I think your case is more the exception than the rule. I was diagnosed with ADHD around 3rd grade, but at the time, the only treatments available were either ritalin or other, harsher drugs - such as you were put on. My parents didn't like that idea, so I didn't go on anything. About the time I was in 7th grade, I was having trouble in school - not because I didn't understand what was going on, but because I couldn't force myself to focus on anything long enough to get it done. By that time, adderall had come around and the indications were that it wasn't as severe as ritalin, so my parents went ahead and let the doctor put me on it. And my grades turned around, if for no other reason than I could actually focus on one thing long enough to get it done.
About half way through my freshman year of highschool, I went off of it. At that point in school, most of the work was complete BS and since I knew the material anyway, I could easily bouy my grades with test scores. When senior year rolled around however, the BS work started to count for serious points. After first semester, I was in danger of failing to graduate. I went back on adderall. Second semester of my senior year was the only time in my high school career that I made straight A's. And only one of my 5 classes that term could really be called 'fluff' - AP Stat, AP European History, Physics, English (which was a lit class that year) and Humanities (essentially an art-history class). The material was never my problem - it was simply getting the garbage homework and "extra practice" that I didn't actually need done.
My point is, it may not have worked for you - but my case is an exact mirror of yours, and I have several friends in the same situation. I have one friend whose medication is essentially the strongest they'll give for ADHD and he STILL has moments where he'll wander off midsentence without even realizing it. I've never been around him off of it, but by his own account, he wouldn't be surprised if he would wander out in front of a moving car while off of it. Really, what I'm saying is, just because you've done ok without medication doesn't mean the condition is BS. Keep that in mind.
I think a lot of that has to do with the way the car builders set the suspension from the factory on smaller cars. They tend to have a very stiff suspension set at a high ride so that the tires don't scrape the wheel wells when people try to load them down with crap - the result is a crappy ride. My current car is like this, and putting softer suspension that rides about 2 inches lower (the wind buffets the poor thing like mad when you get a crosswind on the interstate) has been on my list of things to do for a while. I don't think it's anything that can't be solved - if anything, a shorter wheelbase can be used to create a smoother ride - it's just that manufacturers tend to err on the side of caution with stock setups.
hehe I had actually gotten bored one day and done a $/HP comparison between the WRX and the STi. I'd give you exact numbers, but I actually threw away the sheet of paper I had it written on a few days ago (this was including financing based on several different terms, blah blah blah).
Just a quick look though would be:
WRX - $24,000MSRP/227HP = $105.73/HP STi - $31,000MSRP/300HP = $103.33/HP
And yes, those are base prices. The cool thing about the STi though is the fact that unlike the WRX, there aren't any performance options - they're all standard:)
what really sucks is that it's 45 for the time being (around the 75/85 junction)
I'm not sure which sucks more - that or the construction being done near the 85/185 junction that has a tendency to be backed up to a complete standstill for well over a mile at times. (I live in Columbus, so that's the one I keep getting caught at).
Atlanta traffic isn't fun, but it doesn't really bother me that much. That could be because I only have to deal with it every month or two. (Although in the past 3 weeks, I've been there 4 times, with a similar schedule for the next month). I can definitely see how having to drive it every day would really suck though. It'd get fatiguing after a while.
So because he was hurt because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt makes the expedition safer? And yes, Camry would have been totalled - CARS are designed to crumple at impacts of that speed. The more energy that's disipated by the vehicle during impact, the less that's disipated into its occupants or the other cars, making things safer for everyone. This doesn't make a flimsy car either.
With a Saturn, for example, a low speed impact will literally pop back out due to the plastic-like material the shells made out of. This WILL cause greater damage to the vehicle in a high speed impact, but there's a reason why Saturns are some of the safest cars on the road. If you can afford a $40,000+ SUV, I would hope you could afford collision protection. So personally, I'd rather my insurance pay for a new car if I came out of it in better shape. I know this all sounds holy-war-against-SUVish, but that's not my intent; I just felt your anecdote was flawed.
