Slashdot Mirror

The main difference is the car makers put the effort in to make sure none of the parts are too good and last too long. Precision scheduled wear out.

You're basically using your perception of the situation instead of looking at the facts. Unfortunately for your argument, the numbers speak otherwise. The reliability and safety of vehicles has increased significantly since the beginning of the automotive industry. The data comes from one of the more reputable sources of data of this kind: Consumer Reports. Here's the last 10 years.
http://www.consumerreports.org...

In case you didn't notice here are some major maintenance price reductions brought to you by the car industry (in some cases motivated by regulations)
- Spark plugs are now good for 250 000KM, in the 80s you were lucky to keep them in there for more than 80 000KM.
- Coolant is now changed every 250 000KM or 5 years. Used to be 80 000KM or 2 years
- Brake parts generally last 30% longer than the 80's AND they are better. The rear brake replacements are more expensive (drums to discs) but are also much safer
- In the 70's you needed to tune your carb and do service. There is no such thing anymore
- Oil was changed every 5000KM or 3 months. Now the regular oils are changed every 8000KM or 6month, with synthetic you can go 12000KM and a 1 year

I can keep going like this for a long time. So all this to say you perception just happens to be wrong.

Does collision avoidance add significantly to the price of the car? At least one company sells an add-on collision avoidance system that costs around $1100. If this company can retail a compete add-on system for only $1100, it must cost manufacturers less than than to build it in to the car (they may sell the option as an add-on for thousands of dollars, but that has no relation to what it actually costs them to build it)

But even $1100 is less than 3% of a $34,000 car, so it doesn't seem fair to blame it for new car price inflation. Bundling options together likely one factor that adds to the price inflation - buyers can't pick and chose the options they want -- want the Bluetooth calling? Well you need to get the $1200 "premium audio package". Want a sunroof? Then you'll have to upgrade to the LX model for $4000 more. Want collision avoidance? Then you'll need the $3300 "tech" package that includes adaptive cruise control, GPS navigation, and backup camera.

Of course, even if the average new car costs $34K, there are still lots of cars available for less, a 2017 base model Honda Accord costs $22K (add $1000 for collision avoidance). A VW Jetta or Chevy Cruz is around $17K.

Because last I checked, the iPhone camera since the iPhone 4 has an IR filter on it and can't see IR light.

The iPhone camera is not really good at taking pictures in low light conditions, so it may not be the device they're trying to block.

But where is the money going to come from to purchase all these cards at retail?

Consumer Reports seems to have the model figured out... They've been discreetly buying the stuff they test — including cars — for decades now. And then selling their reviews to paid subscribers...

Consumer Reports found that the Model S has "too many problems to recommend". Green Car Reports estimates that two-thirds of early Model S drivetrains will have to be replaced before 100000 km. While that may not necessarily be representive, of current production, the ongoing problems with the Model X are.

Since Tesla plans to ramp up production at an unprecedented rate in the coming years and Tesla's culture is much more focused on rapid change and pushing deadlines than on the engineering and long-term testing cycle the rest of the car industry works by, it will be very hard to improve this. Some analysts think that this will actually be their biggest problem while they are trying to gain foothold in the mass market.

OK, rant over... gotta go mow the stupid lawn now. Unless there is some Federal law against that I don't know about.

Not so fast, citizen. Have you read and complied with the relevant regulations, citizen? The EPA is only concerned with what's best for all of us, citizen. You do want to be a good citizen, don't you, citizen? Now pick up that can.

To anyone who scoffs at this: ask yourself: "Why should the federal government be concerned with how I mow my lawn that I paid for and continue to pay taxes for?"

Really? How do they connect the intake manifold to the natural gas source? What's the mileage like? What do they have to eat?

A good starting point for finding answers to those questions:

http://www.consumerreports.org...

I'm done with ads. I will pirate ad free. Forever and ever. You can't make me like your ads. I am not watching nor participating.

Find another way to make money or fuck off forever.

They already have.

http://www.consumerreports.org...

People who are trying to make it more complicated than that are just looking for ways to get government more involved in what goes on inside the home.

