It's only bad if you can't afford it, I suppose. I keep my cars as long as it remains cost-effective to maintain them... I guess the average is about 15 years for the few cars I've owned. If you can afford to sell your car and replace it every few years, more power to you, but I wouldn't be interested in doing it... even if I could afford it.
Clement weather also helps the longevity of a car. I always heard that cars in the American Southwest and other places with similar climates tend to last longer. Certainly in terms of the rust and corrosion you see from road salt. I know Cuba isn't as dry, but I'm sure it helps. Of course, then there's the whole "can't buy another" thing you mentioned.
I'm 46 and have seen and driven a lot of cars, mostly low- to mid-range in price. The only cars I ever saw that had chokes were the Austin-Healy Sprite my Dad had for a few years when I was little and my grandfather's VW Beetle, as when I was little. I don't know what time "bread-and-butter" cars still commonly had chokes, but I think it was earlier than the mid-70s.
You are getting rid of them before most long-term maintenance is even necessary. You could probably not do _anything_ to a modern car for two years and get away with it. Those cars could last 10, 15 or 20 years if properly maintained, but it requires a skilled mechanic to do the proper maintenance because after 100,000 miles or so there are major components that must be replaced.
I just replaced a car that was almost 14 years old and I was sorely disappointed that I had to because I felt it should have lasted another 5 or 10 years. It was a 1999 Honda Odyssey, and was generally trouble-free and in good shape, but the transmission was going, which is a well-known problem for those cars from that time period, and the logical choice was to replace it rather than replace the transmission, at cost of twice or three times the value of the car, and risk having another similar failure in another year or two, because based on our research, that was a distinct possibility.
Actually, to be fair, Microsoft Research probably had it 5 years ago but the monkeyboy is always too busy exhibiting Tourette's syndrome about Google to notice.
And three years after Apple pre-invents it, Microsoft will re-invent it poorly, call it "innovation", completely botch the marketing and end up having to pull the product within a couple months.
And 17 years after that first wobbly flight there was a commercial airline.
I think the plan is ambitious, and perhaps not feasible, but I would not bet against the ingenuity of creative and motivated people. Even if they don't accomplish their goal, imagine the new tech that could be spun off from the research.
(p.s. You'd make your point a lot more effectively without the potty mouth).
Well, we're licked. No chance of inventing anything new in the next 40 years either. It's not like we've made much advance in the last 40 years, and the development of technology, and specifically materials engineering certainly isn't going to go any faster.
Sure, it's a pipe dream, but so was the Apollo program. So was the Internet, when it was first conceived. Right now, I've probably got more computing power within 3 feet of me than existed in all of the world 40 years ago. I would bet that 40 years from now the world will be closer to a Neal Stephenson novel than it is to the world of today, and I wouldn't bet pessimistically on the kinds of advances that will be made.
Why is your laser weakening on a distance-squared basis? This is a laser, not a light bulb.
All the light is going in a focused beam and all of the energy is hitting the target, minus the negligible loss to whatever little bit of atmosphere remains between the laser base and the vehicle (the exosphere does go on for quite a bit).
60 years ago a transistor was the size of your thumb. Now there are a billion of them on a chip the size of your pinky tip. Now there's news of a demonstration of a transistor consisting of a single phosphorus atom.
I wouldn't bet pessimistically on the kinds of materials engineering that will be accomplished in the next 40 years.
That's why they are allowing almost 40 years to build it. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be invented yet. I've read that carbon nanotubes could be the basis for a super-strong lightweight cable that could actually work. Or maybe they'll figure out some way to feed titanium to spiders. (shrug)
The whole problem is employers paying for health care at all. This whole nonsense got started because of a moronic tax policy that allowed both the employer and employee to not pay income on compensation in the form of certain benefits.
THIS!
The whole problem exists because of the government in the first place.
So government created the problem, and when government tries to fix any problem, it usually just makes it worse, but there are 535 people in Washington DC who are genetically incapable of thinking that if you screw around with something and break it, that the best thing to do _might_ be to undo what you did in the first place. No, that's impossible. The only thing they know how to do is screw around with it more.
Whoops! I took my alarm clock apart and now there are pieces all over the table and I can't get it back together. (Like most nerds, I actually did this as a kid.) Well, a normal person would try to reassemble the clock, and in the future, not take something apart that you might not be able to get back together.
However, if you're Congress, you start wailing on the parts with a hammer and then wonder... in total, but innocent confusion... why the clock _still_ isn't working.
Harvard turns out a lot of kooks too. Besides, being a hotshot law lecturer is completely orthogonal to being a good leader and manager.
