Slashdot Mirror

They also want ALL cars to have back-up cameras: http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/02/car-backup-camera-rule-delayed-again-by-nhtsa.html REALLY?! It's more likely that you get bitten by a shark while being struck by lightning than run over someone backwards.

It's not a security update. This update is more like a complete rewrite and has very little to do with Microsoft. You see, for their first attempt Ford decided to outsource the project to a company called BSQUARE who put the UI together using Adobe Flash Lite. For some reason, the results were slightly less than stellar.

Anyway, the preliminary reviews of the new version sound promising so I am at least a little hopeful. I am still quite frustrated, however, that I've had to deal with such awful software for well over a year on a brand new vehicle that cost almost $40k.

" (OK, there are accidents, but 9 times out of 10 it's because some idiot just drives out without checking over their shoulders and mirrors)."
Citation needed.

"That's a death rate of 1.1% of accidents. That's a pretty good survival rate for car accident."
so? lets make it better.

"Wouldn't this time/money be better spent on better driver education?"
nope.

" Bob has to list that as a car accident if he wants an X-Ray for his toe."
since backing up over a tow is highly unlikly to result in a visit to the Dr, do you ahve any non extreme examples?

Many accident are because you CAN"T see the person you are about to hit. There are big ass blind spots in almost every car.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/car-safety/car-safety-reviews/mind-that-blind-spot-1005/overview/index.htm
and more info:

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811144.pdf

I've seen a video where a toddler stands in FRONT of a parked car and the front of the car is taller than the toddler so the driver couldn't see the toddler and ran over the toddler. The toddler's parents/guardians are mostly to be blamed in that incident. It was a moderately busy street not suitable for unsupervised toddlers.

I have a pretty big SUV. There was an interesting segment I saw once were they had not one, but an entire kindergarten class stand in front of that model. From inside the car, you couldn't see any of them. For that reason, I always walk around my car if there are small children known to be in the vicinity. Sometimes I do it anyway just out of habit. 10 seconds of inconvenience to spare me a lifetime of guilt if I run over someone's kid? Yeah, I'm willing to take the time.

I was surprised that my midsize sedan has as poor rearward visibility as a large SUV:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/car-safety/car-safety-reviews/mind-that-blind-spot-1005/best-and-worst/0304bli0_best-and-worst-rear-blind-zones.htm

I'm also amazed parallel parking, a car behind me can practically disappear in the blind spot, making it very difficult to judge distances. I retrofitted a reverse camera. $75 or so from Amazon.

What I find criminal is that school busses aren't equipped with reverse cameras. Due to dead-end streets many routes require a backup-turnaround, and busses have a much larger rear blindspot than a car. The safest approach in this scenario is to backup AFTER picking up students, and BEFORE dropping off students. However you never know when a late child might be running for the bus. In many districts if a bus has to backup on school property there must be a spotter. There's cameras recording the students actions inside, but a simple $100 system can look behind the bus.

"... Microsoft has already confirmed that the Kinect will ... not even run on Windows PCs that aren't also running the developer's kit and using the device otherwise may actually void the warranty."

http://news.consumerreports.org/electronics/2012/01/ces-2012-kinect-for-windows-doesnt-mean-youll-be-playing-games-on-your-pc.html

So if you are not a developer, save your money.

I guess that our definition of "easy" is different. Most OnStar boxes that I have seen reside behind truck/cargo area panels. These require a decent amount of effort to remove or even destroy to rip out. Once you have access to the box then you can just pull out the antenna or cut the modem wire.

However, this does NOT disable the GPS tracking ability.

Easy to me would be a portable and concelable jammer of cell and GPS signals.

The key to most successful auto-theft is to look like the owner getting into the car, start it and get out of the area. NOT digging around in the trunk/cargo area looking suspicious.

As far as my dubious concepts, here are two links for support.
GPS leads to chop shop. (there were many of these if you search)
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=68129266-9628-4bdf-a7f8-52265fdaa318

FBI report states that technology has lead to a decline in auto-theft
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/09/fbi-reports-a-decline-in-auto-theft-in-2010.html

Your personal attribution of the deepening cost vs benefit ratio somewhat applies. If you examine the cause of that "deepening" wouldn't it be all of the technological factors that previously discussed?

