I've avoided accidents in the Mini simply because it is so agile. You can swerve, pull a full G in a turn and still maintain control over the car. Any time you drive a small car you have to be more careful- you need to watch out at intersections and be ready to react.
Think about a Formula 1 car. These guys hit walls at 150mph and walk away- and these cars weigh less than a ton. Granted we can't strap people in but we should be able to build a light car that can survive an accident.
Keep in mind that Mini's were raced for years and are amazingly sturdy little cars. That said, I've avoided plenty of accidents simply by being able to swerve unbelievably hard and maintain control of the car. Mini's are astonishingly agile.
What I would like to see are tax and toll breaks for people driving sub 2k pound cars. We're not doing any damage to the roads or bridges so why should we pay the same tolls? In Japan people who drive K-cars pay only small registration fees. People who insist on driving larger cars pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes.
I understand that small cars are not for everyone. That said- there are very few people who can justify owning a Ford Excursion in NYC and yet you see them here all the time.
For me it's nice to drive an agile car in a city and then be able to park it anywhere:)
Even with today's materials a car that small has a hell of a time passing the safety tests for US acceptance.
You have to remember that for years Mini's have been raced. They won the Monte Carlo rally three times and any number of circuit races. I've seen Mini's flip and roll and yet the driver just walked away. Mini's are incredibly sturdy in that way.
Add on the EPA and the fact that, even if you don't want it, they can't design a model that can't at least accept an air conditioner and automatic transmission, and that's why nothign like the Mini is made nowadays.
Mini's were sold in England and Japan up until 2000. Later models were available with automatic, AC and met English and Japanese emissions requirements.
It would probably bounce off the SUV:) Seriously the Mini is so nimble I've been able to avoid accidents I never could have in a heavier and less agile vehicle.
Emission control systems eat power from engines and add weight.
The later Mini's all had catalytic converters and full emissions control systems. They made more horsepower but kept gas mileage the same by using fuel injection. My Mini is carburetted and still gets this kind of mileage.
Most people want AC, power steering, and other standard luxuries Mini's that were exported to Japan were available with AC. My mini has power locks (which weigh next to nothing). They also make power window kits which weigh next to nothing. I kept manual roll ups because it keeps the car simpler which I like.
People can't drive standard transmissions worth their life anymore (and torque converters are only so efficient). Step-tronic ("robot shifted standard transmissions") transmissions just add to the weight.
Mini's were available with automatics but they aren't nearly as much fun to drive. Manumatics vary in performance and weight. Don't forget formula 1 cars all use paddle shifted sequential gearboxes and for them weight is a serious issue. Better yet, what about a CVT? You would get even better gas mileage with no weight increase over a standard transmission.
The biggest problem is the American obsession with huge cars. Honestly- how many people in NYC need a Ford Excursion? Despite that you see them all the time.
What I would like to see are bridge tolls and highway taxes based on the weight of the vehicle- I pay $7 to cross a bridge in my Mini which obviously does little to no damage to the road- The guy next to me driving his 6500 pound Hummer also pays only $7- yet he is doing far more damage.
I'm not saying we penalize people who drive big cars- I'm saying we stop penalizing people who drive small cars.
I have a 1978 British Mini (the old ones) and the gas mileage is anywhere between 50 and 60 mpg. Here we are almost 30 years later and we are getting- lower gas mileage?
Granted the Mini does not weigh anything and lacks AC- still. The 1 liter engine kicking out 55HP (in my slightly modified engine) is more than adequate to move such a light vehicle. Add to that a suprisingly roomy interior (it will seat 4 people comfortably despite being only 10 feet long) and a car that will corner like a go kart and you have to ask yourself what the auto industry is thinking. Not to mention being able to park _anywhere_:)
We have materials today that Alec Issigonis (the guy who created the Mini back in the 50's) could only dream of- lighter, stronger and easier to shape- and yet cars today are far heavier. We get worse gas mileage- sure the cars are more powerful but then again they have to be. I realize some of this weight is the result of safety improvements and the like but it just feels like there has to be a middle ground.
You've got it backwards. The majority of (all) Christians worship The LORD, and know that the Bible is His Word. And we know that this Word is our guide for how He wants us to live.