Yes, I agree, larger families do need larger vehicles, and sometimes an SUV may be the only vehicle that fits their needs, and I have no problem with that. The people I have a problem with are the ones that put their 16 year old girls who will never haul anything and will never have more than one or two passengers at any given time into the biggest monstrosity they can find, because they think it's "safer." Just a total waste, IMO.
If you want to put them in a car that is safe and robust AND fuel efficient, buy them a Saturn. Far safer than any SUV on the road. I think a lot of the problem is that people intuitively think that a bigger car means a safer, but the reality is that this just isn't true. I'm been in a couple of serious wrecks while riding in a compact-size car, and both times I walked away with little more than a couple of bruises from being thrown into the door or my legs hitting the dash.
The reason for this is the fact that most SUVs are still classified as "trucks" as far as federal safety testing guidlines go (since many share chassis with trucks), and therefore aren't held to as high a standard as others. Personally, I feel far safer in a Toyota Corolla than I do in a Ford Explorer because of this, but most people aren't aware of the actual issues dealing with the construction of the vehicles and that the larger size of SUVs introduces a whole line of safety problems that are really significant in smaller vehicles. Keep in mind that larger mass == greater inertia at the same speeds. That means stopping distance, which is a concern anyway, becomes an even more important number to look at when considering an SUV. Especially if you live in a rainy area.
I wouldn't get even close to going as far as saying "I think SUVs should be banned," but I do wish people would do some research and find out whether they really need one before making the decision based on misconceptions about them. There are legitimate uses, but nothing I have seen would classify "safer" among them in comparison to a good compact or midsize car.
In my town, speed limits have intentionally been set very low to inflate the city's revenue off of speeding. It's also worth noting that I'm from the US where cities aren't quite like in Europe. Outside neighborhoods, it's fairly rare to see a pedestrian - most of the town is suburban sprawl and very spread out; most of the time there isn't even sidewalk.
If you read my follow up post from earlier, you'll see that when it comes to neighborhoods and areas where pedestrian situations exist, I agree with you. As I said, for me, it's speed limit with my left foot on the brake - specifically because of reaction times.
But how many people actually need an SUV? The average high school girl certainly doesn't, and at the school I graduated from, there were as many girls who never had any passengers driving them as anyone. Sure, large families might need an SUV for seating, but do they actually NEED something the size of an Expedition or a Suburban? Part of the problem is that people perceive greater safety in a larger vehicle, when the reality is that all they are doing is transferring the danger from themselves to someone who actually picked a vehicle of the size that they needed.
Against my better judgement and prior statements, I guess I'll feed the troll one last time.
Getting a bit too far sideways on a deserted backroad late at night (as in, if anyone's coming, you'd see their headlights) doesn't constitute an "aggressive, assholish driver." Someone who could probably use a good slap in the face of his own mortallity, sure, but in order to be an asshole, there has to be someone you are or could potentially hurt. And as for the "can recover from it" I did. A quick countersteer which was essentially instinct from *GASP!!* track time saved my ass.
And yeah, I don't have a lot of faith in some other drivers, but when you consider that the times I've actually come very close to be killed, it's been when someone else was driving, it kinda would make sense, ya think? Now I'm gonna go don a flame retardant suit and lock away the troll food.
I agree whole-heartedly. Really, I'm all for a more stringent testing system when it comes to being allowed to drive in the first place. The so-called road tests given now are nothing short of a joke.
I realize I'm going further off-topic than I already am here, but I also believe that the false sense of security peope get from the rolling deathtraps we call SUVs are partially to blame for the sheer volume of bad drivers we see today. After all, what's it matter if it's only the other guy that gets killed?
Ah, the typical/. troll methodology of ignoring the fact that I've addressed your concerns and continuing their existance under the bridge. I'm finished wasting time with this.
