that more content should fit on one screen. He does have a point: there's only a few lines of actual text on each screen.
I cannot speak for your graphics-preloading argument because I do not know how well this is supported by browsers, but that notwithstanding, just requesting a new page requires TCP/IP overhead and rerendering. This is certainly an issue with people who have overloaded or "burstable" connections and people still using old Pentiums.
I know this is really off-topic, but I think it needs to be said. You shouldn't be so rude (i.e. "fuck off") to Wonko, especially since you encouraged him to go to your page and point out errors. You should also pay attention to him because he is a user, not a boss. Making flashy websites to impress bosses is one thing, but making successful sites that draw people in is another thing. He gave you some opinionated, though valid, suggestions. If you're truly a good designer, you won't dismiss criticism/suggestions with "fuck off".
Yes you did. "Good" HTML isn't supposed to have any formatting at all. Yours is full of it. Yes, I am well aware of CSS' limitations, but you should be aware that any standards organization or accessibility organization would decry this as "good" code. I'll leave the "features vs. accessibility" argument to someone else.
I agree with Wonko; I don't like all these "640x480 in a box" sites, either. I run my screen at 1920x1440, and your site is just ugly. I can barely read the text, and the "box" the site is in is smaller than my GAIM windows.
Finally, validation is important. All my personal HTML validates as XHTML 1.0 Strict, but that's hardly realistic. Rather, getting pages "90%" compliant is usually good enough, and even the Any Browser Campaign admits this.
If you're interested in accessibility, check out the Any Browser Accessible Site Design page. You might be surprised at all the "inaccessible" elements your site uses. I know you said you didn't care about anyone but "average" people, but terming "average" as people using 640x480 and using a modern browser cuts out too many people. I noticed you linked to Bobby. Maybe you should read it sometime.
I have seen many sites that look like this, and I rarely get anything good off of them. Maybe it's the design and maybe it's the content, but when I see a site like this, I generally pull out in 30 seconds. If you want to see real web design, take a look at the big sites who depend on web traffic to make a living, like Yahoo!, eBay, or even Slashdot. You'll notice all of these sites will render cleanly and correctly in about any browser you throw at it. That's because none of those sites is big on specifying formatting.
...the fact that Sega has had four system failures in a row: SegaCD, 32x, Nomad, and Saturn. With a history of essentially dumping systems about a year after release, why would anyone have confidence in Sega? Even many game magazines/review sites were pre-forcasting doom on the Dreamcast, even before the specs and software support was known.
and I think "nerds" are more likely to be depressed, and, thus, use drugs, especially at a younger age when they feel "no one" can identify with them. I knew several "A+" students that turned to "D-" gutter trash in less than a year.
I've never tried any kind of narcotics or otherwise brain/body damaging chemicals, but I consciously made this decision before D.A.R.E. was taught in my classroom (I was about nine or ten, I think). This means it was already too late. Not only did I make that decision, but I already knew about the popular drugs and their effects. For D.A.R.E. to be truly effective, they must one-up the street knowledge in educating me, even if it means teaching me if I'm four. That's early, you say? You think the drug pushers are going to wait just because I'm too young?
By this time, I already knew about a dozen classmates who smoked/drank and even a few who tried marijuana.
On the flip side of this, though, it's been published that drug use in teens is actually down, so something is working, maybe it's D.A.R.E., I dunno. I'm sure D.A.R.E. has changed a lot in the past ten years (I'm 20 now), and maybe their approach is more effective than it was with me.
Watch Discovery some time. When they show the weather and research centers, they're often using UNIX. I've seen Window Maker, but TWM seems to be the norm.
Those damn Chinese pencils! Man, they were impossible to sharpen, though I think they were more "real wood" than most American pencils. They smelled funny when you sharpened them; like sawdust, I suppose.
I also remember the "Princess" brand being the strongest in "pencil pop". Anyone else play pencil pop? It's a stupid game where you crack at the middle of each other's pencil until one breaks. I played it about twice until I got tired of losing pencils.
and not "Linux" as a whole. Whether it's monetarily motivated or not, this is still a big jump for a company. I mean, AOL may not be the most popular software with Linux heads, but AOL is no light weight when it comes to programming (and I'm not talking about bloat).
Does anyone else think it's funny that after years of nothing, we all of a sudden have *three* "official" AIM clients (AOL standalone, AOL client, Netscape 6)?
