I think you'd have a hard time (no pun intended) finding a man or a woman (present company excluded) who agrees that sex is more pleasurable with a condom than without.
I also don't need to be married in order to have confidence enough with my partner to engage in unprotected sex. At the same time being married doesn't automatically eliminate the the risk of catching sexually communicated diseases from a partner. Marriage is neither a guarantee of health or fidelity.
Outrageous bigotry notwithstanding, suggesting the P/P should be chemically castrated simply because he prefers boffing au natural is stupidity unto itself. There are many worse fetishes to be concerned with other than whether two consenting adults decide to do the deed without an intervening layer of latex.
Believe it or not, your mummy and daddy even did it at least once without a condom.
While there's plenty of examples of retailers overcharging on shipping, when you understand the overall pricing model you'll realize that the most popular retailers seldom net more than 15% and often as little as 8%, except for specialty/collector/restricted products. And this isn't considering their overhead and business expenses.
For example, I resell computers and the spread between my distributor cost and HP's own website is 8 - 12% before considering my overhead. If I advertise my prices above HP's, nobody's going to buy from me. But if I meet my distributor's minimum order and pay immediately I get free shipping. So, to attract customers I advertise just above my cost (to not get charged with dumping or gray-marketing) and make up my overhead and profit by charging S&H. It's the only way I can stay in business.
Anyway, if you think there's some extra 7% of profit margin hiding in today's Internet-powered, dog-eat-dog marketplace, you are about to be very disappointed. The environment is way too competitive for that. Shit, half the time I buy my components from NewEgg because its cheaper than the big distributors. Just look out for those free shipping deals.
Don't you folks also have a law that requires you to buy a TV license for any device that can show TV shows, (including laptops and mobile phones)?
Anyway, a simple solution is to buy (or rent) music that includes the license fees for public performance, or use royalty-free music such as available from RoyaltyFreeMusic.com. Even the commercial services from Muzak and 3M are a better bargain than most PRO license arrangements.
Would cops bother you nearly as much if we fixed our laws to legalize what are currently consensual crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.) and eliminate purely discretionary laws and arrest/contact quotas (which lead to cops only arresting public drunks if they annoy them, are someone they don't like, or would help fill that night's quota)?
Why is this insightful? What makes you think that I consent to allowing prostitution or legal drug distribution in my neighborhood? And why are these called victimless crimes? Anyone unfortunate enough to live or work in an area where there's dealing or prostitution can testify on the destructive, anti-social aspects of these activities. And worse, the family and friends of those who get sucked in to prostitution and/or drug use can more than comment on how their loved ones are victimized by these vices.
I'm not going to go further off-topic but to ask how you would feel if it was your daughter, sister, girlfriend or wife spreading her legs every night for a dozen sleazy men every night to wind-up with enough money from her pimp to pay for her food, apartment and heroin?
On the other hand, when you've had the FBI knock on your door at home and question your employer, you have a right to receive information on the cause and outcome of such investigations. Ditto for instances where the FBI has questioned you as a witness on a matter that might not be related to you personally.
For the FBI to come back and say it can't find any related records is both disingenuous and frustrating. One can appreciate how this can result in paranoia.
Hmmm $8 for a paperback, or $8 for a DVD of a movie, or $24 for a video game that plays 20 books worth of time, or... Books are way overpriced now. My solution is mostly the same as for music- I just stopped buying them. If they were $4, I would probably buy them.
First of all, please tell me where you live because I'm paying up to $10 for a paperback and a minimum of $15 for a DVD and $50 for a video game.
I have to agree with your solution. As prices have gone up I've cut back on my spending because I generally feel the product isn't worth the cost. The result is that I spend LESS money now on entertainment than I did 20 years ago, not even factoring in inflation.
Remember when movies were $4.50 and you could get popcorn and a soda for $5.00? I used to take my kids to the theater every week. 4 x$ 9.5 x 52 = $1976
Now tickets are $10.50 and popcorn and a soda are another $10+. So now we go to the movies once a month, get a soda and sneak-in our own snacks. 4 x 15.50 x 12 = $744.
Who's the loser? The movie theaters, studios and MPAA. At $62 per movie -- assuming we sneak-in snacks -- I'm a lot more selective about what movies we go see. Honestly, there aren't 12 movies released each year that are worth that much to me. But when it only cost about $30 to take the family to the movies, you didn't mind when the many of the movies were bombs.
