Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › An audiophile and petrolhead's journal: Buckle up!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

An audiophile and petrolhead's journal: Buckle up! - Page 36

post #526 of 7870
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

Yeah, that definitely seems like a good idea.  No need to make life more difficult for no good reason.  You did make sure you've got enough height clearance right?  With your tallest vehicle at max height I mean...
Quote:
Hey yeah, that is a sleek color.  I'll bet that in a lot of ways, you're looking forward to that drive more than the Corniche.  Kinda like coming home.  How's the new interior coming BTW?

The new interior has now turned into new paint too, and a re-chrome, and new exhaust, and ... sigh.

Oh yeah, plenty of height, 24' ceiling. Actually, here are the plans I drew up and gave to the contractor. He was impressed. We made a few small changes, but this is basically it.




Yeah, I want that grey, I'm thinking I'll go there later today and check it out.
post #527 of 7870
The lift is for loading stuff into storage, or what? (Sorry I'm not following why you need it).

Very nice layout too. I like the upstairs workshop/rec area. smily_headphones1.gif
post #528 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post


The new interior has now turned into new paint too, and a re-chrome, and new exhaust, and ... sigh.
Oh yeah, plenty of height, 24' ceiling. Actually, here are the plans I drew up and gave to the contractor. He was impressed. We made a few small changes, but this is basically it.

Yeah, I want that grey, I'm thinking I'll go there later today and check it out.

So the upstairs, is that like an auxiliary "man-cave"? (pardon the over-used cliche', lol)

post #529 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

The new interior has now turned into new paint too, and a re-chrome, and new exhaust, and ... sigh.

 

LOL, so that's why you've been a bit quiet about it lately!  Still, all good things, just more of a wait.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

Oh yeah, plenty of height, 24' ceiling. Actually, here are the plans I drew up and gave to the contractor. He was impressed. We made a few small changes, but this is basically it.

 

 

Wait, and I'm sure you've totally thought this out so forgive me if I'm asking a dumb question here, but isn't is going to be a little awkward driving onto the lift if it's in that spot?  I mean, assuming no other cars in the way, driving onto it from the back will be easy.  But going from the front is gonna require a bit of manuveuring no?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

Yeah, I want that grey, I'm thinking I'll go there later today and check it out.

 

Hope it's all good so you can pick it up buddy... it's like righting a former wrong to bring that home.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

The lift is for loading stuff into storage, or what? (Sorry I'm not following why you need it).

 

I think it's for the cars.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

Very nice layout too. I like the upstairs workshop/rec area. smily_headphones1.gif
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

So the upstairs, is that like an auxiliary "man-cave"? (pardon the over-used cliche', lol)

 

Hey, everyone needs to take a break once in a while...

post #530 of 7870
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post

The lift is for loading stuff into storage, or what? (Sorry I'm not following why you need it).
Very nice layout too. I like the upstairs workshop/rec area. smily_headphones1.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

So the upstairs, is that like an auxiliary "man-cave"? (pardon the over-used cliche', lol)

The lift is mobile, the one I'm getting actually has motorized wheels and can be moved anywhere on the bottom level, you can move it around like one of those hydraulic fork stackers.





The rec/work area is actually on L1 (Level 1) the storage area (Level 2) is just for storage. Which is good, because we're running out of space to store her our junk. *ahem* rolleyes.gif I mentioned before that she's a bit of a pack rat. The work area pretty much has to be on L1, because I'm not lugging a small block V8 upstairs, even with a lift. I'd be in the ICU for a month. LOL

Quote:
Originally Posted by warrenpchi View Post

LOL, so that's why you've been a bit quiet about it lately!  Still, all good things, just more of a wait.

Hope it's all good so you can pick it up buddy... it's like righting a former wrong to bring that home.

It's been quiet because it's thesis crunch time for Mrs Magick and we're both working like crazy on it. I mentioned that we could hire assistants to do the research and general clerical work, but she doesn't trust a 3rd party. Also, there's the garage stuff, car stuff, and family stuff. That's a lot of stuff.
Quote:
I think it's for the cars.

The beauty is that it's for both. Itz hard to tel but I has got a 151 eyeQ an sumtimez I evin uze it. biggrin.gif
Quote:
Hey, everyone needs to take a break once in a while...

