Well, my first hand experience is that the all weather mats DO cause this problem. Just because you had a different type of mechanical failure with a 10 year old Toyota doesn't mean that it is the same thing going on now.
I drive a 6 speed manual Tacoma with all weather mats. The driver's mat always creeps up and is prone to get stuck of you floor the accelerator. It freaked me out the first couple of times that it happened. Both times I had floored the accelerator and it got hung on the approximately 3/4 inch floor mat. When I shifted gears, the tachometer pegged out. It sounded horrible. I think that there is some sort of governor that shuts it off as soon as it redlines, but it comes back on immediately and if you are in neutral it revs right back up again. It is very unsettling. It took me a second to figure out what happened, and I reached down an pulled the floor mat back. This happened twice before I developed the habit of constantly checking the floor mat and repositioning it. There seems to be a special hole in the carpet made for putting some sort of anchor for a floor mat, but the anchor was never actually implemented with those floor mats. I like Toyota's products, but those mats are an epic fail. Until this news came out, I always assumed that this only affected the Tacoma, and perhaps only my configuration. Aside from that problem, the driver's mat has worn through in less than two years.
I can see a lot of users panicking and know knowing what to do. If you have an automatic, it is just going to accelerate unless you drop into neutral or shut off the engine. In my case, I caught the problem between gears and only had to worry about blowing the engine.
Not that there might not be other types of problems on Toyotas out there, but we can stop spreading the FUD that the floormat theory is a cover up for a more serious wide spread mechanical or electronic problem. It is real and it is bad enough.
There are all kinds of genetic diseases that cause externally verifiable abnormalities, why would it be so hard to beleive that there are some that can affect the way a person feels just because there is no way to test for that? Read up on the frequency of people born with intersexual or ambiguous sex organs, or mosaicism, or any of a number of genetic deseases that like Turner's syndrome. If folks can be born that far from the norm (amazingly frequently), why not genetic homosexuality?
Of course not all homosexuality is biologically driven. Some may be from life experience or just lifestyle. That's no reason to doubt that some folks are born that way.
Some things are important enough to die for. Poeple take notice when death or serious injury occur. Sometimes a cause can't be furthered until a statement is made that the cause is important enough to fight and even die for. It's just a sad fact of life. We wouldn't still talk about Kent State if all of the students had been temporarily blinded. Not only would people take less notice, but they would tend to side with the government, which puts down unrest without doing harm. The protesters would be shown in a bad light for being in a state of unrest.
Statistics show that back problems are way higher now as a percentage of workers, than when more workers were doing manual labor. My physical therapist said that she wasn't surprised at all that I have back problems. She sees it all the time with IT guys and office workers in general. You probably aren't going to get a ruptured disk or other serious injury, of course, but it doesn't mean that you don't suffer discomfort.
I'm not sure about your biodiesel is illegal claim, but here is a link for those interested in the algea oil concept: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
I would like to add that this article seems to be well researched and referenced and trumps many of the naysayers arguments.
If that is true, I will buy one. Tundra's are great trucks. I had one and had to sell it. I would like to own another one, but the eco-guilt has prevented me from owning a larger truck than I can get by with. I hope that Toyota takes a chance on this one.
This is what I keep trying to tell people. Every time there is a discussion about an alternative (non-fossil fuel) energy source, people shit on the idea as either costing too much, or not providing enough power to replace the status quo. There is no SINGLE renewable/sustainable/minimally polluting answer, but like you stated, there are many small ones that can be combined into a total solution.
I think that we need government incentives (like no taxes, even after making a profit, for a period of time). I'm no expert, but there has to be thousands of creative incentives for getting these things going instead of putting up barriers to hinder their progress. The oil industry already benefits from corporate welfare. There is no reason that alternative energy shouldn't. Once it ramps up, the costs will come down, and output should go up.
Re:Good; Some Pkgs Not Recog'd Initially in YaST
on
Suse 9.1 Reviews?
·
· Score: 1
I just bought SuSE 9.1 and am doing my first install of that distro. I couldn't help but wonder, are we sure it's not Russian. It's telling me "YaST Online Update - YOU"
I always figured that the sword that pierced his side became Excalibur. I too am an atheist, but I like the idea. Some interpretations might have it being a spear, which wrecks my idea.
I live in Phoenix. APS already uses solar panels to supplement it's power APS and they also have a solar test and research center STAR Center
They also have a program where you can pay a few bucks extra on your power bill to assist the program. Supposedly you are agreeing to pay a surcharge to use solar power. I participate in that. They send me a newsletter and invitations to tour the STAR Center.
