k miles...I'd like to replace it before snow flies this year.

I've been trying to talk her into looking at a Fit. She wants another Forester. She likes driving a beater with lots of space for hauling around her junk. I don't know if the Fit is in the same league as the Forester for cargo room. Anyway, the testimonials here are encouraging. I suppose I ought to scare up statistics on both vehicles.   

I also have a follow up question for Neal:     I read scattering of reports about reliability questions for the MINI last night.     Are these things reliable?

When I shopped the Mini four years ago, I reluctantly ruled it out because it was too new to have reliable reliability ratings. The few reports I could find were weak. The Miata, OTOH, had been getting stellar reliability and customer satisfaction ratings for literally decades, and that's what I ultimately bought.

The Mini has four more years of experience under its belt now, but I'd do a little more digging if reliability is as big a factor for you as it is for me. FWIW, Consumer Reports has ratings for the convertible S for 2005 and 06. The Mini's lowest marks were in Predicted Reliability (Good) and Ride (Fair). Under reliability, fuel system, engine cooling, and drive system all ranked below average in 05, but all of those ratings improved in 06, so that only Fuel System remained sub-par. I know people don't put much stock in CR, and those ratings are for older models...but it's something to look into anyway.

Why didn't they name this mission "Viking 3"? It feels like a rerun, except our greater familiarity with the Martian surface dulls the excitement that accompanied those first Viking panoramas, with their red rocks and pink sky. I hope Phoenix's science results are more definitive than the Vikings were.

Because, this is essentially the mission that replaces the failed Mars Polar Lander from years back. The mission that caused a lot of sadness and depression within NASA due to its failure. The one that made NASA second-guess itself. The one that made us wonder if we should just give up space exploration altogether.

The mission that failed to translate metric to english system measurements, IIRC. The Vikings landed in the most sterile desert, while Phoenix is aiming for the wettest place they know. But it's still a lineal descendant of the Viking landers.

Here's the case for hoping it doesnt find life. I don't agree, but it's a fun argument anyway. The setup:

If they were wise, they'd hope that our probes discover nothing. It would be great news to find that Mars is a completely sterile planet.

On the other hand, if we discovered traces of some simple extinct life form - a bacterium, some algae - it would be bad news. If we found fossils of something even more advanced, like a trilobite or even the skeleton of a small mammal, it would be horrible news. The more complex the life we found, the more depressing. Scientifically interesting, yes, but dire news for the future of the human race.

Why? To understand the real meaning of such a discovery is to realize just what it means that the universe has been so silent for so long - why we have been listening for other civilizations for decades and yet have heard nothing.

Tornadoes scare the bejezus out of me. I saw three of them, and the aftermath of many, many more, while growing up in Michigan. I have recurring nightmares about tornadoes, and even though they're exceedingly rare in New England, I still get the heebie-jeebies when the sky turns green and the clouds start to swirl.

Why didn't they name this mission "Viking 3"? It feels like a rerun, except our greater familiarity with the Martian surface dulls the excitement that accompanied those first Viking panoramas, with their red rocks and pink sky. I hope Phoenix's science results are more definitive than the Vikings were.

Given that California's domestic partnerships already gave gay couples the same rights and responsibilities as marriage from the standpoint of state law,  what does this change, other than having it called "marriage" instead of "domestic partnerships"?

As it was explained to me, "separate but equal isn't equal."

[but they have expensive bulbs that burn out]

2. Pick a technology. They all have pluses and minuses. Projection sets are the cheapest, but they have expensive bulbs that burn out, often have limited viewing angles, and might be a dying technology. Plasma sets are tremendous energy hogs that put out a lot of waste heat. LCDs can have washed-out black levels and less vivid colors. Read up on the pros and cons of each technology and choose the one that matters to you. We went with LCD for various reasons, including lower power consumption and a non-reflective, matte screen.

The bolded part is not necessarily true. A lot of the newer DLP sets are using LED backlighting which, if you do any research, should point you to those sets having a longer lifetime than even an LCD or Plasma set barring some kind of other internal malfunction.

I did not know that. That would certainly give projection technology a new shot in the arm.

Yup.  Big Space has finally got its hooks into him.

NASA very wisely established R&D facilities in every state in the Union, and their $14B annual budget is spread around accordingly. It enjoys very wide support. Pork for everyone!