Actually, I'm far from an aggressive driver. And will be among the first to back off when conditions warrant. I agree, morons who think they're "awesome" regardless of what's happening around them suck. I realize my post comes across as arrogant, but if you talk to those who know me, it's simply confidence in knowing smart from stupid. If it's raining, I'm gonna be the one in the far right going 10 under. If it's a neighborhood, it's the limit with my left foot on the brake (I drive manual, it's a slightly bad habit, but does cut reaction time) in case somebody's kid darts out in front of me.
Maybe my way of stating it came across poorly, but I still stand by the fact that raw speed readings are not a clear cut method of identifying poor drivers. Dangerous drivers may drive above the posted limit, but not everyone that does is a bad driver. How am I putting anyone at risk cruising at 80 on a divided highway with 3 lanes in either direction in no traffic? I didn't say weaving, and I didn't say I go around slinging cars sideways around corners just because I'm capable of it.
If nothing else, I did note that I learned what I know OFF of public roads. I probably should have stated that outside of my speeding, that's generally where I leave it. But hey, what good would that have done? I just would've been denying you a good flame.
Just did a quick search myself and came up with this
So it it looks like you're correct, they have a 20% stake in Fuji, similar to their holdings of Daewoo stock (not Daihatsu, it's late, and they're both Korean, give me a break:)). Suzuki and Isuzu are also in the same boat - GM has a stake in them, but not outright ownership, as with Saab. (My current car, a 99 Metro, for example, is just a rebadged Suzuki Swift).
But it looks like unlike with their other holdings, GM hasn't directly applied that relationship to any of their own models yet. Really, the Subaru AWD system is about all GM stands to gain... which makes me wonder if GM is planning on releasing an AWD car (none of this SUV car) in the near future.
And I agree, boxer engines are awesome - especially from a power to displacement perspective. The WRX (let alone the STi) was often compared to the Porsche 911 in terms of HP/L - the WRX ran a 113.5:1 ratio, while the 911 ran at 117:1. I don't think it's coincidence that they're both boxers. If you want further insanity, the new STi's ratio is an even 120:1.:)
I don't disagree with your point, except the recorded was 114mph, and I can tell you from experience, if your drive wheels leave the group for much more than a split second with any amount pressure on the accelerator, your revs will very quickly approach redline. (Blasted addicting to driving small cars offroad at high speeds. Stupid rallying... *grumbles;))
But that's definitely not happened in this case. A momentary tire slip isn't going to leave other forensic evidence indicating a 98mph impact.
Um, just a note on VW - VW is NOT "pretty small-time" - they're the largest auto conglomerate in Europe, and definitely among the largest in the world. Linkage
Out of curiousity, I'd like to know what "ties" GM has to Subaru? Subaru is a subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries, and really, kind of an oddball in the automarket (Don't get me wrong, Subaru is my favorite carbrand:)). It'd be rather obvious if Subaru was sharing models with GM, as every Subaru comes with a boxer engine, and Subaru and Porsche are the only auto companies using that engine format.
As far as GM-Toyota go, they've been extremely close for years, much like Chrystler and Mitsubishi (The Dodge Stealth was just a repackaged 3000GT for example, and the Colt was another repackaged Mitsu). The most obvious example in the US was the Geo/Chevy Prizm being the EXACT same car as the Corolla of the time - in fact, if you took the lisence plate off a Prizm, "TOYOTA" is molded into the bumper plastic.:)
And one last addition - GM also has a stake in Daihatsu, even though that brand has left the US market. In fact, chevy is releasing a joint GM/Suzuki/Daihatsu design in the next year or so.
The problem is, these boxes report only raw data, and I hate to tell you, but raw data is a poor measure of a driver's actual ability. The best example would be a comparison of me and a good friend of mine. I have an admitted tendency towards speeding, ~10 miles an hour over the posted limit in town and cruising at 80 on the interstate are the norm for me. My friend on the other hand, is always very careful to obey the speed limit, and actually asked me "is the speed limit still 55 through here?" coming through metro Atlanta at 1:30am after a concert. (If you've never been to ATL, let's just say that anything LESS than 75-80mph is a sure way to have someone run up your rear bumper).