Ditto for books. I used to read a book a week when they were under $5. Now I buy maybe 12 books a year at an average price of $9.00 and trade with people at work and in my neighborhood.
And video games. Used to be I'd buy new games the week they were released. But at $80 each for the newest titles that can be finished in a week unless you pay EXTRA for on-line gaming, I've cut down to just a few games a year.
The problem I see with the Entertainment industry is they literally want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep on increasing the size of their slice of the pie while selling more pieces of more pies at the same time.
What he explicitly said is that the kindle creates extra value for the work. In return the people who created the material should share in that extra value.
That's like saying that I've built a wall and you've made it nicer by painting it blue, so the homeowner should pay me more for your efforts.
Decent TTS in a widely-used device will basically kill the audiobook market, and authors should be compensated in some way for the revenue lost there.
The Author's Guild's assertion that the Kindle 2's text-to-speech feature deprives authors of deserved revenue is only true if a) a significant portion of the consumer base would otherwise buy both the printed book and audio book; or b) authors receive higher compensation for audio books than they do printed books. In my experience, "a" is seldom true: people seldom purchase both the printed and audio version of the same book. Furthermore, in my experience, people are more likely to sell or trade audio books than they are printed books once they are finished with the story. One would think the Author's Guild would prefer electronic distribution in such cases, as an electronic copy of a book cannot be sold or traded to another reader.
As for situation "b," the public argument for high audio book prices has always been the additional cost and ongoing royalties to the actor who "performs" the story for recording. Arguing that authors will lose money if TTS replaces audio books reveals one of the lies of book publishing.
When you purchase an eBook you are paying for one physical copy of the book that can only be used by one person, (or, at most, a few people in the same location), who holds the eBook reader to which the eBook's license is associated. There is no opportunity for other copies of the eBook to be used separately and, therefore, no basis to demand additional fees or royalties. In fact, an eBook is considerably more restrictive than a printed or audio book. An individual printed book or audio book can be loaned, traded or sold several times without generating any revenue for the author. However, an eBook is tied via digital rights management to a specific eBook reader or computer, and cannot be loaned, transferred or sold.
I think that in the long run Authors stand to make more money through eBooks due to the DRM restrictions that make it impossible to share or sell your used books. This nonsense about lost revenues due to Text-To-Speech is nothing more than the Author's Guild's jealousy that they don't have any reason to go on witch-hunt against copyright violators like the RIAA and MPAA.
c) Why wasn't the sender of the email reprimanded for failing to follow proper procedure when using distribution lists? By that I mean addressing the mail to him/herself, (or an administrative address/list), and using the BCC field for the actual distribution.
On Monday December 15, @06:47AM (#26118541),theaveng (1243528) wrote:
Chrysler did make fuel-efficient cars upto 1995 (like the 30mpg Dodge Shadow and 35mpg Neon), but outward pressure from Americans forced them to start making gas-guzzling Bricks known as SUVs.
Chrysler made the Ramcharger full-size SUV from 1974 to 1993. They purchased American Motors in 1987 expressly to take over the Jeep brand (which had been acquired by AMC from Kaiser-Jeep in 1970, ref), and have continuously produced SUV's since that acquisition. In fact, the Jeep Cherokee SJ and XJ are probably more responsible for the rise of the modern SUV than any other vehicles.
Conversely, Chrysler has also continuously marketed small, fuel efficient vehicles since the mid 1970's with the Horizon, Omni, Colt, Sundance and now Neon.
So I don't see how your comment makes any sense at all?
Ok, I hate apple's hype machine as much as anyone, but seriously... this isn't an iPhone thing. [...]
Actually, the problem is that you are using an iPhone, to wit, an Apple device, in conjunction with unsupported third-party productions. Apple is unable to support or guarantee compatibility with non-Apple products. If you were using your iPhone in the presence of an Apple speaker, clock-radio, telephone or other device there would be no problems.
The Bose Wave clock radio high end audiophile system, based on alien technology that defies our Earthly knowledge of Physics, is also immune to this and all interference.
Here's a small physics quiz: What happens to the car if the wheels on one side don't turn as fast as the wheels on the other?
I normally don't follow-up to old posts but this time I couldn't resist. Since you fancy yourself such an expert in Physics to quiz me on the topic, please allow me to return the favor:
You are driving a car with a wheel track of 65 inches (that's the distance between the right and left wheels) and a tire diameter of 30 inches. You make an unbanked right turn with a nominal (mid-lane) radius of 50 feet. To keep things simple, assume the road is flat (no crown or grade). Answer the following three questions:
How many revolutions will the inside (right) tires make going around the turn?