Obviously you are too stupid to fucking Google or somehow think that your "analysis" is somehow superior to the massive amount that has been done. A .7% decrease in fuel efficiency is significant, and of course there is this:

"A 2009 study by the non-profit company Resources for the Future looked at the link between obesity and vehicle demand and found that from 1999 to 2005, a 10-percent increase in overweight and obese drivers reduced fuel economy of new vehicle demand by 2.5 percent. The study noted that as the overweight and obesity rates increased, so did the percentage of vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks purchased from 16 percent in the early 1970s to recently more than 40 percent. (Of course, other factors helped drive this market change, such as those crude, commercial-type vehicles becoming more refined and better tailored to commuter duties.)"

But yeah, you're right, that's not quantitative at all.

A tv that will cost twice as much as the next overpriced Sony and only lets you watch content approved by Apple. Oh and it will also use proprietary connectors so you can only connect it to other Apple devices.

I guess its the next logical progression from the iPod, iPad, and now iTv.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/march/electronics-computers/tv-online/digital-set-top-boxes/index.htm

Sure, maybe an Apple TV is not the logical successor of the product called Apple TV but instead it will evolve from a mystical iOS device that only plays Apple approved content, and pigs will fly from my anus.

I get it.
You hate stores that must approve of goods they sell, so you must make a lot of stuff yourself...
Although you could build or program a turing complete machine to do almost anything imaginable, or pay someone to do that for you, it is more convenient to rant about what existing ones don't do (which is boundless), and hate whomever made them...
You _love_ every flavor of the 'standard' USB port in use since the iPod dock connector...
It is impossible to have an objective discussion about the quality & cost of consumer goods with you.
You live with your parents.

OK, that LAST one is just a guess, but it's true isn't it, huh, huh?

When the batteries fail on them, they will end up scrapped, no one will want a crappy economy car with a dead battery that doesn't even get good gas mileage anymore.

Early Priuses are now more than 10 years old and the batteries have hardly degraded. Looks like they don't need to be changed any more often than an engine in an internal combustion engine car.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/02/200000-mile-toyota-prius-still-performs.html

Note the average life of a car is about 13 years. The very first production Priuses are already older than that.

What about the battery pack that needs to be replaced every 1-2 year? What about the limited mileage per charge?

Bullshit.

Consumer reports tested a Prius after 10 years, and compared it with a test of a similar model when it was new. In 10 years and 200,000 miles, the battery performance had hardly degraded at all.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/02/200000-mile-toyota-prius-still-performs.html

The summary is a little misleading. This is not a "major upgrade," it is a complete rewrite of the MyFord Touch system. You see, for their first attempt, Ford decided to outsource the project to a company called BSQUARE who put the UI together using Adobe Flash Lite. For some reason, the results were slightly less than stellar.

Anyway, Microsoft itself is supposedly helping with the rewrite and Ford is doing the rest in-house (without Flash) so those of us who have been dealing with this awful system for the last year are at least a little hopeful.

How long will the battery last? It's all great and exciting, but if one has to replace a ridiculously expensive (10,000$+) battery every 5-6 years, this is a nonstarter.

Yeah, I remember people making that argument when the Prius came out over ten years ago. Here we are, ten years later, and there are first generation Prii running around without battery issues.

Here's the Consumer Reports article on hearing aids
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/home-medical-supplies/hearing/hearing-aids/overview/hearing-aids-ov.htm

and here's a Washington Post article about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201623.html

Unfortunately it's 2 years old, and the ratings are behind a paywall (CR doesn't take ads, and they've got to pay the bills somehow).

Also unfortunately they only tested hearing aids selling for $1,800 to $6,800 per pair.

They said there's about a 100% markup, so there's room to negotiate.

What I was really looking for, and what I couldn't find, was an article from an audiology journal which rated the low-priced hearing aids. They said that there were $500 hearing aids that were quite adequate for most people.

Can anybody who follows this research help me out with some cites?

Link to article aja.asha.org

Link to blog talking about article: blog.starkeypro.com

Here's the Consumer Reports article on hearing aids
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/healthy-living/home-medical-supplies/hearing/hearing-aids/overview/hearing-aids-ov.htm

and here's a Washington Post article about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062201623.html

Unfortunately it's 2 years old, and the ratings are behind a paywall (CR doesn't take ads, and they've got to pay the bills somehow).

Also unfortunately they only tested hearing aids selling for $1,800 to $6,800 per pair.

They said there's about a 100% markup, so there's room to negotiate.