So according to the box, my friend's the safer driver, right? Wrong. He routinely makes poor decisions on the timing of lane changes, has turned the wrong way down a one way street (with the sign in completely plain view) and literally put me 6 inches from death when he thought a flashing red light meant "4 way stop" and pulled a stop and go - T-Bone collisions suck. On the other hand, my penchant for speeding comes from the fact that I know that I know what I'm doing - I've spent a good amount of time off the road and on the track learning how to drive at speeds much higher than I'd ever go on a public street. The bottom line is, even if I got myself into trouble (as I have a couple of times), I can recover from it without hurting myself, my car, or anyone else. For my friend, that's an accomplishment even at the speed limit.
My point? Raw data is a crappy measure of a driver's hazard level to those around them.
Interesting. I've never gotten an AIM spam, but I get ICQ spams all the freakin time. I hadn't even thought of this aspect of the integration. If my AIM account (which stays online 24/7, sort of my electronic voice mail - sorta) because of this, I'm gonna be pissed
My impression is pretty much taken from the Smith/Morpheus scene of the first movie - Smith wants out. The fact that he's taken over a human body in the "real" world in Reloaded, seems to lend some support to this... although I'm unsure as to exactly why Smith would still be trying to kill Neo in the "real" world if that were the case. Perhaps Neo being the anomoly means he's the source of the machines' control, and destroying him would mean the end of the machine control? There are really almost endless possibilities.
I realize slashdot is international and usage varies from place to place, but someone getting "fingered" means something quite different from being given the middle finger where I come from.... oh, wait...;)
Check my reply a couple of posts down, I didn't state that clearly. I was saying I don't know how you'd explain Neo having powers anyway, but that Smith may have gained some kind of power from the melding with Neo. My bad.
Yeah, sorry about not being as clear as I should have. I wasn't saying that Neo got his powers from the "melding" with Smith - it was that Smith received some of Neo's powers from it.
I should probably also clarify in saying that I don't think of the One as "some dude with awesome super powers that can bend 'reality.'" In my mind, the One is the saviour of humanity - if Smith ended up being the crux of the Matrix's destruction, that would ultimately make him humanity's saviour, and therefore the One, whether that was his intention or not.
Either way, this little idea of mine definitely has me more interested in seeing what happens in the third film than I already was. Even if I'm offbase with this idea, I still have a feeling that there's a LOT more to Smith than we already know. Despite being a central character in both films, he's remained fairly enigmatic outside of a few, relatively brief explanations. It should be interesting.
I think it depends on which area of the south you're in. I live in a "metro" area of Georgia, and things aren't really that bad here (though there are still ignorant, racist morons running around). However, if you move out to the rural areas of the state, it's really appalling how deeply engrained racism still is there. Just personal experience, YMMV.
Hmm... I'm going to have to hunt for that teaser online now so I can see for myself - it'd seem to support a theory that's been brewing in the back of my head for a few days now (that I'll admit might be a bit far-fetched, but I think would be rather cool anyway). That Smith is, in fact, the One.
Now before you call me crazy, remember that in the first film, the Oracle tell Neo that he isn't the one - Neo just doesn't tell anyone else this. I'm not exactly sure how Neo's powers would be explained, but I have a feeling the "melding" with Smith may very well be to blame.
Now here's where my bit of somewhat backwards reasoning comes to play - the other thing of note in the first film is the fact that Smith admits that he hates the Matrix. He wants out, but he's quite literally a part of it. He's already taken over a human body in the "real" world, but in order for it to survive and for him to escape the Matrix, the Matrix would have to be destroyed. So it's quite possible (in my mind) that Smith may end up being the catalyst in a reaction that destroys the Matrix. I'm interested in finding out, if nothing else.:)
Looks like BSD finally has some competition...
on
The Death of Bluetooth?
