In other words, the Gameboy Advance doesn't just literally do what Doom did (in 1993), it runs software on a level that wouldn't come to the PC until 1997 (the year Prophecy was released for the PC).
Connecting your comment to the parent comment, imagine this effecting Sony and Nintendo's stock prices! Sure it's BS, but just a few people believing it couldn't effect the two companies' stocks.
Yes, why pay XXX Millions, when you could pay... (puts pinky finger to corner of mouth) BILLIONS!?!?!
Besides, nobody's paying anyone anything. As others have pointed out, while there are elements of truth to the history behind the story, there is no settlement, and as far as I know, no suit.
Either way, there's been a script floating around the net for like 5 years now (perhaps longer?). I'm so dissapointed that they're not using it, and that they're using the same story again with a "terminatrix" that I probably won't see it until it rolls around to video. For those of you unfamiliar, the script that's been floating around had T3 take place entirly in the future durring the metal wars.
I dunno. I don't think the price of a brand new Chevy Camaro Z-28, or a Ford Mustang Cobra (1977 prices) is trivial. I know I certainly wouldn't pay $24,000 - $38,000 on a new computer today, even if I had that kind of cash lying around to spend.
I go to this place all the time (the physical store). And this is the second reference I've seen online to it in as many days. Is the quaint little shop I've known since I was in high school a definative resource for the net as a whole?
Um... Nintendo owns Nintendo. Why would you think Mattel has anything to do with them? (As far as I know, the Power Glove was the extent of their involvment) Nintendo's 113 year history can be found here
Mega Man: nothing else like it. I never played the first one. I bought the second one, and from that day on, I kept waiting in vain for the first one to go down in price.
Zelda II: All I can say is that I'm glad there are two of us. (: I'd be willing to bet that the poster didn't forget Zelda II, that he/she just didn't like it. It was my favorite, but I've met hardly anyone that shares my views.
Never Played Mega Man 7. Are you sure you're not thinking of Mega Man X?
Link to the Past: Totally agree.
Star Fox competition version: I remember this one well! I had the regular cart the day it came out. And I remember coming home each day from school and practicing for the competition. I won a bunch of Star Fox swag, and I still have most of it.
I can't comment on the Sega CD or Saturn games, I never played those systems except for Sewer Shark on Sega CD.
Wow, thanks for the heads up! I've got the Kilrathi Saga and I just checked eBay on it. It's sitting on my bookshelf between all my other WC games I had no idea it was rare though. I was just very happy to pick up a set of Win32 based Wing Commander games.
Are you looking for one? Because perhaps it's a regional shortage, or they're selling disproportionatly by region. They've got them in every Wal-Mart and Gamestop around here. I see them every time I go to pick up a game. By the way, I'm located in Central New Jersey.
I've seen the ROM. Unfortunatly, the actual cart had a set of dip switches on it (here's a better pic, too) which were used for setting the time limit on the game.
If you do find it, be sure to read the documentation in the zip file explaining the dip switch hack. You'll need a good emulator too. NESticle, while good in it's day, won't cut it with this.
As the other posters pointed out, the boradband and dialupadapters are out. They have been for months.
The sad part is (and the reason you probably didn't know) is that not only is Nintendo not pushing it, but there's still only one game available for it, with no word on anything coming up in the future for it. Phantasy Star Online 1&2 is it if you want online play.
Too true! It's like a if a politician were to use a term like "republi-dork" or "jerki-crat". They're trying to make a point, trying to defend their side, but you say something like that, and you just can't take the speaker seriously.
It's your standard mario / sonic / whatever platform game. But it has a unique twist. Blinx can control time. I haven't played it yet, but it sounds like a lot of fun to be able to pause time, or rewind time, while your character goes about his business, or slow it down, or whatever.
It uses the hard drive, as sort of a "gameplay tivo", so it's not possible to do what it does on gamecube or PS2.
I only have a gamecube, and just like GTA didn't make me go out and buy a PS2, this won't make me buy an x-box, but I definatly want to try this game. Is it a lame gimick, or a cool inovation? I don't know, but I'd like to find out first hand.
By the way, I'm a diehard unapolagetic Nintendo fanboy, and this game still intrigues me. But admitidly, I can't think of any other innovations on the X-box.
