Does using a higher grade gasoline give me better gas mileage?

redfukit · 3 days

no.

Octane is a retardant that causes fuel to ignite more slowly. The higher the octane, the longer it takes the fuel to ignite.

It is more important to use higher octane fuel in engines with higher compression so as to control premature fuel ignition. You can use higher octane fuel in your car that only requires a low octane fuel and it shouldn't do any damage. Using lower octane fuel on an engine that requires or recommends higher octane can cause knocking and at worst could actually do some damage to the engine in the long term.

TL/DR; Unless you are driving a sports car that requires the higher octane fuel, you wont get much out of it.

GatorBallz · 6 days

Defending yourself against the bully means sending a message that it is not ok to bully. That and ridicule from other witnesses is the only thing that will get it to stop. You don't need to put the bully in the hospital, but for the message to take, it has to hurt. There is no way around it. It has to hurt.

aIecbee · 12 days

You have to make a judgement call...

What I see is him supporting what is a very poorly written, architected piece of legislation that is very dangerous to the future of the internet and free speech. That, to me, calls into question either his motives or his qualifications as a competent legislator.

I don't particularly agree with your characterization of all donations as bribery. Bribery typically implies that it is changing the behavior of the person recieving the money.

These companies that are making these donations are doing it for one reason. To benefit themselves by stacking the odds in their favor when it comes to enacting their legislation or their appeal against legislation. There is no trick to it. They are trying to convince you to support them. That is bribery. the politician may not act on it in such a way, but that is the obvious stated intention.

It seems like you set up a scenario where a politician must accept these donations in order to win elections. a never ending cycle where even if someone doesn't agree with the donations, they have to do it. I don't buy that. There are other ways to raise money and certainly other ways to gain support and win elections.

aIecbee · 13 days

Supporting a corporations interests BECAUSE they donated money is corruption on the part of the candidate.

Yes. But how do you know what is going on in the candidates head? This is why accepting money from a group looking to get legislation passed is suspect. Corruption comes when that donation carries undue favor. When these corporations do donate money to a politician, they are fully aware that if that politician gives them preferential treatment because of it then it is corrupt. That is their goal. To gain favor from the legislator while corrupting their principles. The politicians know this. So by accepting that money knowing what the actual intention of the money is, it becomes even more suspect. Legislation should be examined on its merits alone and not because someone contributed to your campaign.

Campaign finance reform...

It sounds like you are saying that if the good politicians dont accept these bribes, donations, then the bad politicians will make even more money from bribes/donations? How does that make any sense. Anyone accepting bribes should be looked at critically. If nearly everyone is accepting these donations, then it creates the sense that it's innocuous and not bad as it doesn't present a warning about someone who might use that donation to unfairly give preference to one party. That logic just doesn't make any sense. Now, i'm not saying that some of these legislators who accept these donations aren't happy that they aren't being singled out because of it. Still doesn't make it any less suspect.

aIecbee · 13 days

Getting a donation doesnt mean you support the cause. Like you said though, it is something to watch out for because the support for the cause can become suspect as if more consideration or pressure is applied in order to push forward that agenda.

The issue with Franken from my perspective is that he was the one who was elected claiming to fight against that sort of corruption. Because whether it is popular to say or not, donations do carry favor with politicians. There is no such thing as free money. and if donations didn't carry that additional favor, then I think donations for politicians would largely dry up.

I'm not only upset that Franken took the money. I'm disappointed that he supports SOPA. That is the original idea. Because he showed promise at the beginning of his political career, its sad to see him fall down to the level or worse than those other career politicians that we think about when we are talking about overhauling and reforming the system. And despite his life and career and his beliefs about intellectual property protection, it is disappointing that he has either chosen to overlook the incredibly negative consequences of legislation like SOPA or is too oblivious and uninformed on the matter.

aIecbee · 13 days

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

Cop out. Saying something is ok because "everyone does it" didn't pass as an excuse when I was 12 and it still doesn't now.

