Croc

True story. I don't care if there may be a phantom horn, I want a 1993 Allante.

I would agree. In the 1980s the threat of the Germans was there, then with Lexus in 1990. Cadillac did the Cimmaron and Allante which were jokes. Then fumbled about for 10 years with big front drivers, before 2003 finally doing a rear drive CTS. They started to get serious about competing with the imports in 2003-2005, but they never committed enough to it, and then they just sort of let things stay stagnant, while the rest of the market improved. For 25 years Cadillac has lacked the guts to pull the trigger and really go for it, and they always resort back to trying to build a import clone of a Chevy or Buick platform and it fails. And I agree, GM had plenty of money in the 1980s and management only cared about short term profit, and didn't care if they made crap and had no long term thinking. And then the 20 years of bad decisions that we all know about that led to bankruptcy. The XTS reminds me of "old GM" thinking and product planning. It's like the late 80s when the Deville and Fleetwood, Buick Electra/Park Ave and Olds 98 were on the same platform, but at least then the Cadillac had a V8 to make it a little different. There was never a year when Cadillac didn't have a RWD car. (The Catera picks up when the Fleetwood died, the 2003 CTS was early intro in 2002) Please. The Fleetwood was the Grand Marquis of GM--ancient platform that went on and on and on. At least it got some updates, but really--it actually came with less content than the Roadmaster in some cases, namely the climate controls. Until the CTS, Cadillac never tried to build a serious car that could drive. It was stuck in the 70s with their vinyl tops, fender skirts and whitewall tires. The Catera wasn't even a real Cadillac, and it certainly did not have the build quality befitting the wreath and crest, either. I like the refreshed Cateras, but that doesn't make them Cadillacs.

I would agree. In the 1980s the threat of the Germans was there, then with Lexus in 1990. Cadillac did the Cimmaron and Allante which were jokes. Then fumbled about for 10 years with big front drivers, before 2003 finally doing a rear drive CTS. They started to get serious about competing with the imports in 2003-2005, but they never committed enough to it, and then they just sort of let things stay stagnant, while the rest of the market improved. For 25 years Cadillac has lacked the guts to pull the trigger and really go for it, and they always resort back to trying to build a import clone of a Chevy or Buick platform and it fails. And I agree, GM had plenty of money in the 1980s and management only cared about short term profit, and didn't care if they made crap and had no long term thinking. And then the 20 years of bad decisions that we all know about that led to bankruptcy. The XTS reminds me of "old GM" thinking and product planning. It's like the late 80s when the Deville and Fleetwood, Buick Electra/Park Ave and Olds 98 were on the same platform, but at least then the Cadillac had a V8 to make it a little different. The Allante wasn't a joke--I would seriously own one if the opportunity ever arose, except no one ever wants to part with theirs.

I require center armrests--both front and back.

I can imagine. Being told you can't do something must offend your libertarian sensibilities.

This is too funny...last night I finally got around to watching the random 500 Days of Summer DVD I found in my rear seat almost 9 months ago.

What an idiot driver--if you've ever seen a live reporter on the street, not only is there a LOT of equipment around, but really, really bright floodlights.

Wonderful. But it still remains that what's widely in use is this inferior, delicate form of the technology. Also, I wouldn't quite believe everything coming out of China. As someone who was involved in some high speed rail research for use in California, it turns out that a lot of what they put out in press releases is...let's just say wildly optimistic at best. If the technology exists and is ready to address all of these issues/shortcomings, then why isn't it being implemented? Why no retrofits? You can't put a price on the safety and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of people, nor can you on environmental devastation. Yes you can put a price on this. Apparently Power Plants do this all the time. Report: U.S. nuke plant problems ignored, including in Vt. Read more: Report: U.S. nuke plant problems ignored, including in Vt. | Boston Business Journal The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety in 2010 Let's put it this way: companies do it all the time, and then when a disaster strikes, or a product liability case goes public and it is revealed that these calculations were behind why the disaster struck/the defect was never rectified, there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuge public outcry over how unconscionable the practice is. There are also quite a few arguments about the methodologies behind the practice relating to their accuracy. It's one of those things that theoretically is sound, but in the real world doesn't pass muster, especially when it becomes public. So while one can do it, IMO it's simply an exercise in futility. I mean do I really have to bring up the Pinto or the 1978-1983 Chevrolet Malibu to illustrate how ridiculous this practice is? I'm pretty sure it ended up costing way more in the long run.

Backup systems still failed solely because they were under-engineered. Then they were caught with their pants down, figuratively.

