Interesting, but do the pods transfer to trucks or rail? I believe it is the versatility of transport mode that is one of the shipping containers huge advantages.
In California, virtually all public roads (including streets) are highways - see part 360 of Section 100-680 of the California vehicle code:
360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.
I would expect that any reported statistics are using the legal, not the colloquial, definition of 'highway'.
Screw the valve stem; inflate from the hub. This is a known (but not common) technology. Presumably, by the time this tire becomes remotely viable, valve stems will have gone the way of headphone jacks on cell phones.
A recurring point is that this approach is a "bolt on" solution. How it can possibly work is beyond me, but being able to conventionally change them is a claimed benefit.
Hah! In North America transfers between accounts (bank to bank) are a WIRE transfer and cost about $30
hat would, of course, depend on your bank and the circumstances. I have two banks (BBVA Compass, First Republic); either one offers free bank-to-bank transfers - but there is a two to three banking day float.
Immediate transfers from either bank do require a wire transfer, with the ~$30 fee.
Apple will no doubt be beta testing a fleet of its new iMovers (featuring a simplified, single point drive - picture the offspring from a three way tryst involving a Segway, a "hover board", and a Dysan Ball vac).
You can walk across that 'dead' space in the center. Even better, you arrange the office space such that employees won't typically have a need to make such travels.
As an aside, the pentagon has some interesting similarities - circular design, five floors, roughly one mile in circumference. It seems to work OK.
No a backup camera or lane change device is not a safety feature, it's going to make driving less safe for those that are going to exclusively rely on those features without using their eyes.
Sounds like you haven't used a backup camera. No, you don't use it to the exclusion of all other devices. But if you were to choose exclusively between the camera, the left side mirror, the rear view mirror, the right side mirror, and looking over your shoulder, the camera will be the safest (it is the only one that shows the infant crawling behind the car).
Suggesting that the camera is not a safety feature simply because some may abuse it is similar to criticisms leveled at them newfangled rear view mirrors, which, after all, only serve to distract a driver who should be focused only on what is ahead of him.
It probably wasn’t hard for NHTSA to prove its point, but here’s the interesting part: the chances of walking away from a crash uninjured rose from 79 to 82 percent between 2000 and 2008. That means cars built in 2000 that packed little more than a few airbags, anti-lock brakes and a horn left you with a solid chance to fight another day after exchanging paint. Almost a decade later, with piles of tech-related “safety” features, that figure rose less than 0.5 percent per year.
Nokia says it will set mandatory brand requirements and performance-related provisions for the new devices.
And so it appears that they're concerned about the ongoing image of the brand.
As Stormwatch points out, it is the quality of the finished (Finnished?) product that counts, not who builds it.
I'm reminded of Google Nexus phones, which continue to satisfy a particular market by providing respectable phones (from different manufacturers) at decent prices. [I'm part of that market]. If Nokia can provide a familiar look and feel without compromising on quality (and note that their deal with MS includes
the rights to use Nokia brand name on feature phones and also utilize some design elements)
Nice write-up. (I was an 18 yr old family-tradition Republican when I first voted in '72, but I was registered Libertarian by '74.) The only thing missing is a link to the World's Smallest Political Quiz (ten agree/disagree statements - five on personal issues, five on financial.)
You may not agree with the results interpretation, but the two dimensional political field representation is still of interest.
"you're leaving the hammer on a live round." which hasn't been a problem in a double-action revolvers for eons now. Hell the vast majority of single action revolvers have transfer bar safeties now to make hammer-down-on-loaded round perfectly safe.
Agreed, and the same applies to autos. I have no problem carrying my.45 (Mk IV, series 80) "cocked and locked".
But did you call out single actions here for a reason? My understanding was that the laws applied equally to double actions.
I'd worry more about the dry-fire first trigger pull in a situation where defensive use is required. Double-tap through heavy DAO trigger pull is tough to do with any accuracy.
I think you're referring to single/double actions autos here. not revolvers. Unless, of course, you're firing a Mateba Autorevolver.
I want people to be able to smoke weed and don't want our government to run massive debts. Which party represents me? Not the two main ones.
No, not the two main ones, but perhaps the Libertarians? Take a minute or so to take The World's Smallest Political Quiz (10 agree/don't care/disagree questions - 5 on economic liberty, 5 on personal freedom.
Since the original post is about a tail gate latch and not a glove box, I'd say there's a bit stronger of a case. Let's say you upgrade 2,000 parts to something 25 cents to $2 more expensive on the basis of needed durability and long-term use (averaging $1 each). Plenty of consumers will pay 2,000 more.