The problem is that by letting the phones, tv's and all of this data collection is just a step or 2 away from the government more involved in what goes on inside of the home. Do you think for a second that these devices won't be compromised once the government sees the need? And while we are at it, is the government really that much worse than google, microsoft, apple or now amazon? the FBI compiles a dossier on their citizens, and conspiracy theorist (/.ers) go crazy with indignation. The private data collection companies however, can tell you how you drive, what you watch, or just about any other aspect of your life and people seem strangely comfortable with it, almost ok. The misconception is that either the corporation is benign or that the government won't access that data.

Consumer Reports took a second look at their FitBit review, using a different (and apparently better) heart monitor harness than the claimed study. They did find a few discrepancies, but far smaller, landing within 3 beats per minute in almost all cases. They also noted that when the FitBit is worn a couple of inches above the wrist instead of on the wrist, as FitBit suggests but which many people seem to not know, the results are more accurate. CR is monitoring the case, but they have elected to not change their recommendation at this point.

On January 5, while Fitbit was promoting its latest fitness tracking watch at CES in Las Vegas, a class-action lawsuit was filed against the company on behalf of users of the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge. The claim: That the devices misread heart rates by “a very significant margin, particularly during exercise.”

At Consumer Reports, we were surprised because we had tested both of the devices, and found the heart rate readings to be quite accurate. We decided to retest these models to confirm that we should continue to recommend them. And to learn more about their performance, we added some elements to our standard fitness-tracker test protocol. The result: Both the Fitbit Charge HR and Fitbit Surge passed our tests handily, accurately recording heart rates at everything from a leisurely walk up to a fast run. (The details are outlined down below under “How We Tested.”)

This should be a reassuring finding for many Fitbit customers.

http://www.consumerreports.org...

http://www.consumerreports.org...

The new testing confirmed our earlier results: Both the Charge HR and Surge were very accurate when compared to the reference Polar H7 ECG monitor. During nearly every trial, the variance between the chest strap and the Fitbit devices amounted to no more than three heartbeats per minute.

However, there was one exception: When our female tester wore the Fitbit Charge HR on her wrist and got up to higher intensity levels, the margin of error crept upwards. During one run, when the chest strap read 150 bpm, the Fitbit Charge HR read 144 bpm. During the second run, the device read only 139 bpm. That problem went away when she wore the Charge HR on her forearm. (And the Fitbit Surge was accurate no matter how it was worn.)

I have a vehicle affected by this and was trying to gauge the appropriate level of alarm. The best info I can find indicates that there have been 88 "rupture" events out of 1.2 million deployment as of last year. So I do not think it makes sense to worry too much at this point, as those are pretty unlikely events, even if it is really more like 1000 bad explosive deployments so far. There do seem to be some concerns about high humidity areas and strong temperature variation locations being more likely to have issues and originally the recalls were focused on the southern US and other warm areas, though now the plan is to replace them all.

Much of the coverage has been alarmist- "your car is going to kill you!" so it was good to see that the fraction is low. But it was very troubling to read about how evasive and duplicitous the manufacturer has been as the problems should have been detected and addressed much earlier.

Still better then fossil fuels, which have done a great job of poisoning the environment.

"Although natural gas burning emits less fatal pollution and GHGs than coal burning, it is far deadlier than nuclear power, causing about 40 times more deaths per unit electric energy produced."
http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2...
Or just search for "deaths from nuclear or fossil fuel waste".

Heck, it's bad enough that people are getting heavy metal poisoning just from eating too much fish.
http://www.consumerreports.org...
"eat fish heavy metal poisoning"

The problem is far different than VWs because it is so easy to verify. Fill car with gas. Drive. Refill. Divide miles driven by gallons used. My Nissan never gets the mileage it says it should, nor what it claims to be getting with inboard electronics. BFD. It's like almost not cheating when it's that easy to check. Consumer Reports will even check for me. But they don't check emissions.

Costco sells the same hearing aids that you get for $5,000 at an audiologist, but they charge less than $1,000 for them. Consumer Reports recommends considering Costco as an alternative to the high prices normally charged by audiologists.

http://www.consumerreports.org...

