Slashdot Mirror

All thanks to the portable adaptation recently.

Some people at CR have fun jobs.
Some don't...that's life for you. :-)

Some people at CR have fun jobs.
Some don't...that's life for you. :-)

I was shocked to see this.

Did new tires really use to be this bald? There's no way you could get me to drive today with those things on my car.

Gaylord the Pup

I'd hate to be this guy.

One drop of this instant glue formed a bond between man and hammer in five seconds. We called it an instant hazard--and rated it Not Acceptable.

Why did this man glue himself to a hammer?

Have a look at this. Down near the bottom, there are two successive entries, the first about a car, the second about pens. The car in the picture is described as the cheapest American-made car, and cost $1000. The line below that, dated a year later states that the price of ballpoint pens just fell from $9 to $1. So, at the earlier price point, for the price of just slightly more than 100 pens, you could have yourself a new car! Today, of course, you can't get a new car for less than $8,000, but you can have yourself 100 Bics for, what, $2? It really is a striking illustration of how inflation is merely an average, prices on individual items increase or decrease at vastly different rates.

To hell with the nerf products, I need one of these..

Sonic Blaster, 1966

The Mattel Agent Zero M Sonic Blaster 5530 fires compressed air with a deafening blast. Our measurements top out at 157 dB-above a level that can do permanent damage to the hearing of an adult. We rate the toy Not Acceptable.

W00T!

This guy has the worst job ever...
Boss: Hey Jones, put this superglue on your hand and touch stuff...
Guy: It works..
Boss: Hmm... works too well... we don't like it!

My god, I really want a turkey club sandwich.

Gaylord, the pup

I wonder where the etymology happened to change that word so much. Still more, I wonder if the original taker of that name really wanted to be known as the master of happyness at the time or not.

Ryan Fenton

My favorite is the Mattel Agent Zero M Sonic Blaster 5530. What the picture fails to show is the little boy wetting his pants with excitement and joy when he opened his Christmas Present and saw that monster air bazooka. I know I would have!

show me where there is an independently run online publication with a full staff and experienced journalists whose bills are being paid by individual subscribers, and i'll agree with you.

Here.

I'm going to be honest here, up front, I work for Apple as a Tech Support agent in one of their call centers. That being said, I hope that doesn't affect how people interpret my post.

I'm sure most of the Slashdot crowd are smart enough to figure out their own problems, but if Tech Support is a deciding factor in purchasing any type of system, I'd like to point out some interesting facts...

For the last two years, Consumer Reports has rated Apple Computers #1 in terms of Service and Support. The latest report can be found here (I hope that link works). Apple beat Dell by a significant margin, not to shabby.

Also, a recent reader survey by PC World, found here, listed Apple with the best Tech Support marks among PC suppliers. I'll put in the stipulation that I'm not sure what percentage of PC World's readers are Mac users, but I found the survey results relevant and ironic.

Now, if you want to talk about the price on an Apple laptop versus a PC laptop, discounting the hardware specs that everyone seems to focus on during these discussions, I'd like to point out that a Powerbook or an iBook similarly configured to some Dell laptop still has an edge in the software department. Out of the box, all Apple computers come with the "iApps" as well as AppleWorks, and some other third party applications. That may not be of interest to everyone, but to a lot of consumers, being able to make your own movie and such and then burn it to DVD, virtually seamlessly, all with a consistant and easy-to-understand interface... that's a big selling point to some, and as I stated earlier, all Apple computers ship with this software (well, iDVD only ships with SuperDrive enabled Macs, but that should make sense). Value is not determined wholy by hardware alone, and Apple has a really great total package.

Well, I think I may have probably spent more time rambling than I should have, but to add a little more info about myself so I don't sound like a total Mac Evangelist... I've been using PCs for more than half my life, and I used to be a Mac-basher, but I was lured by Mac OS X and the pretty PowerBook, and I have not looked back since making the "switch." Oh yeah, obviously I'm partial to Apple Tech Support since I work for them, but then again, why not be proud of doing a good job... right?

Hopefully the consumer watchdog groups around will pick up on this. Groups like Consumer Federation of America and Consumer's Union (publisher of Consumer Reports do some good work. They are a little slow and behind the times in some ways but they are some of the few groups that confront the cable industry, mostly over the issue of rates. They've been involved in the open access issue which has been important.