I find his talking to be neither eloquent nor moving, but vapid and monotonous, with a predilection for the first person singular that would make any communist or fascist dictator feel right at home. And it's indeed hypocritical if not of him, than of his supporters, or should I say idolators, when we heard trumpeted from every mountaintop how this man was supposedly unprecedented in modern times in his intelligence and wisdom when in fact every possible objective artifact that could demonstrate this so-called perspicacity had been locked away behind a million dollars worth of lawyers, with the occasional and certainly unintended exception of a few clumsy, grammar-challenged articles, a couple of pieces of puerile and/or deeply disturbing poetry and two autobiographies at least one of which has been demonstrated forensically to be almost certainly written by someone else.
If his records and past writings were anything but a complete embarrassment, we would have had them rubbed in our faces for the last 5 years as still more evidence of unearthly wisdom of this Second Coming of Lincoln, FDR and Mr. Spock all rolled in up one package almost too awestruck by his own awesomeness to acknowledge the rest of the world, but who in fact makes more verbal, intellectual and philosophical gaffes than President "Dubya", Dan Quayle and the Reverend Spooner put together. As it is every hollow promise, every tired platitude, every banal regurgitation from the fever swamps of early 20th century utopian collectivism somehow elicits a response more worthy of a new Word of God come tumbling from the heavens to alight ever so tenderly upon the poor benighted souls of those who actually created the world he would destroy like some kind of blind, groping leviathan that crushes what it cannot understand or even perceive.
Well, you should take a few moments to read it. Unfortunately, while you might have missed the reference because you weren't familiar with the original, too many people will simply accept it, or any number of ridiculous proposals, as reasonable on its face.
Of course, Swift probably felt the same way when he wrote his "modest proposal".
Slashdot Mirror
There are plenty of reasons to criticize RMS, but come on, that isn't one of them.
I have no problems with "Gah-noo" just like the proper pronunciation of the town in Virginia is "Byoo-nah Vista" and it's "Am-ah-rill-o" Texas.
It's just a name. Like the operating system called "Linux".
Yes, that was it.
I was referring to a manual choke.
The interior is ugly? What, does it have goldenrod shag rug, an olive-colored dashboard and burnt orange upholstry? How ugly can a car from 1998 be?
I say, keep that machine as long as it works.
It's only bad if you can't afford it, I suppose. I keep my cars as long as it remains cost-effective to maintain them... I guess the average is about 15 years for the few cars I've owned. If you can afford to sell your car and replace it every few years, more power to you, but I wouldn't be interested in doing it... even if I could afford it.
Clement weather also helps the longevity of a car. I always heard that cars in the American Southwest and other places with similar climates tend to last longer. Certainly in terms of the rust and corrosion you see from road salt. I know Cuba isn't as dry, but I'm sure it helps. Of course, then there's the whole "can't buy another" thing you mentioned.
I'm 46 and have seen and driven a lot of cars, mostly low- to mid-range in price. The only cars I ever saw that had chokes were the Austin-Healy Sprite my Dad had for a few years when I was little and my grandfather's VW Beetle, as when I was little. I don't know what time "bread-and-butter" cars still commonly had chokes, but I think it was earlier than the mid-70s.
The GP isn't saying you shouldn't change the oil, just that you could _probably_ get away with it. And it's true. Doesn't mean it's smart.
why would i go to this mechanic person?
You are getting rid of them before most long-term maintenance is even necessary. You could probably not do _anything_ to a modern car for two years and get away with it. Those cars could last 10, 15 or 20 years if properly maintained, but it requires a skilled mechanic to do the proper maintenance because after 100,000 miles or so there are major components that must be replaced.
I just replaced a car that was almost 14 years old and I was sorely disappointed that I had to because I felt it should have lasted another 5 or 10 years. It was a 1999 Honda Odyssey, and was generally trouble-free and in good shape, but the transmission was going, which is a well-known problem for those cars from that time period, and the logical choice was to replace it rather than replace the transmission, at cost of twice or three times the value of the car, and risk having another similar failure in another year or two, because based on our research, that was a distinct possibility.
Actually, to be fair, Microsoft Research probably had it 5 years ago but the monkeyboy is always too busy exhibiting Tourette's syndrome about Google to notice.
And three years after Apple pre-invents it, Microsoft will re-invent it poorly, call it "innovation", completely botch the marketing and end up having to pull the product within a couple months.
And 17 years after that first wobbly flight there was a commercial airline.
I think the plan is ambitious, and perhaps not feasible, but I would not bet against the ingenuity of creative and motivated people. Even if they don't accomplish their goal, imagine the new tech that could be spun off from the research.
(p.s. You'd make your point a lot more effectively without the potty mouth).
Oh come on, you're making at least some of those names up. I've been as far south as Tuskegee and I've never heard of any of those places.
Well, we're licked. No chance of inventing anything new in the next 40 years either. It's not like we've made much advance in the last 40 years, and the development of technology, and specifically materials engineering certainly isn't going to go any faster.