How many revolutions will the outside (left) tires make going around the turn?
True or False: The answer to #1 = #2.
No fair turning to the back section and peeking at the answers. Hint: This is the reason why all four-wheel vehicles intended for on-road use have differentials.
ABS isn't designed to "try and keep the car going in a straight line." Anti-Lock Braking Systems are designed to maintain steering control during panic braking by keeping the tires from crossing over from static friction to dynamic friction. It does this by monitoring the speed of each wheel during braking and releasing the brakes for any wheel that is found to be turning at a much slower rate than all the others (implying that wheel is starting to skid). As you can clearly see, this contraindicates the performance I encountered of all four wheels being modulated by the ABS system when only one wheel lost traction.
Subsequent research supports my assertion that this was a design flaw: A NHTSA recall was issued for the '99 Isuzu Rodeo ABS for just the problem I described in my posting.
The problem is that you don't need to be going over 80 MPH, or even over 55 MPH, to be injured or die in a car wreck.
My 22 year-old son has lost over half a dozen friends to wrecks in Pennsylvania, all of them on rural roads -- mostly one road -- in Pike County. None of these involved speeds over 65 MPH, and most occurred at under 50. Unfortunately, the deadly stretch or road is posted at 35 MPH.
And why the 80 MPH limit? I've driven throughout the USA and I can't recall ever encountering a speed limit higher than 75. And do inexperienced drivers need to go that fast? Wouldn't 65 be safer, even if it limited them to the slow lane?
I think the idea of car manufacturers trying to take responsibility for imposing safe limits is the wrong approach. I'd prefer secure storage of performance sensor and GPS data that I could access via my laptop to learn if my child were driving safely so I can take appropriate action, than some nonsensical and ineffective limits.
While there are a few situations I've been in where the ability to exceed 80 mph has been critical to safety (getting out from behind dangerous drivers on the freeway who are liable to cause a pileup, for instance), that's not the point.
An unsafe response to an unsafe situation is never the best solution. The appropriate action would have been to move over and slow-down until the unsafe driver was far enough ahead, and then continue at appropriate speed to maintain safe separation until you could pull-off into a rest area, have a tinkle, and then continue without further interference.
Wanking off to a Playmate of the Month is somewhat less likely to kill him than running into a telephone pole at 95 MPH.
Unless said Playmate is being viewed on his cell while driving 80 MPH in snow with the traction control engaged, while some death metal song plays gently in the background.
But it was the private insurance companies that brought an abrupt end to the muscle car era of the sixties.
It was the state governments that mandated insurance coverage that allowed insurance companies to gain so much power in the marketplace.
It was the lawyers looking to improve awards settlements and, proportionally, their revenues, that pressured the governments to mandate auto insurance coverage.
It had nothing to do with the gas restrictions, long lines, and 200% increase in the cost of gasoline in the late '70's, or the subsequent quadrupling of prices since?
And Dodge no longer manufactures, the Charger, the Challenger, and Chevy doesn't sell any more Corvettes and isn't bringing back the Camaro? Ford's new Mustang GT is only a rich man's toy?
Granted, the mainstream market isn't built around power anymore, but that doesn't mean there aren't the same selections. The reality is that the overall environment has shifted most young men's attentions from gas-guzzling muscle cars to more nimble and fuel-efficient import tuners, high insurance rates notwithstanding.
However, some poorly implemented (or defective?) ABS systems would modulate the brakes on all four tires even though only one tire was losing traction. Such was the case with my 1999 Isuzu Rodeo. This would result in an unnecessary reduction in stopping ability and increase in stopping distance, and it would happen mostly during light to moderate braking while going downhill or around corners and encountering loose or uneven pavement.
I learned to anticipate and react to these situations and it never caused me any major concern, but I could see how an inexperienced or paranoid driver could conclude that ABS was not entirely a good thing. There were far more times where ABS was a distinct advantage than a disadvantage. Being able to slam full-on the brakes and trust the ABS to prevent a skid relieves you of having to concentrate on modulating the brakes manually, allowing you better able to concentrate on secondary avoidance maneuvers as well as providing some steering response to make those maneuvers work. Could I do the same without ABS? Perhaps, although it would require a great deal of effort and concentration, or a great amount of practice, to be almost as effective.
I guess the moral here is that the experience of the driver -- in general and with a particular vehicle -- is still more important than the technology that enables safer driving.