How about 2015? http://www.consumerreports.org...
Ford is not that bad (slightly below average), but the Asian brands still dominate. Fiat is last by a wide margin.

It's already been stated many times - but $35k is the average selling price of a car in the US. If that isn't the mark of "affordability"... then what is?

That average is pulled up by larger, more expensive, vehicles such as SUV's and trucks. And given that the Tesla 3 is a sedan - that suggests that average is largely useless as a mark of "affordability" since it includes a large number of vehicles that aren't sedans purchased by a large number of people, the bulk of whom are unlikely to replace those vehicles with sedans. (To be fair, this includes folks driving cheap compacts as well as folks driving expensive SUV's.) A few minutes searching around (but by no means exhaustive) seems to show that the average price of a mid-sized sedan is somewhere in the $20-25k range. So, using your criteria but correcting the numbers to compare apples-to-apples... the Tesla 3 falls well outside the affordable range. (But within the range for luxury sedans, a not inconsiderable market.)
 

$35k with financing is ~$600 a month. If you look at this advice from Consumer Reports ( http://www.consumerreports.org... ) it says you should be making ~$75k a year to afford this car. $75k for a household is not "rich" in my book. It's "doing well"... but MANY people will be able to "afford" this car.

If you're making in the range of $75k/annum, you're in the top third of US families. Not rich, no, but above average (which is around $55k/annum currently).

It's already been stated many times - but $35k is the average selling price of a car in the US. If that isn't the mark of "affordability"... then what is?

$35k with financing is ~$600 a month. If you look at this advice from Consumer Reports ( http://www.consumerreports.org... ) it says you should be making ~$75k a year to afford this car. $75k for a household is not "rich" in my book. It's "doing well"... but MANY people will be able to "afford" this car.

They said "affordable"... they didn't say "cheap".

He has addressed the issue of having his clothes made overseas. He says the decision is to either make the clothes overseas or not at all. People won't buy clothes made in the US because you would have to charge much more.

Gosh Trump must be right because who ever hear of a successful clothing company making clothes in the U.S. today?

If only there were evidence that Americans would willingly pay a bit more for an honestly labelled made-in-America label.

Because there is just no way Trump would simply be making easy excuses for doing the lazy thing, while also padding his bottom line a bit more. No sirree!

1) Nobody RTFM when they buy a new car
2) Nobody RTFM when the rent a car
The industry had standard, and Chrysler deviated from the standard. The benefit to deviating from the standard is nonexistent. The drawback is a safety concern.

It reminds me of push button start. Once you get over the "Gee Whiz" factor, it's a safety concern.

http://www.consumerreports.org...

I use nomorobo with my Comcast service, and only the postman rings twice.

(the phone rings once if it's from a known robo, and that's it, otherwise you get to service the call)

It occurred to me that if we replaced airbags with shotgun cartridges people might start driving carefully and stop running into other cars and things.

That reminds me of this article:

At the heart of the problem is the airbag's inflator, a metal cartridge loaded with propellant wafers, which in some cases has ignited with explosive force. If the inflator housing ruptures in a crash, metal shards from the airbag can be sprayed throughout the passenger cabinâ"a potentially disastrous outcome from a supposedly life-saving device.

To my original point... http://www.autoblog.com/2015/0...

Luddites you say? "less is more" is actually quite rational and is a sister to KISS Sure technology changes, cars get updated but nobody is advocating going back to points, manual chokes et al. If it doesn't need to be there, why put it in? Why does a car need "dozens of computers?" Maybe it's to be able to massage your ass? That's a human machine interface problem, not my field.

Oh bullshit. You can replace headlights on any car; that's completely stupid. They might not make it completely easy with HIDs, you might have to disassemble some plastic paneling or something, but it's not like you *have* to have dealer equipment to do it. HIDs all use standard D2S and D4S bulbs.

Really? Change the bulb maybe but not the housing. Not if you're a BMW owner at least.

And why the hell would you need "service" at a licensed dealer for your stereo?

