Screen size and quality on my 9900 are quite good. For me, a business user, I'll sacrifice some screen size for a proper physical keyboard. I hate typing on touchscreens. The primary use of my BB is to type, as in email and other textual communication. Secondary is voice. For some users that role is flipped.
As for my personal phone be ancient, I don't need a smart phone because I have my BB for those personal uses like Google Maps or looking something up on the internet when I'm not at a computer. Games? Sorry. There are games for BB but I don't play them. I'd rather wait until I'm home with my proper gaming rig. While mobile I'll just read something interesting on my BB or once in a blue moon check Facebook.
Even if I didn't have a smart phone from work, I wouldn't spend my own money on a data plan and smartphone. It's nice but not worth the absurd cost here in the States. If I was paid more and had the money to burn, sure, but I have other hobbies and interests that compete for a finite amount of "extra" money after the bills are paid.
I can see why some users would games and other features which may be implemented better on the gewared towards consumer devices, but it's not necessary for business use. I don't wnat to sacrifice the granular central manageability and security of BES so someone can play their favorite game. I've looked at some of the management software for Android and iOS devices. It certainly looks better than nothing but not quite so granular as BES. The many different devices by many manufacturers also concerns me. There would be costs in switching, licensing for management software and devices when we already have BES licenses. Additional costs in support time from having to support two or three major types of devices. It's an expensive proposition to switch a few hundred users, and a strain on a BES admin when he must not only be an expert at BB but also iOS and Android and whatever propriatery management software is used. When you deal with classified, restricted, or personal financial data there are many conerns and costs involved. For a smaller business though, not subject to such things, I see the value in the flexibility of going with whatever device people like and having variety among the platforms.
WRT point #5, what is the life of a Prius? My daily driver is nearly 30 years old, and I plan on driving it until I die or until I find one from '76-'77 that I like. My summer saily driver is nearly 50 years old and I'll be driving that until I die. I don't envision people driving a Prius in 50 years as I suspect the useful life is far less than that. It's a point A to point B until it dies cookie cutter car. Most new cars are not made to be serviceable. Look at how undersized critical componenets like tie rods and ball joints are, and they have no zerks... They're "sealed for life" and as such fail early at which point you need to replace parts since they're not rebuildable. Chintsy rotors and drums that warp easiy and don't have any meat to cut them, "sealed for life" steering boxes and racks, etc. These are overpriced disposable cars made to last 5-10 years and after that they get very expensive to maintain since you can't just rebuild whatever is worn out.
I don't see the problem, enlighten me?
on
CEOs of RIM Step Down
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't really see any major problems with RIM. Their target market is businesses who need security and granular manageability. The company I work for happens to require those things. RIM is the best choice I'm aware of to meet those requirements. I will qualify that by saying I am a BES admin so maybe a little blinded by that, which is why I'd like fellow technical people to let me know what the real issues with RIM are and how the competition is superior.
As for devices themselves... I use a Bold 9900 currently and I like it. The touchscreen is great for navigating, though every now and again I have to tap something twice which seems due to slower processor taking a moment. This does not bother me. The built in browser now supports tabbed browsing, a plus but wasn't a big deal for me. The trackball is now a touch sensitive input, like the 9700. Before this phone I thought the 9700 was great with the upgrade from trackball to touch sensor. I disliked the smaller screen and size of the 9700 as I went to that from a 9000.
The Bolt 9900 meets business needs as I see them and as I use my phone. It provides secure email, whole device encryption, excellent remote management, and a functional level of referencing pdf/doc/xls/ppt... As functional as can be on a small screen. Android/iOS devices are marginally better at this due to the larger screen, gained from lack of a physical keyboard, but still not great. For referencing or especially editing those types of documents you're into tablet or notebook territory simply for the larger screen.
The only downside I see to the 9900 for the time I've had it, is battery life sucks. If I use it lightly I can get a day and change out of it. If I use it heavily I have to charge before the day is through. If you plan for it you will pretty much always have access to charge, but it's unacceptable to not make it at least a full day of moderate to heavy use. By that I mean phone calls, email, attachments, corporate IM, light web browsing, etc. Not playing games or watching multimedia all day. The 9900 has a much lower capacity battery than the 9000 did. I believe RIM did this to keep the device thin. Personally I don't care about having a thin device. Give the most MAh you can, to be sure it'll last at least two full days of use between charges, preferably longer. I don't care if it's as thick as an old "dumb phone". It stays on my belt out of the way, along with my personal phone ( a 5 year old dumb phone that can make calls and text), knife, flashlight and wahtever else I may be carrying. Smaller/lighter is nice but not at the detriment of battery life.
So please,/., if I am out of touch with how RIM is not meeting the needs of businesses please let me know. For personal devices, sure, Android and iOS have an edge. What are the real issues with RIM being inadequate for business use, particularly where central manageability and security are critical? To expand on that, if you believe iOS or Android are competitive there, what tools does one use to have easy centralized management and security comparable to BES if managing a few hundred mobile devices?
Re:It was never worth it to begin with
on
Is E85 Dead Now?
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but you're totally wrong. For E85 you're looking around 14:1 compression to make best use of it. More in a performance motor with a lot of cam duration and overlap. No need for forced induction.
FWIW I build high compression Ford motors to run on the ragged edge of detonation, and get the most efficiency and power out of them as possible. Polished chambers, singh grooves, tight quench distance, extensively ported heads, cool intake charge, careful spark plug selection, and much more go into every high compression build running the junk they call pump gas.
Not quite two decades. '97 was the alst year ford used a big block, the 460, in a truck. I'm not a Chevy guy but I believe the last year for the 454 was 2000. Not sure if they still offered any 454 based engines (496, etc.) after that. You can still get brand new boats with big blocks though. Personally everything I drive has a big block. Truck, car, boat. Unfortunately it's not practical to fit a big block in my bike. I won't drive anything fuel injected, they're expensive and unreliable. I'll stick to my old big blocks, that somehow manage to get comparable or better fuel consumption than newer and smaller fuel injected smog engines. I'll give you a hint, lots of compression and timing are two important parts of my builds that get me there.
... the gap is much smaller for secular private schools vs. public schools. Secular private schools are around $27k. Do you have ideas on what might account for the differences in these private school costs? Are the religious schools finding external funding to make their tuition cheaper? Do they skimp on lab equipment or something?
I'd from waht I see locally, I'd wager it has more to do with size. The highly regarded private schools around here are all larger, comparable to the public schools. A larger student body means potential for more fficiency and cost savings. Just a theory, drawn from local knowledge of school costs and size as well as information from http://www.privateschoolreview.com. I have several family members who are public school teachers, and have a friend who is a private school teacher (Catholic, but not at Paul VI that I mentioned). I will ask around for additional insight on public vs private, costs, etc.. I do know a lot of public vs. private has to do with teacher compensation, benefits, tenure, etc. Private schools are run more like a business, and do well like that. Even as such, Catholic schools for certain take care of their faculty out of good will and will go above and beyond their minimum obligations if someone falls on hard times. Some "regular" employers do this too.