And let's say that you upgraded 2,001 parts, or that the average extra cost was $1.05, or that the selling price of a car that had $2,000 extra in material cost wasn't $3,000 more than otherwise, or that it takes plenty+3 consumers to make it worthwhile from a marketing p.o.v.
We could bandy numbers back and forth, but the under-riding principal is that people do have a limit as to what they'll spend. Whether it's $2,000 extra on a $30,000 car or $4,000 more on a $20,000 car is immaterial. And I suspect that the big players are pretty well attuned as to swhat those numbers actually are.
But my point is that the car maker does not try to cheap out by saving fifty cents on just one specific part.
And each vehicle sells for enough that 50 cents to make a better quality product should be worth it. The fact that most companies don't is the reason why the average consumer is dissatisfied with almost everything they buy. Saving 50 cents times a half million is a lot of money, but it's still nothing compared to a recall or a customer who won't buy your car again.
If the actual cost difference of the entire vehicle was $0.50, then they'd probably do it. But what about the glove compartment latch? A more secure lock is only about two bits more, And if they used stainless steel screws instead of chrome plated, they'd never tarnish - and at only a few cents each. And carpeting with double the durability would only cost them a couple of bucks extra. And [etc., etc.] Where do you stop making such incremental improvements? 'Cus there is always something that can still be improved . . . and for only X amount more!
You usually see the "it would only cost..." shtick in safety related cases, where the car company is accused of creating enormous risks (in the interest of profits) by shaving a few pennies off of one part. But in fact, the company wouldn't be competitive in the general market unless they focused of saving at every single step of manufacturing. And no one ever looks at the enormous number of parts that were similarly built as economically as practical, but which failed to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, but do the pods transfer to trucks or rail? I believe it is the versatility of transport mode that is one of the shipping containers huge advantages.
In California, virtually all public roads (including streets) are highways - see part 360 of Section 100-680 of the California vehicle code:
360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly
maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of
vehicular travel. Highway includes street.
I would expect that any reported statistics are using the legal, not the colloquial, definition of 'highway'.
By the time this tire is remotely viable, we will have perfected wireless tire inflation technology.
Screw the valve stem; inflate from the hub. This is a known (but not common) technology. Presumably, by the time this tire becomes remotely viable, valve stems will have gone the way of headphone jacks on cell phones.
A recurring point is that this approach is a "bolt on" solution. How it can possibly work is beyond me, but being able to conventionally change them is a claimed benefit.
Hah! In North America transfers between accounts (bank to bank) are a WIRE transfer and cost about $30
hat would, of course, depend on your bank and the circumstances. I have two banks (BBVA Compass, First Republic); either one offers free bank-to-bank transfers - but there is a two to three banking day float.
Immediate transfers from either bank do require a wire transfer, with the ~$30 fee.
Haven't we put that 'range anxiety' to rest?
Most flights are quite short and a network/fleet of supercharger aircraft (perhaps recycled airliners) will allow for longer trips.
Or: "I'd like to agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong."
Apple will no doubt be beta testing a fleet of its new iMovers (featuring a simplified, single point drive - picture the offspring from a three way tryst involving a Segway, a "hover board", and a Dysan Ball vac).
You can walk across that 'dead' space in the center. Even better, you arrange the office space such that employees won't typically have a need to make such travels.
As an aside, the pentagon has some interesting similarities - circular design, five floors, roughly one mile in circumference. It seems to work OK.
And the sound of an automatic is, "Whooosh".
No a backup camera or lane change device is not a safety feature, it's going to make driving less safe for those that are going to exclusively rely on those features without using their eyes.
Sounds like you haven't used a backup camera. No, you don't use it to the exclusion of all other devices. But if you were to choose exclusively between the camera, the left side mirror, the rear view mirror, the right side mirror, and looking over your shoulder, the camera will be the safest (it is the only one that shows the infant crawling behind the car).
Suggesting that the camera is not a safety feature simply because some may abuse it is similar to criticisms leveled at them newfangled rear view mirrors, which, after all, only serve to distract a driver who should be focused only on what is ahead of him.
Safety standards haven't changed much. A newer vehicle isn't necessarily safer
That sounds nice, but the facts are not on your side.
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-...
From that article:
It probably wasn’t hard for NHTSA to prove its point, but here’s the interesting part: the chances of walking away from a crash uninjured rose from 79 to 82 percent between 2000 and 2008. That means cars built in 2000 that packed little more than a few airbags, anti-lock brakes and a horn left you with a solid chance to fight another day after exchanging paint. Almost a decade later, with piles of tech-related “safety” features, that figure rose less than 0.5 percent per year.