Oh, right, silly me! So the biblical explanation of what to charge for your daughter when selling her into slavery is still perfectly valid today? Have I got that right?
The problem with your homosexuality example is that it relies on current social standards. God's standards do not change so readily as those of societies. If we decide that homosexuality is acceptable, then what is next? And what after that? The Bible provides a standard.
As another poster already pointed out- If God can't change then what the hell happened between the old Testament and the new Testament? The only reference to homosexuality being wrong is a small passage by paul who claimed it was unnatural. That said- the bible says about a million things we find despicable today are perfectly acceptable. So which is it? Are you allowed to rape a woman so long as you pay her father and take her in?
Wrong again. Outside of the Bible, Christians do not claim to know what God is thinking. In fact, one of the very important principles in the The Bible is that God's plan is not known to us.
But you are more than happy to tell the rest of us what God would and would not find acceptable by looking at a translation of a book written more than a millenia ago by people who may or may not have actually have heard from God directly, then rewritten for good measure.
Yes, it was translated, but stuff gets translated all the time. It's not like you can't find a copy of the Greek text pretty readily, and even find study materials or classes to learn Koine Greek yourself. Yes, it would take some effort, but the material is all out there.
I've read numerous translations of the Illiad and the Oddyssey and no two have ever used exactly the same sentence at any point in the translation. Plenty of people disagree all the time on how different text should be translated.
Knowing this- should you really base your religion on a translation? Every time a book was copied it was done by hand. Little changes were introduced in each copy. Perhaps a negative was dropped or a word mis-spelled and suddently it means something completely different.
Instead of trusting such an innaccurate source why not trust the mind God gave you and think about the issues. Think about your kind and benevolent God and ask yourself would he really want you selling your daughter into slavery or launching a holy war against homosexuals?
Think- it's all anyone is asking of you. (Not you but rather anyone who wants to hide behind a book)
Thank you. God gave man free will. Why would he then write down everything he wanted you to believe? Why wouldn't he just create a bunch of robots who would obey his rules? Has anyone considered the fact that God might be testing you? Maybe he gave you free will to allow you to choose the correct path and then wrote down a bunch of crazy stuff to see who would choose to be a good person and who would blindly follow the rules for a shot at paradise?
There is no problem with the majority of Christians in this country. The majority of them are nice folks, and while they beleive some things I think are kooky, they're not too pushy about it.
Although I agree with you that the majority of Christians in this country are nice people, I still believe they have a problem. The moment you give up thinking for yourself there are going to be issues and I think too many Christians have done that (at least in terms of deference to the Bible even when it does not make any sense).
All of this aside- If I were Christian and some whacknuts stood up, claimed to be Christian and then tried to claim the earth was flat I'd be a little ticked off. I would stand up and emphatically point out that they did not speak for me. I guess I'm just a little bothered by the fact that we don't hear about people doing this. A lot of it could simply be media coverage that leans towards the crazies or it could just be that people are not standing up for what they believe in.
So the only word of God you have is from over a millenia ago? In a thousand years God may not have changed his/her mind? Could you really be a supreme being while being so inflexible? Man oh man. Try thinking for yourself. Ask yourself what a kind and benevolent God would do instead of what was written down long ago.
Why do you believe some books- written by guys who may have been higher than a kite on hash are the word of God? They've been translated- how do you know what you are reading is accurate?
Knowing there is a God- I get that. Believing in some books written ages ago that you have not read in their original language I do not get. Why do you believe they are the word of God? Because someone told you? What about the contradictions? What about the innaccuracies? Isn't it just possible that although God's hand may have guided the original authors that perhaps, over a millenia the words have been changed, ammended, mistranslated and otherwise bastardized?
Stop worshipping a book and try worshipping your God. Frankly the bible thumpers seem to me to be violating the first commandment by putting the Bible before God's will.
I find it funny that you are telling me the definition of a word you have never looked up in an encyclopedia.
From wikipedia:
Islamism is a political ideology derived from the conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalism. It holds Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.
...
The media often confuses the term Islamism with related terms such as Islam, fundamentalism, militant Islam, and Wahhabism.