I agree, AZ and the the surrounding states have plenty of land and sunlight. There is no excuse for not using it.
Don't forget that many of us have been boycotting them for several years now. That has to hurt as well. It has also helped some independent guys, in my case anyway. It's hard to keep stats for those guys, but I'd like to see if their revenue has increased over that time.
I once had an idea for a gamer's union. If it were large enough, and had enough buying power, it could negotiate terms with the developers. The union would tell the developers what they wanted in a (specific) game, and then buy the rights to the game. They could distribute it to their members (or non memebers, but there would be no incentive to do so).This would eliminate distrubution and advertising costs.
There should be fewer bombs if the developers listen to and work with representatives from the union throughout the process. The developing company can negotiate a price that covers their costs and then some. They also have the right to sell copies to non-union members, of course. That would all be profit if the union covered costs. There would have to be be different sects for different genres. It's probably a stupid idea, but I think it would have some benefits. It seems that the cost of developing and distributing would go down, so the union members should be able to get a copy of the game for less, or it could be covered in their dues.
If it protects bad businesses, then I am against it. I still don't understand why people would be afraid to sue the large companies if they are right. Sure the big companies are going to raise the stakes, but if you are right you are right. Perhaps the courts should be able to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous, and only in those cases should the defendant be awarded restitution. It still may not be perfect, but some cases might not be without merit even if they are lost. Let it be decided by the same folks who judged the case.
How about this idea: The expenses are split. This seems unfair in a way, but then is it fair that one party can be right but the other party wins because they have more money to purchase legal firepower? This would certainly put the little guys on a level playing field. It would be a losing proposition for the big guys, but they would never be at a disatvantage, only brought down to the same level. The other side would always be forced to match funds. There would probably have to be some kind of spending cap agreed to at the outset. Of course this would require lawyers to give all inclusive, upfront pricing.
I know that my half baked ideas aren't going to amount to anything, but there has to be a better way.
If there was a judgement against Pathetic Wacko, couldn't the courts garnish his wages until the debt was paid? And if the PW is so averse to thinking, how can he pose a threat to even a low-end corporate attorney?
I place a much higher value on democracy than that. At least $100:) Seriously, I might have a price, but it wouldn't be cheap. I'm willing to spend money for causes that I believe in. I can see where that might be a problem in general. Aren't there already election fraud laws that deal with buying votes? I would want to see it outlawed if not before such a system is implemented.
Why would this matter? Under the current system pathetic wacko can still sue and cost a company money, and there is no compensation if the company wins. Besides that, you may think that a trailer is worthless, but if it is your home and that is all you have, you'll think twice before risking it unless you have valid complaint.
I keep hearing this, but it doesn't convince me. How is that worse than the current system where the small company has no chance of defending istelf? It's almost better to not be able to sue than to not be able to defend one's self. The other thing is, the small company shouldn't be suing over iffy claims anyway. Only sue when there is a real solid need and solid case. I think that this would be better than the current system, if still very flawed.
The markup on a lot of retail merchandise dwarfs the credit card surcharge. Poeple will spend more, plain and simple, if they can charge it. I can't imagine that the average retailer doesn't make a lot more profit because of credit cards. Since customers want to use credit, they probably feel (or felt) that they can charge more. If the CC companies hadn't made them get past their short sightedness, we wouldn't have the easy going use of plastic that we have now. IMO
Those are valid points. I would worry that election results would be swayed by special interest groups. On the other hand, I dare anyone to try to strong arm me into voting their way. It would be war. In a less open society (less access to the press, less freedom of speech, no private gun ownership) I would be paranoid, but then I wouldn't have faith that my vote actually got counted anyway.
The problem is that we (most people) allow.DOC to be the defacto standard. We have open standards for web documents, why not office documents? Instead of everyone trying to reverse engineer.DOC, why doesn't someone propose that everyone in the business community use an open standard. I know why Microsoft doesn't do that, but I still don't understand why the rest of the world is willing to deal with it.
I'm a pc-only gamer. My favorite game (regardless of platform) is NCAA Football. Someone wrote and article before the X-Box hit the market explaining how it would be the end of college sports games on the pc. I do not recall the exact logic behind this, but the writer was correct (apparently). This has forced me to play hundreds of seasons of the 1999 version of the game, because I refuse to buy a console. I have my reasons. But if this emulator will allow me to play the 2004 version of the game, then they may make a sale, possibly several. They will make more money. But then they will probably use the profits from that to prosecute me for using an emulator.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, my first hand experience is that the all weather mats DO cause this problem. Just because you had a different type of mechanical failure with a 10 year old Toyota doesn't mean that it is the same thing going on now.