What about the cartooney elements like I described? How do they effect the gameplay? Things like characters running off of a cliff, stopping, looking down, then falling. Or things like doors bending like rubber before they give way, or link stabbing a moblin in the foot, who then hops around comicly in pain. These things were in the previews. Are they in the game as well, and more importantly, do things like this effect the gameplay?
LOL! Too true! I've got the game, and I have to admit, it's all hype. I preordered it months ago when it was still supposed to be the next Dave Mira game. Mira pulled his name and likeness from the title, but it's still a great BMX game. The eye candy doesn't hurt, but it doesn't add too much either.
But there are plenty of M rated games for gamecube. Games I wouldn't buy for younger kids, but I have no problem with myself. Dead To Rights, Mortal Kombad: Deadly Aliance (though I hate MK games), Resident Evil 1, 2, 3, and now 0, South Park: Chef's Luv Shack (N64), Bloody Roar: Primal Fury, which although it has no actual *blood* in the game keeps it from having an M rating, some people might find it's content objectional.
The list of Nintendo's M rated games isn't very long, but that doesn't mean that you can buy your kids just any game and be assured that it will be kid friendly. That's what the ratings are for, not diffrent systems.
I'm 23 and I only have one console, the Gamecube. I chose it largley because of Nintendo's great first party games. Are many of them aimed at kids? Maybe. I'd prefer to think of them as "acceptable for kids". I can enjoy a Mario game like Mario Sunshine, but I can't really enjoy a game like Disney's Donald Duck: Goin' "Quackers". The diffrence is that one is solidly aimed at kids and adults would have no interest. The other is just a fun game for all ages.
For every Grand Theft Auto or Splinter Cell, there are 10 games from Nintendo that are just more fun than 90% of the other consoles' titles.
That said, I do take issue with the new Zelda game ("Celda" as it's become known) coming out next year.
Zelda was always a bit cartoony. But it was always a bit serious too. An epic adventure, with history and engrossing gameplay and you really felt like part of an epic adventure.
It's not that the new Zelda is going to be cartoony, that's not what I have issues with, per se. It's the *style* of cartoon they're going for. They're going looney toons, rather than say, Robotech, or Batman. The former had anvils dropping on heads and streachy arms and rabbits tying shotguns into bows, so they'd explode in your face. The latter were, for the most part, realistic, (for lack of a better word) despite being animated. The meduim didn't corrupt the content.
Previews I've seen of Celda, show a cutsey link running from Moblins off of a cliff. He jumps, grabs onto something, and the moblins follow him off, look down and then fall. Lots of saturday morning cartoon type action like that.
I don't think that sort of thing is wrong per se, but I definatly think Zelda was the wrong franchise to take this route with. Mario, or Kirby, or Donkey Kong would have been much better choices for this kind of slapstick action.
Um... no they didn't. Soylent green is a very famous story. I dare say it's popular enough to be considered pop culture. Hell, they did a parody of it on Saturday Night Live a couple years ago.
I'm sure not *everyone's* heard of it, but I bet almost everyone over the age of say, 15 has heard of it.
I don't understand, your post got me wondering what you ment (since I'm not much of a cartoon fan, and I must admit ignorance). So I did a google search and came up with links like this, which seems to indicate that "Taz" is just a new name for a Warner origional character.
I also found out that the little mermaid is a Hans Christian Anderson story, like many disney stories, a classic remaid like you said for the masses of kiddies.
But I'm a little confused, while I don't exactly consider Looney Tunes to be the pinacle of comedy, (I couldn't stand them even s a child, and still can't stand most looney tunes cartoons) I wasn't aware that they stole many of their ideas from elsewhere. Do you have links, or other info to support this?
All you've proven with all of that is if you don't know how to drive large vehicles, then you can roll the vehicle.
You make it sound trivial. I don't know about you, but I fear for my life with half the drivers I see on the road today. Nobody has any fucking clue how to drive. And you're overlooking one very important fact.
Any car that handles better, more like you expect it to is always a good thing. You shouldn't have to know how to drive a specific vehicle. You should just be able to get in a car and have that car be safe so long as you have basic driving skills.