·
· Score: 2, Funny
According to this article, Bluetooth is deader than BSD!;)
Slashdot Mirror
I think your case is more the exception than the rule. I was diagnosed with ADHD around 3rd grade, but at the time, the only treatments available were either ritalin or other, harsher drugs - such as you were put on. My parents didn't like that idea, so I didn't go on anything. About the time I was in 7th grade, I was having trouble in school - not because I didn't understand what was going on, but because I couldn't force myself to focus on anything long enough to get it done. By that time, adderall had come around and the indications were that it wasn't as severe as ritalin, so my parents went ahead and let the doctor put me on it. And my grades turned around, if for no other reason than I could actually focus on one thing long enough to get it done.
About half way through my freshman year of highschool, I went off of it. At that point in school, most of the work was complete BS and since I knew the material anyway, I could easily bouy my grades with test scores. When senior year rolled around however, the BS work started to count for serious points. After first semester, I was in danger of failing to graduate. I went back on adderall. Second semester of my senior year was the only time in my high school career that I made straight A's. And only one of my 5 classes that term could really be called 'fluff' - AP Stat, AP European History, Physics, English (which was a lit class that year) and Humanities (essentially an art-history class). The material was never my problem - it was simply getting the garbage homework and "extra practice" that I didn't actually need done.
My point is, it may not have worked for you - but my case is an exact mirror of yours, and I have several friends in the same situation. I have one friend whose medication is essentially the strongest they'll give for ADHD and he STILL has moments where he'll wander off midsentence without even realizing it. I've never been around him off of it, but by his own account, he wouldn't be surprised if he would wander out in front of a moving car while off of it. Really, what I'm saying is, just because you've done ok without medication doesn't mean the condition is BS. Keep that in mind.
I think a lot of that has to do with the way the car builders set the suspension from the factory on smaller cars. They tend to have a very stiff suspension set at a high ride so that the tires don't scrape the wheel wells when people try to load them down with crap - the result is a crappy ride. My current car is like this, and putting softer suspension that rides about 2 inches lower (the wind buffets the poor thing like mad when you get a crosswind on the interstate) has been on my list of things to do for a while. I don't think it's anything that can't be solved - if anything, a shorter wheelbase can be used to create a smoother ride - it's just that manufacturers tend to err on the side of caution with stock setups.
hehe I had actually gotten bored one day and done a $/HP comparison between the WRX and the STi. I'd give you exact numbers, but I actually threw away the sheet of paper I had it written on a few days ago (this was including financing based on several different terms, blah blah blah).
:)
Just a quick look though would be:
WRX - $24,000MSRP/227HP = $105.73/HP
STi - $31,000MSRP/300HP = $103.33/HP
And yes, those are base prices. The cool thing about the STi though is the fact that unlike the WRX, there aren't any performance options - they're all standard
Atlanta traffic isn't fun, but it doesn't really bother me that much. That could be because I only have to deal with it every month or two. (Although in the past 3 weeks, I've been there 4 times, with a similar schedule for the next month). I can definitely see how having to drive it every day would really suck though. It'd get fatiguing after a while.
So because he was hurt because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt makes the expedition safer? And yes, Camry would have been totalled - CARS are designed to crumple at impacts of that speed. The more energy that's disipated by the vehicle during impact, the less that's disipated into its occupants or the other cars, making things safer for everyone. This doesn't make a flimsy car either.
With a Saturn, for example, a low speed impact will literally pop back out due to the plastic-like material the shells made out of. This WILL cause greater damage to the vehicle in a high speed impact, but there's a reason why Saturns are some of the safest cars on the road. If you can afford a $40,000+ SUV, I would hope you could afford collision protection. So personally, I'd rather my insurance pay for a new car if I came out of it in better shape. I know this all sounds holy-war-against-SUVish, but that's not my intent; I just felt your anecdote was flawed.