In the name of anti-theft if you're keeping things OE. I've blown out amps, speakers and head units. In the case of three cars I've owned the only place I could get them fixed was at a dealer without replacing the entire system. Are there ways around it? Sure but you can't just plug in an OE radio unless it's programmed with the car. If you're going aftermarket you can chuck the OE unit in the garbage or EBay it which is precisely what the manufacturers don't want you doing. They'd rather you pay full price for a new one.

If you have regular problems with your stereo needing servicing, you're doing something wrong.

What if I want to upgrade and resell my old unit? The buyer of my OE equipment has to make provisions with a dealer or a tech who knows how to get around
the anti-theft protection.

TPMS? Why would that need service, unless you're changing a tire (and personally I've never met any backyard mechanic who changed their own tires)? All the carmakers use standard TPMS sensors anyway, and all the tire shops will sell you new ones if you need them (like for a second set of wheels, for people who switch between winter and summer wheels/tires). And that's just for cars which actually use TPMS sensors; a lot of cars just reuse the ABS wheelspeed sensors to detect differences in tire pressure. To reset the system when you inflate the tires, you just press and hold the TPMS button.

Honestly, I'm really sick of all the new-car paranoia from luddite morons who want to go back to the days of carburetors and distributor points and manual chokes.

Really? I think you're oversimplifying a bit. Maybe consumer reports is more your style?

For this model, the reprogramming process uses a handheld device that records each sensor's output and then feeds those into the car's computer. The sequence usually takes about five minutes or so. But at this dealership, the technicians fiddled around for more than two hours and finally threw in the towel. They said the problem was that the aftermarket sensors were no good. Their official programming tool didn't recognize the signals the sensors were transmitting.

What was needed, they said, was original-equipment Toyota TPM sensors. They'd be happy to remove all four "faulty" sensors, install new ones, and program them to the car. All this for a mere $640.

They obviously see a problem with TPMS sensors and compatibility. I've had personal experience with this one during a 36,000 mile service the dealer wanted to charge me $800 for new TPMS sensors. The solution for me was to tell the dealer to stick it up their ass. Why were t

how about this one?

http://www.consumerreports.org...

As some of you have pointed out in our recent post, Using your cell phone as your home phone comes with a risk, some states do require local carriers to maintain a "soft" or "warm" dial tone, which allows you to call 911 on a line that has been disconnected or is otherwise inactive.

An up-to-date-list of affected states is elusive; we struck out in obtaining one from the FCC and some industry groups. However, the following are likely states for some form of soft-tone requirement; we assembled the list from data in an FCC report published in 2000 (Adobe Acrobat software required) and a North American Numbering Council (NANCE) report published in 2002 (link requires Microsoft Word or compatible word processing software).
...
However, we can't confirm that coverage is in effect in all those states today. Also, some soft-tone coverage is limited, in time or other respects. For example, according to the NANCE report, emergency service in Oklahoma is mandated for only 30 days following the suspension of service. In Ohio, the period is only 14 days.

Maybe, just maybe this could have worked before the era of ISP data caps, but now there is no way.

For the sake of argument, lets assume you're using the minimum requirement of 12Mb/s. Lets also assume you're on the high end of the average american household ISP data cap at around 300GB/month. This means you're getting 0.9132Mb/s of sustained usage rate all month long to fit beneath your data cap.

If you take that 300GB cap and divide it out at a rate of 12Mb/s, that means you can use their service for 2 days 7 hours 33 minutes and 20 seconds of solid gameplay. This also assumes you have zero other internet traffic the entire month and the measurements being used are 100% accurate.

If you take the lower average cap at 150 GB per month, and 1080p service plan that changes reduces your usage amount down to 6 hours and 40 minutes. I would hope that their service will default to the lowest setting possible (unlike most video streaming services), or many people will suddenly find themselves over their caps with a hefty bill.

You should drive some of the newer vehicles, they are a cut above...

Give the Ford Fusion a try, a really nice car all things considered. In many ways, nicer than a Camry or Accord...