But the very fact that you have to "know how to drive a heavy vehicle" prooves that it's not simple. It's not basic, and that's a large part of what makes it unsafe. It's not as forgiving. Cars should be as forgiving as possible. At least most cars should be. Yeah, there can be exceptions. Enthusiests and people that know what they're doing. People that really do have a reason to drive something less forgiving. But that's not what's happening. It's as if everyone is driving dodge vipers. I don't know if you've ever driven a Viper, but it's a very unforgiving beast of a car. At the time I wasn't so so great with a stick, and I was barley able to get it out of the lot. As soon as I did, I wanted to get back into the lot and park, and I don't consider myself a slouch of a driver (with the exception of not being too familliar with stick). Contrast that with say, a Nissan Maxima (I don't particularly like this car, but it's a good example in thsi case). It handels like you expect it to. You turn the wheel, the car moves. It has good traction in all but the worst conditions, it stops when you ask it to, it doesn't oversteer or understeer, it doesn't want to fishtail, or anything.
SUVs aren't alone with being challenging to drive. The Chevy Caprice / Impalla SSes were notoriously bad in even mildly wet weather. Rear wheel drive, and something about them made them particularly bad about loosing the rear. Probably a combination of long wheel base, rear wheel drive and good power.
But like it or not, SUVs are not optimal road cars. They do have a function. But it's not as a commuter car. Or as a grocery getter, or even to take the whole family out. (Unless you're using it for what it's intended for (read: more than a glorified, high center of gravity minivan)).
How does the weight save you? It doesn't matter if your car weighs 100 Lbs or 100,000 Lbs. If it goes from 60 to 0, that force is going to be transfered into your body in a most uncomfortable way. The best protection is through crumple zones so that this force is transfered as slowly as possible. Most SUVs have poor crumple zone protection since they are built on stiff truck chasies.
As for what you say it sounds like, no, it's noting like saying I never wear seat belts, because what if I went off the road into a lake? I would be a dead man!". Because that's stupid. SUVs make up a disproportionate number of accidents on the road.
Now, I'm going to make up these numbers to illustrate my point, but check it out and you'll see what I mean. If Car A has a crash survival rate of 50%, and car B has a crash survival rate of 75%, but B gets in to accidents 10 times as often as A, despite having equal numbers on the road, which car would you pick? Add to that that B is 10 times more likley to kill someone that you hit in a multi vehicle crash? Still want your big land boat?
What if the trend died tomorrow and instead, everyone wanted to get an 18 wheeler? Would that be good? Yeah, you have to get a CDL, and yeah, they're prohibativly expensive, but it's illustrating a point. It's rediculous, and it's not safer. That's a myth. There's a reason we don't build cars like the 50s Bel Airs and 60s Impallas any more. They weren't safer, and they wasted gas.
Personally, I like weight. Lots and lots of weight.
Why? The weight doesn't make you any safer. In fact it makes you less safe. In a car with a low mass and a low center of gravity, you handle better. Hence, you'll be more likely to avoid an accident by stopping quicker or by an evasive maneuver.
People think weight gives you extra safety in a crash. This is true if you're hitting something that doesn't have enough mass, or inertia to stop your tank, like a small tree. It'll slow down your vehicle and not stop it completely, therefor less force will be applied to you. But factor in modern crumple zones, and this is negated. And then consider that anything that will stop you, well, you're no better off with all your weight. Also factor that the majority of collisions involve multiple vehicles. And in that instance, heavy vehicles are a more dangerous. The energy of a 6000 Lb tank @ 50 MPH > the energy of a 3000 Lb commuter car @ 50 MPH. When the two hit, all that energy goes into the crash. And it makes the crash worse for both vehicles.
I had a Blazer once (a full sized K5, not one of these little pretend SUVs that call themselves blazers now). I used it on the weekends for off roading, and I used it when I went on missions with the Search And Rescue unit I used to work with. Off the road it was a great truck, it sat 4 and all the gear we carried, only ever got stuck once. But on the road, the damn thing was a menace. I managed to spin it twice. Once because of deer, the other time because I got cut off on an interstate full of traffic.
To make a car handle better, (or stop shorter, or accelerate quicker) you LOWER it's mass, and LOWER it's center of gravity. Give it more rubber in contact with the ground helps as do tighter springs.
But with the exception of tires, SUVs are all moving AWAY from all of these objectives! They're getting heavier, they're getting bigger, and taller, they're getting softer suspensions.
Four months ago I was driving down 295 South going toward Philly. On the way I spotted something I'd never seen before in my rear view. A Z06. Brand New. Millennium Yellow. The ultimate sports car. Being DRIVEN.
DRIVEN! HARD.
