|Autoblog Green||2 Comments|
Aug 16th 2010 7:30PM Is the Wiesmann MF5 obscure enough? I love the style it has; augmented retro look with some absurd performance figures to back it up.
Other cars that would have a spot on my list: the gillet vertigo, the panoz esperante GT, the qvale mangusta, the morgan aero supersports, and the pagani zonda C12s. I'm sure some of these won't be obscure enough to qualify in the eyes of some of the other enthusiasts, but oh well.
Aug 16th 2010 12:13AM http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-california-200-20100816,0,7758405.story here's the LA times article that I found; it has more details than what you've posted above.
May 28th 2010 4:48PM Well, I'm not so certain about the basic licensing test, but i do know that the motorcycle licensing tests do differ from state to state. I originally received my motorcycle endorsement in South Carolina and had no problems passing either the written or the practical test. However, when I moved to North Carolina the written test was significantly more difficult and I ended up having to take it twice. They waived the practical. Now I live in missouri, but I haven't yet changed residency officially.
May 19th 2010 5:01PM I find it all a bit hypocritical at times. So many of the people who ask for noisy EVs also want quiet motorcycles. Just as the EVs need to be heard over the din of pedestrian conversation, bikes need to be heard over the full-volume stereo and sound insulation in oversized SUVs; which is what requires them to be so loud to be noticed. Yes, some do it just to get noticed; but being noticed (not the same as being distracting) is a safety feature.
Disclaimer: Yes, I ride a bike. It's completely stock.
Apr 9th 2010 7:17PM I'd like to think that this sort of thing wasn't an issue in the days when automotive companies were run by engineers and enthusiasts instead of bean counters. But frankly, I don't know the history well enough to say as much.
Mar 27th 2010 12:16PM @ TigerMil: Let me guess, you drive a suburban or an escalade, and regularly run into anyone who dares to drive something smaller. Darwinian selection at work after all...
I look forward to the day when you run across a front-end loader or a tank with the same attitude.
Mar 8th 2010 12:27AM I have a confession to make. For as much as I love sports cars (and generally despise SUVs and over-large vehicles), I have a soft spot in my heart for tractors. Why? it's a highly-refined purpose-built vehicle that's meant to be driven, used, and worked on.
My personal favorite is this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Holland_tractor.jpg
I just can't help but be impressed.
Jan 27th 2010 8:04PM [sarcasm] Yeah, the government never does anything right. Can you imagine if they built a road system? millions of dollars on each of our tax bills every month to replace dirt with asphalt. And who would use it? it's not like I ever need to leave town, or my basement for that matter. [/sarcasm]
Oct 6th 2009 2:06AM love the exterior, but why on earth is there a DVD drive inside? (check the logo on the interior shots) And why does it have a zipper over it? I understand that concepts by their very nature are obliged to do things differently, but that just seems asinine considering their target market.
Sep 26th 2009 3:39PM just to be pedantic... There are no "proofs" (in the scientific definition of the word) in any science other than Mathematics. What science can do is show statistical significance against a null hypothesis.
So having said that, no, you cannot "prove" iridology to be false; nor can iridologists prove it to be a legitimate discipline.
As far as scientists are concerned; it's outright quackery. Do a google scholar search for Iridology (here's the address for the lazy: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=iridology ) and you'll see the first few studies there show that iridology consistently fails to accurately diagnose a disease state.
And peer reviewed journals are really as close to "proof" as you can get.