So- err which one of us does not know what an Islamist is? An Islamist is _NOT_, by definition, an extremist Muslim. Islamism is a religious/political system while militant Islamists want to blow up airplanes. Get your damned facts straight.
The problem with the majority of Christians in this country is that they worship the Bible instead of God. Instead of asking themselves "What would a kind and compassionate God think of homosexuality (for example)" they point to the Bible and say "look- it says here that that is wrong!"
The Bible is just a book and it was written by human beings. It was written by people capable of making mistakes. It was written by people who may have witnessed events that they were incapable of comprehending. It was changed over time and translated. In other words- the Bible should be treated as a guide and not as the word of God because it isn't (maybe it was a long time ago but it isn't today).
Another thing that really ticks me off is that these people claim that the universe was created by an all powerful omniscient being- and then they claim to know what he/she/it is thinking. The arrogance is mind boggling. Folks- stop it. God wouldn't like- trust me I know what he is thinking:)
No, Bush is giving the Saudis a ton of money through oil that they can subsequently use to kill us. Moreover- I think you meant extremists and not Islamists. The vast majority of Muslims are not psychotic killers- just a few whacknuts. Oh and there are more than a few christian whacknuts- think Timothy McVeigh. Then again- right wing loons don't like to think.
I know Adams wrote the damned character- the problem is that it fit so poorly into the story- it was not funny in the slightest- he looked rather stupid, etc.
Most important of all, however, is that just because Adams wrote it does not make it funny or a good idea. Adams had a lot of bad ideas- most were discarded before being thrown in an audiences face. Unfortunately I believe Adams died before he could cull that scene or before he could rewrite it to make it interesting.
The radio series was brilliant. The books were brilliant. The TV show was pretty good. But this? This movie was awful. Period.
As for LOTR- I loved it. I've read just about everything Tolkien wrote and consider myself to be a fan. When I saw the movie my only complaint was that when Frodo had the ring on and was invisible it looked like a bad Photoshop effect. That was my only real complaint. I recognized the difficulty in bringing such a work to the screen. I understood just how much story there was to tell and how little time Jackson had to tell it.
The problem with H2G2 is that it is not funny and it felt like I was watching any number of stupid Disney comedies. All it needed was Will Ferrell playing Zaphod. (Holy shit- I just read the rest of the IMDB trivia and found out that he was considered for Zaphod. Christ if that isn't damning enough I do not know what else is.)
Sorry, but have you seen Life of Brian? You're doing Python a massive disservice.
Wow, please don't think I was comparing this to Python in terms of being funny- Not in the slightest. I love Python and think it is hysterical. I don't think taking python type humour trying to slap it on to some random other British movie is a good idea. Python works because it is so over the top and so absurd. This movie just did not work.
There were so many priceless lines cut from the book that I just did not see the point in making it. If they had been replaced with equally inspired dialog fine- But Ah-choo; Bless you? Come on!
Having just reread this post I'm forced to ask- Why did a single scene at the end of the movie have "the Douglas Adams feel to it" rather than the whole movie? You've summed up my entire complaint in your post- "The best that can be said about this movie is that one scene at the end had a Douglas Adams feel to it."
Please, don't post as an anonymous coward- That is really fucking annoying. Please, don't bitch about someone else's review- That is really fucking annoying. Please, don't lick Disney's boot- That is really fucking annoying.
I've heard all about how it fits in to the plot- It just does not fit into the book, It isn't funny, It is too long considering how little it contributes to the humour, etc.
Just my 2 cents- I believe I'm still entitled to my own opinion in this country (Though I'm sure Bush is working on that).
I gave the movie over an hour to be funny before I left. It wasn't. My girlfriend and I were not the first people to leave during the show nor were we the last.
Slashdot Mirror
I've avoided accidents in the Mini simply because it is so agile. You can swerve, pull a full G in a turn and still maintain control over the car. Any time you drive a small car you have to be more careful- you need to watch out at intersections and be ready to react.
Think about a Formula 1 car. These guys hit walls at 150mph and walk away- and these cars weigh less than a ton. Granted we can't strap people in but we should be able to build a light car that can survive an accident.