Yes, I agree, larger families do need larger vehicles, and sometimes an SUV may be the only vehicle that fits their needs, and I have no problem with that. The people I have a problem with are the ones that put their 16 year old girls who will never haul anything and will never have more than one or two passengers at any given time into the biggest monstrosity they can find, because they think it's "safer." Just a total waste, IMO.
If you want to put them in a car that is safe and robust AND fuel efficient, buy them a Saturn. Far safer than any SUV on the road. I think a lot of the problem is that people intuitively think that a bigger car means a safer, but the reality is that this just isn't true. I'm been in a couple of serious wrecks while riding in a compact-size car, and both times I walked away with little more than a couple of bruises from being thrown into the door or my legs hitting the dash.
The reason for this is the fact that most SUVs are still classified as "trucks" as far as federal safety testing guidlines go (since many share chassis with trucks), and therefore aren't held to as high a standard as others. Personally, I feel far safer in a Toyota Corolla than I do in a Ford Explorer because of this, but most people aren't aware of the actual issues dealing with the construction of the vehicles and that the larger size of SUVs introduces a whole line of safety problems that are really significant in smaller vehicles. Keep in mind that larger mass == greater inertia at the same speeds. That means stopping distance, which is a concern anyway, becomes an even more important number to look at when considering an SUV. Especially if you live in a rainy area.
I wouldn't get even close to going as far as saying "I think SUVs should be banned," but I do wish people would do some research and find out whether they really need one before making the decision based on misconceptions about them. There are legitimate uses, but nothing I have seen would classify "safer" among them in comparison to a good compact or midsize car.
In my town, speed limits have intentionally been set very low to inflate the city's revenue off of speeding. It's also worth noting that I'm from the US where cities aren't quite like in Europe. Outside neighborhoods, it's fairly rare to see a pedestrian - most of the town is suburban sprawl and very spread out; most of the time there isn't even sidewalk.
If you read my follow up post from earlier, you'll see that when it comes to neighborhoods and areas where pedestrian situations exist, I agree with you. As I said, for me, it's speed limit with my left foot on the brake - specifically because of reaction times.
But how many people actually need an SUV? The average high school girl certainly doesn't, and at the school I graduated from, there were as many girls who never had any passengers driving them as anyone. Sure, large families might need an SUV for seating, but do they actually NEED something the size of an Expedition or a Suburban? Part of the problem is that people perceive greater safety in a larger vehicle, when the reality is that all they are doing is transferring the danger from themselves to someone who actually picked a vehicle of the size that they needed.
Against my better judgement and prior statements, I guess I'll feed the troll one last time.
Getting a bit too far sideways on a deserted backroad late at night (as in, if anyone's coming, you'd see their headlights) doesn't constitute an "aggressive, assholish driver." Someone who could probably use a good slap in the face of his own mortallity, sure, but in order to be an asshole, there has to be someone you are or could potentially hurt. And as for the "can recover from it" I did. A quick countersteer which was essentially instinct from *GASP!!* track time saved my ass.
And yeah, I don't have a lot of faith in some other drivers, but when you consider that the times I've actually come very close to be killed, it's been when someone else was driving, it kinda would make sense, ya think? Now I'm gonna go don a flame retardant suit and lock away the troll food.
I agree whole-heartedly. Really, I'm all for a more stringent testing system when it comes to being allowed to drive in the first place. The so-called road tests given now are nothing short of a joke.
I realize I'm going further off-topic than I already am here, but I also believe that the false sense of security peope get from the rolling deathtraps we call SUVs are partially to blame for the sheer volume of bad drivers we see today. After all, what's it matter if it's only the other guy that gets killed?
Ah, the typical /. troll methodology of ignoring the fact that I've addressed your concerns and continuing their existance under the bridge. I'm finished wasting time with this.