GM is still working its way out of the crap dept, but some of the newer vehicles are nice. Their cars have improved leaps and bounds over the past, in fact the new Impala is one of the best cars on the road, from anyone.

http://www.caranddriver.com/ch...

It is right up there with the Toyota Avalon and Nissan Maxima...

http://www.consumerreports.org...

If you don't like Car and Driver, try Consumer Reports...

Time will tell of course, but the American Auto Companies have finally figured out that quality sells cars.

The large amount of time and effort spent to create a meaningful review (rather than the more typical short-form PR puff piece masquerading as a review) costs a lot of money, and in some cases may actually require you buy the product in question *and* related accessories if the company creating the product doesn't want a critical eye cast over it.

Consumer reports manages to make that work with a Paywall.

Is there any website you like that you wouldn't be willing to pay for?
I've thought through every place I visit on the web. There are some I'd rather pay than have advertising, and others I would rather disappear than have advertising, but overall the internet would be a better place without advertising.

Ask yourself this: If the content isn't valuable, why are you even reading it? Either read it without an ad blocker and support its creator, or GO ELSEWHERE if the ads are more offensive than you're willing to accept in trade for the content. Don't be disingenuous and claim the ads aren't needed, then steal the content anyway.

There is malware in all the major ad networks. If they don't want ad-blocking, they shouldn't be hostile. Right now, it's irresponsible to not block ads.

From the same page, the minimum liability requirements are:
$15,000 for injury/death to one person.
$30,000 for injury/death to more than one person.
$5,000 for damage to property.

I have no idea if most people have way higher liability insurance than that. If they *don't*, then it seems like the bond "workaround" could be reasonable. I admit I'm not running out and doing it right now, but it is tempting. (I *think* I have the minimum required insurance on my cars, only one of which I actually drive regularly.)

If you rear-end someone's Tesla and total it, how comfortable are you paying $95K to replace his car out of your own pocket (or future wages)? Likewise, if he suffers any injury, you could be on the hook for lost wages, medical treatments (including expensive long-term physical therapy), etc. If he goes to the ER, you could exhaust your $15K medical liability coverage before the guy even checks out of the ER that day. And this doesn't even get into the pain and suffering and other indirect claims. Don't even count on support from your own insurance company, they may look at the claim and decide that it's easier to cut a $15K check than to pay a lawyer to try to reduce the damages.

You may think "Oh, well the other guy will almost certainly have medical insurance, that'll cover his injuries", but what few people seem to know is that insurance companies will sue the responsible party to reclaim what they paid out in claims from an accident.

Here's what Consumer Reports says about liability limits (who has no ulterior motive to get you to over-insure):

http://www.consumerreports.org...

Your liability coverage pays for bodily injury and property damage that you cause in accidents. Don't get caught short by reducing your liability limits to the state minimums. Buying more coverage might seem like an odd way to save, but the benefit comes if you have a costly claim, which can put your personal assets at risk. Buy standard 100/300/100 coverage, which pays for bodily injury up to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per accident, and property damage up to $100,000. If you have a high net worth, boost bodily injury to $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident.

If you're young and have no real assets, then a low-liability policy may be the way to go, if you have significant assets that you don't want to lose, think hard about your liability limits and what it really means if you're in an accident.

So an Olympic organizer wants to feed the athletes safe produce that happened to come from a farm within 50 miles of Fukushima? The part I find funny is that timothy expresses obviously implied concern about the safety of it, but I'll bet he wouldn't hesitate to eat a tuna sandwich. I guarantee you that tuna sandwich is far more dangerous to your health than what trace radioactivity would be in that produce, especially for children and pregnant women.

Just something to beware of with security freezes. A few months ago I did freeze my accounts at the credit reporting agencies because my tax preparer recommended it as a proactive move to prevent identity theft.

I have a credit card that reports my current FICO score monthly. The month after I froze my accounts my FICO score dropped by 57 points. Looking back over the last year, my rating had moved up 11 points before this unexpected drop, so I think it's likely that the change was caused by initiating the credit freeze.

It doesn't matter as my credit history is frozen, but if I do need to give someone access to my credit ratings for any reason (buying a new car, getting a new job, whatever) then I presume the much lower score will be shown.