Conditions were clear, nowhere for a cop to hide, and the guy was hauling. I slam on the gas, and let off a couple miles an hour from where my speed governor is. The guy's like 2000 Ft ahead of me and he's holding his distance. He's weaving through traffic, and I don't want to be too much of a dick, so I slow down. Besides, I know my car trying to keep up with him is ridiculous anyway. The guy's pulling away fast now and like I said, I'm near my speed governor at 108.
5 minutes later I see a smoking thing on the median grass about half a mile ahead. I pull over and see that it's the bottom of a car staring at me, it's rear wheels still spinning, and I get out to see if I can help.
I expected it to be the vette. I really did. He must have been doing 130 when I last saw him. And he was driving like an asshole (and having a world of fun in the process, I'm sure), not 5 under the limit like most vette drivers I see.
It wasn't though, it was an SUV. A 2002 Chevy Trailblazer to be specific. They got clipped by a black sedan, (they said Mercedes or BMW, I forget which now) and you could see the black paint where it had clipped them. The impact put them into a spin and they wound up on the grass median. Once on the grass, they rolled. A car wouldn't have rolled. And (I'm guessing on the force here, since the sedan didn't spin) most cars wouldn't have spun either.
Fortunately, both occupants lived. It rolled once, then settled on the driver's side. The driver was out when I got there, and another guy that stopped at the same time as me was already tending to her (her face was pretty bloody) I pulled the passenger out of the sun roof, (he had his seat belt on and at the angle he was hanging at, he had trouble reaching it himself (he was a large fellow)) he had some scrapes and a nasty looking bruise on his head, but otherwise seemed okay.
This kind of thing happens all the time. There's a reason that the guy going 130 in the vette probably still has it and the 60 year old grandfather who was going to pick up his grandkids with his daughter doesn't have his Trailblazer today. Same day, same road, (long, flat, boring, same conditions. One car was built to handle the road. The other, not only wasn't built to handle the road, but it was later hacked and modified to iron out some of the quirks of it's truck like heritage. And it became more dangerous on the road and less useful off of the road because of it!
I'm not saying I condone the way that the Vette guy was driving (nor all the fun I was having trying to keep up). That's not safe either. (yeah, I'm a hypocrite) But more weight != a safer vehicle. Not unless your such a bad driver that you shouldn't be on the road anyway. And then that safety will probably come at the expense of someone else's safety.
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather avoid accidents (though, of course I still want to have crumple zones and airbags, etc in case they do happen) then just simply walk away from one.
Please tell me you're joking about the Suburban / hummer thing. I realize it's not the popular or cool thing to criticize SUVs, but honestly, why would you need one just because you're older? Need to burn more gas? Need to sit higher up and have less stability in a turn? In the 50s it was huge cars with chrome and fins, and that wasn't too bad, because it wasn't much worse than other cars of the day. Now it's about who can have the biggest SUV, and they're stupid for what they're used for. If you're joking, sorry, but... why?!?
How the hell is this a troll? I found relevant screenshots. Something people were ASKING to see. I linked to them (though I didn't realize not all of them were from the same movie). Someone please explain this to me because this isn't one mod who clicked the wrong option, or misunderstood what I was saying, I got modded as troll SIX TIMES. This is what metamod is for I guess, but what the hell?
No, I don't think you understood the article 100%.
"The plaintifs seek 10,000 Yen (US$80) and a replacement DVD for each consumer."
It didn't say "they're seeking a replacement DVD (an $80 value) each". It says they're each seeking both a new DVD and $80 each. Why? I bought a crappy copy of The Last Boyscout at Walmart once (where the sound cut out periodically). Now this was just one tape, so I could exchange it for a good copy. But if it wasn't, I wouldn't cry about it. And I certainly wouldn't feel I'm owed money by the publisher. Perhaps a new copy, or my money back, but not a new copy and monetary damages, for what? Being forced to endure a less than perfect copy! Heaven forbid our entertainment should have flaws! Think of the children!
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there's a true 3D engine for the GBA now. It's called Blue Roses and a port of Wing Commander: Prophecy will be using it.
In other words, the Gameboy Advance doesn't just literally do what Doom did (in 1993), it runs software on a level that wouldn't come to the PC until 1997 (the year Prophecy was released for the PC).
Connecting your comment to the parent comment, imagine this effecting Sony and Nintendo's stock prices! Sure it's BS, but just a few people believing it couldn't effect the two companies' stocks.
