I/theenk/ that the new Cadillac CTS is V8 and right-wheel drive. And there might be a new Chrysler with their new Hemi motor.
Hope springs eternal. : )
I thought it was a crime when they put the name Impala on something with a V6. Bleh. That, and it was pfugly. Most American sedans have been two-baggers for a long time.
Look, it's no fun to be down on your luck, but when you call somebody and try to sell them something, they don't have to be nice to you. Especially if you do like a lot of the TMs I've talked to do, and when you say "No thank you, I'm not interested. Please put me on your do-not-call list." and still continue their spiel.
I have zero sympathy for telemarketers. I am not abusive to them (usually, unless they catch me during dinner and block my CallerID), but I don't feel obligated to help them out either.
Well, the Pagani Zonda was on the cover of Sports Car International last month. (And if you don't read SCI, shame on you! Go to your newsstand and edify yourself. Beats the HELL out of any other car rag.)
The Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR competes in (surprise) the GTR sports-car racing circuit, including I believe a showing at Le Mans. I don't know if there is still a factory team, but it's used by several privateers. I think MB is concentrating on Formula 1 racing (You know, guy named Hakkinen, big silver car), but that may have been last year's strategy. I am not current.
As far as Audis, I'm looking right now at the Audi S4 available for purchase in GT3. Porsche and Ferrari wouldn't permit GT to use their license, because they each had their own games that had (I guess) already secured exclusive licensing (EA's NFS: Porsche Unleashed and Sega's Ferrari 355 Challenge). You might notice that all the RUF Porsches are included, but none of them refer to "Porsche".
When I watched last year's rally season, the Peugeots were very good, but the WRX was also extremely competitive. Don't know quite what your grouse is here.
I'd sure love to see more Australian race cars. Hell, I'd love to buy a Falcon! But Australia is its own automotive universe.
GT3 is a GREAT game, but I don't see how it's an advertisement when the developer had to (in some cases) buy the rights to include certain cars.
As far as the above poster who thinks the Mitsu Evolutions are not included, they're crazy. I'm owning the track with one right now. : )
I believe BMW also gave only a restricted license to GTA.
The radio corps have a monopoly on a scarce resource: Radio frequency bandwidths. Therefore, as monopolies, it is incumbent upon them to not use their monopolies to strangle competition. It's the govt's job (see Sherman Anti-Trust Act) to moderate these guys.
At least, that's what the law used to mean. Now it means whatever the richest corp says it means.
McCain had my respect, until I found the loophole in his campaign finance reform bill.
He specifically excepts Indian tribes from the soft money laws, meaning that American Indians get to spend as much money as they want to to influence their political leaders.
OK, now the fun part. Guess which member of the legislature gets the most campaign contributions from American Indian PACs. Go on, give it a shot. I don't think you'll have to think too hard about it.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Unless and until we start passing laws that affect everybody equally, we're still screwed.
Equal protection under the law? Wasn't that in that ol' Constitution somewhere? Like Amendment 14?
If a corporation is just a group of people, then why do people form them?
In order to limit their personal responsibility for their own (or their group's) actions. Hence, limited liability corporation.
If people are permitted to decrease their responsibility for their actions by forming a corporation, they oughtn't be surprised when other people vote to limit freedoms (not rights) enjoyed by those corporations.
Corporations have no rights. They SHOULD have no voice in politics.
Don't like the limitations society places (rightly!) on corporations? Fine. Do not partake of the benefits of said corporations.
By the same token, though, in order to get ANYWHERE in ANY job that doesn't involve cleaning a grease trap you have to have a college degree.
I agree that degrees should be hard to get. I also think that not having one shouldn't damn you to dead-end jobs. Nowadays, anybody looking for an "executive assistant" wants them to have a BS in accounting. It's absurd.
I testify, due to the number of foreign-born teaching assistants that I have had whose command of English is not acceptable, that the poster's point is not without merit.