Yep; sounds just like the sky is falling.
Besides, that photo doesn't refute your ridiculous claim that you haven't gone under 350lb even though you consume 1500 calories a day.
I don't think that word means what you think that it means . . .
According to this guy - who actually did some testing - both the mic and speaker are typically good to at least 21 KHz.
The GP linked article cites the tone as being over 18 KHz - but not by how much. I couldn't find a definitive number elsewhere; did I miss something?
"You're coding it wrong."
- Someone Famous
I didn't RTFA, but from the end of the summary:
Nokia says it will set mandatory brand requirements and performance-related provisions for the new devices.
And so it appears that they're concerned about the ongoing image of the brand.
As Stormwatch points out, it is the quality of the finished (Finnished?) product that counts, not who builds it.
I'm reminded of Google Nexus phones, which continue to satisfy a particular market by providing respectable phones (from different manufacturers) at decent prices. [I'm part of that market]. If Nokia can provide a familiar look and feel without compromising on quality (and note that their deal with MS includes
the rights to use Nokia brand name on feature phones and also utilize some design elements)
then they might well have a solid market.
Nice write-up. (I was an 18 yr old family-tradition Republican when I first voted in '72, but I was registered Libertarian by '74.) The only thing missing is a link to the World's Smallest Political Quiz (ten agree/disagree statements - five on personal issues, five on financial.)
You may not agree with the results interpretation, but the two dimensional political field representation is still of interest.
In Soviet Russia, things dispose of you!
"you're leaving the hammer on a live round." which hasn't been a problem in a double-action revolvers for eons now. Hell the vast majority of single action revolvers have transfer bar safeties now to make hammer-down-on-loaded round perfectly safe.
Agreed, and the same applies to autos. I have no problem carrying my .45 (Mk IV, series 80) "cocked and locked".
But did you call out single actions here for a reason? My understanding was that the laws applied equally to double actions.
I'd worry more about the dry-fire first trigger pull in a situation where defensive use is required. Double-tap through heavy DAO trigger pull is tough to do with any accuracy.
I think you're referring to single/double actions autos here. not revolvers. Unless, of course, you're firing a Mateba Autorevolver.
Let's hope not, or you're leaving the hammer on a live round.
I want people to be able to smoke weed and don't want our government to run massive debts. Which party represents me? Not the two main ones.
No, not the two main ones, but perhaps the Libertarians? Take a minute or so to take The World's Smallest Political Quiz (10 agree/don't care/disagree questions - 5 on economic liberty, 5 on personal freedom.
Since the original post is about a tail gate latch and not a glove box, I'd say there's a bit stronger of a case. Let's say you upgrade 2,000 parts to something 25 cents to $2 more expensive on the basis of needed durability and long-term use (averaging $1 each). Plenty of consumers will pay 2,000 more.
And let's say that you upgraded 2,001 parts, or that the average extra cost was $1.05, or that the selling price of a car that had $2,000 extra in material cost wasn't $3,000 more than otherwise, or that it takes plenty+3 consumers to make it worthwhile from a marketing p.o.v.
We could bandy numbers back and forth, but the under-riding principal is that people do have a limit as to what they'll spend. Whether it's $2,000 extra on a $30,000 car or $4,000 more on a $20,000 car is immaterial. And I suspect that the big players are pretty well attuned as to swhat those numbers actually are.
But my point is that the car maker does not try to cheap out by saving fifty cents on just one specific part.
And each vehicle sells for enough that 50 cents to make a better quality product should be worth it. The fact that most companies don't is the reason why the average consumer is dissatisfied with almost everything they buy. Saving 50 cents times a half million is a lot of money, but it's still nothing compared to a recall or a customer who won't buy your car again.
If the actual cost difference of the entire vehicle was $0.50, then they'd probably do it. But what about the glove compartment latch? A more secure lock is only about two bits more, And if they used stainless steel screws instead of chrome plated, they'd never tarnish - and at only a few cents each. And carpeting with double the durability would only cost them a couple of bucks extra. And [etc., etc.] Where do you stop making such incremental improvements? 'Cus there is always something that can still be improved . . . and for only X amount more!
You usually see the "it would only cost..." shtick in safety related cases, where the car company is accused of creating enormous risks (in the interest of profits) by shaving a few pennies off of one part. But in fact, the company wouldn't be competitive in the general market unless they focused of saving at every single step of manufacturing. And no one ever looks at the enormous number of parts that were similarly built as economically as practical, but which failed to fail.