Yes, why pay XXX Millions, when you could pay...
(puts pinky finger to corner of mouth)
BILLIONS!?!?!
Besides, nobody's paying anyone anything. As others have pointed out, while there are elements of truth to the history behind the story, there is no settlement, and as far as I know, no suit.
You're right, I never did notice that. Except it looks like he will have eyebrows in T3.
Either way, there's been a script floating around the net for like 5 years now (perhaps longer?). I'm so dissapointed that they're not using it, and that they're using the same story again with a "terminatrix" that I probably won't see it until it rolls around to video. For those of you unfamiliar, the script that's been floating around had T3 take place entirly in the future durring the metal wars.
Okay, try me. How much did it hurt Shell?
I dunno. I don't think the price of a brand new Chevy Camaro Z-28, or a Ford Mustang Cobra (1977 prices) is trivial. I know I certainly wouldn't pay $24,000 - $38,000 on a new computer today, even if I had that kind of cash lying around to spend.
Wow... wierd.
I go to this place all the time (the physical store). And this is the second reference I've seen online to it in as many days. Is the quaint little shop I've known since I was in high school a definative resource for the net as a whole?
Um... Nintendo owns Nintendo. Why would you think Mattel has anything to do with them? (As far as I know, the Power Glove was the extent of their involvment) Nintendo's 113 year history can be found here
Mega Man: nothing else like it. I never played the first one. I bought the second one, and from that day on, I kept waiting in vain for the first one to go down in price.
Zelda II: All I can say is that I'm glad there are two of us. (: I'd be willing to bet that the poster didn't forget Zelda II, that he/she just didn't like it. It was my favorite, but I've met hardly anyone that shares my views.
Never Played Mega Man 7. Are you sure you're not thinking of Mega Man X?
Link to the Past: Totally agree.
Star Fox competition version: I remember this one well! I had the regular cart the day it came out. And I remember coming home each day from school and practicing for the competition. I won a bunch of Star Fox swag, and I still have most of it.
I can't comment on the Sega CD or Saturn games, I never played those systems except for Sewer Shark on Sega CD.
Wow, thanks for the heads up! I've got the Kilrathi Saga and I just checked eBay on it. It's sitting on my bookshelf between all my other WC games I had no idea it was rare though. I was just very happy to pick up a set of Win32 based Wing Commander games.
Are you looking for one? Because perhaps it's a regional shortage, or they're selling disproportionatly by region. They've got them in every Wal-Mart and Gamestop around here. I see them every time I go to pick up a game. By the way, I'm located in Central New Jersey.
I've seen the ROM. Unfortunatly, the actual cart had a set of dip switches on it (here's a better pic, too) which were used for setting the time limit on the game.
:
If you're interested perhaps you might find it online somewhere. Though don't ask me where. (
If you do find it, be sure to read the documentation in the zip file explaining the dip switch hack. You'll need a good emulator too. NESticle, while good in it's day, won't cut it with this.
I forwarded this comment to Miyamoto's email address. Who knows if it'll actually get to him, but I thought he'd enjoy the sentiment.
Very well said.
As the other posters pointed out, the boradband and dialupadapters are out. They have been for months.
The sad part is (and the reason you probably didn't know) is that not only is Nintendo not pushing it, but there's still only one game available for it, with no word on anything coming up in the future for it. Phantasy Star Online 1&2 is it if you want online play.
Here's hoping that things change fast.
Too true! It's like a if a politician were to use a term like "republi-dork" or "jerki-crat". They're trying to make a point, trying to defend their side, but you say something like that, and you just can't take the speaker seriously.
Yes, I can think of one off the top of my head. And it's the only X-box title that I find interesting.
Blinx The Timesweeper
It's your standard mario / sonic / whatever platform game. But it has a unique twist. Blinx can control time. I haven't played it yet, but it sounds like a lot of fun to be able to pause time, or rewind time, while your character goes about his business, or slow it down, or whatever.
It uses the hard drive, as sort of a "gameplay tivo", so it's not possible to do what it does on gamecube or PS2.
I only have a gamecube, and just like GTA didn't make me go out and buy a PS2, this won't make me buy an x-box, but I definatly want to try this game. Is it a lame gimick, or a cool inovation? I don't know, but I'd like to find out first hand.
By the way, I'm a diehard unapolagetic Nintendo fanboy, and this game still intrigues me. But admitidly, I can't think of any other innovations on the X-box.
