Jump to content

Pretzel

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,175
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by Pretzel

  1. FWIW the TSA is absolute garbage that literally can't do their job even in their own tests. 'Disturbing' undercover probe found TSA screeners missing many test weapons A Congressional committee chairman said a classified briefing on vulnerabilities in airport security was "disturbing." They fail to find 95% of weapons, which makes your argument in favor of this using the TSA as an example even more ridiculous. It's like saying we should go over Niagara Falls in a barrel by pointing to Annie Edson Taylor and ignoring all the times that it doesn't work. The only thing disgraceful here is the spouting of outright lies about the leading causes of death. Your claimed statistics are patently untrue, and yet you think the facts of the situation are somehow disgraceful? The facts don't care how you feel, but they do guide people towards the most effective course of action in every scenario. Preventable causes of death - Wikipedia Among preventable causes of death all traffic accidents are ranked 7th and make up only 1.8% of total deaths in the US annually. Among all causes of death globally road traffic accidents are only ranked 19th.
  2. This is vastly different from a turn signal. This is a device that will do several things: Increase the price of all cars manufactured with it Introduce an extra critical failure point that will literally brick your car if it breaks, with guaranteed costly repairs (car electronics are never cheap) Introduce the possibility that your car won't work because it thinks you're drunk when you aren't - dangerous in a number of different circumstances Possibly prevent you from wearing gloves while driving if it requires contact with skin Possibly cut ignition to your vehicle and cause accidents if it malfunctions while driving - dangerous in a number of different circumstances All of those are much larger issues than having to lift your finger an inch or two off the steering wheel to press the turn signal stalk. It still wouldn't even necessarily save lives either, because drunk drivers can still drive any car that doesn't have a device installed - of which tens of millions exist in the United States alone. It would impact less than 10% of vehicles on the road and impact less than 0.33% of deaths in the US each year, but it would add major concerns and hassles to the lives of every single person who wants to purchase a new vehicle.
  3. Not all laws affect even law-abiding citizens though. The majority of them don't do anything to inconvenience or endanger those that follow the law in any way throughout their daily lives. Laws against murder, for example, have no effect at all on the daily lives of citizens who don't have a desire to kill.
  4. You literally did it again, right here. You told me that I couldn't possibly understand something until I am older, an entirely arbitrary judgement you're applying to me based solely on age despite the fact that my expertise in this realm (biomedical technology) is likely greater than yours. I won't make definitive claims of knowing more than you because I don't know enough about you to make sweeping generalizations about that in the same way you do about age and wisdom. You're also not quite as as clever as you think when you bring up the whole, "living in Colorado" idea - it's a flimsy and transparent dig related to the legalization of marijuana and its popularity among younger people. There is literally no other reason to mention my home state in this kind of discussion. Just cut the crap and discuss the points without attempting to dismiss legitimate arguments simply because of who is making those arguments. Yes, some drunk drivers kill somebody before they get that first DUI. You know what also kills people? The inability to get to the hospital because their car won't start since their hands are cold or even covered in their own blood. The inability for a driver to start their car and stay warm in cold weather because there is insufficient circulation in their fingers to get a BAC reading. In the case of steering wheel sensors that would cut ignition once they sensed drinking that would be guaranteed to cause at least a few road accidents when the system inevitably fails and shuts someone's car down in the middle of a highway onramp. More importantly, why do you feel the need to legislate the actions of everyone in the country based on something that affects very few members of the population. In 2016 10,497 people died from alcohol related crashes (CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html#targetText=How big is the problem,involved an alcohol-impaired driver.) This is a tragic number to be sure, but it represents 0.003246% of the US population. To put this in perspective, in 2016 there were 80,058 deaths related to diabetes. If you believe that drunk driving is a large enough problem to subject every law abiding citizen to an unnecessary burden every day to "solve" it, do you also believe that we should all be required to check our blood sugar before being allowed to buy a soda? Heart disease killed 635,260 that same year, should we have laws restricting the maximum weight allowed by the government for a citizen? I've shown that it won't stop people from driving drunk, because it's still very possible for drunk drivers to get onto the roads. I've also shown that this type of technology can lead to additional deaths rather than simply preventing them, so the argument of, "if even one life is saved" goes straight out the window. The only question left to ask is why should all 350+ million citizens of the US be subject to a law that could potentially risk their own lives because of what is essentially a rounding error in the more than 2,750,000 people who die each year? It sounds callous, I understand, but the truth of the matter is that drunk driving is realistically a rather infrequent problem after the large campaigns of the late 1900's to change the social culture surrounding driving while drunk.