In any case, the Campaign Finance Reform bill went right down party lines, and Franken was very much for it. Just as Citizens United went right down party lines. It is tough to argue with that.

I agree with campaign finance reform. I have just lost faith that Senator Franken can be the strong advocate for it given that he is now "playing da game" as you put it.

I may not like the MPAA or RIAA, but I think most people will disagree with you...STRONGLY disagree with you when you compare them to white supremacists.

I'm not comparing them to white supremacists except in the sense that both groups could be seen as bad. Even if bad is in different ways and arguably to different degrees.

Anyways, you don't like them. I get that. But, and here is an interesting question, would you, if you were an ex-entertainer who believed in IP law and believed the MPAA/RIAA were necessary for defending IP so that new art and entertainment could get funded to the same degree it has enjoyed in the past, would you turn down money from them?

If I had that conviction that the legislation was right, then I would support it and I would vote for it. I wouldn't need or want a personal gift of cash from that group because in my mind, that would make my support for it suspect in the eyes of my constituents. Also, if I did take the money, I would have to ask myself if the amount of support I gave it or the amount of consideration I gave it was affected by the donation. After all, even though 88k isnt all that much money in the grand scheme of things; When I was using that money on vacation or wherever, i'd have to remember and consider where that money came from and why it was offered. So even if I didn't allow that gift of money to affect my actions, I would know that the sole purpose of that gift was to solidify my support and endear myself to that cause and its backers.

Furthermore, you characterize the RIAA and MPAA in a pretty dark light, however, is there no merit whatsoever that without defense of IP, it is less likely that the world will get the opportunity to see the next Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, or The Wire?

The world isn't black and white. I can support some intellectual property protections without supporting the draconian legislation that the entertainment industry is pushing in order to prop up and maintain what is a outdated business model. Rather than adapting to a changing culture and technology, these companies have decided that they will try to enforce the old rules at any cost rather than to adapt and modernize.

aIecbee · 14 days

That's an interesting opinion. You could keep asserting that on the internet, or you could actually do something about it by supporting Senator Franken and other Democrats, all of whom tried to pass the 2010 Campaign Finance Reform bill.

I do believe in campaign finance reform. For me personally, it is harder to take someone seriously if their actions include doing something that would be on the top of the list of things needing to be "reformed"

Seeing one person give another money and then calling it a bribe means you absolutely did presuppose you knew what was going on in his head.

Offering someone personal money in return for additional consideration or support is a bribe in every sense of the word. I don't have to presume what was going on in his head. the facts are that he was offered this money as a personal gift from an organization whose legislation was under consideration and Mr Franken expressed support for that legislation. Those are the facts. There is no presupposition there. And we don't even have to go into the flawed legislation in itself.

It is pretty rare for people to turn down donations. I probably wouldn't if I were running for office, unless the donators were white supremacists or something. It is a question of being on equal footing with your opponents.

I won't disagree that most people don't turn down donations. That is the state of affairs as it pertains to the current state of congressional politics. After all, that is the reason for the campaign finance reform legislation, isn't it? But regardless of ANY of that, it does not make it any less odious.

You said you might not take money from white supremacists. Why? Because they are a notoriously bad group with lots of bad and revolutionary ideas? Sure, I can understand that. But looking at the legislation, I can say pretty much the same thing about the MPAA and the RIAA. They are a notoriously bad group who attempt to introduce legislation which effectively gives them the ability to litigate for more and more money. They are comprised almost 100% by lawyers whose job it is to sue people for money. And that money is then reinvested in the group in order to fund more lawyers and further litigation. From personal statements made by various artists represented by those groups, it seems as though the idea is never to actually compensate the artists for any perceived loss of revenue.

Sounds pretty odious to me.

edit: grammar

aIecbee · 14 days

Donations aren't illegal. But they are most certainly a bribe.

I never presupposed that I knew what was going on in his head when he accepted the money. You are the only one trying to justify his action by presuming what his logic was.