What about the cartooney elements like I described? How do they effect the gameplay? Things like characters running off of a cliff, stopping, looking down, then falling. Or things like doors bending like rubber before they give way, or link stabbing a moblin in the foot, who then hops around comicly in pain. These things were in the previews. Are they in the game as well, and more importantly, do things like this effect the gameplay?
LOL! Too true! I've got the game, and I have to admit, it's all hype. I preordered it months ago when it was still supposed to be the next Dave Mira game. Mira pulled his name and likeness from the title, but it's still a great BMX game. The eye candy doesn't hurt, but it doesn't add too much either.
But there are plenty of M rated games for gamecube. Games I wouldn't buy for younger kids, but I have no problem with myself. Dead To Rights, Mortal Kombad: Deadly Aliance (though I hate MK games), Resident Evil 1, 2, 3, and now 0, South Park: Chef's Luv Shack (N64), Bloody Roar: Primal Fury, which although it has no actual *blood* in the game keeps it from having an M rating, some people might find it's content objectional.
The list of Nintendo's M rated games isn't very long, but that doesn't mean that you can buy your kids just any game and be assured that it will be kid friendly. That's what the ratings are for, not diffrent systems.
I'm 23 and I only have one console, the Gamecube. I chose it largley because of Nintendo's great first party games. Are many of them aimed at kids? Maybe. I'd prefer to think of them as "acceptable for kids". I can enjoy a Mario game like Mario Sunshine, but I can't really enjoy a game like Disney's Donald Duck: Goin' "Quackers". The diffrence is that one is solidly aimed at kids and adults would have no interest. The other is just a fun game for all ages.
For every Grand Theft Auto or Splinter Cell, there are 10 games from Nintendo that are just more fun than 90% of the other consoles' titles.
That said, I do take issue with the new Zelda game ("Celda" as it's become known) coming out next year.
Zelda was always a bit cartoony. But it was always a bit serious too. An epic adventure, with history and engrossing gameplay and you really felt like part of an epic adventure.
It's not that the new Zelda is going to be cartoony, that's not what I have issues with, per se. It's the *style* of cartoon they're going for. They're going looney toons, rather than say, Robotech, or Batman. The former had anvils dropping on heads and streachy arms and rabbits tying shotguns into bows, so they'd explode in your face. The latter were, for the most part, realistic, (for lack of a better word) despite being animated. The meduim didn't corrupt the content.
Previews I've seen of Celda, show a cutsey link running from Moblins off of a cliff. He jumps, grabs onto something, and the moblins follow him off, look down and then fall. Lots of saturday morning cartoon type action like that.
I don't think that sort of thing is wrong per se, but I definatly think Zelda was the wrong franchise to take this route with. Mario, or Kirby, or Donkey Kong would have been much better choices for this kind of slapstick action.
Um... no they didn't. Soylent green is a very famous story. I dare say it's popular enough to be considered pop culture. Hell, they did a parody of it on Saturday Night Live a couple years ago.
I'm sure not *everyone's* heard of it, but I bet almost everyone over the age of say, 15 has heard of it.
I don't understand, your post got me wondering what you ment (since I'm not much of a cartoon fan, and I must admit ignorance). So I did a google search and came up with links like this, which seems to indicate that "Taz" is just a new name for a Warner origional character.
I also found out that the little mermaid is a Hans Christian Anderson story, like many disney stories, a classic remaid like you said for the masses of kiddies.
But I'm a little confused, while I don't exactly consider Looney Tunes to be the pinacle of comedy, (I couldn't stand them even s a child, and still can't stand most looney tunes cartoons) I wasn't aware that they stole many of their ideas from elsewhere. Do you have links, or other info to support this?
Thanks.
All you've proven with all of that is if you don't know how to drive large vehicles, then you can roll the vehicle.
You make it sound trivial. I don't know about you, but I fear for my life with half the drivers I see on the road today. Nobody has any fucking clue how to drive. And you're overlooking one very important fact.
Any car that handles better, more like you expect it to is always a good thing. You shouldn't have to know how to drive a specific vehicle. You should just be able to get in a car and have that car be safe so long as you have basic driving skills.
