Croc

No, Iowa isn't. There's a reason they have the first D primaries in the election cycle.

It varies state to state, actually.

Yeah, 80 is no big deal here. Sorry, Shadow, no road deficiencies, maybe just some driving deficiencies.

Disagree, almost entirely. If speeding is such a problem with over 10,000 accidents in less than 5 years, then I think it is pretty obvious that this stretch of road is poorly designed. If traffic is able to go that quickly, and it is deemed a problem, then maybe one lane per direction should be converted for truck use, bus use, carpool only, etc. in a way to reduce capacity and increase congestion to a point that people are driving at a safe speed? Of course, I have no idea what those speeds you listed are, and for all I know 130kph could be no biggie at all, and you're just whining. I have no clue--but if the problem is widespread, the design of the highway is lacking.

Going under the speed limit when conditions do not permit is being a traffic hazard, and can warrent a ticket. But unless there are "slow traffic keep right" signs, there is no obligation to go faster the further left your lane is.

QFT. Yeah, flash-to-pass is legal in many states (hence the owner's manual reference), but it isn't widely done, and most people think you're just being a jackass.

Or in LA we put on our turn signals and just start moving over in between two cars (when you almost have it, but not quite) and usually the person slows and lets you in. Or they honk and they don't, but the next guy will. You can also use your BRAKES and get in behind someone else instead of in front of them.

Sorry, dude, but yeah, you were actually the jackass on the road. You're telling me you could not get over for 1-2 miles, that traffic was bumper-bumper on either side of you but the person in front of you was going too slowly at 50? Makes no sense. In LA I can get over 2-3 lanes in 1/4 mile under the heaviest traffic conditions. Sounds to me that you were just impatient, and in the process revealing some racist tendancies. Not cool. And unless there are signs plastered everywhere "Slower traffic keep right" there are no separate speed limits for each lane on a freeway.

I think this is a really nicely done vehicle. Color me impressed.

You have Google, don't you?

Haha no, I'm well aware you are against any government regulation what-so-ever (or so it seems)...I thought the implication was that you felt like the government was attempting in some way to regulate speech. I guess I overthought it, or something... No worries.

Camino, with all due respect, the impression I get from your repeated replies of "it can't...it just can't because it can't" is the same impression I get from any GM lifer talking about how GM can't do this for Buick because they have to do it for Cadillac, or why GM can't do something for Pontiac because it steps on Chevrolet, or they can't give Pontiac competitive product because they just gave it all to Saturn. When you close your mind to the possibilities that may exist beyond the comfort zone of "the way things have always been," you really limit your options. I'm just sayin'... ...and this is my last word on this.

He works for BMW now. GM has corporate ADD and changes its mind rapidly about these kinds of things...I don't doubt PCS has some inside info that is still relevant, but how long is that going to last? He isn't going to be "in the know" much longer, if he ever really was. Anyone can post fantastic projections of the future on an anonymous message board, and credibly with enough grains of truth behind them. Of course, why would someone post things online if they are really that well-connected, knowing that their employment will be in jeopardy when (not if) GM finds out.

Don't be snide. Your argument only holds water if the assumption is that the present sales channel structure will hold, and GM has already been thinking about switching it up. Remember the idea floated a few months ago to add SAAB to Cadillac-HUMMER? Nothing is set in stone, especially where dealers and sales channels are concerned.

Of course we have. But there is a difference between playing with a 99c Bic lighter and playing with a flamethrower--one just is not prudent any way you look at it.

I don't get what the big deal is...?

Exactly--or not. But at this point it is all purely speculative. There is not sufficient proof to definitely say that Buick and GMC will die without Pontiac, just like there isn't enough proof to definitively say Pontiac is going the way of the Dodo. Oakland went away and the rest of GM soldiered on. Oldsmobile went away and other brands didn't catastrophically suffer directly because of that. Pontiac is not some kind of lynchpin for half of GM's "volume" sales channels.