You could also organize your community to be your own consumer advocates, rather than hope these organizations will do it for you. Since its an Internet related issue you'll have a much easier time organizing because the people you want to reach are mainly online. Get in touch with the public utility commission, city council, the local news media and the cable company itself. Usually these people here nothing at all from the public on issues like this, if they get 10 calls they'll piss in their pants. Mail the local Linux Users Group, Internet Society Chapter, and other computer related fora and suggest people do the same.

The AP article actually attributed slashdot for finding the stock photo of the person.

This story is the type of stuff Consumer Reports Magazine publishes in their "Selling It" column. Things like the same person in the exact same pose promoting two completely different products, with different names of themselves. Or (I like this better) the company that advertised the same thing in two different magazines about a few months apart with "Steve Johnson Uses X", but two different people were "Steve Johnson." I liked the CR headling the best - "Would the real Steve Johnson please stand up?"

CR would be in best position to publish this if MS published this as an ad in a magazine or newspaper, as they typically stick to glorifying published ads or physical products.

But you stated yourself that you are violating the EULA, that is damaging to the publisher of the software and is not research. It would be defined as 'research' if you had sought the publishers permission which I doubt you ever did.

The fact that I did not obtain the publisher's permission does not magically redefine my activity to be "not research".

I bought a sports car. I don't think it goes fast enough. I swap out the intake system, have a machine shop rebore the engine, and I extract the manufacturer's ROM, edit the ROM image to tune the pre-computed fuel curve table, and burn a new ROM for myself.

All of this activity I define as "research". The car manufacturer might not agree, and will void my warranty. But the fact that I do not have permission from them to "hack" my car does not change the definition of my research to something else, it only changes my relationship with the vendor, and precludes me from obtaining future "tech support" from the vendor.

Your comment states your an OPENBSD fan, OPENBSD gladly allows you to perform research. In that case, use the OpenSource for your research and if your concerned about the security of COTS then DON'T USE IT!

The fact that the company that sold them the hardware or software did not agree to this "research" does not change the definition of my activity.

If my client was "Consumer Reports", would you still have a problem with my research?

Consumer Reports buys all the items they test from retail outlets, and does not ask the manufacturer for permission to perform their "research": http://www.consumerreports.org/static/popup/didyou know.html

Oh, and anyone who wants to call me a fool for saying this, stop by here first.

If above link doesn't work, as it looks horrible, go here:

1. http://www.consumerreports.org/main/home.jsp
2. Go to the AUTOS tab and enter that section.
3. Halfway down the left column there is a link to "Best and worst used cars Reliable models and those to avoid."

If you don't buy a car in the top 20 list, you like pissing money away. I have owned several on the top and regularly driven those in the middle and some on the bottom. What you don't know is hurting you, putting you and your family at risk from mechanical failure, and is probably wasting more gas (I'm not a Truck hating dip-shit, BTW) I'm reproducing that page for your viewing pleasure here as well: (Note to parent, you cant say that CR.org is so full of shit, I mean, EVERY consumer GMC truck is listed in the bottom 20 cars, and every time I have rented a GMC it's a piece of shit with loose steering, how does one get a good experience with GMC, might I ask?) Used cars Best & worst

The most reliable--and the most troublesome.
Although cars tend to be much more reliable than they used to be, buying any used vehicle involves some degree of risk. You can limit that risk by buying a car with a proven track record of reliability.
The exclusive reliability data in Consumer Reports can help guide you to models to look for and models you'd do well to avoid.
CR Good Bets, below, are the best of the best. These have performed well in our road tests and have been consistently better than average in overall reliability.
The list of Reliable used cars (available to subscribers only) can help you find specific vehicles that have proved to be above average in reliability. At the other end of the spectrum are the Reliability Risks (also below), vehicles that are especially dicey buys because they have exhibited several years of poor overall reliability. Used cars to avoid (available to subscribers only) lists all the models that have had below-average reliability.
CR Good Bets
Acura Integra, Acura RL, Acura TL, BMW 3-Series, Ford Escort, Ford F-150 (2WD), Geo/Chevrolet Prizm, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, Acura RL, Honda Odyssey, Infiniti G20, Infiniti I30, Isuzu Oasis, Lexus ES300, Lexus GS300/GS400, Lexus LS400, Lexus RX300, Lincoln Town Car, Mazda Millenia, Mazda MX-5 Miata, Mazda Protegé, Mercury Tracer, Honda Civic, Nissan Altima, Nissan Maxima, Nissan Pathfinder, Nissan Sentra, Saab 9-5, Saturn S-Series, Subaru Forester, Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy, Toyota 4Runner, Toyota Avalon, Toyota Camry, Toyota Camry Solara, Toyota Celica, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Sienna, Toyota Tacoma, Toyota RAV4