When you have to compete for a certain market and demographic, you have to be cost effective. Public schools do not have to be efficient or cost effective, they get funding regardless of performance and in many cases (such as that #2 violent crime city) the worse they do the more money they get, and the more taxes the rest of us must pay.
Stealing money from me, to pay for your kids (through government, who will assert force to redistribute that money) is wrong.
For any society to thrive, it must invest in its children, even at the expense of non-breeders. Despite your feelings of unfairness, it's unlikely that tax-supported schooling is ever going to go away. But it could definitely use improvement.
I would love for public schools to disappear. It would be a net gain for everyone, for our society as a whole. Parents pay for their own kids at whatever private school they choose. It would be cheaper, and with more competition prices would go down further. The smaller more expensive private schools could bring costs more inline with other private schools, or perhaps they just cater to a different market, with better teacher:student ratios or other attractions. Regardless, everyone should pay their own wayand not use force to take from others for their own personal gain. That is where the greatest gain to a society is, and it does not mean it's people will not invest in its children, some may invest less, some more, but the cost should be predominantly paid by parents.
Firstly, I firmly believe parents should be responsible for their children's education. Stealing money from me, to pay for your kids (through government, who will assert force to redistribute that money) is wrong.
Secondly, money spent on education does not have a direct or positive affect on whether or not children become criminals. I live a couple miles from the city recently downgraded from #1 violent crime city in the US to #2 violent crime city. I have worked in the schools in that city. The cost per student in that city is FAR higher than in surrounding middle and upper class neighborhoods. The students are dumb, I won't lie, they really are. They are not interested in learning anything. The State throws more money at the problem for kids that graduate high school barely able to read, or not able to read at all. Police roam the halls. Violent fights are a daily occurrence. No amount of money put into the schools will fix this. No amount of money stolen from me, to put into the schools will fix this.
Also, take the situation of many middle class families. They are forced to pay for public schools to the tune of $3000-$6000/yr depending on what town they live in. The actual cost per student for public education is roughly $14k per student. In this higher crime areas it's around $20k per student. Private school, around $7k per student. If all of us, with or without children, were not forced to subsidize the education of others, there would be a lower cost per student and a net gain is available cash to spend on other efforts. Parents would send their children to better private schools because it's CHEAPER than lower quality public schools, around half the cost and not much more than the current individual tax burden to send one child to school. Figure on halving the cost of education for these kids and you have a lot more money that can be spent to increase quality of life, buy goods or services, which creates a demand for jobs... Jobs that can be taken by the underachievers from that high crime neighborhood since most of them are content with a life working food service or retail jobs for near minimum wage. If they at least have those jobs, they are far less likely to become violent criminals than if they are unemployed.
Finally, growing up I found school to be a tremendous waste. It was basically babysitting, teaching you to submit and obey. Do what these people say, don't ask questions, if you want to learn more advanced material or have any content expanded on in areas that may be more useful in life we will not do that. Submit and obey, ask too many questions or ask for better courses and you will be punished. Just be a good little mindless tax paying slave. That was my take on high school, and that was in a highly regarded public school district in the state. People move to that town so their kids can go to those schools. Going through those schools, I was not impressed.
So why do you even care about what the schools teach?
The same reason I do... Because well over half my local taxes, which is a HUGE percentage of my annual income, is taken from me to pay for teaching kids I don't know and aren't my responsibility.
I struggle to get by and am on the verge of being homeless myself... Thanks to the poor decision to go to college. I have a steady job and make well over the median wage. My home is very modest, I don't own nice things. I have no money to give to homeless people, though I have on occasion given food to homeless people. It would be wrong of me to demand others give their money to homeless people, and outright illegal, a violation of their rights, to take it from them and redistribute it... Just as it is illegal, unconstitutional, for the government to do so with my money and other people's money.
Property tax appears in your rent or in your mortgage. It runs from about 5% for the poor (but lower as they share housing) to about 3% for the middle class to about 2% for the wealthy.
Funny, I'm not "poor" by my income, but property taxes take about 10% of my income... Any that's nowhere near as expensive as it gets in this state in middle class neighborhoods. Of course I live in a socialist welfare state so they have to pay for that somehow, by keeping the middle class down.
It is accurate to say they pay more taxes in absolute dollars. But did you realize if the tax bill for running the country was divided evenly, it works out to over $11,000 per citizen? More like $33,000 per working person. And that's ignoring social security taxes.
Glad someone beside myself has mentioned these numbers. I've run the numbers similarly, broken down by per capita, per adult, and per working age adult. I think taxes should be charged per person. divided evenly. THat would encourage poor and lower class people to take an interest in politics and lower taxes/smaller government. It would be fixed very quickly if people making $20k/yr were required to pay $11k-$33k in federal taxes on top of state taxes.
I use all my vacation time every year. I get 3 weeks off and I take two in summer for vacation in a place I love where I can spend all day doing what I love. I also pursue this passion at home on summer weekends but it's not the same. I'll take a few days here and there over the year to use for that. While away for two weeks, hundreds of miles from the office, I have my laptop and work phone with me. I check my email every morning and evening and respond to the important things. I'll call in for conference calls and such if I'm not in the middle of some awesome activity. I like to stay in the loop and keep things on track as there's really nobody at work who can completely fill my shoes, so I'll get calls or emails for information or various things.
One year I offered to drive over 500 miles overnight to fix a crisis in the office but my boss insisted we never spoke and if I showed up he'd tell me to leave. The crisis was resolved, though it took a couple days to completely recover from what should have been at most a one day problem until back to 100%.
Now I'm been punished as well. Health benefits have been cut. Costs a lot more if you use it and the fine print basically reads "don't get sick or hurt". 401k was cut way back as well. These applied to everyone though as blanket cost savings and essentially a pay cut for all of us. Overall though I don't believe my employer punishes those who use vacation time. I actually have a flexible schedule. I often work longer hours but it's because things need to be done and I choose to put in the extra time to keep things moving smoothly, my choice and not because my boss demands it. If I need to take some time off I can always take it, I've never been turned down. Even if I had no vacation time I have never been turned down for taking unpaid time off. They know if I request it it's important to me and I'd never take time off when the company was in a bad position for me to be gone. Overall I can't complain too much about that. I don't feel there's any prejudice, but that may be different at other places.
For what it's worth I owned a daily drove a '63 Falcon for some time. It was a two door post car with 144 six and three on the tree. It got upwards of 30 MPG highway, low 20s around town. The numbers are realistic. The three speed had no syncros in first so double clutching was mandatory unless you came to a complete stop. There was a lot of gear spread to winding it out in first and second. With the simple upgrade to a T5 transmission, which has an overdrive gear and much tighter gearing, I would expect 35-40 MPG easily. Improve the power and efificincy of the engine with a proper modern build using good porting techniques and an efficient carburetor and it'll do much better on power and MPG.