  5. This is similar to how it already works. The majority of states require an ignition interlock devices after a DUI conviction (some states require 2 convictions I believe) that doesn't allow you to start the car unless a breathalyzer connected to the ECU. A lifetime punishment seems rather harsh compared to the current rules instituting several years of ignition interlock requirements, but this would be an acceptable alternative to me for the breathalyzer ignition interlock system that already exists in law. It would be faster and more convenient for those required to have the device installed while achieving the same effect. Come on now, let's not be dishonest with one another. Your statement was quite clear about those who are young having more testosterone than wisdom. Civil discussions are only possible when both parties are honest and neither one attempts to insult or discredit the other for arbitrary reasons.
  6. I already addressed how it would fail to stop drunk drivers, because anybody who is drunk can simply drive a car manufactured prior to the law's implementation. The other items are equally important, and the only reason for you not addressing it is because you simply can't. It's kind of ridiculous to pretend otherwise when all of those avenues of discussion were opened by you, and you alone, in your response to my first post where you attempted to claim I must know nothing because I am younger.
  7. Nothing I said was political. I made a reasonable comparison because there are tens of millions of cars without this device on the road today in the same way there are tens of millions of guns in the country today, with lawmakers coming up with laws that would still only ever affect newly manufactured cars/guns. This is entirely irrelevant and making laws based on how you personally feel about events is the quickest way to create stupid and ineffective laws. Emotions are never rational and can never come up with logical and effective solutions. Laws like the creation of the TSA, which has been found in numerous independent tests (and even their own self-testing) to be entirely ineffective at actually finding weapons. I'm an Electrical and Computer Engineer in the biomedical device industry, I know far more about the technology behind these devices than the average person. "Almost impossible to trick them with gloves or a buddy pushing the button" would imply that you must have continuous contact with your skin to continue driving. Congratulations, you now are no longer allowed to drive a car with gloves on in the winter. You also get to face the problem of not being able to drive the car when your hands are cold because the reduced bloodflow to your fingers will confuse the device and throw an error similar to if you had gloves on. In other words, your car no longer works as a car when it's cold out. No new technology will stop them, because people who drive drunk can still obtain one of the tens of millions of old cars without this technology. What are you going to do? Ban the old cars and buy them back? Good luck with enforcement there. This has nothing to do with testosterone or wisdom. It has everything to do with me knowing enough about the technology to see that it would stop precisely zero drunk drivers and only serve to increase costs and horribly inconvenience (or possible even endanger, if the car cannot drive at a critical time) those who abide by the law.