I drive a 6 speed manual Tacoma with all weather mats. The driver's mat always creeps up and is prone to get stuck of you floor the accelerator. It freaked me out the first couple of times that it happened. Both times I had floored the accelerator and it got hung on the approximately 3/4 inch floor mat. When I shifted gears, the tachometer pegged out. It sounded horrible. I think that there is some sort of governor that shuts it off as soon as it redlines, but it comes back on immediately and if you are in neutral it revs right back up again. It is very unsettling. It took me a second to figure out what happened, and I reached down an pulled the floor mat back. This happened twice before I developed the habit of constantly checking the floor mat and repositioning it. There seems to be a special hole in the carpet made for putting some sort of anchor for a floor mat, but the anchor was never actually implemented with those floor mats. I like Toyota's products, but those mats are an epic fail. Until this news came out, I always assumed that this only affected the Tacoma, and perhaps only my configuration. Aside from that problem, the driver's mat has worn through in less than two years.
I can see a lot of users panicking and know knowing what to do. If you have an automatic, it is just going to accelerate unless you drop into neutral or shut off the engine. In my case, I caught the problem between gears and only had to worry about blowing the engine.
Not that there might not be other types of problems on Toyotas out there, but we can stop spreading the FUD that the floormat theory is a cover up for a more serious wide spread mechanical or electronic problem. It is real and it is bad enough.
There are all kinds of genetic diseases that cause externally verifiable abnormalities, why would it be so hard to beleive that there are some that can affect the way a person feels just because there is no way to test for that? Read up on the frequency of people born with intersexual or ambiguous sex organs, or mosaicism, or any of a number of genetic deseases that like Turner's syndrome. If folks can be born that far from the norm (amazingly frequently), why not genetic homosexuality?
Of course not all homosexuality is biologically driven. Some may be from life experience or just lifestyle. That's no reason to doubt that some folks are born that way.
Some things are important enough to die for. Poeple take notice when death or serious injury occur. Sometimes a cause can't be furthered until a statement is made that the cause is important enough to fight and even die for. It's just a sad fact of life. We wouldn't still talk about Kent State if all of the students had been temporarily blinded. Not only would people take less notice, but they would tend to side with the government, which puts down unrest without doing harm. The protesters would be shown in a bad light for being in a state of unrest.
I agree. I'm already working on plans for the first theme park on mars. Got a team of fungineers working on it right now.
Statistics show that back problems are way higher now as a percentage of workers, than when more workers were doing manual labor. My physical therapist said that she wasn't surprised at all that I have back problems. She sees it all the time with IT guys and office workers in general. You probably aren't going to get a ruptured disk or other serious injury, of course, but it doesn't mean that you don't suffer discomfort.
I'm not sure about your biodiesel is illegal claim, but here is a link for those interested in the algea oil concept: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
I would like to add that this article seems to be well researched and referenced and trumps many of the naysayers arguments.
If that is true, I will buy one. Tundra's are great trucks. I had one and had to sell it. I would like to own another one, but the eco-guilt has prevented me from owning a larger truck than I can get by with. I hope that Toyota takes a chance on this one.
This is what I keep trying to tell people. Every time there is a discussion about an alternative (non-fossil fuel) energy source, people shit on the idea as either costing too much, or not providing enough power to replace the status quo. There is no SINGLE renewable/sustainable/minimally polluting answer, but like you stated, there are many small ones that can be combined into a total solution.
I think that we need government incentives (like no taxes, even after making a profit, for a period of time). I'm no expert, but there has to be thousands of creative incentives for getting these things going instead of putting up barriers to hinder their progress. The oil industry already benefits from corporate welfare. There is no reason that alternative energy shouldn't. Once it ramps up, the costs will come down, and output should go up.
I just bought SuSE 9.1 and am doing my first install of that distro. I couldn't help but wonder, are we sure it's not Russian. It's telling me "YaST Online Update - YOU"
I always figured that the sword that pierced his side became Excalibur. I too am an atheist, but I like the idea. Some interpretations might have it being a spear, which wrecks my idea.
I live in Phoenix. APS already uses solar panels to supplement it's power APS and they also have a solar test and research center STAR Center
They also have a program where you can pay a few bucks extra on your power bill to assist the program. Supposedly you are agreeing to pay a surcharge to use solar power. I participate in that. They send me a newsletter and invitations to tour the STAR Center.
I agree, AZ and the the surrounding states have plenty of land and sunlight. There is no excuse for not using it.
Don't forget that many of us have been boycotting them for several years now. That has to hurt as well. It has also helped some independent guys, in my case anyway. It's hard to keep stats for those guys, but I'd like to see if their revenue has increased over that time.