-sirket
Keep in mind that Mini's were raced for years and are amazingly sturdy little cars. That said, I've avoided plenty of accidents simply by being able to swerve unbelievably hard and maintain control of the car. Mini's are astonishingly agile.
:)
What I would like to see are tax and toll breaks for people driving sub 2k pound cars. We're not doing any damage to the roads or bridges so why should we pay the same tolls? In Japan people who drive K-cars pay only small registration fees. People who insist on driving larger cars pay thousands of dollars a year in taxes.
I understand that small cars are not for everyone. That said- there are very few people who can justify owning a Ford Excursion in NYC and yet you see them here all the time.
For me it's nice to drive an agile car in a city and then be able to park it anywhere
-sirket
Even with today's materials a car that small has a hell of a time passing the safety tests for US acceptance.
You have to remember that for years Mini's have been raced. They won the Monte Carlo rally three times and any number of circuit races. I've seen Mini's flip and roll and yet the driver just walked away. Mini's are incredibly sturdy in that way.
Add on the EPA and the fact that, even if you don't want it, they can't design a model that can't at least accept an air conditioner and automatic transmission, and that's why nothign like the Mini is made nowadays.
Mini's were sold in England and Japan up until 2000. Later models were available with automatic, AC and met English and Japanese emissions requirements.
-sirket
It would probably bounce off the SUV :) Seriously the Mini is so nimble I've been able to avoid accidents I never could have in a heavier and less agile vehicle.
-sirket
Emission control systems eat power from engines and add weight.
The later Mini's all had catalytic converters and full emissions control systems. They made more horsepower but kept gas mileage the same by using fuel injection. My Mini is carburetted and still gets this kind of mileage.
Most people want AC, power steering, and other standard luxuries
Mini's that were exported to Japan were available with AC. My mini has power locks (which weigh next to nothing). They also make power window kits which weigh next to nothing. I kept manual roll ups because it keeps the car simpler which I like.
People can't drive standard transmissions worth their life anymore (and torque converters are only so efficient). Step-tronic ("robot shifted standard transmissions") transmissions just add to the weight.
Mini's were available with automatics but they aren't nearly as much fun to drive. Manumatics vary in performance and weight. Don't forget formula 1 cars all use paddle shifted sequential gearboxes and for them weight is a serious issue. Better yet, what about a CVT? You would get even better gas mileage with no weight increase over a standard transmission.
The biggest problem is the American obsession with huge cars. Honestly- how many people in NYC need a Ford Excursion? Despite that you see them all the time.
What I would like to see are bridge tolls and highway taxes based on the weight of the vehicle- I pay $7 to cross a bridge in my Mini which obviously does little to no damage to the road- The guy next to me driving his 6500 pound Hummer also pays only $7- yet he is doing far more damage.
I'm not saying we penalize people who drive big cars- I'm saying we stop penalizing people who drive small cars.
-sirket
I have a 1978 British Mini (the old ones) and the gas mileage is anywhere between 50 and 60 mpg. Here we are almost 30 years later and we are getting- lower gas mileage?
:)
Granted the Mini does not weigh anything and lacks AC- still. The 1 liter engine kicking out 55HP (in my slightly modified engine) is more than adequate to move such a light vehicle. Add to that a suprisingly roomy interior (it will seat 4 people comfortably despite being only 10 feet long) and a car that will corner like a go kart and you have to ask yourself what the auto industry is thinking. Not to mention being able to park _anywhere_
We have materials today that Alec Issigonis (the guy who created the Mini back in the 50's) could only dream of- lighter, stronger and easier to shape- and yet cars today are far heavier. We get worse gas mileage- sure the cars are more powerful but then again they have to be. I realize some of this weight is the result of safety improvements and the like but it just feels like there has to be a middle ground.
-sirket
You've got it backwards. The majority of (all) Christians worship The LORD, and know that the Bible is His Word. And we know that this Word is our guide for how He wants us to live.
Oh, right, silly me! So the biblical explanation of what to charge for your daughter when selling her into slavery is still perfectly valid today? Have I got that right?
The problem with your homosexuality example is that it relies on current social standards. God's standards do not change so readily as those of societies. If we decide that homosexuality is acceptable, then what is next? And what after that? The Bible provides a standard.