  8. It's no more effective than ridiculous gun control proposals, and for the exact same reason - there are so many cars out there not subject to the law already that it would be pointless. It's also rendered completely ineffective if the driver wears gloves or their buddy pushes the button. It's a useless piece of tech that will do nothing but make senators feel good about "doing something" so they can pat themselves on the back while in reality nothing changes except making life worse for law-abiding citizens. Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
  9. For those who are concerned about incorrect scorecards, I have developed a very effective method over the years after my own personal scorecard snafu. Read out your scores, hole by hole, to your scorer and have them read you back their score for that hole immediately after you state the score for the same hole. It's a back and forth pattern than requires both people to read, speak, AND listen - that's the key here. It's easy to lay two scorecards side by side and say they both look correct, because when all you're doing is reading you can end up falling into a pattern where you just unconsciously check each hole off as correct without really looking at it. Even if you read the scores out loud to yourself you can end up doing the same thing because you're not really listening. Your brain knows what it should hear because it just said it, so even if you state the mistake out loud you can very infrequently miss it because you got into a rhythm. Involving all 3 things - reading, speaking, and hearing - with two different people forces you to pay a little bit more attention. It also gives you more than 2x the chances of catching an error even if you didn't notice it, because you scorer will likely notice and if not the scorer anyone nearby could also hear and notice. The back and forth keeps you engaged enough that brain farts are substantially less likely, and in turn incorrect scorecards are also less likely.
  10. Hey, I've only got a few stories good enough to be worth telling so I have to milk them for what they're worth! 😅
  11. I played in a tournament down at Walking Stick Golf Course down in Pueblo when they had the greens rolling at a 12. The pro was quite proud to show all the players it was indeed a 12 using his stimp meter before the round. The problem is that most of the greens there have 2 or 3 tiers, and each tier is about 1-2 feet taller than the previous tier with a very distinct line where it drops off. They all build from being low in the front of the green to tall in the rear, so hitting past the hole to a higher tier was a death sentence. If you putted the ball you'd end up a minimum of 5 yards off the front. I stayed on the green only once that tournament when my approach stopped above the hole, and that was only because I used a wedge to try and clip the ball with a lot of spin. I don't mind penalizing fast tiered greens like that ordinarily, I just get fed up when you see it on nearly every single hole. It's an interesting design made boring from overuse in that case.
  12. While that's true under the technicality that the rules of golf don't specify where holes may and may not be placed, the USGA does give some heavy handed guidance in section 15-3 of the Handicap Manual where they discuss how the golf course should be set up. The key points are included below: The hole should be located at least 4 paces from any edge of the green, or more if there is a bunker near the edge or the terrain around the green slopes away from the edge An area 2-3 feet in radius around the hole should be of a uniform grade and reasonably level Holes should not be located on or directly next to a sharp slope A player above the hole should be able to stop the ball at the hole Avoid placing holes near damaged turf or healing hole plugs Holes should be cut as close to vertical as possible rather than perpendicular to the contour of the green There should be a balanced selection of hole locations for the entire course with respect to left, right, front, back, and middle pin positions Not illegal I suppose, but something that the USGA very strongly discourages. Definitely fun to see the "impossible" pin positions for one event a year though.
  13. Reminds me of some of the pin locations for the "heaven and hell" tournament at one of my home courses. One day of playing from the ladies tees with the easiest pin positions and one day of playing from the tips (and further, they'll put the tees beyond all the tee boxes just to screw with you that day) and the worst pin position the greenkeeper can find on the hole regardless of whether it's a legal location or not.
  14. There is though, the competitor has to be allowed to review their own scorecard before signing it. You're never just told to sign without seeing the score for each and every individual hole first.The signing of the scorecard is itself your "are you sure that score is right" check. That's exactly the case, up until you place your signature on the scorecard to confirm that the score for every hole is correct. If you sign an incorrect scorecard you've proven that you didn't actually check the card to make sure it was correct, and if that gives you an advantage you're penalized appropriately. It's not a penalty for common human error, because you had the ability to easily correct the error when checking the card. The penalty is for either unnecessary carelessness or willful cheating, depending on if you looked to see the incorrect score or not. Golf is, like it or not, considered a gentlemen's game in most areas of the world. Part of the tradition of the sport is having a personal sense of honor where your word means something, such as when you claim to have a specific score at the end of the round by signing your card. It's not hard at all to check a scorecard for error, it takes less than 2 minutes even if you're being exceptionally thorough and triple-checking. 2 minutes at the end of a tournament is an acceptable amount of time to set aside for a game's tradition and to encourage people to not be careless. I say this as someone who has disqualified myself in the past from a tournament for signing an incorrect scorecard. I knew I shot a 76 and the organizers wrote a 75 up on the board for me. I had one hole with a triple bogey that I was disgusted by, and in checking the score cards I hastily skipped past the part where my scorer had marked it as only a double. That's on me, because part of the game is that I need to check and verify my score to be correct. It's really not hard to do, and it's no different than any of the other dozen arbitrary rules that can be broken with simple human error in both golf and other sports.