As for nobody wanting bare bones cars and all the power options adding weight... I only drive carbureted vehicles, none have any power options, except my truck as that has a lift and larger tires. Manual steering won't work well for that type of application unless you're Hulk Hogan. Regardless, I've never even owned a vehicle with air conditioning, and have no desire to.mid '80s is an new as I'll go, and I much prefer to stick to 60s vehicles as it's easier to find bare bones cars with no power options or accessories and emissions and safety laws don't apply so I cna do with them as I please, either in an econobox like a Falcon for MPG or in a bigger car with a bigger engine for performance.
Neither the states or the federal government has the right to take your right to marry another man, under any circumstances. Marriage is a private or religious matter, not a legal or political matter.
Yeah, except it's not. Marriage is very much a legal matter, and to say otherwise shows you are completely ignorant of the situation.
The State has turned religion into a legal matter. By doing so it can dictate (illegally, unconstitutionally) who can get married and who cannot. The solution is to repeal all laws governing marriage, as it's none of government's business. Of course that means eliminate all tax breaks and marriage too, as that's the crux of the matter and where intelligent conservatives consider the significance to be. Ignorant bible thumpers just wnat to impose their will and morality on others with the full violent force of the law, I find that disgusting. FWIW I am not a conservative or republican.
He seems to believe that humans are fundamentally good and altruistic. We aren't. If we were, then systems like capitalism, communism, and socialism would work just fine. However, history has shown repeatedly that a not insignificant fraction of the population is more than happy to push their fellow man down the stairs as long as it means they get to go up another floor.
We don't live in a truly capitalistic society. We live (at least in the United States) in a somewhat capitalist with a lot of heavy handed socialist and lately a lot more fascism. It is not a free market or a free society. In a free society there is no benefit to push your fellow man down to rise up another level as the rights of your fellow man are protected and enforced. There is no incentive for pushing your fellow man down via politics or other methods. In a free society there are no victimless crimes.
Do I think we have to many stupid laws? Of course. But Paulitopia is not a place I want to see, nor live in.
Hmmm....on second thought, maybe having him win won't be so bad. His views are so extreme and uncompromising, absolutely nothing would get done. And when congress does nothing, it's a net win.
When congress does nothing it is not a net win. It is stagnation. Repealing laws and restoring freedom to individual and markets, along with lower levels of taxation and less intrusive methods of taxation would be a net win. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen.
He doesn't personally like it. Neither do I, I think it's gross. The flip side is I think gays are awesome, as a young and single man that means less competition for women!
However, it is any man's right to do whatever he wants with another man in a private mutually consensual agreement. Ron Paul would never impose a law against gay marriage. Outlawing gay marriage is in fact illegal and unconstitutional. Any law outlawing marriage is illegal, even at a state level, as it violates your right to live your life as you see fit since gay marriage harms nobody and infringes on nobody else's rights or property. Any federal law removing recognition of marriage from either the federal or state governments is unconstitutional, as the federal government has no authority to govern or regulate marriage anyway. To do so is ILLEGAL. The solution is removing unconstitutional laws that violate people's rights, not introducing more unconstitutional laws. Ron Paul supports this.
As for states deciding if you could own a gun. That is essentially the same issue as gay marriage. It is your right as a human being to own a gun and OC or CC as you see fit, neither the states nor the federal government has the power to take this right from you unless you have been convicted of a felony, essentially a violent crime or crime violating the rights of others. Neither the states or the federal government has the right to take your right to marry another man, under any circumstances. Marriage is a private or religious matter, not a legal or political matter.
Ron Paul has my vote. Sound economic policies and he stays true to individual liberty and property rights. Other candidates (on both sides) have hit on some of his point but always take the party stand on the typical left vs right issues. Ron Paul is a winner across the board, he can out-republican the conservatives in the primaries on issues of property rights, taxes, etc. and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties, war, etc. He's a winner across the board with both parties if both sides will accept the principle and great benefit of freedom, which both parties wish to take away from us in various ways.
In 1960 cars were getting 32 MPG. What does an average econobox, or rather a modern midsize (since they're comparable size to a 60s econobox) get these days? A new Ford Fusion is rated at 33 MPG. So 50 years later a similar size car gets 1 MPG more. Now take that 1960 econobox and up the compression, port the head, add a long tube header, jet the carb leaner and give it a bunch more timing at light highway cruise. Top it off with a 5 speed overdrive transmission and I guarantee you'll be getting over 40 MPG and have a lot more power.
Why can a 1960 Ford Falcon get such good MPG? It is not laden by draconian DOT safety mandates that add weight to the car, nor EPA mandates that destroy any chance of getting good MPG. A 1960 Falcon weighs ~2300 lbs a 2011 Fusion weighs ~3600 lbs... Nearly as much as my '68 full size with big block! These fascist and draconian mandates must be removed for fuel economy to increase significantly. Let the market decide and you will have an array of vehicles with various safety and emissions options and correspondingly decreasing MPG as those options are added. There will be a balance point most people will opt for that will be getting the safety and emissions options that aren't a significant detriment to MPG. The result will be cars and trucks that get better MPG across the board.
One more example of why these mandates are bad. Take CAFE mandates as an example. People didn't use to drive trucks (SUV) so much, they had station wagons for their family. A full size station wagon with a 300-350 cubic inch engine and overdrive transmission can easily get 25 MPG on the highway. After CAFE was forced on auto manufacturers they stopped making station wagons (real station wagons, full size) as it would mean a hefty tax for violating CAFE. At the time they had many emissions and safety mandates emerging that they had to meet, killing MPG, also overdrive transmissions were not common yet. They shifted to making SUVs into family friendly vehicles to replace station wagons.
Look at Ford for a prime example. What happened in 77-78? The Bronco was totally redesigned from a small bare bones utility truck for targeted to outdoorsy people to a huge plush vehicle targeted at families. This was the beginning of this shift from station wagon to SUV. Of course a '78 Bronco barely gets low teens for highway MPG in factory trim with the 351m smog (emissions complient, but terribly inefficient) engine and no overdrive. It's just insane!
Another example of the adverse affect of emissions mandates on MPG. I have an '86 F-250 which I lifted and run larger tires, and also swapped the front axle for a solid axle. The truck weighs 6000 lbs. I converted it from a 351 to a 460 and did a lot of performance modifications during the engine build, including using absolutley no emissions equipment on the engine. I can't find factory MPG for a big block truck, I doubt if they cared. Factory MPG for a 351 truck is 11/12 city/highway the small block was rated at an anemic 210 HP and 305 ft/lbs of torque. My truck gets similar MPG even with the lift, extra weight, larger tires, as well as a lot more power at 425 HP and 550 ft/lbs. My highway MPG is ~13 at 70-75 MPH. Put all the smog equipment back on and I'm certain it would be single digits.
On a side note... I never understood why people think it's better to put out fewer ppm of pollutants but burn a lot more fuel and thus put out more millions and more parts overall. If oil is running out, then why not get the most we can from it? A free market solution would of course result in better MPG as that's what people want. The cars would be cheaper too!
Lets drop all environmental laws while we're at it. Why should I have to pay a city sewage utility when I can just connect a pipe to my toilet and dump it all in my neighbor's yard, or even better the river.
These laws are put in to stop idiots from doing stuff now that will com back to hurt them and others later.
