The pubs have passed a number of laws that gave W. and top ranking pubs all sorts of "get out of jail free". These guys learned a lot from Nixon and reagan. If you can not be moral and legal, well, just pass laws that retroactively give you an out.
Windows is a nightmare and yet has predominated the industry. Windows requires more hardware, more security, more software, more labor, and yet it has been the market. Infact, OSS has had a very hard road to hoe against ALL of the commercial stuff because most of the commercial stuff is pre-loaded or sold to companies. Now that a great deal of support is available, and the SCO issue resolved, several large companies are using more of it. But it was not that OSS was superior in nearly everyway that did the trick (actually, it did with the developers), but the issue of superior and cheaper support is what has made OSS possible in the corporate world.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Actually, hard to rent a 4wd during a snow storm. In addition, we take our dogs and 2 kids for walk every weekend (and will be back to every other day in just a bit). The 7 ppl is family and 3 in-laws for trips (they have the smaller cars). I left hunting years ago, and 2 of the 3 dogs are sled dogs (ainu inu and husky) so they require walks more often then 1x a week (but have small kids; waiting until they get older).
In the past, I have shared a snow blower with 5 neighbors. Made sense. But a car? Nope. Used FAR too often.
What it comes down to, there are places where a UTILITY vehicle really makes sense. In our case, a toyota highlander is getting 20 mpg, which is not too bad. We both cringe filling it, but both want to see gas prised stay above 3.50. The reason is that both of us want a hybrid SUV. A decent one, not the crap that is on the market.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
yeah, they are a nice feature. Combine that with airbags, and fewer ppl being torn up in accidents. Now, with that said, back in the 70's, my father did buy a VW to drive to airport (he was driving a blazer). But a guy ran a stop sign and hit the passenger side at 45 degree. My fathers ribs were broken because the vw crumbled. Oth, the drunk driver in the mustang walked away. The crumble really makes sense for head-ons, but I prefer strength on the side.
With all that said,I owned a honda prelude and was involved in a 3 car accident. My prelude and 2 trucks. An 17 y.o. ran the stop sign and hit us both. They both had brand new trucks and I had a 10 y.o prelude. With all 3 vehicles totaled, I was impressed at how that prelude came through that accident (as did I). I would buy another small car like that anyday.
ALl of the hybrid SUVs are parallel systems. In efficient in terms of fuel. You want to go with a serial hybrid which NONE of the manufactures have. Now, Chevy made an avalanche recharge their batteries, but that was it. Basically, it is horrible designed.
Yeah, luxury trucks (other than an el Camino) and a luxury SUV have never made sense to me either. Back in the 60's, we had a jeep wagoner (back when they were decent cars) and a chevy blazer. The wagoneer was used for plowing with as well as hauling us around. The blazer my father used to get to o'hare (he was a pilot). What was interesting is that the blazer was the size of a tahoo, but had a simple back seat, that pulled out easily. Times have changed.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
well, most SUV's are safer in an accident just because they are on stronger frames. Of course, the other driver suffers for it. But of course, the SUV is more prone to accidents such as rollover.
One of the things that I am amazed at is the number of drivers that I see in the ditch during snowstorms. Nearly all are 4wd trucks/SUVs. The problem is that they are use to driving their vehicle in 2wd, hit a storm, and kick it into 4wd and think that it is the same. Big mistake. I spent more than a few years driving 160 miles/day for 6 days / week. Since I learned to drive in southern Wisc/Northern Ill, I learned to drive snow/ice in both cars and 4wd. Here in CO, we have Texans and CAers who buy these 4wd and never once even try it in 4wd during regular driving time. Insane. Ours is a AWD SUV. Makes it easier to learn.
Look, most ppl that own SUVs do not do so because of highway driving or safety, hauling lots of ppl, cargo, towing, need for 4wd, etc. They buy them because they need several of those combos and can not afford to own multiple vehicles.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Why? An SUV solves the issue. Our current one gets 20 MPG. Not great, but respectable. When a good hybrid SUV comes out, then we will switch up (gladly). But move? The only place will be in to the mountains which requires an SUV.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
Other requirements; remember 4 wheel drive, have to haul cargo, 7 ppl or 4 ppl and 3 dogs, need towing. Van will not cut it. Car will not cut it. The commute is just one minor part of the requirements.