  15. Take a look at the tag below my avatar, the one that says, "TST Staff/Mod" - I am well familiar with the regular users here and their handicaps. The truth of the matter is that at least 97% of the entire golfing population will never play in state or national level amateur tournaments or professional tournaments at any level. That doesn't, however, mean that a golfer should handicap themselves by using a swing with well-noted and described limitations. @Jim Venetos has so far refused to take me up on my bet because he knows that his swing is incapable of the same things that can be achieved with a "traditional" golf swing. I'm willing to back my claims with both my money and my personal reputation, but it appears the same cannot be said about the man teaching the non-traditional golf swing. He doesn't have enough confidence in his method to even take a bet that's skewed heavily in his favor. People are not attacked. Their methods are analyzed and discussed. If your swing instruction method has glaring weaknesses, such as the Venetos golf swing, then those weaknesses will be pointed out. To further emphasize the fact that no attacking has occurred here, look no further than the owner of the site himself noting some of the advantages of the Venetos swing. It was noted that the swing is one that would be faster for someone to pick up than a traditional golf swing, and simply stated that it had limitations for golfers who want to improve their game as much as possible.
  16. For the average person I'd say it's underrated, and for those that follow women's golf I'd say it's overrated. It's underrated for the average person because most people have never even heard of the event. It doesn't quite have the excitement of the Ryder Cup, but it's still a fun event with a great atmosphere (especially in person, I got to attend the 2013 event and it was a blast). There are even a bunch of golfers who still haven't heard of the event. For those who follow women's golf, though, in most cases it's overrated. People try to hard to compare it to the Ryder Cup and the harsh reality of it is that it doesn't even come close to the Ryder Cup in terms of importance or excitement. It wasn't created until 1990 and its importance in the professional women's golf scene is still much less than that of the Ryder Cup and the men's scene. Some male golfers, such as Ian Poulter and Colin Montgomerie, have a lasting legacy that focuses on their Ryder Cup performance rather than any other tournament performances. The same cannot be said for the women, and it's just a less important event overall for women's golf even if it is technically the Ryder Cup's counterpart.
  17. It should be noted that isn't the norm, even for modern irons with their loft creep. The modern MP-18 blades (and my MP-4's) have a PW loft of 46 degrees. A PING G400 iron has a PW with a loft of 44.5 degrees, or 42.5 degrees even if you opt for the "Power Spec" options (4-7 lofts cranked 1.5 degrees stronger than standard with 8-PW 2 degrees stronger). Even TaylorMade, one of the companies most notorious for screwing with lofts to make distance claims, doesn't sell a set with a lower PW loft than 41 degrees. This is in their M Gloire irons, which are sold as a compressed 6-SW set to span between 24 and 53 degrees of loft. The same span, or a similar one, is usually covered by a 4-SW set with two more clubs so it makes sense that the PW is strong to help compress the set into fewer clubs like that. Most irons will have a PW loft that falls comfortably between 43 and 46 degrees, which does make them approximately one club stronger but not much more (my MP-4 9-iron is 42 degrees, the TW spec irons have a 43 degree 9-iron). Some older sets, like PING Eye 2's at 50.5 degrees, had particularly weak PW's even for the time period but those sets also had similarly weak SW (57.5 degrees) and LW (61 degrees) lofts. Even with those very high lofted sets like the Eye 2's you still had a 45 degree 9-iron, so realistically most PW's today are still comparable with that 9-iron. I do find myself getting caught in the "not enough club" trap more frequently in recent times, but it has more to do with the quality of contact than how far I can hit the ball on a clean strike. My handicap has slid backwards to somewhere near a 5 or so throughout college but I still play my MP-4 blades, so the distance for my long irons can sometimes be off by as much as 30 yards short of expected when I catch one a little too high/low or toe/heel on the face. That's just something to be remedied by playing and practicing more often, however.