I can dump my sewage in my neighbor's yard now, but really damn quickly that neighbor will pop over to my place and pop me one in the face. I can guarantee you there are a LOT of people who do not understand dumping your sewage on someone else's property might be objectionable and might cause that response.
Just as there's a bunch of people who don't know those more expensive bulbs easily save you more than they cost, and using less efficient bulbs just hastens rising power costs.
You completely negated the point you were trying to make in the first paragraph. Dumping sewage on your neighbors property is a violation of his property rights and thus illegal. He can (and would) take you to court and win the case against you. At which point you would have to clean up the mess you made of his property, pay for someone else to do it, and pay various other damages. That is how freedom works. Most rights boil down to property rights, and you do not have the right to damage someone else's property. Environmental laws are simply unnecessary as there are already laws that cover any such damages from scenarios like dumping waste on other people's property, or even on your won and having it leech into someone else's property or ground water supplies
He's right. I haven't been in a movie theater for years, because it's so damn expensive. I don't miss it, but it would be nice to go see a movie now and again. Last time I was in a movie theater I paid under $5 for a ticket, prime weekend evening, not matinee. This was at a nice theater 18+ only unless accompanied by adult. No kids, no teens, and I have to say it but no minorities yakking on the cell phones. This theater also showed a lot of indie films and such that you couldn't see anywhere else local. They raised prices a lot, business slowed down, and were bought out and are now just another expensive place with kids being loud and people talking on cell phones and texting through the film, and no indie films. It's unfortunate.
I do go maybe once or twice a year to the drive in movies though. $6 to see two movies, sometimes three. For a fee you can bring your own food. I always buy something from the snack bar to support them. To top it off no worries about people being rude. You enjoy the movie in the comfort and privacy of your own car and can talk to whoever you're with without disturbing others.
The state of NJ charges a $2 "convenience fee" to renew your vehicle registration online or the same fee per any transactions they allow online. They mail you a renewal form pre-filled out with a reference number and you can go to their site, type in the number, and it populates everything for you. Alternatively you fill in the missing lines on the form and bring it to the DMV. I'll spend the gas and time to go to the DMV, because I'm not paying an additional $2 tax to the State for something that saves them money, they tax the hell out of me already.
Regardless, in this VZ situation it seems the easiest option to avoid the fee, and postage, hassle of writing a check is use your banks bill pay feature if they offer one, or sign up with one of several free bill pay services. The end result is they send either a paper check in the mail for you or a electronic check, however that works, but the bill gets paid adn it would seem from Verizon's verbage that the "convenience fee" does not apply to those types of payments. Thus you avoid the fee and still pay the bill. If there's no way to avoid it without it being an inconvenience, cancel the service. Use another provider. On a related note, I hope this doesn't apply to FIOS or I'll be stuck switching to cable or DSL or maybe smoke signals. I won't tolerate nickel and diming through fees on services I use that SAVE a company money.
For recreational reading, anything by Timothy Zahn. I particularly like the Quadrail series as of recently... A scifi Sherlock Holmes type of railroad series. I enjoyed them. Another good book I read recently was The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith, a libertarian themed alternate reality scifi book. There is a series expanding on the original book though not quite as good as the first.
That is the point of a yellow as opposed to just having green and red. it is legal to enter the intersection on yellow, whether it's a fresh or stale yellow. It is illegal to enter on red. The reason is when the light changes you may only be 5' from the intersection, or 20', or some other distance where stopping is either not possible or not safe. A sufficiently long yellow (IIRC 1 second for every 10 MPH of traffic speed) virtually eliminates red light runners, a brief overlap of red prevents the occasional oblivious driver entering on a fresh red from causing an accident.
I will say around here since they started putting up red light cameras I now slam on my brakes if there's any hope I may be able to stop. Had a few close calls almost sliding into the intersection and also damn near got rear ended a couple times. Not my problem though because the State is obviously more interested in revenue collection (hidden taxes) than safety. A red light camera (and of course the State) doesn't care if the road is wet or icy, or any other scenario that would make it safer or more prudent to proceed through a yellow even if it's a stale yellow. I won't take the chance of getting fined for doing something safe, I'd rather get rear ended and take that to court for a new paint job or new vehicle. You can win against someone else who caused an accident by inattentiveness or following too closely, you can't win against the State as the deck is stacked heavily against you.
Also red light cameras have caused me to make the occasional illegal uturn, or reverse down a road rather than proceed on red. This is when the light will never change or will go through several cycles and never turn my side green. Typically this happens more often later at night when tehre is less traffic on the road. Normally after waiting at a light for 5-10+ minutes with no traffic on the road I'd assume it won't change and treat it like a stop sign so long as I have good visibility both directions. Instead with red light cameras I'll make an illegal uturn or illegal reverse and take an alternate route, so as not to get a fine.
I'm sure this is an unpopular sentiment amongst the crowd here, but I'm stuck in the cold northeast and as a result of the poor economy it wouldn't make financial sense to take a paycut by not getting a job in my field and moving to a more pleasant (warm) part of the country, even though cost of living would be tens of thousands less. A little global warming can take the edge off and make life here just a bit less unpleasant. The earth is dynamic and has always been changing, warm swings, cold swings, and all sorts of changes. If a couple degrees warmer average temps mean a shorter winter and less snow, I don't mind.
My '63 got right around that in normal highway driving, not MPG squeezing driving. It was a plain jane bare bones two door post car with a 144 straight six, 3 on the tree with no syncros in first, no power steering, no accessories or options. I rebuilt the carb, gave it a tune up, and adjusted the timing curve to get more timing while slightly leaning out the mixture. Very basic tune to increase MPG and power, not an all out thing for sure. I never did strictly city stop adn go driving but in normal 50/50 driving it got mid 20s and over 30 MPG on the highway.
With an Aussie head ported with an Offy intake, header, dual exhaust, mild torque cam, raised compression to around 9.5:1-9.7:1, possibly an Autolite 2100 carb with the small.98" venturi, and misc other performance and MPG tweaks I could see a very efficient engine making very respectable HP and torque numbers for a small six. With a '60s vehicle not encumbered by emissions requirements you can make an engine very efficient where newer engines will be federally mandated to comply with various emissions laws that are a detrmiment to MPG. Regardless, couple this with a T5 trans and rear gearing around 3.00:1 or 3.25:1 and I can easily see 40 MPG at 65-70 MPH, more if driving at granny speeds.
As for aerodynamics... They're not as bad as you'd think just because they're small and don't have nearly the frontal surface area of a midsize or full size which are taller and wider. Aerodynamics aren't that big a deal at legal speeds in the States (55-65 MPH here on the east coast), at least not compared to having an efficient engine in a light vehicle with an efficient driveline.
One of these days I'll get another Falcon and turn it into a real MPG machine. I've been looking for a couple months now waiting for the right car for the right price. When I do it, it'll be my daily driver whenever there's not snow on the ground and should save me a good amount in fuel.