Reliability risks
The models in this list are especially risky buys. Distilled from the list of Used cars to avoid, (available to subscribers only), they have exhibited multiple years of poor overall reliability. The list contains many twins and triplets, which are essentially similar models sold under different nameplates. Listed alphabetically.
Cadillac Catera, Chevrolet Astro, Chevrolet Blazer, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet S-10 (V6, 4WD), Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (4WD), Chrysler LHS, New Yorker, Chrysler Town & Country ('94-97), Dodge Dakota (4WD), Dodge Durango, Dodge Grand Caravan ('94-97), Dodge Intrepid, Dodge Neon, Dodge Ram 1500 (4WD), Ford Windstar, GMC Jimmy, GMC S-15 Sonoma (V6, 4WD), GMC Safari, GMC Sierra 1500 (4WD), Jeep Grand Cherokee, Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Oldsmobile Bravada, Oldsmobile Cutlass, Plymouth Grand Voyager ('94-97), Plymouth Neon, Pontiac Firebird, Pontiac Grand Am, Volkswagen New Beetle, Volvo S70/V70 (AWD), Volvo S80

Good Bets and Reliability Risks are compiled from overall-reliability data covering 1994 through 2001 models with better-than or much-worse-than-average reliability. We included only the models for which we have sufficient data for at least three model years. Models that were brand new in 2000 or 2001 do not appear on these lists. Problems with the engine, engine cooling, transmission, and drive system were weighted more heavily than other problems.

Oh, and anyone who wants to call me a fool for saying this, stop by here first.

If above link doesn't work, as it looks horrible, go here:

1. http://www.consumerreports.org/main/home.jsp
2. Go to the AUTOS tab and enter that section.
3. Halfway down the left column there is a link to "Best and worst used cars Reliable models and those to avoid."

If you don't buy a car in the top 20 list, you like pissing money away. I have owned several on the top and regularly driven those in the middle and some on the bottom. What you don't know is hurting you, putting you and your family at risk from mechanical failure, and is probably wasting more gas (I'm not a Truck hating dip-shit, BTW) I'm reproducing that page for your viewing pleasure here as well: (Note to parent, you cant say that CR.org is so full of shit, I mean, EVERY consumer GMC truck is listed in the bottom 20 cars, and every time I have rented a GMC it's a piece of shit with loose steering, how does one get a good experience with GMC, might I ask?) Used cars Best & worst

The most reliable--and the most troublesome.
Although cars tend to be much more reliable than they used to be, buying any used vehicle involves some degree of risk. You can limit that risk by buying a car with a proven track record of reliability.
The exclusive reliability data in Consumer Reports can help guide you to models to look for and models you'd do well to avoid.
CR Good Bets, below, are the best of the best. These have performed well in our road tests and have been consistently better than average in overall reliability.
The list of Reliable used cars (available to subscribers only) can help you find specific vehicles that have proved to be above average in reliability. At the other end of the spectrum are the Reliability Risks (also below), vehicles that are especially dicey buys because they have exhibited several years of poor overall reliability. Used cars to avoid (available to subscribers only) lists all the models that have had below-average reliability.
CR Good Bets
Acura Integra, Acura RL, Acura TL, BMW 3-Series, Ford Escort, Ford F-150 (2WD), Geo/Chevrolet Prizm, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Honda CR-V, Acura RL, Honda Odyssey, Infiniti G20, Infiniti I30, Isuzu Oasis, Lexus ES300, Lexus GS300/GS400, Lexus LS400, Lexus RX300, Lincoln Town Car, Mazda Millenia, Mazda MX-5 Miata, Mazda Protegé, Mercury Tracer, Honda Civic, Nissan Altima, Nissan Maxima, Nissan Pathfinder, Nissan Sentra, Saab 9-5, Saturn S-Series, Subaru Forester, Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy, Toyota 4Runner, Toyota Avalon, Toyota Camry, Toyota Camry Solara, Toyota Celica, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, Toyota Sienna, Toyota Tacoma, Toyota RAV4