Different locals have different laws and road conditions. I've driven in winter in Colorado, and there are many places where you can be fined for NOT having tire chains mounted when conditions indicate their use, and many more places where traveling without chains would be considered unwise (unless you enjoy Winter camping in your car, or long hikes through the snow). Conversely, I've also driving in Chicago during the Winter, and can't say that I ever felt uncomfortable with anything but a good set of snow-capable all-weather tires, (but I didn't exactly experience any major blizzards).
My recollection is that the Chicago area is flat and has very good snow removal capabilities, so the cost/benefit of tire chains is probably very poor. But, if need to regularly drive during early hours in Chicago, before the plows and front loaders can finish their task, and your vehicle doesn't doesn't normally handle well in the snow, then tire chains might well be necessary. Personally, I hate dealing with chains and would have them only for an emergency, instead relying on dedicated snow tires for Winter driving.
The point here is that different circumstances dictate different responses.
I've adjusted my tire pressure, have taken great pains to drive conservatively (anticipating stops well in advance, keeping RPM's under 2,500 during acceleration, reducing my highway speed to 65MPH instead of, hmmm, about 80), leaving for work ahead of or behind peak traffic, and switching to full synthetic engine, trans and differential oil.
Net gain: 16 MPG vs 14.4 MPG. I calculate that, after the extra cost of the synthetic oils, I will save about $70-100/year (@ $3.50/gal avg). Intangibles are better tire and brake wear, and potentially fewer repairs when the warranty expires. '07 Nissan Pathfinder SE V6/4WD, and YES I do need that type of vehicle: I have 3 kids in school and sports, I need room for their gear and friends, we camp frequently and tow a camper and often drive off-road to camp or fish, and I am on emergency call so I need to be able to go through deep snow.
But trying to drive this way in rush-hour traffic (which last 3 hours each AM and PM around here) is stressful. Leaving anything more than a one-car-length space is like putting up a neon sign saying "cut me off" in NJ. It's hard to justify for the paltry savings.
If there was an affordable 4-passenger PHEV that could run for 60 miles on an overnight charge, I would seriously consider purchasing one to use as my primary vehicle, and save the Pathfinder for camping, long trips, and occasions when the extra capacity or 4WD was required. Though it might not save me any money, at least not for the short-term, at least I'd feel a sense of accomplishment at cutting my oil consumption. More so than the measly 1.6MPG gain I've experienced so far.
For example, I sold an item for $150, final value fee was $12.35 and paypal took another $4.82. That's a good chunk of the sale when you are the one designing the auction page and putting the items up for sale. All in hope that the buyer isn't going to rip you off by reversing the charges after pretending they never got the item and you can't leave them negative feedback anymore.
There is a need for a new auction site to open that is like eBay used to be.
Exactly the feeling of a lot of the sellers on eBay. Look through the spectrum of the retail market and you'll see that 10% is a fairly good margin on most good sold. Between auction and Paypal fees, eBay is earning over 11% for doing nothing more than providing a venue. That makes for a crappy deal for sellers and buyers alike.
Unfortunately, as eBay has a de facto monopoly on auctions in the US, what other choice do you have? So you do what many eBay sellers do... inflate your shipping and handling charge to cover some of the eBay fees.
I pity people who buy new merchandise on eBay. If you do your research, you can always find new merchandise cheaper someplace else. The fee structure eBay imposes guarantees that non-affiliated resellers enjoy a 7-8% overhead advantage.
Choice? I wish! In my area Comcast bought out everyone and now they are the only player in the game. Needless to say their service is horrible and their customer service is horrendous! Something really needs to be done about these ridiculous cable monopolies.
flashback 15 years...
Choice? I wish! In my area, Bell Telephone is the only player in the game. Needless to say their line quality is horrible and their customer service is horrendous. Something really needs to be done about these ridiculous telephone service monopolies.
Don't worry, the march of technology will deal with this issue as well, at least in populated areas where FttH and high-speed wireless can be reasonably deployed. Of course those that live in sparsely populated areas will still have limited options, but that's one of the prices to be paid for solitude (and really huge ranches).
With all due respect, if you ("you" in general, not the parent poster) can't speak English then what the fuck are you doing living in an English speaking country? I live in New Zealand and we get these stories all the time how there are special translation services being offered and suggested for those who are "English impaired". WTF? How are these people even allowed to immigrate here?
Unlike many other nations, the USA does not specify an official language in its constitution or laws. There are parts of the country where Spanish is more popular than English. Of course there are also neighborhoods where Italian, Russian, Hindi, Yiddish, etc is the predominate language.