Sure, it's a pipe dream, but so was the Apollo program. So was the Internet, when it was first conceived. Right now, I've probably got more computing power within 3 feet of me than existed in all of the world 40 years ago. I would bet that 40 years from now the world will be closer to a Neal Stephenson novel than it is to the world of today, and I wouldn't bet pessimistically on the kinds of advances that will be made.
Why is your laser weakening on a distance-squared basis? This is a laser, not a light bulb.
All the light is going in a focused beam and all of the energy is hitting the target, minus the negligible loss to whatever little bit of atmosphere remains between the laser base and the vehicle (the exosphere does go on for quite a bit).
No kidding. My wife and I spent a week in Banff a while back and I couldn't read any of the clocks.
Then I can finally move to L5!! ("Home on Lagrange" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_on_Lagrange_(The_L5_Song))
"They got a lot of nice girls."
60 years ago a transistor was the size of your thumb. Now there are a billion of them on a chip the size of your pinky tip. Now there's news of a demonstration of a transistor consisting of a single phosphorus atom.
I wouldn't bet pessimistically on the kinds of materials engineering that will be accomplished in the next 40 years.
And the editors' ability is 2/3 of the distance to the moon, compared to where it should be.
Don't be ridiculous. They'll just remove their helmets.
That's why they are allowing almost 40 years to build it. There's a lot of stuff that needs to be invented yet. I've read that carbon nanotubes could be the basis for a super-strong lightweight cable that could actually work. Or maybe they'll figure out some way to feed titanium to spiders. (shrug)
But I was having such fun...
The whole problem is employers paying for health care at all. This whole nonsense got started because of a moronic tax policy that allowed both the employer and employee to not pay income on compensation in the form of certain benefits.
THIS!
The whole problem exists because of the government in the first place.
So government created the problem, and when government tries to fix any problem, it usually just makes it worse, but there are 535 people in Washington DC who are genetically incapable of thinking that if you screw around with something and break it, that the best thing to do _might_ be to undo what you did in the first place. No, that's impossible. The only thing they know how to do is screw around with it more.
Whoops! I took my alarm clock apart and now there are pieces all over the table and I can't get it back together. (Like most nerds, I actually did this as a kid.) Well, a normal person would try to reassemble the clock, and in the future, not take something apart that you might not be able to get back together.
However, if you're Congress, you start wailing on the parts with a hammer and then wonder... in total, but innocent confusion... why the clock _still_ isn't working.
Harvard turns out a lot of kooks too. Besides, being a hotshot law lecturer is completely orthogonal to being a good leader and manager.
I find his talking to be neither eloquent nor moving, but vapid and monotonous, with a predilection for the first person singular that would make any communist or fascist dictator feel right at home. And it's indeed hypocritical if not of him, than of his supporters, or should I say idolators, when we heard trumpeted from every mountaintop how this man was supposedly unprecedented in modern times in his intelligence and wisdom when in fact every possible objective artifact that could demonstrate this so-called perspicacity had been locked away behind a million dollars worth of lawyers, with the occasional and certainly unintended exception of a few clumsy, grammar-challenged articles, a couple of pieces of puerile and/or deeply disturbing poetry and two autobiographies at least one of which has been demonstrated forensically to be almost certainly written by someone else.
If his records and past writings were anything but a complete embarrassment, we would have had them rubbed in our faces for the last 5 years as still more evidence of unearthly wisdom of this Second Coming of Lincoln, FDR and Mr. Spock all rolled in up one package almost too awestruck by his own awesomeness to acknowledge the rest of the world, but who in fact makes more verbal, intellectual and philosophical gaffes than President "Dubya", Dan Quayle and the Reverend Spooner put together. As it is every hollow promise, every tired platitude, every banal regurgitation from the fever swamps of early 20th century utopian collectivism somehow elicits a response more worthy of a new Word of God come tumbling from the heavens to alight ever so tenderly upon the poor benighted souls of those who actually created the world he would destroy like some kind of blind, groping leviathan that crushes what it cannot understand or even perceive.
So, yeah, I reiterate the GP: "So what?"
Does it really make a difference which incompetent and/or indifferent bureaucrat screwed this family over?
Will it stop happening? Will these people be made whole without spending thousands of dollars and perhaps dozens or hundreds of hours fighting it?
Let's face it, the default state of the American citizen and consumer is "screwed", and you must start from there.
And people keep voting, with their wallets and with their ballots, for more of the same.
Well, you should take a few moments to read it. Unfortunately, while you might have missed the reference because you weren't familiar with the original, too many people will simply accept it, or any number of ridiculous proposals, as reasonable on its face.
Of course, Swift probably felt the same way when he wrote his "modest proposal".