These lawyers are playing the lottery. Without "loser pays", the tickets are all free.
Except that the odds are WAY better than the lottery. And the odds can be influenced by lawyer competence, treachery, etc.
That's it. A penalty for abusing the system. It seems simple to me, I don't know why there is so much resistance to at least considering the idea.
I once had an idea for a gamer's union. If it were large enough, and had enough buying power, it could negotiate terms with the developers. The union would tell the developers what they wanted in a (specific) game, and then buy the rights to the game. They could distribute it to their members (or non memebers, but there would be no incentive to do so).This would eliminate distrubution and advertising costs.
There should be fewer bombs if the developers listen to and work with representatives from the union throughout the process. The developing company can negotiate a price that covers their costs and then some. They also have the right to sell copies to non-union members, of course. That would all be profit if the union covered costs. There would have to be be different sects for different genres. It's probably a stupid idea, but I think it would have some benefits. It seems that the cost of developing and distributing would go down, so the union members should be able to get a copy of the game for less, or it could be covered in their dues.
If it protects bad businesses, then I am against it. I still don't understand why people would be afraid to sue the large companies if they are right. Sure the big companies are going to raise the stakes, but if you are right you are right. Perhaps the courts should be able to determine if a lawsuit is frivolous, and only in those cases should the defendant be awarded restitution. It still may not be perfect, but some cases might not be without merit even if they are lost. Let it be decided by the same folks who judged the case. How about this idea: The expenses are split. This seems unfair in a way, but then is it fair that one party can be right but the other party wins because they have more money to purchase legal firepower? This would certainly put the little guys on a level playing field. It would be a losing proposition for the big guys, but they would never be at a disatvantage, only brought down to the same level. The other side would always be forced to match funds. There would probably have to be some kind of spending cap agreed to at the outset. Of course this would require lawyers to give all inclusive, upfront pricing. I know that my half baked ideas aren't going to amount to anything, but there has to be a better way.
If there was a judgement against Pathetic Wacko, couldn't the courts garnish his wages until the debt was paid? And if the PW is so averse to thinking, how can he pose a threat to even a low-end corporate attorney?
I place a much higher value on democracy than that. At least $100 :) Seriously, I might have a price, but it wouldn't be cheap. I'm willing to spend money for causes that I believe in. I can see where that might be a problem in general. Aren't there already election fraud laws that deal with buying votes? I would want to see it outlawed if not before such a system is implemented.
Why would this matter? Under the current system pathetic wacko can still sue and cost a company money, and there is no compensation if the company wins. Besides that, you may think that a trailer is worthless, but if it is your home and that is all you have, you'll think twice before risking it unless you have valid complaint.
I keep hearing this, but it doesn't convince me. How is that worse than the current system where the small company has no chance of defending istelf? It's almost better to not be able to sue than to not be able to defend one's self. The other thing is, the small company shouldn't be suing over iffy claims anyway. Only sue when there is a real solid need and solid case. I think that this would be better than the current system, if still very flawed.
The markup on a lot of retail merchandise dwarfs the credit card surcharge. Poeple will spend more, plain and simple, if they can charge it. I can't imagine that the average retailer doesn't make a lot more profit because of credit cards. Since customers want to use credit, they probably feel (or felt) that they can charge more. If the CC companies hadn't made them get past their short sightedness, we wouldn't have the easy going use of plastic that we have now. IMO
Those are valid points. I would worry that election results would be swayed by special interest groups. On the other hand, I dare anyone to try to strong arm me into voting their way. It would be war. In a less open society (less access to the press, less freedom of speech, no private gun ownership) I would be paranoid, but then I wouldn't have faith that my vote actually got counted anyway.
The problem is that we (most people) allow .DOC to be the defacto standard. We have open standards for web documents, why not office documents? Instead of everyone trying to reverse engineer .DOC, why doesn't someone propose that everyone in the business community use an open standard. I know why Microsoft doesn't do that, but I still don't understand why the rest of the world is willing to deal with it.
I guess you've never heard of a little thing called the Heisenberg Compensator
I'm a pc-only gamer. My favorite game (regardless of platform) is NCAA Football. Someone wrote and article before the X-Box hit the market explaining how it would be the end of college sports games on the pc. I do not recall the exact logic behind this, but the writer was correct (apparently). This has forced me to play hundreds of seasons of the 1999 version of the game, because I refuse to buy a console. I have my reasons. But if this emulator will allow me to play the 2004 version of the game, then they may make a sale, possibly several. They will make more money. But then they will probably use the profits from that to prosecute me for using an emulator.