Yes, and you also have a right to be offended, and being America, you have the choice to exercise either one of your rights at whim. I don't know why you seemingly inserted a non-sequitor about government regulating speech--the 1st Amendment is pretty well-worn legal territory, so I don't know why you're bringing it up as if it were up for debate...?

No, I read the whole thing. I'm well aware that you are viewing the one process as the greater, modern extent of the other process, and while you are absolutely free to believe that, I do not think the two are comparable at all. You don't just add one gene here, one gene there, and voila, you have a better ___ . No, in order to get the one gene in, you have to alter others or replace others so the desired gene will "stick." DNA mutates all the time, but more often than not the single, slight mutations don't get noticed because we just don't know everything that's going on functionally. To take an example from the human world...certain genetic abnormalities/mutations exist in people. Some, like Down's Syndrome, are easy to detect. Others, though, are more internalized. Some people, as we all know, are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancer. We don't really know about that until later in life when someone gets gene tracking done, or a doctor does a test, because the abnormality generally lies nascent for a very long time. So when you add genes to plants for pest resistance, or draught resistance, there is a massive flirtation with the laws of unintended consequences because as far as we can tell, we still have an apple. It's red, it has an apple taste, everything seems the same except that it is more resistant to whatever. But when we eat that apple, we don't know how our bodies will respond to the new gene. And any ill effects would take a looooooooong time to come to the surface because we do not subsist entirely on apples, and not all apples in the food supply would have this genetic modification. When things are hybridized, say two types of apples bred into a third, well, each on their own can be processed no problem by the human body, and if they were bred they still will be. But you can't breed an apple with a potato, so introducing potato genes to an apple, there's no telling how it will process.

The only silver lining here for me is that GM's involvement seems limited to the provision of OnStar...so presumably GM is making money here.

There is a massive logical fallacy here because of your underlying assumption that the sales channels will be kept intact as-is. There is no reason to believe this assumption is true. Fact: the core brands as GM has identified are Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet and GMC, with Pontiac as a niche brand. Fact: the only brands GM has expressed a desire to remove from its portfolio are SAAB, Saturn and HUMMER. Fact: President Obama specifically praised Buick during his speech: Now, assuming GM's core strategy with its brands does not change, even with retaining Pontiac as a niche brand, what could happen? Pontiac could be paired with Chevrolet dealerships. I bet they'd love to have the G8 next to the Camaro in showrooms. No Chevrolet Nomad, so look, there's the Solstice. I bet G6 coupe/convertible sales would improve if they were in big volume Chevrolet showrooms, and they offer something the Malibu does not. Buick could easily be paired with Cadillac. I don't feel I need to explain how this would work. GMC could also be sold with Cadillac and Buick. Look! You now have two sales channels: Volume and Premium! Wow, it makes logical sense, too!

This atheist has morals, but is not necessarily tied to an inscribed set of moral values as defined by a centralized "morality police" governing body. This atheist was also not offended in the least by KC's post, and thinks that anyone who was needs to stop taking themselves so damn seriously.

Not quite. Breeding/hybridization is different from "genetic modification." Breeding/hybridization allows the natural fertilizing processes to combine genes "the old fashioned way," while GMOs involve active manipulation of the genetic code, and sometimes interactions aren't as well understood as they should be. For example, if you wanted your corn to glow in the dark, you use this one protein that makes things glow green. No amount of hybridization or breeding will ever yield glowing green corn, but a quick little GMO will. IMO the real danger is when you ADD something to the genetic makeup of something instead of combining existing traits to produce a uniformly better what-have-you. Of course, even breeding has its limitations, as roses used to be exponentially more fragrant prior to selective breeding for color.

That's a coolant leak.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Good grief, will they ever learn? OK obvious things first: where do you put the groceries? "Built to carry two or more"? Really? Are the 3rd+ people strapped to the roof? This thing has to be driven on roads with a top speed like that--too fast for sidewalks. What happens in the event of a collision? Why is it open-air? How do the groceries stay inside when the thing makes a turn? I don't see doors or anything. I do not see a market for this, except for retirement communities.