Ask ppl who live in alberta if they see a lot of cars or SUVs. I am guessing that anybody from that region will be happy to tell you that a car will serve many uses, but they probably drive an SUV if available.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
hmmm; do you get 2-3 feet of snow in a drop? Nope. And do you have the same needs that I listed earlier? I am guessing not.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
No, actually, city drivers really do not drive SUVs. I would bet that almost 99% of all SUV drivers that you see in any city is from the burbs (such as myself). We go in, because that is where the job is. But I have to laugh when I see ppl saying that SUVs should not be in the city. VERY few ppl who live in the city owns a SUV, they are the ones buying prius, scooters, etc.
So all the gripping in the original post was worthless.
Re:hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 1
It is suburb area of Denver. CO has the distinction of the highest number of SUV (as well as SUV/Trucks) of any area in the world. We are exactly what he is talking about. The problem is that these SUVs will not go away anytime soon BECAUSE they are needed. For somebody who is pure urban, well, yeah, SUV doe not make sense. But the reality is that few city drivers use them. It is about 80% suburbs and 19% rural. I would guess that less than 1% of city drivers use these. BTW, 1 out of 6 drivers have them for just the same reasons. CO is a very outdoor active state (which is why we are one of the most fit states in the nation; though that is not saying much). Likewise, many parents are driving 30 miles one way to take their kids to soccer or swimming. Of course, commute (and we do not have a good rail/bus system since money was poured into the east coast rather than the west). Finally, many ppl own mountain homes.
SUVs are not going to go away. That is why I say that companies are making mistake killing off the SUV. Instead, they should focus on improving them. They just have to get good mileage. That means either electric or hybrid. And none have done anything worth a hoot.
hmmmm. as long as your are offering advice
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well, I live in Highlands ranch, CO but need to transport at times 7 ppl, or 4 ppl and 3 dogs. In addition, need to be able to drive nicely in the snow and up in mountains. And I do need to haul large loads around as well as doing a bit of trailering. And we do not want to have several cars as it will mean more in costs than 1 car and rental is out of the question. Exactly what do you recommend?
Well, I posted earlier on another one, in which I say just about the same thing. THough to be honest, I suspect that it will be Tesla or Nissan. Nissan is currently ran by a middle eastern guy who brought it back from the dead. Pretty good thinker in that one. In addition, he is the one who is pushing to have SEVERAL full EVs in production by 2010. Nissan is looking ahead. But I do think that Musk may choose to do it as well. It is cheap and easy to get out the door if they use common parts from white star. All that is needed is a frame and a cabin. Makes it quick and easy to do.
Kind of weird to see more auto manufacturing in the USA be in deep south as well as new mexico.
Re:SUVs were always a missed opportunity.
on
The SUV Is Dethroned
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Yeah, I said the same thing down below. What is really sad about this, is that American companies COULD take the lead, but they will not. This idea will be realized by either tesla or one of the japanese companies. My guess is that Nissan will do it. The reason is that they will realize that these trucks NEED to continue. Sadly, this is a great opportunity for a start-up business. Build the frame, use some of the standard motors on each drive shafts, a standard engine/generator, a small amount of li-ion batts and then a cabin. The back end could be a delivery truck, a standard flat bed, a regular truck bed, a camper, a bus, etc. This is actually a golden time for small start-ups. Heck, if smart, they would hook up with musk as he has the bulk of it; just focus on frame and cabin.
All these companies have to do is change them over to a serial hybrid esp for trucks. The reason is that the serial hybrid is perfect for working as a generator. A construction worker can drive to the job site and then use their batteries/hybrid as power for the job sites.