Actually, I'm far from an aggressive driver. And will be among the first to back off when conditions warrant. I agree, morons who think they're "awesome" regardless of what's happening around them suck. I realize my post comes across as arrogant, but if you talk to those who know me, it's simply confidence in knowing smart from stupid. If it's raining, I'm gonna be the one in the far right going 10 under. If it's a neighborhood, it's the limit with my left foot on the brake (I drive manual, it's a slightly bad habit, but does cut reaction time) in case somebody's kid darts out in front of me.
Maybe my way of stating it came across poorly, but I still stand by the fact that raw speed readings are not a clear cut method of identifying poor drivers. Dangerous drivers may drive above the posted limit, but not everyone that does is a bad driver. How am I putting anyone at risk cruising at 80 on a divided highway with 3 lanes in either direction in no traffic? I didn't say weaving, and I didn't say I go around slinging cars sideways around corners just because I'm capable of it.
If nothing else, I did note that I learned what I know OFF of public roads. I probably should have stated that outside of my speeding, that's generally where I leave it. But hey, what good would that have done? I just would've been denying you a good flame.
Just did a quick search myself and came up with this
:)). Suzuki and Isuzu are also in the same boat - GM has a stake in them, but not outright ownership, as with Saab. (My current car, a 99 Metro, for example, is just a rebadged Suzuki Swift).
:)
So it it looks like you're correct, they have a 20% stake in Fuji, similar to their holdings of Daewoo stock (not Daihatsu, it's late, and they're both Korean, give me a break
But it looks like unlike with their other holdings, GM hasn't directly applied that relationship to any of their own models yet. Really, the Subaru AWD system is about all GM stands to gain... which makes me wonder if GM is planning on releasing an AWD car (none of this SUV car) in the near future.
And I agree, boxer engines are awesome - especially from a power to displacement perspective. The WRX (let alone the STi) was often compared to the Porsche 911 in terms of HP/L - the WRX ran a 113.5:1 ratio, while the 911 ran at 117:1. I don't think it's coincidence that they're both boxers. If you want further insanity, the new STi's ratio is an even 120:1.
I don't disagree with your point, except the recorded was 114mph, and I can tell you from experience, if your drive wheels leave the group for much more than a split second with any amount pressure on the accelerator, your revs will very quickly approach redline. (Blasted addicting to driving small cars offroad at high speeds. Stupid rallying... *grumbles ;))
But that's definitely not happened in this case. A momentary tire slip isn't going to leave other forensic evidence indicating a 98mph impact.
Um, just a note on VW - VW is NOT "pretty small-time" - they're the largest auto conglomerate in Europe, and definitely among the largest in the world. Linkage
:)). It'd be rather obvious if Subaru was sharing models with GM, as every Subaru comes with a boxer engine, and Subaru and Porsche are the only auto companies using that engine format.
:)
Out of curiousity, I'd like to know what "ties" GM has to Subaru? Subaru is a subsidiary of Fuji Heavy Industries, and really, kind of an oddball in the automarket (Don't get me wrong, Subaru is my favorite carbrand
As far as GM-Toyota go, they've been extremely close for years, much like Chrystler and Mitsubishi (The Dodge Stealth was just a repackaged 3000GT for example, and the Colt was another repackaged Mitsu). The most obvious example in the US was the Geo/Chevy Prizm being the EXACT same car as the Corolla of the time - in fact, if you took the lisence plate off a Prizm, "TOYOTA" is molded into the bumper plastic.
And one last addition - GM also has a stake in Daihatsu, even though that brand has left the US market. In fact, chevy is releasing a joint GM/Suzuki/Daihatsu design in the next year or so.
The problem is, these boxes report only raw data, and I hate to tell you, but raw data is a poor measure of a driver's actual ability. The best example would be a comparison of me and a good friend of mine. I have an admitted tendency towards speeding, ~10 miles an hour over the posted limit in town and cruising at 80 on the interstate are the norm for me. My friend on the other hand, is always very careful to obey the speed limit, and actually asked me "is the speed limit still 55 through here?" coming through metro Atlanta at 1:30am after a concert. (If you've never been to ATL, let's just say that anything LESS than 75-80mph is a sure way to have someone run up your rear bumper).