What I was really looking for, and what I couldn't find, was an article from an audiology journal which rated the low-priced hearing aids. They said that there were $500 hearing aids that were quite adequate for most people.

Can anybody who follows this research help me out with some cites?

From http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/06/40-mpg-dollars-and-sense-chevrolet-cruze-eco-saves-fuel-as-long-as-you-shift-yourself.html

The MSRP of the Chevy Eco is $20k. Also, that 42 MPG is misleading. That's only its highway mpg and only if you get a manual transmission. The combined MPG is, at best, 33 MPG. I say "at best" because that's the EPA fuel rating if you're using a manual transmission. Fuel efficiencies you actually have tend to be lower, especially if you do mostly city driving.

I payed only $4k more for the Prius. It's impossible to compare its depreciation rate since the Eco is a brand new model.

There's energy-efficient and cost-efficient. Electric heat is the former but not even remotely the latter.

1kWh is equal to 3,413 BTUs. At $0.1109/hWh, that's 9.0kWh/$, or about 31,000BTU/$.

As of April 11, natural gas cost $11.02/1000ft^3. At 1030BTU/ft^3, that's about 94,000BTU/$.

According to Consumer Reports, a "typical gas furnace made in the early 1970s has an AFUE of about 65 percent.", so your $1 of natural gas would get you about 61,000BTU of heat. Compared to a perfectly efficient electrical heat source, that ancient furnace would be approximately half as expensive to run. Newer furnaces can reach upward of 97% efficient, or about one third the price of electric heat.

Electric heat is only efficient in terms of energy conversion. In terms of wallet-to-warmth conversion, it sucks.

Except that in cold weather, the range of the battery can get significantly lower. As such, having a car with a range of 50 miles is probably one of the least useful ideas that I have seen come out of Toyota in awhile.

From the article (driving a Nissan Leaf), they set out with a "20 mile" range at 10 degrees Fahrenheit and only made it 8 miles (40%) before the car practically shutdown. By extending that, to the Toyota, you'd get 50 miles on the read out, and go 20 miles. Looks like you will be needing that minivan and towing hitch for the car as well. Or you had better live in an always-warm environment.

It's not even progress given the examples of the Leaf, i, and Volt with longer room and more space.

Using the guidelines from this document.

We're sorry Nokia, we don't know of anyone surviving Microsoft deals.

You mean like Ford and Toyota? Microsoft and Toyota form new telematics company

The GP wasn't saying he needed 30 seconds to define the difference. He needed more than 30 seconds to explain the role of the person doing that definition to someone who needs things explained in simple terms.

No, he needed more than 30 seconds to explain why we need to pay thousands to the government to do badly what Consumer Reports does for $26.

Generating electricity and transmitting it down power lines is only about 50% efficient. Gas furnaces really are almost 100% efficient and have the benefit of piping heat where you are, not generating it over your head.

So why aren't we requiring the providers to at least make available what their uptime and average data rate per customer is? They know this number, they know how much data they can move in any area. Yet they protect this information like it is a trade secret, that the average user could not possibly understand that they are offering 20MBps to the entire county while only having 200MBps backbone, and have only had an uptime over the past year of 98%.

Such information could legitimately be considered trade secrets. Oversubscription ratio is a major component of network design, and increasing that ratio has a significant benefit to the bottom line. If a particular topology, peering design, or technology allows a network to increase oversubscription while providing similar QoS to customers, that is a huge competitive advantage.

As for requiring disclosure of specific metrics, that is something that regulation could mandate. But the reality is a lot more complicated, making such simple labels useless. If a provider has only a 200 Mbps backbone, but extensive private peering in all of their POPs, performance could be better than a provider with a 10 Gbps backbone and peering in only two exchanges. I would suggest that an organization such as Consumer Reports might be a better avenue. They (or anyone else) could offer people an incentive to install some sort of monitoring client that reported such metrics as uptime, thoughput to various networks, etc. for each ISP. BroadbandReports and Speedtest.net already do this to some degree, but the focus on one destination makes it too narrow to be generally useful. Keynote, Gomez, and others provide much more robust metrics and methodologies to the business market.

This seems to be a better article. It mentions that the weight of the vehicle is around 1,750 pounds. Not sure where TFS got their figure of less than a thousand pounds from. They are also speculating that the 261 mpg figure does not count the contribution of the batteries.