Slashdot Mirror
Screen size and quality on my 9900 are quite good. For me, a business user, I'll sacrifice some screen size for a proper physical keyboard. I hate typing on touchscreens. The primary use of my BB is to type, as in email and other textual communication. Secondary is voice. For some users that role is flipped.
As for my personal phone be ancient, I don't need a smart phone because I have my BB for those personal uses like Google Maps or looking something up on the internet when I'm not at a computer. Games? Sorry. There are games for BB but I don't play them. I'd rather wait until I'm home with my proper gaming rig. While mobile I'll just read something interesting on my BB or once in a blue moon check Facebook.
Even if I didn't have a smart phone from work, I wouldn't spend my own money on a data plan and smartphone. It's nice but not worth the absurd cost here in the States. If I was paid more and had the money to burn, sure, but I have other hobbies and interests that compete for a finite amount of "extra" money after the bills are paid.
I can see why some users would games and other features which may be implemented better on the gewared towards consumer devices, but it's not necessary for business use. I don't wnat to sacrifice the granular central manageability and security of BES so someone can play their favorite game. I've looked at some of the management software for Android and iOS devices. It certainly looks better than nothing but not quite so granular as BES. The many different devices by many manufacturers also concerns me. There would be costs in switching, licensing for management software and devices when we already have BES licenses. Additional costs in support time from having to support two or three major types of devices. It's an expensive proposition to switch a few hundred users, and a strain on a BES admin when he must not only be an expert at BB but also iOS and Android and whatever propriatery management software is used. When you deal with classified, restricted, or personal financial data there are many conerns and costs involved. For a smaller business though, not subject to such things, I see the value in the flexibility of going with whatever device people like and having variety among the platforms.
WRT point #5, what is the life of a Prius? My daily driver is nearly 30 years old, and I plan on driving it until I die or until I find one from '76-'77 that I like. My summer saily driver is nearly 50 years old and I'll be driving that until I die. I don't envision people driving a Prius in 50 years as I suspect the useful life is far less than that. It's a point A to point B until it dies cookie cutter car. Most new cars are not made to be serviceable. Look at how undersized critical componenets like tie rods and ball joints are, and they have no zerks... They're "sealed for life" and as such fail early at which point you need to replace parts since they're not rebuildable. Chintsy rotors and drums that warp easiy and don't have any meat to cut them, "sealed for life" steering boxes and racks, etc. These are overpriced disposable cars made to last 5-10 years and after that they get very expensive to maintain since you can't just rebuild whatever is worn out.
I don't really see any major problems with RIM. Their target market is businesses who need security and granular manageability. The company I work for happens to require those things. RIM is the best choice I'm aware of to meet those requirements. I will qualify that by saying I am a BES admin so maybe a little blinded by that, which is why I'd like fellow technical people to let me know what the real issues with RIM are and how the competition is superior.
As for devices themselves... I use a Bold 9900 currently and I like it. The touchscreen is great for navigating, though every now and again I have to tap something twice which seems due to slower processor taking a moment. This does not bother me. The built in browser now supports tabbed browsing, a plus but wasn't a big deal for me. The trackball is now a touch sensitive input, like the 9700. Before this phone I thought the 9700 was great with the upgrade from trackball to touch sensor. I disliked the smaller screen and size of the 9700 as I went to that from a 9000.
The Bolt 9900 meets business needs as I see them and as I use my phone. It provides secure email, whole device encryption, excellent remote management, and a functional level of referencing pdf/doc/xls/ppt... As functional as can be on a small screen. Android/iOS devices are marginally better at this due to the larger screen, gained from lack of a physical keyboard, but still not great. For referencing or especially editing those types of documents you're into tablet or notebook territory simply for the larger screen.
The only downside I see to the 9900 for the time I've had it, is battery life sucks. If I use it lightly I can get a day and change out of it. If I use it heavily I have to charge before the day is through. If you plan for it you will pretty much always have access to charge, but it's unacceptable to not make it at least a full day of moderate to heavy use. By that I mean phone calls, email, attachments, corporate IM, light web browsing, etc. Not playing games or watching multimedia all day. The 9900 has a much lower capacity battery than the 9000 did. I believe RIM did this to keep the device thin. Personally I don't care about having a thin device. Give the most MAh you can, to be sure it'll last at least two full days of use between charges, preferably longer. I don't care if it's as thick as an old "dumb phone". It stays on my belt out of the way, along with my personal phone ( a 5 year old dumb phone that can make calls and text), knife, flashlight and wahtever else I may be carrying. Smaller/lighter is nice but not at the detriment of battery life.
So please, /., if I am out of touch with how RIM is not meeting the needs of businesses please let me know. For personal devices, sure, Android and iOS have an edge. What are the real issues with RIM being inadequate for business use, particularly where central manageability and security are critical? To expand on that, if you believe iOS or Android are competitive there, what tools does one use to have easy centralized management and security comparable to BES if managing a few hundred mobile devices?
Sorry, but you're totally wrong. For E85 you're looking around 14:1 compression to make best use of it. More in a performance motor with a lot of cam duration and overlap. No need for forced induction.
FWIW I build high compression Ford motors to run on the ragged edge of detonation, and get the most efficiency and power out of them as possible. Polished chambers, singh grooves, tight quench distance, extensively ported heads, cool intake charge, careful spark plug selection, and much more go into every high compression build running the junk they call pump gas.
Not quite two decades. '97 was the alst year ford used a big block, the 460, in a truck. I'm not a Chevy guy but I believe the last year for the 454 was 2000. Not sure if they still offered any 454 based engines (496, etc.) after that. You can still get brand new boats with big blocks though. Personally everything I drive has a big block. Truck, car, boat. Unfortunately it's not practical to fit a big block in my bike. I won't drive anything fuel injected, they're expensive and unreliable. I'll stick to my old big blocks, that somehow manage to get comparable or better fuel consumption than newer and smaller fuel injected smog engines. I'll give you a hint, lots of compression and timing are two important parts of my builds that get me there.
... the gap is much smaller for secular private schools vs. public schools. Secular private schools are around $27k. Do you have ideas on what might account for the differences in these private school costs? Are the religious schools finding external funding to make their tuition cheaper? Do they skimp on lab equipment or something?
I'd from waht I see locally, I'd wager it has more to do with size. The highly regarded private schools around here are all larger, comparable to the public schools. A larger student body means potential for more fficiency and cost savings. Just a theory, drawn from local knowledge of school costs and size as well as information from http://www.privateschoolreview.com. I have several family members who are public school teachers, and have a friend who is a private school teacher (Catholic, but not at Paul VI that I mentioned). I will ask around for additional insight on public vs private, costs, etc.. I do know a lot of public vs. private has to do with teacher compensation, benefits, tenure, etc. Private schools are run more like a business, and do well like that. Even as such, Catholic schools for certain take care of their faculty out of good will and will go above and beyond their minimum obligations if someone falls on hard times. Some "regular" employers do this too.
When you have to compete for a certain market and demographic, you have to be cost effective. Public schools do not have to be efficient or cost effective, they get funding regardless of performance and in many cases (such as that #2 violent crime city) the worse they do the more money they get, and the more taxes the rest of us must pay.