The formula that is used to calculate FICO scores varies depending upon the age of your credit history and other things such as factors associated with your socio group. In other words, your score can change for reasons that are unrelated to your finances or to anything you have done. However 57 points sounds like a big jump.

http://www.myfico.com/credited...

Also, the score that you bought is not the ones that the banks see.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/2...
http://www.consumerreports.org...

Lithium batteries aren't good for smoke detectors because their voltage drops off much more quickly than alkaline batteries. That means the low battery chirping sound will only last a short amount of time before the battery dies.

Consumer Reports says much the same..

Highlights:

"Over the first five years of ownership, the median car costs more than $9,100 a year to ownâ"about what it costs to own a midsized SUV such as the Nissan Murano or an upscale sedan such as the Lexus ES. But it's easy to find nice cars that cost much less. Sporty cars such as the base Mini Cooper can cost as little as $5,800 a year to own. Even a quick, refined, and roomy small SUV such as the V6-powered Toyota RAV4 costs as little as $7,800 a year to own."

Part of it is the assumption of a 3,5 or 8 year care ownership period.

OTH, as you pass the 11th year, repair costs start to rise significantly.

Full details in here:
http://www.consumerreports.org...

Consumer Reports perhaps you've heard of them?

Let me know when Toyota starts shipping hybrid vehicles with batteries that actually retain their ability to recharge to a usable capacity for 10+ years.

They've been shipping those batteries... since 2001. See this 10 year checkup from Consumer Reports:

http://www.consumerreports.org...

Moreover, Toyota made it so that you can replace individual battery cells, instead of only being able to replace everything at once. My GF's Prius needed a few cells replaced, and the price was quite reasonable. ($250? I forget the exact number.)

Weird, I don't see Hyundai on either of these lists.

http://www.consumerreports.org...
http://autos.jdpower.com/conte...

It's better at extortion than at unbiased advice.

As a contractor for the Angie's List literature that they send professionals. It is really slimy.

The CC is one of VW's most expensive sedans. The Passat is considered a midrange sedan and clocks in at only $24k, which is physically about what I would compare the Tesla model 3 to. But hey... don't take my word for it, look at what the Consumer Reports has to say about buying Sedans:

... there are plenty of fine midsized cars priced under $25,000.

That Tesla compares well to cars that sell for about the same price doesn't do Tesla any favors when you can actually still spend a whole lot less on an automobile and get something that is equally sized, looks just as good, and is is just as utilitarian in all other ways except that it runs on gasoline instead.

You've entirely missed the point of the original comment: If an individual is able to pay $100k for a car, they don't give a shit about cost of ownership in any real sense.

Tesla produces superior vehicles, regardless of cost to own and cost to environment. People buying a Tesla want it for the exact same reasons someone would want any $100k vehicle: scarcity, attention to detail, and the performance (and possibly the perception of being modern).

People truly wanting to "save the environment" will purchase a bicycle.

>You can't take it on the go Sure you can. http://www.consumerreports.org... http://www.ebay.com/itm/PORTAB...

What about healthy 20-somethings whose affordable plans (called "junk plans" by liberals, but perfectly adequate coverage

You mean "liberals" like Consumer Reports?The junk plans, by definition were not perfectly adequate coverage. These were plans that had the victims giving money to insurance companies for basically no coverage at all. eg: hospitalization coverage with an annual limit of $2K a year. With typical visits costing 10's of thousands of dollars, that barely even qualifies as a coupon. The mini-meds, or "junk plans" were legitimate insurance in almost exactly the same that payday loans are legitimate loans. Essentially they were just scams aimed a poor people.

What other ones are as thin as the new iPhones, flat (because having a curve like the HTC one is better engineering as it gives added strength) and made of aluminium?

It's funny you should mention the HTC One. Consumer reports did proper scientific stress testing of a number of phones inluding both iPhone 6s and the HTC One. ANd both the iPhones outperformed the HTC One.

Would you have the decency to admit you were taken in by a myth, or are you going to go quiet now?