My guess is that one of these companies will get smart and soon deliver just this. It should have enough batteries to last at least 10-20 miles and 2 small generator-motors. The reason for 2 is that the likelihood of 2 motors dying are slim. And only one would be needed to cruise a truck with load. From a business POV, it would make sense to buy these if they could reduce their delivery costs or have dual use on them. From the automakers POV, the 2 small generators-motors may be the exact type that is going in their cars. IOW, fewer number of unique parts. Heck, the truck could use 2 motors identical from 1 taken from a car hybrid.
Well, what was actually missing is that Musk has said that he wants to provide all the services for getting around. I believe that he intends to send com sats to the moon. Now, considering that Spacex is planning to use Itanium for their comm, I would guess that musk will simply provide for some nanosats that circle the moon and then talks to some master sat.
First, You did notice that the measurements that you put up where the size of a building, and not of the of reactor. yes?
Second, the Toshiba 4S was actually designed for the moon, with the intention of 1 launch to send it up there.
In addition, the test version is only 10 MW. The one for the moon is meant to be 50MW. That is a LOT of power.
But to be honest, if it even takes 3 ares V to get a 10 MW power for 30 years well that is cheap.
Now, as to the relatively cheap, Nuclear power ON the moon FROM the moon is relatively cheap. Try to launch nuclear powered sats, ships from earth over the next 50 years and see how cheap and easy it is. It will not be. So RELATIVELY, it is cheap to be on the moon.
That is the key. The hard part is that we have to have a lot of easily movable power. Solar is great at the poles and makes LOTS of sense. But to move around the moon and do mining, will absolutely require nukes. Russia saw it long ago and has focused on reactor designs. And of course, Japan sees it as well.
But it was Japan's recent sat that caught the uranium and they are trying to get a sense of how much there is, but they said that it was a fair amount. If there is uranium, no doubt there will be thorium and other useful items.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I normally have a FWD vehicle. But my wife wanted AWD and SUV. In the end, it really comes to one thing "happy wife; happy life".
that elections can be called off and military rule can be applied. Then we can get our troops back to position them all over America.
The pubs have passed a number of laws that gave W. and top ranking pubs all sorts of "get out of jail free". These guys learned a lot from Nixon and reagan. If you can not be moral and legal, well, just pass laws that retroactively give you an out.
There are hackers (not crackers) amongst the BS. They could contribute or create OSS projects for their community projects.
Windows is a nightmare and yet has predominated the industry. Windows requires more hardware, more security, more software, more labor, and yet it has been the market. Infact, OSS has had a very hard road to hoe against ALL of the commercial stuff because most of the commercial stuff is pre-loaded or sold to companies. Now that a great deal of support is available, and the SCO issue resolved, several large companies are using more of it. But it was not that OSS was superior in nearly everyway that did the trick (actually, it did with the developers), but the issue of superior and cheaper support is what has made OSS possible in the corporate world.
Actually, hard to rent a 4wd during a snow storm. In addition, we take our dogs and 2 kids for walk every weekend (and will be back to every other day in just a bit). The 7 ppl is family and 3 in-laws for trips (they have the smaller cars). I left hunting years ago, and 2 of the 3 dogs are sled dogs (ainu inu and husky) so they require walks more often then 1x a week (but have small kids; waiting until they get older).
In the past, I have shared a snow blower with 5 neighbors. Made sense. But a car? Nope. Used FAR too often.
What it comes down to, there are places where a UTILITY vehicle really makes sense. In our case, a toyota highlander is getting 20 mpg, which is not too bad. We both cringe filling it, but both want to see gas prised stay above 3.50. The reason is that both of us want a hybrid SUV. A decent one, not the crap that is on the market.
yeah, they are a nice feature. Combine that with airbags, and fewer ppl being torn up in accidents. Now, with that said, back in the 70's, my father did buy a VW to drive to airport (he was driving a blazer). But a guy ran a stop sign and hit the passenger side at 45 degree. My fathers ribs were broken because the vw crumbled. Oth, the drunk driver in the mustang walked away. The crumble really makes sense for head-ons, but I prefer strength on the side.