Right. It's a hangout spot for watching races, or to just chill out somewhere quiet. I like to have a thinking area where I work, it helps me concentrate.
post #531 of 7870
Thread Starter 
Just a debate comment. Obama looked like was completely lost, to the point of making Romney look knowledgeable and controlled. That's quite a feat. I have to score this, using the boxing scale (basically 6 "rounds"): Obama - 53, Romney - 59. Romney scored a knockdown in the 3rd with healthcare, and another in the 4th with alternative energy sources. I'm giving the Education round to Obama, even though it was just about even. That was ugly.
Edited by Magick Man - 10/3/12 at 7:42pm
post #532 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

Just a debate comment. Obama looked like was completely lost, to the point of making Romney look knowledgeable and controlled. That's quite a feat. I have to score this, using the boxing scale (basically 6 "rounds"): Obama - 53, Romney - 59. Romney scored a knockdown in the 3rd with healthcare, and another in the 4th with alternative energy sources. I'm giving the Education round to Obama, even though it was just about even. That was ugly.

 

LOL, didn't even watch.  I live in Los Angeles, CA.  I can't even begin to describe how my vote does not matter at all one way or the other.

 

In other news, that avatar thread has become particularly awesome as of late.  Either that or we've been way too bored for way too long. 

post #533 of 7870
Thread Starter 
I feel you. I'm in Tenn-a-frickin-see. They vote Republican, always Republican (except one time for Clinton), so mine doesn't amount to much on a national level either. Funny thing is, I vote Dem in locals, almost always, but vote 3rd party in nationals. Because the Dems around here are basically Libertarians; relaxed on social issues and conservative on economy. Anyway, I usually write in someone like Clint Eastwood. It's a protest sort of thing.
post #534 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

Anyway, I usually write in someone like Clint Eastwood. It's a protest sort of thing.

 

LOL, I think that's the way to go.  I'll probably just write in my own name.  We could do worse... wink.gif

post #535 of 7870

With the electoral college setup, our individual votes in the national elections are pretty meaningless, I think. I've considered writing in someone before but never actually done it.

 

I wonder how many people it would take, nationwide, writing in wildly funny candidates, to make the point that the electoral college is outdated and needs to be abolished? Maybe I'll vote for a fictional character, instead of going for the lesser of two evils like I usually do. Maybe a proven leader, like Captain America?

post #536 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

Maybe a proven leader, like Captain America?

 

Or Heywood Jablome?

post #537 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magick Man View Post

I feel you. I'm in Tenn-a-frickin-see. They vote Republican, always Republican (except one time for Clinton), so mine doesn't amount to much on a national level either. Funny thing is, I vote Dem in locals, almost always, but vote 3rd party in nationals. Because the Dems around here are basically Libertarians; relaxed on social issues and conservative on economy. Anyway, I usually write in someone like Clint Eastwood. It's a protest sort of thing.

Andrew Jackson and H Ross Perrot - they alternate for all positions. Except local public servants (like transit authority). I did not watch the debate; I got the heck out of dodge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

With the electoral college setup, our individual votes in the national elections are pretty meaningless, I think. I've considered writing in someone before but never actually done it.

I wonder how many people it would take, nationwide, writing in wildly funny candidates, to make the point that the electoral college is outdated and needs to be abolished? Maybe I'll vote for a fictional character, instead of going for the lesser of two evils like I usually do. Maybe a proven leader, like Captain America?

Mickey Mouse gets a considerable number of write-ins every year. And the Electoral College doesn't negate the popular vote, it makes the system more equitable. A direct-vote would be chaotic (ignoring that you'd have a nightmare on your hands to keep it honest) - it would make smaller states or sparsely populated regions completely worthless to the Federal level, and all the candidates would have to do is campaign a few large metroplexes and they could win the election. Seriously places like Wyoming and Montana would just cease to exist to the Federal level (combined they represent less people than even a portion of New York). Doing a mass-write in, or otherwise not producing a majority of Electoral votes, would not send the message you have in mind; and it's been done before.

The more rational and statistically relevant reform to the Electoral College, which would be state-level (not Federal) is to do proportional voting. It would allow third parties to gain more traction, and it would help counter the issue that created the 2000 Election results. Two states currently do this. Basically it would maintain the Electorate, but it would defeat the relevance of "Swing States" because the vote could split. So this BS wouldn't happen as frequently:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/2004CampaignAttention_(edit).png

If you went pure-popular, that would get even worse. You'd just see visits to major population centers, and nowhere else. Because again, if I were running for President, and it was a pure popular vote, I want sheer numbers. Why do I even waste the time going somewhere like Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, etc? (Combined those states have less people than NYC) With the Electoral College, that problem is at least *somewhat* managed, and if the thing were equalized (either go back to letting legislators pick the electors (because then you know, people might care about who their legislators are), or let the votes split) it would help flatten the distribution out.