Reliability risks
The models in this list are especially risky buys. Distilled from the list of Used cars to avoid, (available to subscribers only), they have exhibited multiple years of poor overall reliability. The list contains many twins and triplets, which are essentially similar models sold under different nameplates. Listed alphabetically.
Cadillac Catera, Chevrolet Astro, Chevrolet Blazer, Chevrolet Camaro, Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet S-10 (V6, 4WD), Chevrolet Silverado 1500 (4WD), Chrysler LHS, New Yorker, Chrysler Town & Country ('94-97), Dodge Dakota (4WD), Dodge Durango, Dodge Grand Caravan ('94-97), Dodge Intrepid, Dodge Neon, Dodge Ram 1500 (4WD), Ford Windstar, GMC Jimmy, GMC S-15 Sonoma (V6, 4WD), GMC Safari, GMC Sierra 1500 (4WD), Jeep Grand Cherokee, Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Oldsmobile Bravada, Oldsmobile Cutlass, Plymouth Grand Voyager ('94-97), Plymouth Neon, Pontiac Firebird, Pontiac Grand Am, Volkswagen New Beetle, Volvo S70/V70 (AWD), Volvo S80

Good Bets and Reliability Risks are compiled from overall-reliability data covering 1994 through 2001 models with better-than or much-worse-than-average reliability. We included only the models for which we have sufficient data for at least three model years. Models that were brand new in 2000 or 2001 do not appear on these lists. Problems with the engine, engine cooling, transmission, and drive system were weighted more heavily than other problems.

Obviously, this sweeping statement is absurd. It is as absurd as claiming that the three people posting in response to my claims of GM inferiority somehow negate the fact that: as a whole, GM cars are far less reliable than Hondas, Toyotas, VWs, BMWs, etc.

Don't believe me? Try Consumer Reports.

And well should they regard commercial consumer-oriented publications with healthy skepticism.

But Consumer Reports is not a commercial publication. They take great pains not to accept advertising (as the annoying pop-up will tell you) for fear that it could potentially influence their impartiality.

Perhaps you're confused by the look-alike commercial knock-off of Consumer Reports that calls itself Consumer Digest, though it looks as if they may have gone out of business.

I had heard about a June issue of CR having the big diet evaluation in it, but never got hold of it. It would definitely be worth some reading.

Next time you want to buy a car, check out CR. Their evaluations sound kind of stodgy, but they give you the lowdown on reliability, price, crash worthiness, gas mileage and seat room in ways that the flashier publications tend to gloss over as they gush on about performance and style.

But I feel I should have a go at putting some numbers that I was once quoted out there for /.teers to shoot down. Here goes.

The music industry in the US releases about 30,000 albums every year in total. That's about 600 a week. You can verify this figure plenty of ways - including looking on the web. Now here's where the figures start to be pulled out of someone's arse. It's been said to me by people who should know that some number way smaller than 10% of these releases actually make money. This is the missing information that people like Courtney leave out of their diatribes against those bloodsuckers in "the industry".

So when records go off like a bomb, and record companies sit there raking in the profits, don't forget that these profits go to pay for the other 90% of albums that didn't make any cash.

The record companies are not making that much in total, anyway. Their annual reports are online, so you can check this stuff too.

Basically, I'm just a bit bored with hearing the same old charges raised and accepted without any support

So on to payola. Again, this is essentially a storm in a teacup, with lots of missing information that never seems to get presented. For example, payola is the same story as in the supermarket game.

Did you know that supermarkets make more money from placing the product on their shelves than they do from taking it off their shelves (ie selling it to you and me)? Standard stuff. So it is with payola. The radios make more money playing the music than squeezing in the ads. That's how they can afford to play that "nonstop hour of music" or whatever at lunchtime!

Of course record companies, or anyone, need to pay to get their products placed! I don't know why anyone thinks it is any different! The radios are businesses, and they can play what they like, so they play what is in their shareholders interests to play.

Flame away, but I don't understand the shocked gasps that always follows this kind of "revelation", just like I don't understand how people get away with painting the record companies as ravening beasts, when a simple look at the balance sheet tells you they are out there makin' deals just like every other business since the dawn of time. If they were super-profitable, don't you think everyone would be doing it?

While they don't do video games very often, I have always prefered Consumer Reports consumerreports.org for my big purcahses. They are a non-profit group, there is no advertising, and everything they review, whether it be DVD players, cars, or stereo system, they send an anonymous Joe Public to buy one from a store shelf. This gives you unbiased reporting, because they really don't have anything to gain. Depending on how you look at it, this could be good or bad: They only buy products that are in the stores. That means no early previews, but it also means reviews of what you can really get. No Vaporware here.