With all that said,I owned a honda prelude and was involved in a 3 car accident. My prelude and 2 trucks. An 17 y.o. ran the stop sign and hit us both. They both had brand new trucks and I had a 10 y.o prelude. With all 3 vehicles totaled, I was impressed at how that prelude came through that accident (as did I). I would buy another small car like that anyday.
ALl of the hybrid SUVs are parallel systems. In efficient in terms of fuel. You want to go with a serial hybrid which NONE of the manufactures have. Now, Chevy made an avalanche recharge their batteries, but that was it. Basically, it is horrible designed.
Yeah, luxury trucks (other than an el Camino) and a luxury SUV have never made sense to me either. Back in the 60's, we had a jeep wagoner (back when they were decent cars) and a chevy blazer. The wagoneer was used for plowing with as well as hauling us around. The blazer my father used to get to o'hare (he was a pilot). What was interesting is that the blazer was the size of a tahoo, but had a simple back seat, that pulled out easily. Times have changed.
well, most SUV's are safer in an accident just because they are on stronger frames. Of course, the other driver suffers for it. But of course, the SUV is more prone to accidents such as rollover.
One of the things that I am amazed at is the number of drivers that I see in the ditch during snowstorms. Nearly all are 4wd trucks/SUVs. The problem is that they are use to driving their vehicle in 2wd, hit a storm, and kick it into 4wd and think that it is the same. Big mistake. I spent more than a few years driving 160 miles/day for 6 days / week. Since I learned to drive in southern Wisc/Northern Ill, I learned to drive snow/ice in both cars and 4wd. Here in CO, we have Texans and CAers who buy these 4wd and never once even try it in 4wd during regular driving time. Insane. Ours is a AWD SUV. Makes it easier to learn.
Look, most ppl that own SUVs do not do so because of highway driving or safety, hauling lots of ppl, cargo, towing, need for 4wd, etc. They buy them because they need several of those combos and can not afford to own multiple vehicles.
Why? An SUV solves the issue. Our current one gets 20 MPG. Not great, but respectable. When a good hybrid SUV comes out, then we will switch up (gladly). But move? The only place will be in to the mountains which requires an SUV.
Other requirements; remember 4 wheel drive, have to haul cargo, 7 ppl or 4 ppl and 3 dogs, need towing. Van will not cut it. Car will not cut it. The commute is just one minor part of the requirements.
Ask ppl who live in alberta if they see a lot of cars or SUVs. I am guessing that anybody from that region will be happy to tell you that a car will serve many uses, but they probably drive an SUV if available.
hmmm; do you get 2-3 feet of snow in a drop? Nope. And do you have the same needs that I listed earlier? I am guessing not.
Sounds like MIB may have a lot more correct.
No, actually, city drivers really do not drive SUVs. I would bet that almost 99% of all SUV drivers that you see in any city is from the burbs (such as myself). We go in, because that is where the job is. But I have to laugh when I see ppl saying that SUVs should not be in the city. VERY few ppl who live in the city owns a SUV, they are the ones buying prius, scooters, etc.
So all the gripping in the original post was worthless.
It is suburb area of Denver. CO has the distinction of the highest number of SUV (as well as SUV/Trucks) of any area in the world. We are exactly what he is talking about. The problem is that these SUVs will not go away anytime soon BECAUSE they are needed. For somebody who is pure urban, well, yeah, SUV doe not make sense. But the reality is that few city drivers use them. It is about 80% suburbs and 19% rural. I would guess that less than 1% of city drivers use these. BTW, 1 out of 6 drivers have them for just the same reasons. CO is a very outdoor active state (which is why we are one of the most fit states in the nation; though that is not saying much). Likewise, many parents are driving 30 miles one way to take their kids to soccer or swimming. Of course, commute (and we do not have a good rail/bus system since money was poured into the east coast rather than the west). Finally, many ppl own mountain homes.
SUVs are not going to go away. That is why I say that companies are making mistake killing off the SUV. Instead, they should focus on improving them. They just have to get good mileage. That means either electric or hybrid. And none have done anything worth a hoot.