Then I complained so much that they stopped. I don't know what they were looking for, anyway: what kind of useful server can I serve on a 56k modem (31.2k upload)? It must have irritated them to scan me; I've tried scanning myself remotely and it takes an hour and a half just to get through the first 1500 ports.
I deny my whole ISP's network from access on all TCP ports. My ISP inquired once what kind of servers where running on "those high ports, like 4400 and 5000". They were asking me about ICQ ports. What losers. But now they can't even see these; I'm still paranoid, though since UDP isn't as locked down as TCP (I have problems when I try to block UDP from my ISP). I also shut off ICMP so ping dumps these nasty debug messages when it's used. I fear my ISP way more than I fear any random hacker.
Why are you using a 32 bit architecture? Get an Alpha or something. No matter what tricks RDRAM may have, it's hard to beat proessing 64 bits at once compared to 32.
Back when all I knew was the DOS/Windows way of doing things, if it "looked good at the latest IE," that was good enough for me.
When I started experimenting with other platforms and operating systems, I saw what a mess things were. Don't get me wrong, to this day, I think IE is the better browser, but what it wrought is just horrible.
At about the same time, I started to see how the "other" browsers saw the Internet: Opera, older versions of IE and Netscape, lynx, and even OS/2 Web Explorer. What I found was, with just minor modifications to the code, a site can become very friendly to those with less than "MS standards" browsers. I rapidly became impressed how a lot of browsers, while not feature laden, followed the HTML model really well and could water down whatever you threw at them.
I have qualms with Netscape's CSS implementation but probably more with Opera 3.x. I discovered a box property bug in Opera that to this day is unmatched by Netscape. Opera has, however, signifigantly improved their product in the meantime. Netscape hasn't.
Getting back on topic, however, in regards to the troll, he, like a lot of people, think that building a friendly "somewhat" standards compliant site is a long and almost impossible task. This is a misconception, and the Internet is built around bad HTML and most browsers know this. To be accessable, you don't have to follow the HTML standard rigorously; in fact, there's only a few minor things that can really help, like alt tags and proper tag completion. A lot of this "standards" stuff can be done automatically by an HTML parser/correcter like W3C's HTMLtidy. More on this practice of making sites accessable can be found at the Any Browser site.
they sure tout their "standards compliance" to the point where people think that when something goes wrong, it must be their HTML and not Mozilla.
I see all these "tests" that say how great Mozilla is in this and that, but I try to do a simple table or CSS function, and it croaks on me. All said and told, Mozilla only behaves marginally better in processing HTML/CSS than IE 5.x on average in my experience. There are still plenty of things in the HTML spec I don't see support for.
As I mentioned in an above post, Bell Atlantic is using some splitting methond to double the lines by splitting 64k channels into two 32k ones. Add this to the fact that my line is awfully noisy (even though I've had two line noise checks in two years), and this degrades me to typical downloads slumping just over 2K/sec, even with my USR 56K (real) modem running in Linux (with it's better than usual TCP/IP stack).
Even though I connect at 31200 usually, getting the full bandwidth out of 19200 would be a real luxury these days.
I live in South Jersey, and this area has been slated for broadband access "in the next three months" since early 1998. Our local cable company who was bought out by Comcast no longer even mentions the idea of bringing cable Internet to this area.
I spoke with a person who works at Bell Atlantic and he said the demand for DSL in this area is huge but Bell doesn't want to put the money in for upgrading the backbone. They don't believe they'll profit even with the large demand. Far from it: in many areas around here, they're doing some "splitting" trick with the phone lines, breaking the 64 kbit channel into two 32 kbit ones. Of course, this makes dialup access suck like hell. I almost cream myself when I get 3K/sec on binary downloads.
ISDN is nearly impossible to afford around here since "residential" plans aren't offered. All the plans are aimed for medium sized businesses and are priced accordingly.
At this point, I'd love to have anything: cable, DSL, or even cheap ($50/month or less) ISDN, but it ain't happening. So for you who think DSL is "everywhere," think again. it's not, and not even close.
Intrestingly enough, Bell Atlantic says that DSL will be available in my area "in the next six months," but I have a feeling any area which does not currently offer it carries that message.