I think it's wonderful that people come from around the world to educate themselves in America. I believe, however, that until they demonstrate a solid ability to communicate in English, that they do not belong in positions where they are teaching English speakers. (Of course, language classes might be a different story!) I have no illusions whatsoever about (for example) my ability to teach a French person anything at all, although my conversational French is not horrible.
On the other hand, I work with several foreign-born students on a research project, and their communications skills (in English...I'm completely illiterate in their various native tongues) range from good to superb.
It's not xenophobic if it's demonstrably true, and it's demonstrably true that there exist H1B visa holders who do not have good English communicatons skills.
Of course that shouldn't stop them from doing whatever they want to of course...our President's communications skills are pretty lame too.
Settle down, Beavis. And, at any rate, the theoretical burst transfer rate is way less important than getting all the packets exactly when you expect them for this particular application. Yes, firewire can do synchronous transfers, but I don't think those happen near max throughput speeds.
Wouldn't it make sense to guess that these engineers thought about alternatives, and selected the best one? In what way would FireWire be superior for this application, apart from the fact that you could plug your guitar into, uh, your camcorder?
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think rock n' roll is any deader than baroque music is. I still like both. I also like Blue Man Group, Lamb, Portishead, Parliament Funkadelic....
There is room on this earth for so much cool music, I don't understand why one has to be at the expense of the other. I mean, it's not like five companies own all avenues for music distribution, and do their very best to make sure we don't hear anything else.
They address this explicitly in the article. The engineers are comfortable with the fact that not everybody is going to like this. Nobody's going to take away your vacuum tubes. : )
Seriously, I think that anybody who wants to use new technology to make new sounds is cool in my book. Music didn't start, nor shall it stop, with the electric guitar.
Isn't the spec for FireWire like 15 feet? I'm sure I've seen longer instrument cables than that. Sure, I'm sure you could use a signal booster, but that'd be a) expensive and b) noisy.
Yeah, they had CD-RW's, in 1977. Hell, with the money they must be earning with the time machine must be way more than they've made selling their album.
And the question was not "How much can you spend to record an album?", it was "How much does it really cost to record an album?". The record companies have no incentive to control costs, since they use the costs to ensnare the band.
See, that's the trick, though. The business model ISN'T working, and the record companies want to bully us (the customers) and the artists into continuing to make it work.
What they don't seem to realize (or, rather, what they desperately want to deny) is that the wheels have already come off, and that way of doing business will no longer work.
The record companies want the only way to get their product to be paying them $15-20/album. They are not willing to investigate alternatives.
NASA can kill any program by any US-based company any time it wants to. SeaLaunch is a GREAT idea, and it seems to work well...but it exists at NASA's sufferance only.
They don't count, because they're not American. That seems to be NASA's perspective.
You are right, the Russians and the Euros have some good rockets, and we don't really have anything to compete against them at the top end. Except for Shuttle, which is absurdly expensive for what it does.
Me, being a graduating aerospace engineer, I have a vested interest in NASA getting their thumb out of their collective arse and nurturing some good systems out there.
But they won't. Maintaining a monopoly on American heavy lift is too profitable.
Lots of people. Only problem is, NASA is more interested in remaining a monopoly on heavy launch vehicles than in staying out of the way of innovation and technology development.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain the differences between bio-engineering and nanotechnology.
I assure you, any such differences are as artificial as the differences between electricity and magnetism.
I /theenk/ that the new Cadillac CTS is V8 and right-wheel drive. And there might be a new Chrysler with their new Hemi motor.
Hope springs eternal. : )
I thought it was a crime when they put the name Impala on something with a V6. Bleh. That, and it was pfugly. Most American sedans have been two-baggers for a long time.
Look, it's no fun to be down on your luck, but when you call somebody and try to sell them something, they don't have to be nice to you. Especially if you do like a lot of the TMs I've talked to do, and when you say "No thank you, I'm not interested. Please put me on your do-not-call list." and still continue their spiel.