But the very fact that you have to "know how to drive a heavy vehicle" prooves that it's not simple. It's not basic, and that's a large part of what makes it unsafe. It's not as forgiving. Cars should be as forgiving as possible. At least most cars should be. Yeah, there can be exceptions. Enthusiests and people that know what they're doing. People that really do have a reason to drive something less forgiving. But that's not what's happening. It's as if everyone is driving dodge vipers. I don't know if you've ever driven a Viper, but it's a very unforgiving beast of a car. At the time I wasn't so so great with a stick, and I was barley able to get it out of the lot. As soon as I did, I wanted to get back into the lot and park, and I don't consider myself a slouch of a driver (with the exception of not being too familliar with stick). Contrast that with say, a Nissan Maxima (I don't particularly like this car, but it's a good example in thsi case). It handels like you expect it to. You turn the wheel, the car moves. It has good traction in all but the worst conditions, it stops when you ask it to, it doesn't oversteer or understeer, it doesn't want to fishtail, or anything.
SUVs aren't alone with being challenging to drive. The Chevy Caprice / Impalla SSes were notoriously bad in even mildly wet weather. Rear wheel drive, and something about them made them particularly bad about loosing the rear. Probably a combination of long wheel base, rear wheel drive and good power.
But like it or not, SUVs are not optimal road cars. They do have a function. But it's not as a commuter car. Or as a grocery getter, or even to take the whole family out. (Unless you're using it for what it's intended for (read: more than a glorified, high center of gravity minivan)).
How does the weight save you? It doesn't matter if your car weighs 100 Lbs or 100,000 Lbs. If it goes from 60 to 0, that force is going to be transfered into your body in a most uncomfortable way. The best protection is through crumple zones so that this force is transfered as slowly as possible. Most SUVs have poor crumple zone protection since they are built on stiff truck chasies.
As for what you say it sounds like, no, it's noting like saying I never wear seat belts, because what if I went off the road into a lake? I would be a dead man!". Because that's stupid. SUVs make up a disproportionate number of accidents on the road.
Read up on your facts.
There are sligltly better survivability numbers IN A CRASH for SUVs than cars. But that's at the expense of the cars' rates. And the accident rate on SUVs is so much worse that the New Jersey Garden State Parkway has considered banning or restricting SUVs.
Now, I'm going to make up these numbers to illustrate my point, but check it out and you'll see what I mean. If Car A has a crash survival rate of 50%, and car B has a crash survival rate of 75%, but B gets in to accidents 10 times as often as A, despite having equal numbers on the road, which car would you pick? Add to that that B is 10 times more likley to kill someone that you hit in a multi vehicle crash? Still want your big land boat?
What if the trend died tomorrow and instead, everyone wanted to get an 18 wheeler? Would that be good? Yeah, you have to get a CDL, and yeah, they're prohibativly expensive, but it's illustrating a point. It's rediculous, and it's not safer. That's a myth. There's a reason we don't build cars like the 50s Bel Airs and 60s Impallas any more. They weren't safer, and they wasted gas.
Personally, I like weight. Lots and lots of weight.
Why? The weight doesn't make you any safer. In fact it makes you less safe. In a car with a low mass and a low center of gravity, you handle better. Hence, you'll be more likely to avoid an accident by stopping quicker or by an evasive maneuver.
People think weight gives you extra safety in a crash. This is true if you're hitting something that doesn't have enough mass, or inertia to stop your tank, like a small tree. It'll slow down your vehicle and not stop it completely, therefor less force will be applied to you. But factor in modern crumple zones, and this is negated. And then consider that anything that will stop you, well, you're no better off with all your weight. Also factor that the majority of collisions involve multiple vehicles. And in that instance, heavy vehicles are a more dangerous. The energy of a 6000 Lb tank @ 50 MPH > the energy of a 3000 Lb commuter car @ 50 MPH. When the two hit, all that energy goes into the crash. And it makes the crash worse for both vehicles.
I had a Blazer once (a full sized K5, not one of these little pretend SUVs that call themselves blazers now). I used it on the weekends for off roading, and I used it when I went on missions with the Search And Rescue unit I used to work with. Off the road it was a great truck, it sat 4 and all the gear we carried, only ever got stuck once. But on the road, the damn thing was a menace. I managed to spin it twice. Once because of deer, the other time because I got cut off on an interstate full of traffic.
To make a car handle better, (or stop shorter, or accelerate quicker) you LOWER it's mass, and LOWER it's center of gravity. Give it more rubber in contact with the ground helps as do tighter springs.