I understand that English and Maori are the official languages of New Zealand. Would you discriminate against a New Zealander who spoke only Maori?
The FCC needs to be soundly beaten with a Clue Stick. They were the ones who set the definition for High Speed Internet to anything above 260kbps. Based on that, do you really want them to set the minimum specifications for HD?
This sounds like PrizePoint.com or Uproar.com (the original version, which lived between 1998 and 2006, not the new version, which sux even more). The idea was you earned points that could be redeemed for prizes by playing cheesy Java-based games. Of course the quid pro quo was being barraged by ads.
Ultimately, the games and prizes weren't worth putting-up with all the ads. Ad-blocking caused revenues to plummet and those who didn't block ads just stopped visiting. Uproar and Prizepoint merged and then eventually died after burning through millions of VC dollars.
I don't see anything better happening this time around.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'd have a hard time (no pun intended) finding a man or a woman (present company excluded) who agrees that sex is more pleasurable with a condom than without.
I also don't need to be married in order to have confidence enough with my partner to engage in unprotected sex. At the same time being married doesn't automatically eliminate the the risk of catching sexually communicated diseases from a partner. Marriage is neither a guarantee of health or fidelity.
Outrageous bigotry notwithstanding, suggesting the P/P should be chemically castrated simply because he prefers boffing au natural is stupidity unto itself. There are many worse fetishes to be concerned with other than whether two consenting adults decide to do the deed without an intervening layer of latex.
Believe it or not, your mummy and daddy even did it at least once without a condom.
I think you're incredibly naive.
While there's plenty of examples of retailers overcharging on shipping, when you understand the overall pricing model you'll realize that the most popular retailers seldom net more than 15% and often as little as 8%, except for specialty/collector/restricted products. And this isn't considering their overhead and business expenses.
For example, I resell computers and the spread between my distributor cost and HP's own website is 8 - 12% before considering my overhead. If I advertise my prices above HP's, nobody's going to buy from me. But if I meet my distributor's minimum order and pay immediately I get free shipping. So, to attract customers I advertise just above my cost (to not get charged with dumping or gray-marketing) and make up my overhead and profit by charging S&H. It's the only way I can stay in business.
Anyway, if you think there's some extra 7% of profit margin hiding in today's Internet-powered, dog-eat-dog marketplace, you are about to be very disappointed. The environment is way too competitive for that. Shit, half the time I buy my components from NewEgg because its cheaper than the big distributors. Just look out for those free shipping deals.
Don't you folks also have a law that requires you to buy a TV license for any device that can show TV shows, (including laptops and mobile phones)? Anyway, a simple solution is to buy (or rent) music that includes the license fees for public performance, or use royalty-free music such as available from RoyaltyFreeMusic.com. Even the commercial services from Muzak and 3M are a better bargain than most PRO license arrangements.
Why is this insightful? What makes you think that I consent to allowing prostitution or legal drug distribution in my neighborhood? And why are these called victimless crimes? Anyone unfortunate enough to live or work in an area where there's dealing or prostitution can testify on the destructive, anti-social aspects of these activities. And worse, the family and friends of those who get sucked in to prostitution and/or drug use can more than comment on how their loved ones are victimized by these vices.
I'm not going to go further off-topic but to ask how you would feel if it was your daughter, sister, girlfriend or wife spreading her legs every night for a dozen sleazy men every night to wind-up with enough money from her pimp to pay for her food, apartment and heroin?
On the other hand, when you've had the FBI knock on your door at home and question your employer, you have a right to receive information on the cause and outcome of such investigations. Ditto for instances where the FBI has questioned you as a witness on a matter that might not be related to you personally.
For the FBI to come back and say it can't find any related records is both disingenuous and frustrating. One can appreciate how this can result in paranoia.
Hmmm $8 for a paperback, or $8 for a DVD of a movie, or $24 for a video game that plays 20 books worth of time, or ... Books are way overpriced now. My solution is mostly the same as for music- I just stopped buying them. If they were $4, I would probably buy them.
First of all, please tell me where you live because I'm paying up to $10 for a paperback and a minimum of $15 for a DVD and $50 for a video game.
I have to agree with your solution. As prices have gone up I've cut back on my spending because I generally feel the product isn't worth the cost. The result is that I spend LESS money now on entertainment than I did 20 years ago, not even factoring in inflation.