I have zero sympathy for telemarketers. I am not abusive to them (usually, unless they catch me during dinner and block my CallerID), but I don't feel obligated to help them out either.
Well, the Pagani Zonda was on the cover of Sports Car International last month. (And if you don't read SCI, shame on you! Go to your newsstand and edify yourself. Beats the HELL out of any other car rag.)
The Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR competes in (surprise) the GTR sports-car racing circuit, including I believe a showing at Le Mans. I don't know if there is still a factory team, but it's used by several privateers. I think MB is concentrating on Formula 1 racing (You know, guy named Hakkinen, big silver car), but that may have been last year's strategy. I am not current.
As far as Audis, I'm looking right now at the Audi S4 available for purchase in GT3. Porsche and Ferrari wouldn't permit GT to use their license, because they each had their own games that had (I guess) already secured exclusive licensing (EA's NFS: Porsche Unleashed and Sega's Ferrari 355 Challenge). You might notice that all the RUF Porsches are included, but none of them refer to "Porsche".
When I watched last year's rally season, the Peugeots were very good, but the WRX was also extremely competitive. Don't know quite what your grouse is here.
I'd sure love to see more Australian race cars. Hell, I'd love to buy a Falcon! But Australia is its own automotive universe.
GT3 is a GREAT game, but I don't see how it's an advertisement when the developer had to (in some cases) buy the rights to include certain cars.
As far as the above poster who thinks the Mitsu Evolutions are not included, they're crazy. I'm owning the track with one right now. : )
I believe BMW also gave only a restricted license to GTA.
The radio corps have a monopoly on a scarce resource: Radio frequency bandwidths. Therefore, as monopolies, it is incumbent upon them to not use their monopolies to strangle competition. It's the govt's job (see Sherman Anti-Trust Act) to moderate these guys.
At least, that's what the law used to mean. Now it means whatever the richest corp says it means.
McCain had my respect, until I found the loophole in his campaign finance reform bill.
He specifically excepts Indian tribes from the soft money laws, meaning that American Indians get to spend as much money as they want to to influence their political leaders.
OK, now the fun part. Guess which member of the legislature gets the most campaign contributions from American Indian PACs. Go on, give it a shot. I don't think you'll have to think too hard about it.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Unless and until we start passing laws that affect everybody equally, we're still screwed.
Equal protection under the law? Wasn't that in that ol' Constitution somewhere? Like Amendment 14?
Ummm, maybe then that part about a first amendment right to a free PRESS might come into play.
But I'm just guessin'. Not a big Constitutional law scholar over here, I'm not.
If a corporation is just a group of people, then why do people form them?
In order to limit their personal responsibility for their own (or their group's) actions. Hence, limited liability corporation.
If people are permitted to decrease their responsibility for their actions by forming a corporation, they oughtn't be surprised when other people vote to limit freedoms (not rights) enjoyed by those corporations.
Corporations have no rights. They SHOULD have no voice in politics.
Don't like the limitations society places (rightly!) on corporations? Fine. Do not partake of the benefits of said corporations.
Sounds like a free market of ideas to me.
You got an equation sheet?
/me sticks tongue firmly in cheek.
Candy ass.
By the same token, though, in order to get ANYWHERE in ANY job that doesn't involve cleaning a grease trap you have to have a college degree.
I agree that degrees should be hard to get. I also think that not having one shouldn't damn you to dead-end jobs. Nowadays, anybody looking for an "executive assistant" wants them to have a BS in accounting. It's absurd.
No. You're wrong. You never, never, never, ever have to love thermo midterms under any circumstances for any reason.
*shudder*
I got out of that class by the skin of my teeth. I've got your triple point RIGHT over here!
OK that last paragraph came out a little fast. Department of Redundancy Department...
I testify, due to the number of foreign-born teaching assistants that I have had whose command of English is not acceptable, that the poster's point is not without merit.