But with the exception of tires, SUVs are all moving AWAY from all of these objectives! They're getting heavier, they're getting bigger, and taller, they're getting softer suspensions.
Four months ago I was driving down 295 South going toward Philly. On the way I spotted something I'd never seen before in my rear view. A Z06. Brand New. Millennium Yellow. The ultimate sports car. Being DRIVEN.
DRIVEN! HARD.
Conditions were clear, nowhere for a cop to hide, and the guy was hauling. I slam on the gas, and let off a couple miles an hour from where my speed governor is. The guy's like 2000 Ft ahead of me and he's holding his distance. He's weaving through traffic, and I don't want to be too much of a dick, so I slow down. Besides, I know my car trying to keep up with him is ridiculous anyway. The guy's pulling away fast now and like I said, I'm near my speed governor at 108.
5 minutes later I see a smoking thing on the median grass about half a mile ahead. I pull over and see that it's the bottom of a car staring at me, it's rear wheels still spinning, and I get out to see if I can help.
I expected it to be the vette. I really did. He must have been doing 130 when I last saw him. And he was driving like an asshole (and having a world of fun in the process, I'm sure), not 5 under the limit like most vette drivers I see.
It wasn't though, it was an SUV. A 2002 Chevy Trailblazer to be specific. They got clipped by a black sedan, (they said Mercedes or BMW, I forget which now) and you could see the black paint where it had clipped them. The impact put them into a spin and they wound up on the grass median. Once on the grass, they rolled. A car wouldn't have rolled. And (I'm guessing on the force here, since the sedan didn't spin) most cars wouldn't have spun either.
Fortunately, both occupants lived. It rolled once, then settled on the driver's side. The driver was out when I got there, and another guy that stopped at the same time as me was already tending to her (her face was pretty bloody) I pulled the passenger out of the sun roof, (he had his seat belt on and at the angle he was hanging at, he had trouble reaching it himself (he was a large fellow)) he had some scrapes and a nasty looking bruise on his head, but otherwise seemed okay.
This kind of thing happens all the time. There's a reason that the guy going 130 in the vette probably still has it and the 60 year old grandfather who was going to pick up his grandkids with his daughter doesn't have his Trailblazer today. Same day, same road, (long, flat, boring, same conditions. One car was built to handle the road. The other, not only wasn't built to handle the road, but it was later hacked and modified to iron out some of the quirks of it's truck like heritage. And it became more dangerous on the road and less useful off of the road because of it!
I'm not saying I condone the way that the Vette guy was driving (nor all the fun I was having trying to keep up). That's not safe either. (yeah, I'm a hypocrite) But more weight != a safer vehicle. Not unless your such a bad driver that you shouldn't be on the road anyway. And then that safety will probably come at the expense of someone else's safety.
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather avoid accidents (though, of course I still want to have crumple zones and airbags, etc in case they do happen) then just simply walk away from one.
Please tell me you're joking about the Suburban / hummer thing. I realize it's not the popular or cool thing to criticize SUVs, but honestly, why would you need one just because you're older? Need to burn more gas? Need to sit higher up and have less stability in a turn? In the 50s it was huge cars with chrome and fins, and that wasn't too bad, because it wasn't much worse than other cars of the day. Now it's about who can have the biggest SUV, and they're stupid for what they're used for. If you're joking, sorry, but... why?!?
How the hell is this a troll? I found relevant screenshots. Something people were ASKING to see. I linked to them (though I didn't realize not all of them were from the same movie). Someone please explain this to me because this isn't one mod who clicked the wrong option, or misunderstood what I was saying, I got modded as troll SIX TIMES. This is what metamod is for I guess, but what the hell?
No, I don't think you understood the article 100%.
"The plaintifs seek 10,000 Yen (US$80) and a replacement DVD for each consumer."
It didn't say "they're seeking a replacement DVD (an $80 value) each". It says they're each seeking both a new DVD and $80 each. Why? I bought a crappy copy of The Last Boyscout at Walmart once (where the sound cut out periodically). Now this was just one tape, so I could exchange it for a good copy. But if it wasn't, I wouldn't cry about it. And I certainly wouldn't feel I'm owed money by the publisher. Perhaps a new copy, or my money back, but not a new copy and monetary damages, for what? Being forced to endure a less than perfect copy! Heaven forbid our entertainment should have flaws! Think of the children!