Before a rookie who takes this seriously mouths off to management that they've done this, here is how this tactic works out in my prior life as an employee, before I started my own business. YMMV.

After I had stacked up three years of living expenses, on top of zero debt of any kind, I found that my demeanor in negotiations changed. Not obviously, and not obnoxiously. This, I found by accident, was far more effective than simply blurting out that I could give a damn because I was debt free. The other side of the negotiating table can sense the subtle shift, likely because without that debt clouding my judgement in the back of my mind, I could think without emotion about the negotiation itself. This business-like focus on the merits of my contributions to the bottom line were effective in securing what I wanted.

Years later, I appended additional rules to the two shown above, which other US-based Slashdotters might find even more effective after securing the first two rules.

• Research your health insurance plan options available as a private entity, and be sure to set aside enough in your contingency budget to accomodate that amount. Speak to the billing staff of medical professionals you use today, and ask them which insurance plans (not companies) are the easiest to work with, and ask insurance brokers which plans they use for their own family.
• Especially if you have family to look after, secure a long-term disability insurance policy and term life policy on your own. Read up on these insurance products at Consumer Reports.

After this point, as long as you focus on keeping yourself sharp and relevant to the market (when I was an employee I did this by continuously updating my resume on the job sites with each project I finished, comparing against skill sets listed in open positions I would be interested in if I was looking, and staying on friendly terms with the recruiters that kept calling me), you pretty much call the shots in compensation negotiations as long as you stay within market range.

The only reviews I take at all seriously are at epinions.com and ConsumerReports.org .

And I read only the negative reviews for anything, anyway. Once I'm looking at something reviewed, I probably already want it, so I'm looking for reasons not to get it. And negative reviews are harder to write convincingly without actually knowing something about the thing and its context, anyway. Anyone mad enough at something to go to all that trouble is itself an honestly negative review.

Oh please. Apple's own engineers warned Jobs of the issue right from the earliest design meetings, but were overruled. When users -shock- began complaining soon after launch, Jobs personally dismissed the "non-issue", telling them to "avoid holding it in that way."

Even when Apple *finally* accepted there was a problem at the 16 July press conference (only after a damning confirmation of the issue from Consumer Reports), there was no "mea cupla". They claimed the problem was common to all internal antenna phones, something which competitors and reviewers were quick to dispute, but they would begrudgingly issue free cases as a band-aid fix.

It never ceases to amaze me the infinite reserve of benefit-of-doubt that Apple commands from its fans! :]

Ah, right. That must be why Consumer Reports doesn't exist then. Oh, wait, they do. CR isn't beholden to manufacturers because it doesn't take funding from manufacturers.

And, look at that:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/most-fuelefficient-cars-206/

Non-government testing can and does exist where there is a demand for it to do so.

Guess what? It's almost ALWAYS cheaper to keep an old car that's serviceable. Gas is too cheap and cars are too expensive. That applies to hybrids and non-hybrids alike.

Fair point. These really are too different issues.

Price compared to hybrid: you're mostly right, the price range as 14,360 -$23,350; I misread. So it was 9k instead of 10k; that doesn't fundamentally change anything.

When you make up your numbers, compare cars that aren't comparable, ignore the used hybrid market, or compare a used vehicle to a new hybrid, it's very easy to make hybrids look much more expensive than they are. It's also misleading and dishonest.

You raise a valid point in that the comparisons weren't apples-to-apples. So let's look at some hard numbers by comparing two comparable models of 2006 Honda Civic, bought at Kelly Blue Book values and using current gas prices.

For our base number, we'll assume 12000 miles a yaer. Your used Civic hybrid is rated at 50mpg, while your used Civic non-hybrid is rated at 30/40 for an average of 35 mpg. Some simple math tells us the hybrid uses 240 gallons a year, while the non-hybrid uses 343 gallons.

We'll eyeball the current average price per gallon at 2.80 from the following link, to arrive at the annual gas cost below: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/gas_prices/

Hybrid: $672/year
Non: $960/year
Annual Gas Savings:
288 (960-672)

I assume we can agree on these base figures? So now let's look at used car prices.

Hybrid: ~14,800 LX Sedan AT (most directly comparable by feature): $12,650

So that's $2150 more for the used hybrid over the used base model. The annual savings in gas is 288; 2150/288 = 7.5 years to recoup the extra money you spent on the hybrid.