As another poster already pointed out- If God can't change then what the hell happened between the old Testament and the new Testament? The only reference to homosexuality being wrong is a small passage by paul who claimed it was unnatural. That said- the bible says about a million things we find despicable today are perfectly acceptable. So which is it? Are you allowed to rape a woman so long as you pay her father and take her in?
Wrong again. Outside of the Bible, Christians do not claim to know what God is thinking. In fact, one of the very important principles in the The Bible is that God's plan is not known to us.
But you are more than happy to tell the rest of us what God would and would not find acceptable by looking at a translation of a book written more than a millenia ago by people who may or may not have actually have heard from God directly, then rewritten for good measure.
-sirket
I must be new here?
sirket (60694)
a7244270 (592043)
And to be fair that's my second slashdot ID.
-sirket
I was about to post this- I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who remembers probably the best article on this ever written.
-sirket
So selling your daughter into slavery isn't wrong? It's in the Bible after all.
-sirket
Yes, it was translated, but stuff gets translated all the time. It's not like you can't find a copy of the Greek text pretty readily, and even find study materials or classes to learn Koine Greek yourself. Yes, it would take some effort, but the material is all out there.
I've read numerous translations of the Illiad and the Oddyssey and no two have ever used exactly the same sentence at any point in the translation. Plenty of people disagree all the time on how different text should be translated.
Knowing this- should you really base your religion on a translation? Every time a book was copied it was done by hand. Little changes were introduced in each copy. Perhaps a negative was dropped or a word mis-spelled and suddently it means something completely different.
Instead of trusting such an innaccurate source why not trust the mind God gave you and think about the issues. Think about your kind and benevolent God and ask yourself would he really want you selling your daughter into slavery or launching a holy war against homosexuals?
Think- it's all anyone is asking of you. (Not you but rather anyone who wants to hide behind a book)
-sirket
Wow- jokes are lost on you people...
Thank you. God gave man free will. Why would he then write down everything he wanted you to believe? Why wouldn't he just create a bunch of robots who would obey his rules? Has anyone considered the fact that God might be testing you? Maybe he gave you free will to allow you to choose the correct path and then wrote down a bunch of crazy stuff to see who would choose to be a good person and who would blindly follow the rules for a shot at paradise?
-sirket
There is no problem with the majority of Christians in this country. The majority of them are nice folks, and while they beleive some things I think are kooky, they're not too pushy about it.
Although I agree with you that the majority of Christians in this country are nice people, I still believe they have a problem. The moment you give up thinking for yourself there are going to be issues and I think too many Christians have done that (at least in terms of deference to the Bible even when it does not make any sense).
All of this aside- If I were Christian and some whacknuts stood up, claimed to be Christian and then tried to claim the earth was flat I'd be a little ticked off. I would stand up and emphatically point out that they did not speak for me. I guess I'm just a little bothered by the fact that we don't hear about people doing this. A lot of it could simply be media coverage that leans towards the crazies or it could just be that people are not standing up for what they believe in.
-sirket
Wow- that was a joke you know.
So the only word of God you have is from over a millenia ago? In a thousand years God may not have changed his/her mind? Could you really be a supreme being while being so inflexible? Man oh man. Try thinking for yourself. Ask yourself what a kind and benevolent God would do instead of what was written down long ago.
Why do you believe some books- written by guys who may have been higher than a kite on hash are the word of God? They've been translated- how do you know what you are reading is accurate?
Knowing there is a God- I get that. Believing in some books written ages ago that you have not read in their original language I do not get. Why do you believe they are the word of God? Because someone told you? What about the contradictions? What about the innaccuracies? Isn't it just possible that although God's hand may have guided the original authors that perhaps, over a millenia the words have been changed, ammended, mistranslated and otherwise bastardized?
Stop worshipping a book and try worshipping your God. Frankly the bible thumpers seem to me to be violating the first commandment by putting the Bible before God's will.
-sirket
I find it funny that you are telling me the definition of a word you have never looked up in an encyclopedia.
...
From wikipedia:
Islamism is a political ideology derived from the conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalism. It holds Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.
The media often confuses the term Islamism with related terms such as Islam, fundamentalism, militant Islam, and Wahhabism.