I wonder what the home shopping networks are going to do about this. Granted, their computers seem typically better and they do a better job at disclosing more (a lot more) information, but they do it much more crypticly.
They'll say over and over again, "Only...nine...hundred...dollars...NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS! We've never had a deal like this!" and that's what the large bold price in the lower left says. But that price is after rebates, and they don't mention that you have to send in the rebates half as often as they mention how $900 is an incredible deal. Also, on some of the channels, they only show the true price once every few minutes, which I feel is straight out fraud.
I also feel that the AOL deals you have to sign up for are not as well explained as they should be. They quietly hide the fact that in addition to the $1200 you have to pay for the $900 computer, you have to sign up for $720 worth of AOL. Even though you'll need Internet access anyway, and the "overall" deal isn't too bad, it requires you to put over $2100 up front.
Anyway, I'm glad someone's stepping in for the consumer. Most people interested in these deals are rather ignorant and rely on the salespeople to steer them right. These salespeople are, in turn, rattling off terms like "700 megahertz Athlon processor" knowing the consumer has no idea what it means. Then they tell the weary consumer how cheap it is, and the consumer signs up, not caring anymore. They just want a computer and to know how much it costs.
But in Japan, this console was big news. It was the first to introduce the CD-ROM, but more than that it had some very successful games such as the Ys series, Alien Crush Pinball, and who could forget the Bonk series. Unfortunately, they were very lax in exporting titles to the US, leading to a very poor game selection, and finally its demise. The Turbo is probably one of the most underappreciated systems because of its mismanagement.
Reverse engineering has been around for a long time but was not tested in court (I believe) until 1992 when Sega brought a suit against Accolade. Accolade allegedly violated intellectual property by figuring out how Genesis cartridges worked and producing their own.
Accolade won the case by stating that reverse engineering was legal for decades without suit (among other statements, of course). One of the stated examples was the telnet terminal application, which relies on backwards engineering of the old DEC and Tektronix terminals of the 70's.
Because of this case, a legal precedent was set (albeit from lower than Supreme courts) which said that reverse engineering was legal and did not violate trade secrets or intellectual property.
There is also an other Atari vs. Nintendo (remember the Donkey Kong cartridge tiff in the early 80's?) case which had similar results.
For more information and a better explanation, try here
The members of the academy are quite old, on average, and they are known to be quite conservative at times. Since the net is brand new, they don't know how to handle it so are ignoring the issue, for now, at least. When things in the online world are more certain (to them, at least), they'll turn around. Remember, too, that old people don't live forever (as cruel as that sounds).
that's a good idea! Use the existing junk in space to bring down the rest of the junk rather propelling more junk into space that will probably be a dud and end up floating around in space (more junk).
I would have kept quiet, but since you mentioned RMS, I spoke. What about Emacs? I'd call that pretty innovative. Forgetting about it's joke version number for a minute, Emacs really does do all kinds of editing. I've not seen it matched by any IDE or other text editor.
And SCO is as big of a copy cat as Linux is. As a matter of fact, they're all copy cats since the original UNIX for all intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore!
Also, I really doubt the GIMP developers said, "We hate Adobe, let's spend years of our time trying to destroy them." More like, "We see no decent general purpose imaging tool both under UNIX and the GPL, let's make one."
I will agree with you on one thing, the nature of the GNU GPL is quite socialist. So what? The cold war's over, not that we could call the Soviet Union Marxist.
I know, "yhbt", don't respond to a troll, but I was bored.
If people were this picky about their cars, they'd never drive them, and do you think the car industry is half as willing to meet your needs as Compaq apparently is? Just be glad computers are cheap enough today so that people are able to HAVE five in their bedrooms. I doubt the creators of the ENIAC cared much about noise or heat.
Yeesh, I'm sounding like an old man here. Perhaps it's because I know what computers USED to sound like. You think hard drives are bad now? Try a 1982 drive that sounds like a car accident when it parks its heads!
Slashdot Mirror
that more content should fit on one screen. He does have a point: there's only a few lines of actual text on each screen.
I cannot speak for your graphics-preloading argument because I do not know how well this is supported by browsers, but that notwithstanding, just requesting a new page requires TCP/IP overhead and rerendering. This is certainly an issue with people who have overloaded or "burstable" connections and people still using old Pentiums.