It's more drastic in the case of a new car. Let's look at the 2010 civic very briefly (calcs were quick and dirty, but I think no major mistakes that significantly affect the outcome. Numbers taken from Honda web site; mpg is averaged.) : 23800 for civic hybrid- 45 mpg - $788/yr gas; 15655 for civic lx - 30mpg - $1120/yr gas. Annual gas savings of hybrid: $332. It would take you 24 years to make up that price difference in gas savings, or for the frequent driver a mere 288,000 miles.

Which brings me back to my original point: hybrids aren't worth the extra money you spend on them, as you'll rarely recoup that cost. And in the case of buying comparable new cars, you likely will *never* recoup the cost.

Now I need to bookmark this comment so I don't have to do the math a third time when the subject next comes up ;)

There must be a couple of more exceptions

Consumer Reports is another periodical website that uses the subscription model (though in that case it is because they don't accept advertising so their reviews can be truly independent). What they have in common with WSJ, Economist and various scientific/medical journals is that they offer highly specialized data to a niche market that is willing to pay a premium for it. General interest newspapers and magazines do not fall into that category which is why the advertising-based model works much better for them.

You are still incorrect, shifting into neutral should not kill ABS or power steering, while turning the vehicle off will kill both, at high speeds power steering isnt as much of an issue, but abs would still be useful to have. Toyota itself recommends depressing the brake, shifting to neutral, and if all else fails shutting power off, then immedently pulling the car over and turning the car off.

sources:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/document/Floor_mat_Owner_Letter_sample.pdf (instructs the user to shift to neutral and power the vehicle off)
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/streaming/PDFs/cr_suddenunintended-acceleration_012910.pdf

and to the GP
Most cars have "rev limiters" which should kick in preventing any damage to the engine while running full throttle in neutral, this should prevent any rods from being thrown, which while not usually fatal (their usually angled up and away from the seating cabin v6/v8, or are vertical/diagonal and aimed out the side of the vehicle inline4/inline6 which would most likely not make it out of the motor compartment after loosing force penetrating the head) could cause alarm.

it depends on the exact hypothetical scenario. If were referring to the cases were the engine goes full throttle, and the brakes fail to function at all (being in a affected model such as a Prius) the correct coarse of action would be to try to shift into neutral and to to power off the car. If however you are in some other car you would need to specify what type of car, weather it was automatic or clutch, and weather it was drive-by-wire or manual throttle control, as well as weather it had disc brakes, drum brakes, etc. there are many variables. Sticking strictly to the reported scenarios with the models they were reported in, (assuming driver error isnt at fault, which it most likely is, but for this "hypothetical scenario" lets rule it out). What would YOU recommend a driver do in this case? (Stuck behind the wheel of a Prius at 60+Mph, with no brakes, and the motor going full throttle, regardless of pedal input?) Toyota itself recommends shifting into neutral, pulling over, and trying to turn the car off...

source:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/document/Floor_mat_Owner_Letter_sample.pdf (instructs the user to shift to neutral and power the vehicle off)
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/streaming/PDFs/cr_suddenunintended-acceleration_012910.pdf

oh and also most cars have "rev limiters" which should kick in preventing any damage to the engine while running full throttle in neutral, but even so, what is more important your motor, or your safety (and in the event it does total the motor and is found to be a fault in the car, im fairly confident that this would net you a brand new car from the mfg provided the car wasn't ridiculously out of warranty of anything).

From http://www.tuaw.com/2010/07/12/apple-drops-consumer-reports-discussion-threads-down-memory-hole/

If you were looking for a message thread on Apple's support forums pointing to Consumer Reports' article 'not recommending' the iPhone 4, it's not there any more. Apple's support forum moderators deleted the thread. Bing cached it.

If it happened once, maybe you'd say it was a glitch. But what if it happened twice? Three times? Four times, five, six?

ironically, CR still rates it HIGHER than any other smart phone for the US market!"

TFA linked to in the summary (I know, nobody reads it) explains it better than that snarky blog post:

• "The iPhone scored high, in part because it sports the sharpest display and best video camera we've seen on any phone, and even outshines its high-scoring predecessors with improved battery life and such new features as a front-facing camera for video chats and a built-in gyroscope that turns the phone into a super-responsive game controller. But Apple needs to come up with a permanent--and free--fix for the antenna problem before we can recommend the iPhone 4." (emphasis added)

New GE plants are tested by the FDA, the NIH, and the EPA.