So according to the box, my friend's the safer driver, right? Wrong. He routinely makes poor decisions on the timing of lane changes, has turned the wrong way down a one way street (with the sign in completely plain view) and literally put me 6 inches from death when he thought a flashing red light meant "4 way stop" and pulled a stop and go - T-Bone collisions suck. On the other hand, my penchant for speeding comes from the fact that I know that I know what I'm doing - I've spent a good amount of time off the road and on the track learning how to drive at speeds much higher than I'd ever go on a public street. The bottom line is, even if I got myself into trouble (as I have a couple of times), I can recover from it without hurting myself, my car, or anyone else. For my friend, that's an accomplishment even at the speed limit.
My point? Raw data is a crappy measure of a driver's hazard level to those around them.
I'd say there's more than a slight difference between 114 in a residential area and cruising at 80 on a divided interstate. But maybe that's just me.
Interesting. I've never gotten an AIM spam, but I get ICQ spams all the freakin time. I hadn't even thought of this aspect of the integration. If my AIM account (which stays online 24/7, sort of my electronic voice mail - sorta) because of this, I'm gonna be pissed
My impression is pretty much taken from the Smith/Morpheus scene of the first movie - Smith wants out. The fact that he's taken over a human body in the "real" world in Reloaded, seems to lend some support to this... although I'm unsure as to exactly why Smith would still be trying to kill Neo in the "real" world if that were the case. Perhaps Neo being the anomoly means he's the source of the machines' control, and destroying him would mean the end of the machine control? There are really almost endless possibilities.
I realize slashdot is international and usage varies from place to place, but someone getting "fingered" means something quite different from being given the middle finger where I come from.... oh, wait... ;)
Check my reply a couple of posts down, I didn't state that clearly. I was saying I don't know how you'd explain Neo having powers anyway, but that Smith may have gained some kind of power from the melding with Neo. My bad.
Yeah, sorry about not being as clear as I should have. I wasn't saying that Neo got his powers from the "melding" with Smith - it was that Smith received some of Neo's powers from it.
I should probably also clarify in saying that I don't think of the One as "some dude with awesome super powers that can bend 'reality.'" In my mind, the One is the saviour of humanity - if Smith ended up being the crux of the Matrix's destruction, that would ultimately make him humanity's saviour, and therefore the One, whether that was his intention or not.
Either way, this little idea of mine definitely has me more interested in seeing what happens in the third film than I already was. Even if I'm offbase with this idea, I still have a feeling that there's a LOT more to Smith than we already know. Despite being a central character in both films, he's remained fairly enigmatic outside of a few, relatively brief explanations. It should be interesting.
I think it depends on which area of the south you're in. I live in a "metro" area of Georgia, and things aren't really that bad here (though there are still ignorant, racist morons running around). However, if you move out to the rural areas of the state, it's really appalling how deeply engrained racism still is there. Just personal experience, YMMV.
Hmm... I'm going to have to hunt for that teaser online now so I can see for myself - it'd seem to support a theory that's been brewing in the back of my head for a few days now (that I'll admit might be a bit far-fetched, but I think would be rather cool anyway). That Smith is, in fact, the One.
:)
Now before you call me crazy, remember that in the first film, the Oracle tell Neo that he isn't the one - Neo just doesn't tell anyone else this. I'm not exactly sure how Neo's powers would be explained, but I have a feeling the "melding" with Smith may very well be to blame.
Now here's where my bit of somewhat backwards reasoning comes to play - the other thing of note in the first film is the fact that Smith admits that he hates the Matrix. He wants out, but he's quite literally a part of it. He's already taken over a human body in the "real" world, but in order for it to survive and for him to escape the Matrix, the Matrix would have to be destroyed. So it's quite possible (in my mind) that Smith may end up being the catalyst in a reaction that destroys the Matrix. I'm interested in finding out, if nothing else.
According to this article, Bluetooth is deader than BSD! ;)