Stealing money from me, to pay for your kids (through government, who will assert force to redistribute that money) is wrong.
For any society to thrive, it must invest in its children, even at the expense of non-breeders. Despite your feelings of unfairness, it's unlikely that tax-supported schooling is ever going to go away. But it could definitely use improvement.
I would love for public schools to disappear. It would be a net gain for everyone, for our society as a whole. Parents pay for their own kids at whatever private school they choose. It would be cheaper, and with more competition prices would go down further. The smaller more expensive private schools could bring costs more inline with other private schools, or perhaps they just cater to a different market, with better teacher:student ratios or other attractions. Regardless, everyone should pay their own wayand not use force to take from others for their own personal gain. That is where the greatest gain to a society is, and it does not mean it's people will not invest in its children, some may invest less, some more, but the cost should be predominantly paid by parents.
Firstly, I firmly believe parents should be responsible for their children's education. Stealing money from me, to pay for your kids (through government, who will assert force to redistribute that money) is wrong.
Secondly, money spent on education does not have a direct or positive affect on whether or not children become criminals. I live a couple miles from the city recently downgraded from #1 violent crime city in the US to #2 violent crime city. I have worked in the schools in that city. The cost per student in that city is FAR higher than in surrounding middle and upper class neighborhoods. The students are dumb, I won't lie, they really are. They are not interested in learning anything. The State throws more money at the problem for kids that graduate high school barely able to read, or not able to read at all. Police roam the halls. Violent fights are a daily occurrence. No amount of money put into the schools will fix this. No amount of money stolen from me, to put into the schools will fix this.
Also, take the situation of many middle class families. They are forced to pay for public schools to the tune of $3000-$6000/yr depending on what town they live in. The actual cost per student for public education is roughly $14k per student. In this higher crime areas it's around $20k per student. Private school, around $7k per student. If all of us, with or without children, were not forced to subsidize the education of others, there would be a lower cost per student and a net gain is available cash to spend on other efforts. Parents would send their children to better private schools because it's CHEAPER than lower quality public schools, around half the cost and not much more than the current individual tax burden to send one child to school. Figure on halving the cost of education for these kids and you have a lot more money that can be spent to increase quality of life, buy goods or services, which creates a demand for jobs... Jobs that can be taken by the underachievers from that high crime neighborhood since most of them are content with a life working food service or retail jobs for near minimum wage. If they at least have those jobs, they are far less likely to become violent criminals than if they are unemployed.
Some quick googling to support my claims on education cost.
A highly regarded private school in the region
Article on education costs
Finally, growing up I found school to be a tremendous waste. It was basically babysitting, teaching you to submit and obey. Do what these people say, don't ask questions, if you want to learn more advanced material or have any content expanded on in areas that may be more useful in life we will not do that. Submit and obey, ask too many questions or ask for better courses and you will be punished. Just be a good little mindless tax paying slave. That was my take on high school, and that was in a highly regarded public school district in the state. People move to that town so their kids can go to those schools. Going through those schools, I was not impressed.
I don't have kids
So why do you even care about what the schools teach?
The same reason I do... Because well over half my local taxes, which is a HUGE percentage of my annual income, is taken from me to pay for teaching kids I don't know and aren't my responsibility.
I struggle to get by and am on the verge of being homeless myself... Thanks to the poor decision to go to college. I have a steady job and make well over the median wage. My home is very modest, I don't own nice things. I have no money to give to homeless people, though I have on occasion given food to homeless people. It would be wrong of me to demand others give their money to homeless people, and outright illegal, a violation of their rights, to take it from them and redistribute it... Just as it is illegal, unconstitutional, for the government to do so with my money and other people's money.
Property tax appears in your rent or in your mortgage. It runs from about 5% for the poor (but lower as they share housing) to about 3% for the middle class to about 2% for the wealthy.
Funny, I'm not "poor" by my income, but property taxes take about 10% of my income... Any that's nowhere near as expensive as it gets in this state in middle class neighborhoods. Of course I live in a socialist welfare state so they have to pay for that somehow, by keeping the middle class down.
It is accurate to say they pay more taxes in absolute dollars. But did you realize if the tax bill for running the country was divided evenly, it works out to over $11,000 per citizen? More like $33,000 per working person. And that's ignoring social security taxes.
Glad someone beside myself has mentioned these numbers. I've run the numbers similarly, broken down by per capita, per adult, and per working age adult. I think taxes should be charged per person. divided evenly. THat would encourage poor and lower class people to take an interest in politics and lower taxes/smaller government. It would be fixed very quickly if people making $20k/yr were required to pay $11k-$33k in federal taxes on top of state taxes.
I use all my vacation time every year. I get 3 weeks off and I take two in summer for vacation in a place I love where I can spend all day doing what I love. I also pursue this passion at home on summer weekends but it's not the same. I'll take a few days here and there over the year to use for that. While away for two weeks, hundreds of miles from the office, I have my laptop and work phone with me. I check my email every morning and evening and respond to the important things. I'll call in for conference calls and such if I'm not in the middle of some awesome activity. I like to stay in the loop and keep things on track as there's really nobody at work who can completely fill my shoes, so I'll get calls or emails for information or various things.
One year I offered to drive over 500 miles overnight to fix a crisis in the office but my boss insisted we never spoke and if I showed up he'd tell me to leave. The crisis was resolved, though it took a couple days to completely recover from what should have been at most a one day problem until back to 100%.
Now I'm been punished as well. Health benefits have been cut. Costs a lot more if you use it and the fine print basically reads "don't get sick or hurt". 401k was cut way back as well. These applied to everyone though as blanket cost savings and essentially a pay cut for all of us. Overall though I don't believe my employer punishes those who use vacation time. I actually have a flexible schedule. I often work longer hours but it's because things need to be done and I choose to put in the extra time to keep things moving smoothly, my choice and not because my boss demands it. If I need to take some time off I can always take it, I've never been turned down. Even if I had no vacation time I have never been turned down for taking unpaid time off. They know if I request it it's important to me and I'd never take time off when the company was in a bad position for me to be gone. Overall I can't complain too much about that. I don't feel there's any prejudice, but that may be different at other places.
For what it's worth I owned a daily drove a '63 Falcon for some time. It was a two door post car with 144 six and three on the tree. It got upwards of 30 MPG highway, low 20s around town. The numbers are realistic. The three speed had no syncros in first so double clutching was mandatory unless you came to a complete stop. There was a lot of gear spread to winding it out in first and second. With the simple upgrade to a T5 transmission, which has an overdrive gear and much tighter gearing, I would expect 35-40 MPG easily. Improve the power and efificincy of the engine with a proper modern build using good porting techniques and an efficient carburetor and it'll do much better on power and MPG.
As for nobody wanting bare bones cars and all the power options adding weight... I only drive carbureted vehicles, none have any power options, except my truck as that has a lift and larger tires. Manual steering won't work well for that type of application unless you're Hulk Hogan. Regardless, I've never even owned a vehicle with air conditioning, and have no desire to.mid '80s is an new as I'll go, and I much prefer to stick to 60s vehicles as it's easier to find bare bones cars with no power options or accessories and emissions and safety laws don't apply so I cna do with them as I please, either in an econobox like a Falcon for MPG or in a bigger car with a bigger engine for performance.