I understood Obama's original desire to take a macro look at the manned space program. Moon/Mars is not necessarily the One True Path that must guide us for the next 25 years. But we're about to become dependent on Russia for manned space access for at least two years, and possibly longer if Ares/Orion hit development snags. Obama's earlier position would have not only closed off orbital access indefinitely, it would have dispersed NASA's talent to the point that we might not have ever been able to recover. That was an astonishingly short-sighted idea. I am very glad that, for whatever reason, he understands that we are committed to developing this vehicle to keep a basic, vital capability alive. We do not have the luxury of starting over.

Srsly. Spend the money combating things important

What "important thing" would NASA's $14B annual budget solve that outweighs surrendering manned space capability to the Russians and Chinese?

Do I try to sell myself, trade, or do I go down to somewhere like carmax?

I've always found a trade-in to be a very valuable bargaining chit. Every time I've ever traded in a car, I've gotten more than I could have sold it for -- and saved the hassle of having to sell it. For some reason (accounting or commissions, I imagine) dealers prefer to get a higher nominal price and then discount it. I think they have considerable leeway over what they can offer for trades, since no actual money is involved -- it's all just numbers on paper.

Of course, the condition of your vehicle and its marketability will come into play. When I traded in my Saturn SC2, they gave me double what I expected because the body was in very good condition and the interior was clean. Sports coupes are always in demand. Since you are part of a tidal wave of people trying to ditch gas guzzlers right now, you're likely to take a hit whichever way you go.

I don't know anything about carmax.

While you are right about gas guzzler tidal wave, you overlook the fact that the FJ is somewhat of a niche vehicle.     I see quite a few brand new FJ's driving around town here.    They aren't your typical SUV.

All the more reason to trade it.

When we bought our Lesboru I was coy about whether or not I was going to trade in my Saturn. On the theory that the dealer will jack up the price if he knows that a trade-in will bring it back down, I wanted to get the best possible nominal price, and THEN talk about the trade/no trade aspect. I always intended to keep the Saturn. I don't know if that tactic made any difference or not -- refusing to commit before the price was settled drove the salesman crazy, so maybe there was something to my theory.

If the dealer won't give you what you think your FJ is worth, you can always sell it yourself after you buy your Mini. Like I said, I have always gotten more in trade than I thought I could get by selling a car myself. But then, I'm lazy about going through that process, so there's a hassle avoidance factor at work too.

1. Decide what size is right for you. If you have a small room and will sit close to the TV, you want a smaller screen than if it's farther away. Our TV is only about 8' away from our seating, so we found 42" to be plenty big. You don't want to have to move your head back and forth to see the whole image. I actually got some cardboard and made cutouts of a couple of candidate sets' dimensions, just so we could see how they would really fit our little living room.

2. Pick a technology. They all have pluses and minuses. Projection sets are the cheapest, but they have expensive bulbs that burn out, often have limited viewing angles, and might be a dying technology. Plasma sets are tremendous energy hogs that put out a lot of waste heat. LCDs can have washed-out black levels and less vivid colors. Read up on the pros and cons of each technology and choose the one that matters to you. We went with LCD for various reasons, including lower power consumption and a non-reflective, matte screen.

3. Do your brand research. There are tons of reviews online. I found that there is very little value to looking at them in showrooms, because the conditions there don't match your home, and because the retailers adjust their pictures so that the sets with the biggest markup look the best. Seeing is not believing. Since it is nearly impossible to compare picture quality yourself, pay a lot of attention to other features like sound, inputs, remote, etc. 

4. Pick a retailer. We saved a few hundred bucks by buying online. Many people are more comfortable with retail stores. They're all pretty competitive, and the deals are constantly changing.

Most of the sets on the market are pretty good. There is no clear best technology or size or manufacturer. You're probably going to be happy with whatever you buy, once you figure out which TV is right for you.

Do I try to sell myself, trade, or do I go down to somewhere like carmax?

I've always found a trade-in to be a very valuable bargaining chit. Every time I've ever traded in a car, I've gotten more than I could have sold it for -- and saved the hassle of having to sell it. For some reason (accounting or commissions, I imagine) dealers prefer to get a higher nominal price and then discount it. I think they have considerable leeway over what they can offer for trades, since no actual money is involved -- it's all just numbers on paper.

Of course, the condition of your vehicle and its marketability will come into play. When I traded in my Saturn SC2, they gave me double what I expected because the body was in very good condition and the interior was clean. Sports coupes are always in demand. Since you are part of a tidal wave of people trying to ditch gas guzzlers right now, you're likely to take a hit whichever way you go.