I know this is really off-topic, but I think it needs to be said. You shouldn't be so rude (i.e. "fuck off") to Wonko, especially since you encouraged him to go to your page and point out errors. You should also pay attention to him because he is a user, not a boss. Making flashy websites to impress bosses is one thing, but making successful sites that draw people in is another thing. He gave you some opinionated, though valid, suggestions. If you're truly a good designer, you won't dismiss criticism/suggestions with "fuck off".
> No, I didnt miss the point.(sic)
Yes you did. "Good" HTML isn't supposed to have any formatting at all. Yours is full of it. Yes, I am well aware of CSS' limitations, but you should be aware that any standards organization or accessibility organization would decry this as "good" code. I'll leave the "features vs. accessibility" argument to someone else.
I agree with Wonko; I don't like all these "640x480 in a box" sites, either. I run my screen at 1920x1440, and your site is just ugly. I can barely read the text, and the "box" the site is in is smaller than my GAIM windows.
Finally, validation is important. All my personal HTML validates as XHTML 1.0 Strict, but that's hardly realistic. Rather, getting pages "90%" compliant is usually good enough, and even the Any Browser Campaign admits this.
If you're interested in accessibility, check out the Any Browser Accessible Site Design page. You might be surprised at all the "inaccessible" elements your site uses. I know you said you didn't care about anyone but "average" people, but terming "average" as people using 640x480 and using a modern browser cuts out too many people. I noticed you linked to Bobby. Maybe you should read it sometime.
I have seen many sites that look like this, and I rarely get anything good off of them. Maybe it's the design and maybe it's the content, but when I see a site like this, I generally pull out in 30 seconds. If you want to see real web design, take a look at the big sites who depend on web traffic to make a living, like Yahoo!, eBay, or even Slashdot. You'll notice all of these sites will render cleanly and correctly in about any browser you throw at it. That's because none of those sites is big on specifying formatting.
ports 20 and 21 to be exact.
Gameboy was released in summer '89. Remember the Nintendo Power comics where Howard Phillips and Nester were playing Tetris on the beach?
Also, the Super Nintendo was released in fall 1991. You are still correct, but the date margin is two years, not five or six.
...the fact that Sega has had four system failures in a row: SegaCD, 32x, Nomad, and Saturn. With a history of essentially dumping systems about a year after release, why would anyone have confidence in Sega? Even many game magazines/review sites were pre-forcasting doom on the Dreamcast, even before the specs and software support was known.
and I think "nerds" are more likely to be depressed, and, thus, use drugs, especially at a younger age when they feel "no one" can identify with them. I knew several "A+" students that turned to "D-" gutter trash in less than a year.
I've never tried any kind of narcotics or otherwise brain/body damaging chemicals, but I consciously made this decision before D.A.R.E. was taught in my classroom (I was about nine or ten, I think). This means it was already too late. Not only did I make that decision, but I already knew about the popular drugs and their effects. For D.A.R.E. to be truly effective, they must one-up the street knowledge in educating me, even if it means teaching me if I'm four. That's early, you say? You think the drug pushers are going to wait just because I'm too young?
By this time, I already knew about a dozen classmates who smoked/drank and even a few who tried marijuana.
On the flip side of this, though, it's been published that drug use in teens is actually down, so something is working, maybe it's D.A.R.E., I dunno. I'm sure D.A.R.E. has changed a lot in the past ten years (I'm 20 now), and maybe their approach is more effective than it was with me.
Watch Discovery some time. When they show the weather and research centers, they're often using UNIX. I've seen Window Maker, but TWM seems to be the norm.
You just have to make sure the code is released as well. As a matter of fact, you have to release the code even if you're giving it away for free.
Those damn Chinese pencils! Man, they were impossible to sharpen, though I think they were more "real wood" than most American pencils. They smelled funny when you sharpened them; like sawdust, I suppose.
I also remember the "Princess" brand being the strongest in "pencil pop". Anyone else play pencil pop? It's a stupid game where you crack at the middle of each other's pencil until one breaks. I played it about twice until I got tired of losing pencils.
and not "Linux" as a whole. Whether it's monetarily motivated or not, this is still a big jump for a company. I mean, AOL may not be the most popular software with Linux heads, but AOL is no light weight when it comes to programming (and I'm not talking about bloat).