I do know how campaign finance laws work. This never had anything to do with legality. As far as we know, he didn't do anything illegal. It has to do with ethics. It also has to do with character. It has to do with the impression that he gave all of us when he was elected and shined rallying against the corruption and cronyism in the system. Many examples of this. And the sheer disappointment for me finding out that he has slipped and fallen into the same trap as so many others.

aIecbee · 14 days

If Franken felt strongly about the legislation he could have simply put his support behind it without accepting the bribe. Besides, you have no idea what is going on in his head and pretending that you have figured out his motivation is really naive on your part. What we do know is that he willingly accepted money from this group that was pushing this legislation and that he ultimately put his support behind that legislation. Anything beyond that is speculation.

aIecbee · 14 days

If he had voted his conscience and not accepted a bribe then we would just be calling him naive and uninformed on the consequences of the legislation. But accepting money from this group stinks of corruption. Those are two entirely different levels of bad.

aIecbee · 14 days

I like to think of it this way. Al Frankens price was 88k. Michael Bennets price was 300k. He could have asked for more but that's all the bribe money he needed in order to sell out his constituency.

I wrote him a nice little message on his website a few weeks back asking him to stop emailing me and soliciting for my support and why I was doing so. I believe many others did the same. Perhaps, in the future he will have a clearer head when that bribe money is being fanned in his face.

What a disappointment. And he started out so well.

political-animal · 21 days

on his ass.

Killfile · 27 days

You are thinking of Aspbergers, not Autism spectrum Disorder.

quarryrye · 1 month

Very interesting. I had never really thought about the meaning of the words.

I'm surprised you didn't pick this up.

Have you been half asleep and have you heard voices? I've heard them calling my name. Is this the sweet sound that called the young sailors. The voice might be one and the same.

The sirens song that is so irresistible that sailors cannot escape from it.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

Very often my explanations are seen as personal attacks when they are only meant to be constructive or informative.

Edit: or they are discounted off-hand because they don't provide a simplistic black and white view of the subject.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

I think that internal reflection within an individual or group as to the groups health, sustainability or even its perception to outsiders can be a healthy thing. If there is a cultural or generational ideal or moral that seems to have outlived its utility, then that is something that can be resolved within the culture.

I find that this happens less often this way. More often, individuals belong to multiple groups with differing value systems and people slowly adapt to the value systems which work best and often are more modern. As the younger generation sheds some of those cultural ideals, the older generation dies off and eventually those less socially acceptable ideals die off with them.

But as an outsider, pointing to a group and pointing out what I might consider faults based on my cultural understanding and morally and socially accepted practices, it is not seen as constructive when pointed at a group that I cant possibly be attributed to. It is seen as an attack of the group. When that group is a race or a culture, it is seen as racism.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

Thank you.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

By making a prejudgment it means that you go into a situation with that preconceived notion and very very likely it actually affects on a psychological level the way that you interact with them. You don't think you do. But I think if you asked a non-biased witness, you might get a different assessment. Even if just the inflection in your voice changes as a result to something more aggressive or impatient or arrogant, it could have a very real effect on the interaction. Even if that change is small enough that you don't notice it. Also you could say something that could be construed as offensive or racist even though you don't think it is. You are still operating under thee assumption that the person you are dealing with is most likely subject to the stereotype that you've assigned to them.

You also assume that domineering behavior is codified in "Asian" culture still. You don't even take into account that those exhibiting such negative behavior operate outside the tenets of the culture at large and are just assholes.

Nobody said you had to be color blind. Nobody said you couldn't make judgments. It is human nature and as such, we all do it. The trick is recognizing when a judgment may be impaired by flawed or irrational reasoning. Then using that knowledge to make better assessments. When it comes to making broadly negative judgement about large groups of people, it is advantageous as an intelligent person to step back and ask yourself if whatever this characteristic is something that in fact applies to the whole of the large group it has been placed upon or whether it needs to be narrowed down to something more accurate and meaningful.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

You are right when you say that when when someone casts the word against someone, they are usually referring to the more negative incarnations of racism. That is of elitism and exclusion, mistreatment, and ire.

However, even the less malicious and arguably positive instances where race is unequally taken into account can have negative sociological consequences.