In fact in one case, a product maker was not pleased with the review they got, so they sent the usual C&D orders and then went legal with the slander suits. Rather than settle on it, CR went on to keep everyone informed of who this company was, and vigoriously defended themselves in court, and I believe they won.

I wish they or someone else had a similar product for reviewing software of all types. Right now CR has done just a couple software reviews. The problem, as I think we've discovered, is that unless you have a large bankroll and aren't in it [the media business] to make money, it's really hard to BUY and test lots of products, let alone do unbiased reviews.

There are only two journalistic sites on the web that charge a fee and make money - The Wall Street Journal and Consumer Reports. Both are generally considered to have high journalistic standards. Both avoid publishing press releases. Both make money. This should tell you something.

> they like getting stuff for free, and the creators be damned

I think this is true for a lot of content, but not necessarily for all content. For example, I pay something like $22 a year for an online subscription to Consumer Reports. For me, this is much better than getting the dead tree version, which contains a lot of crap I'm not interested in. With the online version, I just hit the website whenever I'm reasearching an upcoming purchase.

I would also be willing to pay for a news feed. I cancelled my newspaper subscription long ago. Portland's The Oregonian sucks, and the main stories are always about something I read about on the net the day before. Instead, I read cnn.com daily for up-to-the minute news. and, frankly, I'd be willing to pay the same price as a newspaper for the privilege.

This is the second recall on the page today, not that Intel is a suprise but the Transmeta news was kind of a let down

Maybe the OEM's are getting scared by articles like this saying things like

"This is why a committee of the Pennsylvania state legislature considered the nation's first PC lemon law this year. In February, a similar bill was introduced in Illinois."

Well I haven't seen AMD today so I guess that makes them the winner(today).

As mentioned in an earlier Slashdot article, the Mattel Agent Zero M 5530 Sonic Blaster is my weapon of choice for silencing my critics. From the Consumer Reports page, The Mattel Agent Zero M Sonic Blaster 5530 fires compressed air with a deafening blast. Our measurements top out at 157 dB-above a level that can do permanent damage to the hearing of an adult.

For those that do not know, Consumer reports is a non profit organization that compares products. They have nothing to do with software specifically, but that is my point.

That's the telco model of information pricing. The telcos had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the era of cheap communications and free content.

The basic problem with micropayments is that all the enthusiasm for them is on the collecting side, not the paying side. Contrast this with credit card acceptance, which consumers actually want.

On the web, there are are only two (non-porno) pay sites that do significant business. The Wall Street Journal and Consumer Reports. Both had top reputations in the print world. Everybody else who's tried it has bombed, including MTV. So pay-per-view is the wrong answer. Kale is way off base on that. His "ISP tax" idea is even worse. That sounds like something the RIAA would come up with.

A real performance car (one that's meant to go fast + handle well) gets much better mileage than any SUV. Some of them even get pretty good mileage. They're generally smaller than an ordinary car, and they are made from much lighter materials. A 250 hp engine is an engine that _can_ produce 250 hp. It's also perfectly capable of only produce 100 hp, or some lesser amount. An SUV, on the other hand, is very heavy, so it takes much more energy to get it going, and all of that energy is lost whenever you brake.

Read this month's Consumer Reports, for example (sorry, the link to the article is paid subscription only, try your local library). They're reviewing the Honda S2000, Toyota MR2, Toyota Celica, and Mitsubishi Eclipse. All of them get more than 20 mpg, and I think the Honda gets nearly 30. Compare that to an SUV's 10-15 mpg.

One of the reasons for their success is their strict refusal of all offers of free products (nor do they solicit). They obtain their products as a regular consumer would.

Their procedures are briefly documented on their Web page.

Competent reviewers who wish to remain objective should adhere to these guidelines.

WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?

Some people might want to check out the July, 2000 issue of Consumer Reports. It features a section on Credit Reports .. it does a good job of explaining what creditors look for. It suggests you audit your credit reports anually from _each_ of the three major credit bureaus: Equifax: www.equifax.com ; Experian: www.experian.com ; Trans Union: www.transunion.com. Some even offer online and instantly emailed credit reports, while others offer online ordering. It is seriously reccomended that you purchase July's Consumer Reports!

The article is also available online. If you'd rather not pay for the paper version of consumer reports, you may subscribe to their online information (US$3.95/month) at http://www.consumerreports.org. What I like best about them is that they are unbiased and use their income to purchase products and accept no advertising or donations of products or anything. Consumer reports is published by the Consumers Union <http://www.consumer.org/&gt:

Actually, random people off the street can email CR as well. Go to this page.