Does anyone else think it's funny that after years of nothing, we all of a sudden have *three* "official" AIM clients (AOL standalone, AOL client, Netscape 6)?
Then I complained so much that they stopped. I don't know what they were looking for, anyway: what kind of useful server can I serve on a 56k modem (31.2k upload)? It must have irritated them to scan me; I've tried scanning myself remotely and it takes an hour and a half just to get through the first 1500 ports.
I deny my whole ISP's network from access on all TCP ports. My ISP inquired once what kind of servers where running on "those high ports, like 4400 and 5000". They were asking me about ICQ ports. What losers. But now they can't even see these; I'm still paranoid, though since UDP isn't as locked down as TCP (I have problems when I try to block UDP from my ISP). I also shut off ICMP so ping dumps these nasty debug messages when it's used. I fear my ISP way more than I fear any random hacker.
Why are you using a 32 bit architecture? Get an Alpha or something. No matter what tricks RDRAM may have, it's hard to beat proessing 64 bits at once compared to 32.
Back when all I knew was the DOS/Windows way of doing things, if it "looked good at the latest IE," that was good enough for me.
When I started experimenting with other platforms and operating systems, I saw what a mess things were. Don't get me wrong, to this day, I think IE is the better browser, but what it wrought is just horrible.
At about the same time, I started to see how the "other" browsers saw the Internet: Opera, older versions of IE and Netscape, lynx, and even OS/2 Web Explorer. What I found was, with just minor modifications to the code, a site can become very friendly to those with less than "MS standards" browsers. I rapidly became impressed how a lot of browsers, while not feature laden, followed the HTML model really well and could water down whatever you threw at them.
I have qualms with Netscape's CSS implementation but probably more with Opera 3.x. I discovered a box property bug in Opera that to this day is unmatched by Netscape. Opera has, however, signifigantly improved their product in the meantime. Netscape hasn't.
Getting back on topic, however, in regards to the troll, he, like a lot of people, think that building a friendly "somewhat" standards compliant site is a long and almost impossible task. This is a misconception, and the Internet is built around bad HTML and most browsers know this. To be accessable, you don't have to follow the HTML standard rigorously; in fact, there's only a few minor things that can really help, like alt tags and proper tag completion. A lot of this "standards" stuff can be done automatically by an HTML parser/correcter like W3C's HTMLtidy. More on this practice of making sites accessable can be found at the Any Browser site.
they sure tout their "standards compliance" to the point where people think that when something goes wrong, it must be their HTML and not Mozilla.
I see all these "tests" that say how great Mozilla is in this and that, but I try to do a simple table or CSS function, and it croaks on me. All said and told, Mozilla only behaves marginally better in processing HTML/CSS than IE 5.x on average in my experience. There are still plenty of things in the HTML spec I don't see support for.
I'm quite Impressed that he took the time to make sure the HTML was properly written.
If you don't believe me, read the output from W3C's HTML Validator.
As any decent web designer would know, W3C is where the buck stops for standards compliance.
In addition, his style sheets validate without any warnings or errors.
With this evidence, Mozilla is, without a doubt, the culprit and not quite as up to standards as it claims it is.
As I mentioned in an above post, Bell Atlantic is using some splitting methond to double the lines by splitting 64k channels into two 32k ones. Add this to the fact that my line is awfully noisy (even though I've had two line noise checks in two years), and this degrades me to typical downloads slumping just over 2K/sec, even with my USR 56K (real) modem running in Linux (with it's better than usual TCP/IP stack).
Even though I connect at 31200 usually, getting the full bandwidth out of 19200 would be a real luxury these days.
I live in South Jersey, and this area has been slated for broadband access "in the next three months" since early 1998. Our local cable company who was bought out by Comcast no longer even mentions the idea of bringing cable Internet to this area.
I spoke with a person who works at Bell Atlantic and he said the demand for DSL in this area is huge but Bell doesn't want to put the money in for upgrading the backbone. They don't believe they'll profit even with the large demand. Far from it: in many areas around here, they're doing some "splitting" trick with the phone lines, breaking the 64 kbit channel into two 32 kbit ones. Of course, this makes dialup access suck like hell. I almost cream myself when I get 3K/sec on binary downloads.
ISDN is nearly impossible to afford around here since "residential" plans aren't offered. All the plans are aimed for medium sized businesses and are priced accordingly.