I got this from "Whole Earth Discipline" by Stewart Brand, page 127. http://books.google.com/books?ct=result&id=1tTtAAAAMAAJ&dq=stewart+brand+whole+earth&q=national+institutes

He seems to be wrong. The NIH has no direct responsibility or authority over foodstuffs. They do regulate gene therapy for humans, but that's completely different thing.

Gene therapy is one area I fully support genetic engineering research, and application.

Here's the real story:
http://www.fda.gov/food/biotechnology/default.htm

The FDA considers GM foods basically safe, and looks over safety tests performed by the company selling the product to ensure they have not overlooked potential dangers. In cases that new proteins or pesticide resistance the burden of proof is much higher then swapping genes already in foodstuff.

Is that the same FDA that approved drugs that were later found to be bad?

I disagree with him on the things that fall outside his expertise of biology and ecology.

I don't see what his qualifications or expertize is on the Google or on the Amazon page. His wiki entry has some info but it doesn't say what those qualifications are either. It says he studied design at an art institute but doesn't say what degree he got if any.

Having said that I like that he worked with The Whole Earth Catalog and started the WELL (which I wanted to join). I wonder what he thinks of (Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay, I love that song.

For instance, I'm not as convinced nuclear power is our only hope.

I'm a long way from being convinced nuclear power is any hope for energy, instead I believe the oppose and believe that the money used in it's research can better be used in other research. As it is the nuclear power industry is Hooked on Subsidies. The SciAm article A Solar Grand Plan says "A massive switch from coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear power plants to solar power plants could supply 69 percent of the U.S.'s electricity and 35 percent of its total energy by 2050." And the NREL's Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the wind potential of different regions of the US. One analysis I read of it concluded the Rockies have enough potential to supply the 48 contiguous states with electricity.

The video you link to brought up one problem with alternative energy, the lack of a reliable baseload. However geothermal energy can supply some. And until storage technology is developed that is large scale, natural gas fired and nuclear power plants can be kept online. However which ever way it goes I want to see an end to subsidies whether it's the billion dollars alternative energy gets or the billions more coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and petroleum get. And that includes external costs such as pollution.

Falcon

Oh, on the FDA, I want it abolished. The NIH, which I'd like privatized, can take over some of what the FDA does. As for drug approvals, I believe people should be able to take whatever drug they want without a prescription.

It does work very well. I have an iPhone 4 (got it on launch day) and I can replicate the "signal loss" by bridging those pieces of metal. I do lose bars (so my signal wasn't fantastic to begin with).

I've been watching this whole thing with interest. I've seen a ton of reports that the 4 is better at keeping calls when in a low signal area, at that seems to match my experience. It's a flaw, but really it's not that big. I've learned to keep my left hand (which I usually hold my phone with) about 1/2cm higher, and I don't have problems. A bumper would almost completely fix it.

Mostly, this is a huge black eye on Apple's part. The phone works very well, and I'd imagine the problem will only really effect you if you live in an area with poor reception (which I don't seem to). If there wasn't such a simple physical action people could do to trigger this (say you had to hold you hand over the back in a certain way), I don't think we'd hear nearly so much about this. It' just so easy for people to trigger and associate with an action, it seems much worse than with other phones that drop your calls where you can't be sure why your signal is being lowered.

I like my phone. I won't return it, it works fine for me. It's kind of sad to watch. Consumer Reports says there is no reason not to buy. I'll admit if I didn't have one launch day, I would probably wait a little longer to see what happened. But I'm in love with my retina display.

Basically: much ado about something that's not that bad. See chart.

Also, for a good humorous take on all this, I highly recommend John Gruber's hilarious translation of Apple's "apology" letter.

I'm pretty sure that canned food companies haven't stopped using it .

Where in the world are you pulling 20-30% from?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2008/10/save-gas-and-money-with-a-stick-shift-10-08/overview/manual-vs-auto-ov.htm

The worst I see in that test is 15%, some are under 10%. And the way I see people in California drive, I'd hate to think what the roads would look like if they were worrying about shifting, too.

I've did some work on lathes on colege workshop some years ago, and all the lights there were regular fluorescent tubes. had no problem with strobing.

Strobing is a pretty well known effect with florecents. The fact that someone set up a shop properly for you in college doesn't negate the effect.

that's plain bullshit you just made up, OR your remote is busted. buy another one.