"All the phones we tested showed themselves to be pretty tough. The iPhone 6 Plus, the more robust of the new iPhones in our testing, started to deform when we reached 90 pounds of force, and came apart with 110 pounds of force. With those numbers, it slightly outperformed the HTC One (which is largely regarded as a sturdy, solid phone), as well as the smaller iPhone 6, yet underperformed some other smart phones."
http://www.consumerreports.org...

I agree with using renewables first. It bypasses the "subsidies" that the fossil fuel industry receive.

An article at Forbes reports that coal increases health care costs by 19 to 45 cents a kwh. Oil increases the costs by 8 to 19 c/kwh, and natural gas by 1 to 2 c/kwh. Mercury in fish is getting bad enough that Consumer Reports had an article on it last month. I'm pretty sure fish aren't mining mercury. Then there's the climate change issue.

Any one of those reasons, from three different sources, is good enough for me to prefer renewables over fossil fuels. For nuclear, I haven't decided yet, but I'm leaning in the direction of it being sold at the same time as renewable, not after all renewable supply is consumed.

Where's your controlled, statistically significant comparative study data? Or are we supposed to go on an anecdote? Because we do have lots of data - for example, here Consumer Reports talks about their testing results.

Mercury? Every bulb CF tested contained less than 5mg. Let's go with 4mg as our figure (even though some are under 2%). 17-44% of said mercury will vaporize if you leave it sitting around for 8 hours. Let's say you clean it up and 10% gets into your air, which is probably a gross overestimate. What percent of that will you breathe and have actually get incorporated into your body? Probably in the low single digits, but lets be pessimistic and say 20%. So 80 micrograms. The mercury of a mere 1 1/2 cans of tuna.

But wait, there's more. The mercury in CFLs is "inorganic" (metallic, unbound) mercury, while mercury found in food is almost exclusively "organic" (methyl and dimethyl mercury). "Organic" mercury, being much more bioavailable, has many times worse health consequences per microgram.

The short of it? Don't stand in a closet and smash dozens of CFLs and then fan them while hovering over them and breathing deeply for a day or so. Otherwise, you're fine.

I'd say consumer reports is your best bet: http://www.consumerreports.org...

(sorry for double-posting this)

Consumer reports has a whole section on bulbs: http://www.consumerreports.org...

They tend to actually test things and remain impartial (they dont take any advertising money). They dont have an actual mean time to failure or anything but they do test 12.5k hour brightness and they report what is the claimed life.

.... and will be forced to do without or make do with crocus tea (Hellllloooooooooo shaman!) rather than a well controlled manufactured drug.

That's kind of the point - there was no "well controlled manufactured drug" since there was no standard dosage.

Oral colchicine had been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings -- FDA approval

.

And it has some dangerous potential side-effects beyond simple drug interaction.

Without dosage and interaction information you're in the supplement world.

Dangerous supplements

Geez, this is the most idiotic comment I've seen on Slashdot all day, and that's saying something. You couldn't be bothered to do a 30 second web search before implying that Apollo had no benefits?

http://web.archive.org/web/201...
http://m.computerworld.com/s/a...
http://www.the-scientist.com/?...
http://www.consumerreports.org...

Examples from those links: improved dialysis machines, credit card swipes, army field rations, improved building insulation, low recoil/shock rubber, cordless household appliances, cheaper Teflon and Velcro, asbestos-free fire proof textiles, better industrial lubricant, exercise equipment improvents used by pro sports teams, a great deal of insight into how the moons and planets formed, many rocket technology advances used in today's ICBMs and missile defense systems, etc., etc., etc.

Please, next time do five minutes of research before you post something so bonehead with so much conviction.

So my solution is still essentially the same as what I proposed after trashing the Stratosphere: Some Consumer-Reports-type outlet should rate phones on a Stupid S*#t Index (along with speed, reception, etc.), based on how much stupid s*#t they run into in a week of typical usage.

It sure sounds like he's talking about Consumer Reports here. But the solution already exists, and he got burned anyway, so maybe the real solution is complaining about it on Slashdot. That gets things done.