At this point, I'd love to have anything: cable, DSL, or even cheap ($50/month or less) ISDN, but it ain't happening. So for you who think DSL is "everywhere," think again. it's not, and not even close.
Intrestingly enough, Bell Atlantic says that DSL will be available in my area "in the next six months," but I have a feeling any area which does not currently offer it carries that message.
I wonder what the home shopping networks are going to do about this. Granted, their computers seem typically better and they do a better job at disclosing more (a lot more) information, but they do it much more crypticly.
They'll say over and over again, "Only...nine...hundred...dollars...NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS! We've never had a deal like this!" and that's what the large bold price in the lower left says. But that price is after rebates, and they don't mention that you have to send in the rebates half as often as they mention how $900 is an incredible deal. Also, on some of the channels, they only show the true price once every few minutes, which I feel is straight out fraud.
I also feel that the AOL deals you have to sign up for are not as well explained as they should be. They quietly hide the fact that in addition to the $1200 you have to pay for the $900 computer, you have to sign up for $720 worth of AOL. Even though you'll need Internet access anyway, and the "overall" deal isn't too bad, it requires you to put over $2100 up front.
Anyway, I'm glad someone's stepping in for the consumer. Most people interested in these deals are rather ignorant and rely on the salespeople to steer them right. These salespeople are, in turn, rattling off terms like "700 megahertz Athlon processor" knowing the consumer has no idea what it means. Then they tell the weary consumer how cheap it is, and the consumer signs up, not caring anymore. They just want a computer and to know how much it costs.
But in Japan, this console was big news. It was the first to introduce the CD-ROM, but more than that it had some very successful games such as the Ys series, Alien Crush Pinball, and who could forget the Bonk series. Unfortunately, they were very lax in exporting titles to the US, leading to a very poor game selection, and finally its demise. The Turbo is probably one of the most underappreciated systems because of its mismanagement.
Reverse engineering has been around for a long time but was not tested in court (I believe) until 1992 when Sega brought a suit against Accolade. Accolade allegedly violated intellectual property by figuring out how Genesis cartridges worked and producing their own.
Accolade won the case by stating that reverse engineering was legal for decades without suit (among other statements, of course). One of the stated examples was the telnet terminal application, which relies on backwards engineering of the old DEC and Tektronix terminals of the 70's.
Because of this case, a legal precedent was set (albeit from lower than Supreme courts) which said that reverse engineering was legal and did not violate trade secrets or intellectual property.
There is also an other Atari vs. Nintendo (remember the Donkey Kong cartridge tiff in the early 80's?) case which had similar results.
For more information and a better explanation, try here
The members of the academy are quite old, on average, and they are known to be quite conservative at times. Since the net is brand new, they don't know how to handle it so are ignoring the issue, for now, at least. When things in the online world are more certain (to them, at least), they'll turn around. Remember, too, that old people don't live forever (as cruel as that sounds).
that's a good idea! Use the existing junk in space to bring down the rest of the junk rather propelling more junk into space that will probably be a dud and end up floating around in space (more junk).
I would have kept quiet, but since you mentioned RMS, I spoke. What about Emacs? I'd call that pretty innovative. Forgetting about it's joke version number for a minute, Emacs really does do all kinds of editing. I've not seen it matched by any IDE or other text editor.
And SCO is as big of a copy cat as Linux is. As a matter of fact, they're all copy cats since the original UNIX for all intents and purposes doesn't exist anymore!
Also, I really doubt the GIMP developers said, "We hate Adobe, let's spend years of our time trying to destroy them." More like, "We see no decent general purpose imaging tool both under UNIX and the GPL, let's make one."
I will agree with you on one thing, the nature of the GNU GPL is quite socialist. So what? The cold war's over, not that we could call the Soviet Union Marxist.
I know, "yhbt", don't respond to a troll, but I was bored.
If people were this picky about their cars, they'd never drive them, and do you think the car industry is half as willing to meet your needs as Compaq apparently is? Just be glad computers are cheap enough today so that people are able to HAVE five in their bedrooms. I doubt the creators of the ENIAC cared much about noise or heat.
Yeesh, I'm sounding like an old man here. Perhaps it's because I know what computers USED to sound like. You think hard drives are bad now? Try a 1982 drive that sounds like a car accident when it parks its heads!