I don't know anything about carmax.

The internet has empowered the buyer by making it easy to find reliable cost and value information, and to play sellers off against one another. In the Olden Days one had to actually go from dealer to dealer and negotiate in person. It was wearisome and time-consuming, and the dealers still horded the information. The last time we bought a car (1999), the net was still a new factor. Dealers didn't know how to counter it yet. We insisted on using the Autobytel price as our basis for negotiation, then bought from the dealer who undercut it the most. Since then the process has gotten more and more transparent.

Well, I should come clean: The last time I bought a car was actually 2004. When you special-order a limited production model with exactly the features and color that you want -- and then agree to wait two months for the Japanese to build and deliver it -- you don't have a single bargaining chit. I did get a nicely inflated credit for my trade-in, and a below-market finance rate. And I had some kind of "family & friends" coupon for $500 off, so at least that was something. But yes, friends, I paid sticker price. 

Sticker price. Not a dime more.

Clinton and McCain both have strong pro-NASA positions. US space policy is one of three core issues for me. Bush committed NASA to the Moon/Mars Initiative, and with the shuttles retiring two years from now, there is no going back if we are to have a manned program at all. The last time I looked into it, Obama intended to suspend NASA's manned space budget pending a top-level strategy review, and divert the money to education in the meantime. This would have left the US without manned space access for the foreseeable future: what a bad idea. I sent a scathing email to his campaign explaining all of this. They didn't answer. So I reluctantly decided to oppose Obama, the enemy of human progress.

Tonight I discovered this:

Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles: The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave the United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed with technology that is already proven and available.

Clearly, my email turned him around. I am now OK with him becoming president. You may proceed with your petty concerns.

Those car accidents?  We've seen plenty accident photos posted here and no one was screaming big brother for those.

"Accidents". Yeah, right. Those drivers know they're on camera.

 

Did you even read the link I posted?  The man drove a car off a bridge, and didn't do everything in his power to save his female passenger.  He gets no sympathy from many people for that incident.

He was drunk. He gets a pass.

What size are the Mazdaspeed tires?  something like 205/45 17s IIRC??

Edit:  I see they are 205/40/17's.  I have 4 195/45/17's bridgestone Re050s that I took of an '08 Miata with lest than 500 miles on the clock.  They're yours for the price of shipping plus 100 bucks. Let me know.

I do love my Bridgestone Blizzaks. But I'm finding a lot of complaints that the RE050s are intolerably noisy once they pass about 7,000 miles. Also that they wear out fast (<15,000 miles). I need to do more research. Thanks a bunch for the offer, I might still take you up on it. The price is sure right. 

Yesterday was my day for dealing with car maintenance. It's going to be the weekend before I can think about the tires, spoiler, and underskirt again.

You're driving a Miata, running Blizzaks year 'round and you're worried about tire noise????

No, the Blizzaks are my snow tires, and very good ones they are. Last winter the Miata successfully scaled a small icy hill that several 4WD trucks had failed (thank you, standard transmission!). I run my Toyos from mid April through Thanksgiving. The only problem is a deep sidewall gouge in one tire that technically should fail inspection. I can just slap my Blizzaks on the rear, drive 0.5 mile to the inspection station, then put the Toyos right back on after I get my sticker. It's a silly waste of time and effort, but it cuts my new tire expense to $0 for the time being. 

It occurs to me to ask why you removed the RE050s from a new Miata after only 500 miles?

[The Straight Story]

The Straight Story is another overlooked gem, from David Lynch. "Alvin Straight is a very old man with a quiet life in a small country town. When his brother gets seriously sick, he decides to put away their differences and visit him after many, many years. So, alone, he begins a long journey through hundreds of miles, just to see again his brother, even if it's the last thing he will ever do... Based on a real story." He makes this pilgrimage on a riding lawnmower.

What I don't get is how my wife's computers have chronic, perpetual problems.

My wife's computers have always been a source of mystery to me. She's not dumb or careless. But her machines always run slow and crash regularly, even though she knows how to run basic maintenance programs and I occasionally give them a good going over. Every computer dies a horrible death within 2-3 years, and is succeed by another computer that runs poorly. It must just be her deleterious effect on technology in general. Some wives just emit anti-tech rays.