Actually, I disagree entirely. The tsunami did not cause this. Human error caused this. Human error in making a series of assumptions in the construction of the plant and the seawalls. There were calculated engineering decisions made to locate the plant in its location and put some of its facilities on such low ground, and then there were assumptions on the sea walls--that they'd never be breached. The plant survived the EQ, and would have survived the tsunami had it had sufficient backup systems and did not rely on an external power source. This appears to be the critical flaw: when the external power source failed, and inadequate backup systems were in place, the cascade of failures began. Remember, this was the 5th largest EQ in recorded history (only about 200 years, honestly, if even that)...not the largest. It also occurred in the Pacific Ring of Fire--a region known for its frequent and frequently strong seismic activity. It's not like a 10.0 let rip in the middle of Manhattan.

Ugh, worst workout of the year yesterday...gotta figure out what's up with my hip flexor... Camino, do you know what caused your tennis elbow? My mother had it for a time because she brushed her teeth too vigorously, too frequently. No joke.

I LOVE IT!! It's like a Dustbuster Minivan with a pickup bed!!

At the risk of sounding like a science geek, I'm guessing because "lumina" is closer to the lumen, which has more to do with light and less to do with electricity. Honestly GM prolly just thought it had too much baggage. Whatever

Heh, if center consoles will lead the crusade against the American obesity epidemic, they can't be that bad now can they?

Agreed on the two-prong strategy. But I have this odd idea that the brand that would get canned would be Cadillac and not Buick. That is an odd idea, and certainly one that has less than a trillionth of a percent chance of happening. Agreed on Electra. Also, why "Volt"? I always thought "Lumina" would have been a much better wink-and-nod name.

I've been overtraining at the gym and I did something to make my right hip super painful when walking...oops. Yet, off to the gym I keep going. Gotta keep the calorie deficit in full swing...

Eh, there's no way anyone would ever build six geographically dispersed single-reactor plants. I agree with your first point, however. If retrofitting were impossible, then I'd call for gradual replacement--build a new, modern reactor and phase out an older, outdated one. Repeat.

"Source" was in quotation marks because you cited it as backing up your argument when like the second paragraph contradicted you, NOT because of any derision of the Times , though that is a whole topic of discussion in and of itself.

GRANDMA EXCITEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (click to enlarge)

This is too funny.

The STS' problem was entirely due to a $h!ty interior and poor materials quality. Even the conservative, ho-hum design would have sold a lot more had the interior not been so subpar. Chinese SLS was what should have been sold in America--slightly longer, much better executive-style interior.

Many of the advancements can't be retrofitted, it'd be like retrofitting a 1971 Camaro to be equal in safety and performance in every way to a 2011 Camaro. You're just as well to start from scratch. Only difference is that no one looks at a 1971 reactor and goes "that's a classic!" A number of things can be addressed with older reactors, though, and had the Japanese reactor been a little more prepared for a massive tsunami, it might not be facing the current issues (though it's becoming clear that the info we're being given is far from complete - it'll be interesting to see how much of that is Japan trying to cover their butts & how much is just because it's hard to get communication straight when dealing with an emergency.) I expect at the very least we'll see systems to ensure better reliability of backup power generation and some way to handle excess hydrogen production. Oh, it's become quite clear that the Japanese (government? Power company? Both?) have been lying to cover their asses and "save face" this whole time. That much became obvious when the US-issued guidelines for Americans entailed an evacuation zone more than twice the radius of the Japanese government's radius.

It's quite the wrong thing. Japan has been pleading with people to NOT send them earmarked aid like this. It's a big profit opportunity for American charities to get a bunch of money that Japan does not want or need. The New York Times backs me up. No, not really. From your own "source":

Remember how excited we all were when we heard the DTS was dead? Except it really just got renamed. Unless we want GM shutting down Buick, they really need a laser-like focus on their (IMO excellent) two-prong strategy of attacking both ends of the premium/luxury market.

VW's problem was unique. projections were that only 5-10 carmakers would survive globally as superpowers. they knew that one or two of the US makers would stay on that list. They knew the Japanese with a long term quality history would likely be represented with Nissan and Toyota at a minimum. They knew Hyundai would be on there, and there will be Chinese to fear. In it's own country, VW can't compete on luxury or even quality within its own borders, while overbuilding in the sense that they cannot grab for higher prices on the world scale. If VW was to survive, it has to be as a volume automaker globally. Which means they by neccessity had to downgrade their product to keep their profits. If they kept building the higher price stuff, there is still no belief they could match the Japanese on reliability, so eventually they would lose to Japan on both price and quality. So essentially VW by default has to dumb itself down some and become a commodity. VW has to be big to remain relevant globally, because they do not have the ability to survive as a smaller volume maker. The Volkswagen Group includes several brands that are not sold in the US. If they truly felt they needed to have more of a presence in the US with more volume, they should have done it through a new entry-level brand and not by diluting the prestigious VW brand. Seat and Skoda are two that come to mind that would have been great for this purpose. Anyway, didn't mean to derail the topic, but I wanted to clarify my response.