I encourage everyone else to send in your (rational, calm, concise) comments about CR recommending Trust-E.

Over on the Consumer Reports site they are running a thing about e-commerce. Well, one of the things they mention is that the consumers should be looking for the trust-e logo. Apparently they are under the mistaken assumption that Trust-e means anything.

I have been wanting to write them a letter as soon as I read this small article, but apparently only members of the CR website can send them email - otherwise you have to send them snail mail.

Now, this leads me to a question - a few months ago someplace somewhere someone put up a note or newsitem or something that talked about somebody and their policy on their website. The trust-e logo was showing up on www.thewebsite.com but they were violating the privacy over on blah.thewebsite.com. Trust-e's response, if I remember correctly was "well, www.thewebsite.com is the site that is licensed, so we don't care about blah.thewebsite.com" or something to that effect. Now I can't find this story or whatever it was. Anyone elese remember this or did I dream it?

I saw an article about these things in Consumerreports magazine. I'm sure you can find the article at http://www.consumerreports.org/

Wow! That's something like $45 in today's dollars.

Pen Testing Machine

Why, oh why don't they make stuff this fun any more? Collecting stuff like this is how I got my name... :)

Other fun ones...

Proof that Consumer Reports is responsible for the Ozone hole.
A primitive wind tunnel.
The disposable dress that is so ugly that it should be disposed before use.
Houdini's magic death trap (a.k.a. portable sauna)
Cat-litter flavored ice cream.

Yummm... Tasty.

Why, oh why don't they make stuff this fun any more? Collecting stuff like this is how I got my name... :)

Other fun ones...

Proof that Consumer Reports is responsible for the Ozone hole.
A primitive wind tunnel.
The disposable dress that is so ugly that it should be disposed before use.
Houdini's magic death trap (a.k.a. portable sauna)
Cat-litter flavored ice cream.

Yummm... Tasty.

Why, oh why don't they make stuff this fun any more? Collecting stuff like this is how I got my name... :)

Other fun ones...

Proof that Consumer Reports is responsible for the Ozone hole.
A primitive wind tunnel.
The disposable dress that is so ugly that it should be disposed before use.
Houdini's magic death trap (a.k.a. portable sauna)
Cat-litter flavored ice cream.

Yummm... Tasty.

Why, oh why don't they make stuff this fun any more? Collecting stuff like this is how I got my name... :)

Other fun ones...

Proof that Consumer Reports is responsible for the Ozone hole.
A primitive wind tunnel.
The disposable dress that is so ugly that it should be disposed before use.
Houdini's magic death trap (a.k.a. portable sauna)
Cat-litter flavored ice cream.

Yummm... Tasty.

Why, oh why don't they make stuff this fun any more? Collecting stuff like this is how I got my name... :)

Other fun ones...

Proof that Consumer Reports is responsible for the Ozone hole.
A primitive wind tunnel.
The disposable dress that is so ugly that it should be disposed before use.
Houdini's magic death trap (a.k.a. portable sauna)
Cat-litter flavored ice cream.

Yummm... Tasty.

• Carpet Sweepers
• Car record player
• Portable hairdryers
• Edsel
• Gaylord the puppy?
• Air-Powered boats
• Paper dresses
• Spit-wad kits!

--Karl

• Carpet Sweepers
• Car record player
• Portable hairdryers
• Edsel
• Gaylord the puppy?
• Air-Powered boats
• Paper dresses
• Spit-wad kits!

--Karl

• Carpet Sweepers
• Car record player
• Portable hairdryers
• Edsel
• Gaylord the puppy?
• Air-Powered boats
• Paper dresses
• Spit-wad kits!

--Karl

• Carpet Sweepers
• Car record player
• Portable hairdryers
• Edsel
• Gaylord the puppy?
• Air-Powered boats
• Paper dresses
• Spit-wad kits!

--Karl

• Carpet Sweepers
• Car record player
• Portable hairdryers
• Edsel
• Gaylord the puppy?
• Air-Powered boats
• Paper dresses
• Spit-wad kits!

--Karl

• Carpet Sweepers
• Car record player
• Portable hairdryers
• Edsel
• Gaylord the puppy?
• Air-Powered boats
• Paper dresses
• Spit-wad kits!

--Karl

• Carpet Sweepers
• Car record player
• Portable hairdryers
• Edsel
• Gaylord the puppy?
• Air-Powered boats
• Paper dresses
• Spit-wad kits!

--Karl