I think it's wonderful that people come from around the world to educate themselves in America. I believe, however, that until they demonstrate a solid ability to communicate in English, that they do not belong in positions where they are teaching English speakers. (Of course, language classes might be a different story!) I have no illusions whatsoever about (for example) my ability to teach a French person anything at all, although my conversational French is not horrible.
On the other hand, I work with several foreign-born students on a research project, and their communications skills (in English...I'm completely illiterate in their various native tongues) range from good to superb.
It's not xenophobic if it's demonstrably true, and it's demonstrably true that there exist H1B visa holders who do not have good English communicatons skills.
Of course that shouldn't stop them from doing whatever they want to of course...our President's communications skills are pretty lame too.
Fair enough. Seems like a bridge would be easy enough to construct, at any rate...
Bridge like network bridge, not bridge like between the chorus and the third verse... : )
Settle down, Beavis. And, at any rate, the theoretical burst transfer rate is way less important than getting all the packets exactly when you expect them for this particular application. Yes, firewire can do synchronous transfers, but I don't think those happen near max throughput speeds.
Wouldn't it make sense to guess that these engineers thought about alternatives, and selected the best one? In what way would FireWire be superior for this application, apart from the fact that you could plug your guitar into, uh, your camcorder?
Hey yeah, you're right. Those guys at Gibson know fuck-all about guitars.
We know you like your vacuum tubes. Can the other kids please play with some different toys now?
I hear what you're saying, but I don't think rock n' roll is any deader than baroque music is. I still like both. I also like Blue Man Group, Lamb, Portishead, Parliament Funkadelic....
There is room on this earth for so much cool music, I don't understand why one has to be at the expense of the other. I mean, it's not like five companies own all avenues for music distribution, and do their very best to make sure we don't hear anything else.
Oh, wait...
They address this explicitly in the article. The engineers are comfortable with the fact that not everybody is going to like this. Nobody's going to take away your vacuum tubes. : )
Seriously, I think that anybody who wants to use new technology to make new sounds is cool in my book. Music didn't start, nor shall it stop, with the electric guitar.
Isn't the spec for FireWire like 15 feet? I'm sure I've seen longer instrument cables than that. Sure, I'm sure you could use a signal booster, but that'd be a) expensive and b) noisy.
Just guessing. : )
Yeah, they had CD-RW's, in 1977. Hell, with the money they must be earning with the time machine must be way more than they've made selling their album.
And the question was not "How much can you spend to record an album?", it was "How much does it really cost to record an album?". The record companies have no incentive to control costs, since they use the costs to ensnare the band.
See, that's the trick, though. The business model ISN'T working, and the record companies want to bully us (the customers) and the artists into continuing to make it work.
What they don't seem to realize (or, rather, what they desperately want to deny) is that the wheels have already come off, and that way of doing business will no longer work.
The record companies want the only way to get their product to be paying them $15-20/album. They are not willing to investigate alternatives.
NASA can kill any program by any US-based company any time it wants to. SeaLaunch is a GREAT idea, and it seems to work well...but it exists at NASA's sufferance only.
Et je ne parle pas Francais tres mal. : )
They don't count, because they're not American. That seems to be NASA's perspective.
You are right, the Russians and the Euros have some good rockets, and we don't really have anything to compete against them at the top end. Except for Shuttle, which is absurdly expensive for what it does.
Me, being a graduating aerospace engineer, I have a vested interest in NASA getting their thumb out of their collective arse and nurturing some good systems out there.
But they won't. Maintaining a monopoly on American heavy lift is too profitable.
"doesn't cost anything"?
If I'm ceding a valuable commodity back to the phone company (two more numbers) then why the hell aren't they giving me a rebate?
Lots of people. Only problem is, NASA is more interested in remaining a monopoly on heavy launch vehicles than in staying out of the way of innovation and technology development.
Read more here.