  18. I haven't used it before for joint pain, but I have tried it in the past to attempt to mitigate chronic migraines. I found that on its own it didn't do much to change the frequency or severity of headaches, I'd get them about as often and as badly as I would have expected based on my stress levels while taking it. One thing that I did find, though, is that one of the side effects of oral consumption of CBD did help with the frequency of my migraines. Similar to what @dennyjones is trying to accomplish, I found that for me it helped me with some regularly occurring sleep issues and as a result my overall stress levels decreased. My migraines are pretty closely tied with how stressed out I am at any given time, so that did slightly reduce their frequency. A study I found (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6326553/) shows that sleep scores improved within the first month for 2/3rds of patients who were taking 25mg of CBD orally per day, in capsule form. Not all of them took it at night though, so it's unclear whether morning or night dosages had a larger effect on sleep score than the others. I personally found that using CBD oil at night a couple hours before attempting to sleep (5 drops of 1500mg/ml concentration, or 12.5mg of CBD) helped me more consistently fall asleep compared to normal.
  19. That's why nobody uses range balls on the course, they perform substantially worse than a normal golf ball would.
  20. I have redone the paint on my Scotty Cameron before, and the paint that comes on it from the factory is pretty tough stuff. It doesn't really want to come off even if you use a wirebrush on it with just water. If it was genuine he'd have to be washing it with acetone to strip the paintfill.
  21. That is the proper style for the 2018 model year, but it does appear that the club has some modifications done to it. The paint has been stripped from the rear cherry bombs and is flaking off of the weights in the sole. From those pictures alone it's hard to determine exactly whether or not the putter is legitimate, but the pricing does seem correct for a genuine one based on the condition of the putter. If I had to guess I would lean towards it being real primarily from the look of the neck. Most counterfeits get it wrong and have sharp corners on the neck rather than the much more rounded corners of the real putters. You definitely would need to have higher resolution photos to say for certain so that you can really see the milling marks on the face and more details everywhere else.
  22. Definitely group 2, I wouldn't ever pass up the chance to get curb stomped by Tiger.
  23. I used to get absolutely furious and livid whenever I hit a poor shot. The problem is I'd hit 2-3 poor shots in the first 6-9 holes and then I'd be so frustrated that the back nine was always a waste. I could play some good golf, but I rarely got to see it on the back nine because I was too busy being upset about those shots I dropped on a couple stupid shots. When I started golfing in high school though, a coach there told me something that at the time really put things in perspective for me. He sat down next to me when I was waiting to tee off, frustrated, and asked me why the hell I was being so sour when I was out playing golf. He pointed out quite a few of the other less-pleasant activities I could be busy being forced to do if I was in different circumstances, and then laughed it all off at the end and just said to lighten up. Not sure why it took something blunt like that, but it stuck and I've never felt that same way during a round of golf since. Now when I hit a bad shot I try to think about what felt different, and I also just start to look forwards to the recovery shot. If I hook one into the trees I can still try to hit a fun punch shot out to thread the needle.
  24. I just need to make sure it's something I can fit into my budget first since I'm in the process of buying a car right now. Once that mess is finished (hopefully by the end of the week) I have my application ready to go if the price for the car was right.
  25. Whoops! My mistake after a long hassle following a car break-in. I just saw the picture, had a flashback to the traumatic memories, and made my comment accordingly. 😁
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...