You assume your girlfriends parents are conservative because of what you have been taught to believe about Korean parents. You, out of a want to respect and impress them has made assumptions about their personalities which may or may not be true. Maybe as an alternative, you could ask your girlfriend who has the benefit of knowledge about her parents and could give you more insight into the individuals that are her parents rather than make an assumption which could ultimately be false.

Human being can be judgmental. Which is another reason why most people don't know or believe that they are racist or are expressing a racist sentiment. It may not make them bad people. But it does make more strained relationships between cultures which then serves to exacerbate tensions between those cultures.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

no.

It is one thing to say that a correlation was found for a certain percentage of the population in some country to exhibit some behaviour.

It is entirely another thing to say that you hate Asians because you think they are domineering towards their women.

Just look at those two statements. Only one of those statements assumes that in a situation where when you are interacting with a person of that culture you are more likely to treat them badly, unfairly, or just look down on them for something that may not even be attributable to that individual.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

yep.. that's pretty racist.

But I can sympathize with the question. If you had said that there was a study where they asked Chinese men in different parts of china whether they though that corporal or other domineering behavior against women was acceptable and then they matched the results to scientific studies done in other countries, then that wouldnt be racist.

Your statement is bad because it assumes all Asians abide by the same culture. It is easily translated into "I don't like Asians because they beat their women." It is most likely derived from seeing a small number of examples and making a blanket statement about it which covers the entire group.

Grouping: Every time you put people into groups. (white, chinese, small, tall, blond, brunette,etc) and attribute some stereotype to them you are being ignorant. Trying to attribute anything to such groups as these is ridiculous as there are millions of people in these groups who follow many different cultures and ways of life.

Also saying you dont like the asian culture because you think they are domineering says that you are purposely overlooking facts.

Ive seen white people, mexican, african american, swedish, italian, german, french, spanish, russian, etc people act in a domineering way to their women. Does it mean that all these groups are all domineering to women? NO. It means that assholes are assholes regardless of who their parents are and what culture they come from.

TL/DR; Yes it is.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

ignorance is a broad term describing what someone believes despite having little knowledge or evidence of the facts. Racism is ignorance but not all ignorance is racism.

Racism just means that a persons race/culture/heritage is used to make value judgement about them. To say that a person is better or worse solely based on some characteristic (skewed or accurate) of their race.

There are many degrees and forms of racism. It can be as simple as just not being comfortable with someone of a specific cultural heritage or a full out, I would never talk to, hire, or respect a person from a particular heritage. It also includes giving people of another more advantages to assuage some guilt about their treatment in society. Those are all forms of racism. They aren't all bad or equally as bad but they ALL qualify as racism.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

Baloney. Most people don't know anything if enough about china or chinese culture to actually hate it. Most people who say they hate China do so as a result of meeting one or two people they didnt like of chinese heritage or spouting off some ridiculous talking point about china and the economy that they heard on Fox news.

0range_marmalade · 1 month

Its only illegal if its against a qualified protected group. (Mostly comprised of minorities). Its still racism if its looking favorably or unfavorably at someone or something solely on the basis of culture or heritage (race).

CyberVillian · 1 month

I dont expect anything of the complexity of Skyrim, BF3, or any other AAA title to come from an indie developer. We are talking about making a living. We are talking about income and surviving in the game industry. If an indie developer can make a living and make more money for himself and his coworkers or friends than he would developing in-house for a larger company, then that is all that matters.

I am not one to spend a lot of time with indie games. I like the big budget games myself. But there is a growing market for less complex independent games. There is money to be made. Without the massive overhead of the larger companies, a good indie developer can be quite successful. Even the smaller companies have overhead that many indie developers don't have. HR, marketing, producers, assistant producers, associate producers, art directors, secretaries, office managers, managers, CEO, CFO, etc all demand a paycheck. Even those smaller companies are going to have most of those titles. The difference between a small company and a large company is that in the large companies those titles may mean a department with many people rather than just a single individual.

political-animal

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login