Neither the states or the federal government has the right to take your right to marry another man, under any circumstances. Marriage is a private or religious matter, not a legal or political matter.
Yeah, except it's not. Marriage is very much a legal matter, and to say otherwise shows you are completely ignorant of the situation.
The State has turned religion into a legal matter. By doing so it can dictate (illegally, unconstitutionally) who can get married and who cannot. The solution is to repeal all laws governing marriage, as it's none of government's business. Of course that means eliminate all tax breaks and marriage too, as that's the crux of the matter and where intelligent conservatives consider the significance to be. Ignorant bible thumpers just wnat to impose their will and morality on others with the full violent force of the law, I find that disgusting. FWIW I am not a conservative or republican.
He seems to believe that humans are fundamentally good and altruistic. We aren't. If we were, then systems like capitalism, communism, and socialism would work just fine. However, history has shown repeatedly that a not insignificant fraction of the population is more than happy to push their fellow man down the stairs as long as it means they get to go up another floor.
We don't live in a truly capitalistic society. We live (at least in the United States) in a somewhat capitalist with a lot of heavy handed socialist and lately a lot more fascism. It is not a free market or a free society. In a free society there is no benefit to push your fellow man down to rise up another level as the rights of your fellow man are protected and enforced. There is no incentive for pushing your fellow man down via politics or other methods. In a free society there are no victimless crimes.
Do I think we have to many stupid laws? Of course. But Paulitopia is not a place I want to see, nor live in.
Hmmm....on second thought, maybe having him win won't be so bad. His views are so extreme and uncompromising, absolutely nothing would get done. And when congress does nothing, it's a net win.
When congress does nothing it is not a net win. It is stagnation. Repealing laws and restoring freedom to individual and markets, along with lower levels of taxation and less intrusive methods of taxation would be a net win. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen.
He doesn't personally like it. Neither do I, I think it's gross. The flip side is I think gays are awesome, as a young and single man that means less competition for women!
However, it is any man's right to do whatever he wants with another man in a private mutually consensual agreement. Ron Paul would never impose a law against gay marriage. Outlawing gay marriage is in fact illegal and unconstitutional. Any law outlawing marriage is illegal, even at a state level, as it violates your right to live your life as you see fit since gay marriage harms nobody and infringes on nobody else's rights or property. Any federal law removing recognition of marriage from either the federal or state governments is unconstitutional, as the federal government has no authority to govern or regulate marriage anyway. To do so is ILLEGAL. The solution is removing unconstitutional laws that violate people's rights, not introducing more unconstitutional laws. Ron Paul supports this.
As for states deciding if you could own a gun. That is essentially the same issue as gay marriage. It is your right as a human being to own a gun and OC or CC as you see fit, neither the states nor the federal government has the power to take this right from you unless you have been convicted of a felony, essentially a violent crime or crime violating the rights of others. Neither the states or the federal government has the right to take your right to marry another man, under any circumstances. Marriage is a private or religious matter, not a legal or political matter.
Ron Paul has my vote. Sound economic policies and he stays true to individual liberty and property rights. Other candidates (on both sides) have hit on some of his point but always take the party stand on the typical left vs right issues. Ron Paul is a winner across the board, he can out-republican the conservatives in the primaries on issues of property rights, taxes, etc. and can out-democrat the liberals on issues of civil liberties, war, etc. He's a winner across the board with both parties if both sides will accept the principle and great benefit of freedom, which both parties wish to take away from us in various ways.
In 1960 cars were getting 32 MPG. What does an average econobox, or rather a modern midsize (since they're comparable size to a 60s econobox) get these days? A new Ford Fusion is rated at 33 MPG. So 50 years later a similar size car gets 1 MPG more. Now take that 1960 econobox and up the compression, port the head, add a long tube header, jet the carb leaner and give it a bunch more timing at light highway cruise. Top it off with a 5 speed overdrive transmission and I guarantee you'll be getting over 40 MPG and have a lot more power.
Why can a 1960 Ford Falcon get such good MPG? It is not laden by draconian DOT safety mandates that add weight to the car, nor EPA mandates that destroy any chance of getting good MPG. A 1960 Falcon weighs ~2300 lbs a 2011 Fusion weighs ~3600 lbs... Nearly as much as my '68 full size with big block! These fascist and draconian mandates must be removed for fuel economy to increase significantly. Let the market decide and you will have an array of vehicles with various safety and emissions options and correspondingly decreasing MPG as those options are added. There will be a balance point most people will opt for that will be getting the safety and emissions options that aren't a significant detriment to MPG. The result will be cars and trucks that get better MPG across the board.
One more example of why these mandates are bad. Take CAFE mandates as an example. People didn't use to drive trucks (SUV) so much, they had station wagons for their family. A full size station wagon with a 300-350 cubic inch engine and overdrive transmission can easily get 25 MPG on the highway. After CAFE was forced on auto manufacturers they stopped making station wagons (real station wagons, full size) as it would mean a hefty tax for violating CAFE. At the time they had many emissions and safety mandates emerging that they had to meet, killing MPG, also overdrive transmissions were not common yet. They shifted to making SUVs into family friendly vehicles to replace station wagons.
Look at Ford for a prime example. What happened in 77-78? The Bronco was totally redesigned from a small bare bones utility truck for targeted to outdoorsy people to a huge plush vehicle targeted at families. This was the beginning of this shift from station wagon to SUV. Of course a '78 Bronco barely gets low teens for highway MPG in factory trim with the 351m smog (emissions complient, but terribly inefficient) engine and no overdrive. It's just insane!
Another example of the adverse affect of emissions mandates on MPG. I have an '86 F-250 which I lifted and run larger tires, and also swapped the front axle for a solid axle. The truck weighs 6000 lbs. I converted it from a 351 to a 460 and did a lot of performance modifications during the engine build, including using absolutley no emissions equipment on the engine. I can't find factory MPG for a big block truck, I doubt if they cared. Factory MPG for a 351 truck is 11/12 city/highway the small block was rated at an anemic 210 HP and 305 ft/lbs of torque. My truck gets similar MPG even with the lift, extra weight, larger tires, as well as a lot more power at 425 HP and 550 ft/lbs. My highway MPG is ~13 at 70-75 MPH. Put all the smog equipment back on and I'm certain it would be single digits.
On a side note... I never understood why people think it's better to put out fewer ppm of pollutants but burn a lot more fuel and thus put out more millions and more parts overall. If oil is running out, then why not get the most we can from it? A free market solution would of course result in better MPG as that's what people want. The cars would be cheaper too!
Lets drop all environmental laws while we're at it. Why should I have to pay a city sewage utility when I can just connect a pipe to my toilet and dump it all in my neighbor's yard, or even better the river.