So- err which one of us does not know what an Islamist is? An Islamist is _NOT_, by definition, an extremist Muslim. Islamism is a religious/political system while militant Islamists want to blow up airplanes. Get your damned facts straight.
-sirket
The problem with the majority of Christians in this country is that they worship the Bible instead of God. Instead of asking themselves "What would a kind and compassionate God think of homosexuality (for example)" they point to the Bible and say "look- it says here that that is wrong!"
:)
The Bible is just a book and it was written by human beings. It was written by people capable of making mistakes. It was written by people who may have witnessed events that they were incapable of comprehending. It was changed over time and translated. In other words- the Bible should be treated as a guide and not as the word of God because it isn't (maybe it was a long time ago but it isn't today).
Another thing that really ticks me off is that these people claim that the universe was created by an all powerful omniscient being- and then they claim to know what he/she/it is thinking. The arrogance is mind boggling. Folks- stop it. God wouldn't like- trust me I know what he is thinking
-sirket (an agnostic atheist)
"If the universe has no beginning in space or time- what place then for a creator?" - Stephen Hawking.
I don't get it- If there is a God- who created him/her? If God "always existed" then why can't the universe just have "always existed?"
Creationism has never made any sense to me... oh well.
-sirket
No, Bush is giving the Saudis a ton of money through oil that they can subsequently use to kill us. Moreover- I think you meant extremists and not Islamists. The vast majority of Muslims are not psychotic killers- just a few whacknuts. Oh and there are more than a few christian whacknuts- think Timothy McVeigh. Then again- right wing loons don't like to think.
-sirket
I know Adams wrote the damned character- the problem is that it fit so poorly into the story- it was not funny in the slightest- he looked rather stupid, etc.
Most important of all, however, is that just because Adams wrote it does not make it funny or a good idea. Adams had a lot of bad ideas- most were discarded before being thrown in an audiences face. Unfortunately I believe Adams died before he could cull that scene or before he could rewrite it to make it interesting.
The radio series was brilliant. The books were brilliant. The TV show was pretty good. But this? This movie was awful. Period.
As for LOTR- I loved it. I've read just about everything Tolkien wrote and consider myself to be a fan. When I saw the movie my only complaint was that when Frodo had the ring on and was invisible it looked like a bad Photoshop effect. That was my only real complaint. I recognized the difficulty in bringing such a work to the screen. I understood just how much story there was to tell and how little time Jackson had to tell it.
The problem with H2G2 is that it is not funny and it felt like I was watching any number of stupid Disney comedies. All it needed was Will Ferrell playing Zaphod. (Holy shit- I just read the rest of the IMDB trivia and found out that he was considered for Zaphod. Christ if that isn't damning enough I do not know what else is.)
-sirket
Sorry, but have you seen Life of Brian? You're doing Python a massive disservice.
Wow, please don't think I was comparing this to Python in terms of being funny- Not in the slightest. I love Python and think it is hysterical. I don't think taking python type humour trying to slap it on to some random other British movie is a good idea. Python works because it is so over the top and so absurd. This movie just did not work.
-sirket
The mice thing- WTF?
There were so many priceless lines cut from the book that I just did not see the point in making it. If they had been replaced with equally inspired dialog fine- But Ah-choo; Bless you? Come on!
-sirket
Having just reread this post I'm forced to ask- Why did a single scene at the end of the movie have "the Douglas Adams feel to it" rather than the whole movie? You've summed up my entire complaint in your post- "The best that can be said about this movie is that one scene at the end had a Douglas Adams feel to it."
-sirket
Please, don't post as an anonymous coward- That is really fucking annoying. Please, don't bitch about someone else's review- That is really fucking annoying. Please, don't lick Disney's boot- That is really fucking annoying.
I've heard all about how it fits in to the plot- It just does not fit into the book, It isn't funny, It is too long considering how little it contributes to the humour, etc.
Just my 2 cents- I believe I'm still entitled to my own opinion in this country (Though I'm sure Bush is working on that).
I gave the movie over an hour to be funny before I left. It wasn't. My girlfriend and I were not the first people to leave during the show nor were we the last.
-sirket