Well, I live in Highlands ranch, CO but need to transport at times 7 ppl, or 4 ppl and 3 dogs. In addition, need to be able to drive nicely in the snow and up in mountains. And I do need to haul large loads around as well as doing a bit of trailering. And we do not want to have several cars as it will mean more in costs than 1 car and rental is out of the question. Exactly what do you recommend?
Well, I posted earlier on another one, in which I say just about the same thing. THough to be honest, I suspect that it will be Tesla or Nissan. Nissan is currently ran by a middle eastern guy who brought it back from the dead. Pretty good thinker in that one. In addition, he is the one who is pushing to have SEVERAL full EVs in production by 2010. Nissan is looking ahead. But I do think that Musk may choose to do it as well. It is cheap and easy to get out the door if they use common parts from white star. All that is needed is a frame and a cabin. Makes it quick and easy to do.
Kind of weird to see more auto manufacturing in the USA be in deep south as well as new mexico.
Yeah, I said the same thing down below. What is really sad about this, is that American companies COULD take the lead, but they will not. This idea will be realized by either tesla or one of the japanese companies. My guess is that Nissan will do it. The reason is that they will realize that these trucks NEED to continue. Sadly, this is a great opportunity for a start-up business. Build the frame, use some of the standard motors on each drive shafts, a standard engine/generator, a small amount of li-ion batts and then a cabin. The back end could be a delivery truck, a standard flat bed, a regular truck bed, a camper, a bus, etc. This is actually a golden time for small start-ups. Heck, if smart, they would hook up with musk as he has the bulk of it; just focus on frame and cabin.
All these companies have to do is change them over to a serial hybrid esp for trucks. The reason is that the serial hybrid is perfect for working as a generator. A construction worker can drive to the job site and then use their batteries/hybrid as power for the job sites.
My guess is that one of these companies will get smart and soon deliver just this. It should have enough batteries to last at least 10-20 miles and 2 small generator-motors. The reason for 2 is that the likelihood of 2 motors dying are slim. And only one would be needed to cruise a truck with load. From a business POV, it would make sense to buy these if they could reduce their delivery costs or have dual use on them. From the automakers POV, the 2 small generators-motors may be the exact type that is going in their cars. IOW, fewer number of unique parts. Heck, the truck could use 2 motors identical from 1 taken from a car hybrid.
Well, what was actually missing is that Musk has said that he wants to provide all the services for getting around. I believe that he intends to send com sats to the moon. Now, considering that Spacex is planning to use Itanium for their comm, I would guess that musk will simply provide for some nanosats that circle the moon and then talks to some master sat.
First, You did notice that the measurements that you put up where the size of a building, and not of the of reactor. yes? Second, the Toshiba 4S was actually designed for the moon, with the intention of 1 launch to send it up there. In addition, the test version is only 10 MW. The one for the moon is meant to be 50MW. That is a LOT of power. But to be honest, if it even takes 3 ares V to get a 10 MW power for 30 years well that is cheap. Now, as to the relatively cheap, Nuclear power ON the moon FROM the moon is relatively cheap. Try to launch nuclear powered sats, ships from earth over the next 50 years and see how cheap and easy it is. It will not be. So RELATIVELY, it is cheap to be on the moon.
That is the key. The hard part is that we have to have a lot of easily movable power. Solar is great at the poles and makes LOTS of sense. But to move around the moon and do mining, will absolutely require nukes. Russia saw it long ago and has focused on reactor designs. And of course, Japan sees it as well.
But it was Japan's recent sat that caught the uranium and they are trying to get a sense of how much there is, but they said that it was a fair amount. If there is uranium, no doubt there will be thorium and other useful items.
we were not pumping in lots more CO2.
Want hols in the ground to hide in? Ok, done
WAnt private enterprise to send differing robots to the moon? Ok, soon to come
Want companies that provide servies such as launch, communications, and perhaps even power?
The poles on the moon may ALSO have water, hence O2.