Well, both NEMA and Consumer Reports say that you don't know what you are talking about. Where are your citations showing that CFL does not interfere with IR?

Over 40% of sudden acceleration are from Toyota drivers http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/12/sudden-unintended-acceleration-sua-analysis-2008-toyota-lexus-ford-gm.html. Which is far higher then Toyota's share vehicle parc (number of vehicles in use). This is an indication that there may something other then human error. (Ford is also higher then it should be, with most of its complaints coming from the F-series, the common explanation for this is the shape of the transmission tunnel in certain bodystyle causes the driver to place his or her right foot in an unusual manner causing the driver to hit the wrong peddle)

Well, I've owned over 20 VWs so I think I know what I'm talking about. But if you don't want to take my word for it, I suggest you simply go try it. Get going 60mph and stomp the throttle and brake pedal simultaneously. Let us know what happens.

Here's some proof backing up my claim.

That's a wildly incorrect oversimplification.

First, accelerating from 0 to 100 takes much longer in large part because of gearing. You have different amounts of power in different speed bands. That 0-60 time measurement is the *average* of its power, but the brakes must overcome the motor in its *strongest* band.

Second, you're forgetting that it has to overcome both the engine *and* momentum.

Third, when brakes are overworked, they get hot and lose their grip.

I stand by my statement that I would not expect cars to be able to reliably stop with the engine at full throttle. Some might, but I wouldn't bet my life on it. For sure, according to Consumer Reports, at least one Toyota model cannot reliably do so.

Considering that this is directly contrary to the personal experiences of several people on this thread and a recent consumer reports road test of some of the very vehicles that this article is about, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that this is not nearly as clear cut as you make it out to be.

The fact is that under ideal circumstances, yes, maybe on most cars you might be able to bring the vehicle to a stop if and only if:

• You do not first attempt to use the brake to kick the thing out of cruise control several times unsuccessfully.
• You immediately push as hard as you can on the gas and keep it down until the vehicle stops.
• You are strong enough to apply maximum braking.
• The ABS system doesn't get in the way.
• Your brakes have not been used a lot recently (and thus don't overheat)
• The vehicle is going below about 60 MPH.
• The vehicle is neither a truck nor an SUV nor a high end sports car.

That's a LOT of ifs.

There is not a car on the road today that doesn't have higher power brakes than engine. The ratio is beyond ridiculous for smaller cars... my little ancient saturn accelerates at barely 120 HP yet brakes at something near 600 HP.

http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/10/toyota-recall-putting-stuck-floor-mat-survival-strategies-to-the-test.html

This time we accelerated to 60 mph before we slammed on the brakes. Again, the engines downshifted and fought us all the way down. But by the time we slowed down to about 10 mph, the brakes had faded so much that we weren’t able to come to a complete stop. If the driver had less strength or was traveling at higher speeds, they would not be able to slow down nearly as much.

The *average* age of a car on the road today is 9.4 years and rising.

Sometimes things do manage to work out for the best.

But then, you discover that your child's toys are full of lead (or worse, cadmium), that practically all canned foods contain BPA, and that building codes are sometimes ignored, especially in countries like Haiti.

You definitely want to make sure that the multi-ton metal box you ride around in is not provided by the lowest bidder.

And maybe those mass-produced foodstuffs are truly scary, and really shouldn't be called foodstuffs.

I, for one, am worried.

By long way away you mean possibly 2010?

Tier 2 Bin 5 (the engine they're announcing for 2010) is *not* SULEV. You're misreading the article; they're talking about two different engines.

Refilling the urea tank once every 10-15,000 miles is a pain? Umm... sure. Whatever.

Talk to Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports seems to think so (with some caveats). They covered it in this months issue.

Sorry to reply to myself, but I realized I was retarded and pasted the wrong link (and yet didn't realize that when I said it wasn't consumer reports' website... right... it's Friday, and I've checked out.). Here is the link I meant to post... right.

It's an oligopoly (with a high risk of collusion)...

You think? A couple years back, text message cost 10 cents on AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless. Then surprise-- they all go up to 15! Then 20!

500 text messages take up less bandwidth than a minute of conversation.

I'd say there's a high risk of collusion too.

And here's a citation for my post: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/11/video-how-not-to-stop-a-runaway-car-dont-pump-the-brakes.html