It should also be noted that it's kind of antithetical to the vein of the Constitution to provide a direct popular vote for the Executive (because, you know, we already do that for Congress, and historically Electors were picked by legislatures, not a popular vote). But people in the US are ignorant and believe the President can do all sorts of magical and fantastic things, like create laws, amend the constitution, declare war, raise taxes, set the budget, create jobs, and generally act as some sort of Daddy Warbucks meets Jesus Christ hybrid that will appear to solve all of their problems (assuming they pick the right guy), and so on - so they feel that's the person they should worry about and elect based on that person's social policy views.
post #538 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by obobskivich View Post


Andrew Jackson and H Ross Perrot - they alternate for all positions. Except local public servants (like transit authority). I did not watch the debate; I got the heck out of dodge.
Mickey Mouse gets a considerable number of write-ins every year. And the Electoral College doesn't negate the popular vote, it makes the system more equitable. A direct-vote would be chaotic (ignoring that you'd have a nightmare on your hands to keep it honest) - it would make smaller states or sparsely populated regions completely worthless to the Federal level, and all the candidates would have to do is campaign a few large metroplexes and they could win the election. Seriously places like Wyoming and Montana would just cease to exist to the Federal level (combined they represent less people than even a portion of New York). Doing a mass-write in, or otherwise not producing a majority of Electoral votes, would not send the message you have in mind; and it's been done before.

The more rational and statistically relevant reform to the Electoral College, which would be state-level (not Federal) is to do proportional voting. It would allow third parties to gain more traction, and it would help counter the issue that created the 2000 Election results. Two states currently do this. Basically it would maintain the Electorate, but it would defeat the relevance of "Swing States" because the vote could split. So this BS wouldn't happen as frequently:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/2004CampaignAttention_(edit).png

If you went pure-popular, that would get even worse. You'd just see visits to major population centers, and nowhere else. Because again, if I were running for President, and it was a pure popular vote, I want sheer numbers. Why do I even waste the time going somewhere like Wyoming, Vermont, the Dakotas, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, etc? (Combined those states have less people than NYC) With the Electoral College, that problem is at least *somewhat* managed, and if the thing were equalized (either go back to letting legislators pick the electors (because then you know, people might care about who their legislators are), or let the votes split) it would help flatten the distribution out.

It should also be noted that it's kind of antithetical to the vein of the Constitution to provide a direct popular vote for the Executive (because, you know, we already do that for Congress, and historically Electors were picked by legislatures, not a popular vote). But people in the US are ignorant and believe the President can do all sorts of magical and fantastic things, like create laws, amend the constitution, declare war, raise taxes, set the budget, create jobs, and generally act as some sort of Daddy Warbucks meets Jesus Christ hybrid that will appear to solve all of their problems (assuming they pick the right guy), and so on - so they feel that's the person they should worry about and elect based on that person's social policy views.

 

I like the sound of the proportional voting, and certainly making a third party option more relevant would be a good thing.

That is a good point on the pure-popular consequences, that I had not considered.  And you're spot-on about what people here think the President can actually do.

post #539 of 7870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achmedisdead View Post

I like the sound of the proportional voting, and certainly making a third party option more relevant would be a good thing.
That is a good point on the pure-popular consequences, that I had not considered.  And you're spot-on about what people here think the President can actually do.

One other thing to note, and I haven't done the research to make this statement unequivocally, but "knee-jerk" I want to say that third-parties have gained continuously more press and relevance since Perrot's run in '92. For example Gary Johnson has enough Electors that he is statistically capable of winning in 2012 (I don't think he will, but he has an equal opportunity as Obama and Romney). I think the general dissent towards the "establishment" is what fuels this, but again, I haven't actually spent the time to look into this seriously (the dissent thing is actually based on accepted theory, but I haven't actually gone out and pulled the numbers to look at the US).
post #540 of 7870

And now for something completely different...

 

So I'm going through my music library picking out ideal tracks to feature in the my next few reviews...  Earlier this evening, I come across a song that I have never heard, by a band that I do not know.  That's was weird in and of itself.  But here's the kicker, upon listening to it, I'm realizing that I REALLY LIKE IT!

 

It's Burning Up by Alpinestars.  Have you guys ever heard of them?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › An audiophile and petrolhead's journal: Buckle up!