These laws are put in to stop idiots from doing stuff now that will com back to hurt them and others later. I can dump my sewage in my neighbor's yard now, but really damn quickly that neighbor will pop over to my place and pop me one in the face. I can guarantee you there are a LOT of people who do not understand dumping your sewage on someone else's property might be objectionable and might cause that response. Just as there's a bunch of people who don't know those more expensive bulbs easily save you more than they cost, and using less efficient bulbs just hastens rising power costs.
You completely negated the point you were trying to make in the first paragraph. Dumping sewage on your neighbors property is a violation of his property rights and thus illegal. He can (and would) take you to court and win the case against you. At which point you would have to clean up the mess you made of his property, pay for someone else to do it, and pay various other damages. That is how freedom works. Most rights boil down to property rights, and you do not have the right to damage someone else's property. Environmental laws are simply unnecessary as there are already laws that cover any such damages from scenarios like dumping waste on other people's property, or even on your won and having it leech into someone else's property or ground water supplies
He's right. I haven't been in a movie theater for years, because it's so damn expensive. I don't miss it, but it would be nice to go see a movie now and again. Last time I was in a movie theater I paid under $5 for a ticket, prime weekend evening, not matinee. This was at a nice theater 18+ only unless accompanied by adult. No kids, no teens, and I have to say it but no minorities yakking on the cell phones. This theater also showed a lot of indie films and such that you couldn't see anywhere else local. They raised prices a lot, business slowed down, and were bought out and are now just another expensive place with kids being loud and people talking on cell phones and texting through the film, and no indie films. It's unfortunate.
I do go maybe once or twice a year to the drive in movies though. $6 to see two movies, sometimes three. For a fee you can bring your own food. I always buy something from the snack bar to support them. To top it off no worries about people being rude. You enjoy the movie in the comfort and privacy of your own car and can talk to whoever you're with without disturbing others.
The state of NJ charges a $2 "convenience fee" to renew your vehicle registration online or the same fee per any transactions they allow online. They mail you a renewal form pre-filled out with a reference number and you can go to their site, type in the number, and it populates everything for you. Alternatively you fill in the missing lines on the form and bring it to the DMV. I'll spend the gas and time to go to the DMV, because I'm not paying an additional $2 tax to the State for something that saves them money, they tax the hell out of me already.
Regardless, in this VZ situation it seems the easiest option to avoid the fee, and postage, hassle of writing a check is use your banks bill pay feature if they offer one, or sign up with one of several free bill pay services. The end result is they send either a paper check in the mail for you or a electronic check, however that works, but the bill gets paid adn it would seem from Verizon's verbage that the "convenience fee" does not apply to those types of payments. Thus you avoid the fee and still pay the bill. If there's no way to avoid it without it being an inconvenience, cancel the service. Use another provider. On a related note, I hope this doesn't apply to FIOS or I'll be stuck switching to cable or DSL or maybe smoke signals. I won't tolerate nickel and diming through fees on services I use that SAVE a company money.
I used to bullseye womprats in my T-16 back home, they're not much bigger than two meters...
For recreational reading, anything by Timothy Zahn. I particularly like the Quadrail series as of recently... A scifi Sherlock Holmes type of railroad series. I enjoyed them. Another good book I read recently was The Probability Broach by L. Neil Smith, a libertarian themed alternate reality scifi book. There is a series expanding on the original book though not quite as good as the first.
That is the point of a yellow as opposed to just having green and red. it is legal to enter the intersection on yellow, whether it's a fresh or stale yellow. It is illegal to enter on red. The reason is when the light changes you may only be 5' from the intersection, or 20', or some other distance where stopping is either not possible or not safe. A sufficiently long yellow (IIRC 1 second for every 10 MPH of traffic speed) virtually eliminates red light runners, a brief overlap of red prevents the occasional oblivious driver entering on a fresh red from causing an accident.
I will say around here since they started putting up red light cameras I now slam on my brakes if there's any hope I may be able to stop. Had a few close calls almost sliding into the intersection and also damn near got rear ended a couple times. Not my problem though because the State is obviously more interested in revenue collection (hidden taxes) than safety. A red light camera (and of course the State) doesn't care if the road is wet or icy, or any other scenario that would make it safer or more prudent to proceed through a yellow even if it's a stale yellow. I won't take the chance of getting fined for doing something safe, I'd rather get rear ended and take that to court for a new paint job or new vehicle. You can win against someone else who caused an accident by inattentiveness or following too closely, you can't win against the State as the deck is stacked heavily against you.
Also red light cameras have caused me to make the occasional illegal uturn, or reverse down a road rather than proceed on red. This is when the light will never change or will go through several cycles and never turn my side green. Typically this happens more often later at night when tehre is less traffic on the road. Normally after waiting at a light for 5-10+ minutes with no traffic on the road I'd assume it won't change and treat it like a stop sign so long as I have good visibility both directions. Instead with red light cameras I'll make an illegal uturn or illegal reverse and take an alternate route, so as not to get a fine.
I'm sure this is an unpopular sentiment amongst the crowd here, but I'm stuck in the cold northeast and as a result of the poor economy it wouldn't make financial sense to take a paycut by not getting a job in my field and moving to a more pleasant (warm) part of the country, even though cost of living would be tens of thousands less. A little global warming can take the edge off and make life here just a bit less unpleasant. The earth is dynamic and has always been changing, warm swings, cold swings, and all sorts of changes. If a couple degrees warmer average temps mean a shorter winter and less snow, I don't mind.
Wrong... '62 Falcon brochure and MPG
My '63 got right around that in normal highway driving, not MPG squeezing driving. It was a plain jane bare bones two door post car with a 144 straight six, 3 on the tree with no syncros in first, no power steering, no accessories or options. I rebuilt the carb, gave it a tune up, and adjusted the timing curve to get more timing while slightly leaning out the mixture. Very basic tune to increase MPG and power, not an all out thing for sure. I never did strictly city stop adn go driving but in normal 50/50 driving it got mid 20s and over 30 MPG on the highway.
With an Aussie head ported with an Offy intake, header, dual exhaust, mild torque cam, raised compression to around 9.5:1-9.7:1, possibly an Autolite 2100 carb with the small .98" venturi, and misc other performance and MPG tweaks I could see a very efficient engine making very respectable HP and torque numbers for a small six. With a '60s vehicle not encumbered by emissions requirements you can make an engine very efficient where newer engines will be federally mandated to comply with various emissions laws that are a detrmiment to MPG. Regardless, couple this with a T5 trans and rear gearing around 3.00:1 or 3.25:1 and I can easily see 40 MPG at 65-70 MPH, more if driving at granny speeds.
As for aerodynamics... They're not as bad as you'd think just because they're small and don't have nearly the frontal surface area of a midsize or full size which are taller and wider. Aerodynamics aren't that big a deal at legal speeds in the States (55-65 MPH here on the east coast), at least not compared to having an efficient engine in a light vehicle with an efficient driveline.
One of these days I'll get another Falcon and turn it into a real MPG machine. I've been looking for a couple months now waiting for the right car for the right price. When I do it, it'll be my daily driver whenever there's not snow on the ground and should save me a good amount in fuel.