Remember when movies were $4.50 and you could get popcorn and a soda for $5.00? I used to take my kids to the theater every week. 4 x$ 9.5 x 52 = $1976
Now tickets are $10.50 and popcorn and a soda are another $10+. So now we go to the movies once a month, get a soda and sneak-in our own snacks. 4 x 15.50 x 12 = $744.
Who's the loser? The movie theaters, studios and MPAA. At $62 per movie -- assuming we sneak-in snacks -- I'm a lot more selective about what movies we go see. Honestly, there aren't 12 movies released each year that are worth that much to me. But when it only cost about $30 to take the family to the movies, you didn't mind when the many of the movies were bombs.
Ditto for books. I used to read a book a week when they were under $5. Now I buy maybe 12 books a year at an average price of $9.00 and trade with people at work and in my neighborhood.
And video games. Used to be I'd buy new games the week they were released. But at $80 each for the newest titles that can be finished in a week unless you pay EXTRA for on-line gaming, I've cut down to just a few games a year.
The problem I see with the Entertainment industry is they literally want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to keep on increasing the size of their slice of the pie while selling more pieces of more pies at the same time.
What he explicitly said is that the kindle creates extra value for the work. In return the people who created the material should share in that extra value.
That's like saying that I've built a wall and you've made it nicer by painting it blue, so the homeowner should pay me more for your efforts.
Decent TTS in a widely-used device will basically kill the audiobook market, and authors should be compensated in some way for the revenue lost there.
The Author's Guild's assertion that the Kindle 2's text-to-speech feature deprives authors of deserved revenue is only true if a) a significant portion of the consumer base would otherwise buy both the printed book and audio book; or b) authors receive higher compensation for audio books than they do printed books. In my experience, "a" is seldom true: people seldom purchase both the printed and audio version of the same book. Furthermore, in my experience, people are more likely to sell or trade audio books than they are printed books once they are finished with the story. One would think the Author's Guild would prefer electronic distribution in such cases, as an electronic copy of a book cannot be sold or traded to another reader.
As for situation "b," the public argument for high audio book prices has always been the additional cost and ongoing royalties to the actor who "performs" the story for recording. Arguing that authors will lose money if TTS replaces audio books reveals one of the lies of book publishing.
When you purchase an eBook you are paying for one physical copy of the book that can only be used by one person, (or, at most, a few people in the same location), who holds the eBook reader to which the eBook's license is associated. There is no opportunity for other copies of the eBook to be used separately and, therefore, no basis to demand additional fees or royalties. In fact, an eBook is considerably more restrictive than a printed or audio book. An individual printed book or audio book can be loaned, traded or sold several times without generating any revenue for the author. However, an eBook is tied via digital rights management to a specific eBook reader or computer, and cannot be loaned, transferred or sold.
I think that in the long run Authors stand to make more money through eBooks due to the DRM restrictions that make it impossible to share or sell your used books. This nonsense about lost revenues due to Text-To-Speech is nothing more than the Author's Guild's jealousy that they don't have any reason to go on witch-hunt against copyright violators like the RIAA and MPAA.
Third question:
c) Why wasn't the sender of the email reprimanded for failing to follow proper procedure when using distribution lists? By that I mean addressing the mail to him/herself, (or an administrative address/list), and using the BCC field for the actual distribution.
Chrysler made the Ramcharger full-size SUV from 1974 to 1993. They purchased American Motors in 1987 expressly to take over the Jeep brand (which had been acquired by AMC from Kaiser-Jeep in 1970, ref), and have continuously produced SUV's since that acquisition. In fact, the Jeep Cherokee SJ and XJ are probably more responsible for the rise of the modern SUV than any other vehicles.
Conversely, Chrysler has also continuously marketed small, fuel efficient vehicles since the mid 1970's with the Horizon, Omni, Colt, Sundance and now Neon.
So I don't see how your comment makes any sense at all?
Ok, I hate apple's hype machine as much as anyone, but seriously... this isn't an iPhone thing. [...]
Actually, the problem is that you are using an iPhone, to wit, an Apple device, in conjunction with unsupported third-party productions. Apple is unable to support or guarantee compatibility with non-Apple products. If you were using your iPhone in the presence of an Apple speaker, clock-radio, telephone or other device there would be no problems.
The Bose Wave clock radio high end audiophile system, based on alien technology that defies our Earthly knowledge of Physics, is also immune to this and all interference.
Am I the only one who immediately thought this could lead to another remake of Little Shop of Horrors?
Recharge me, Seymour!
Here's a small physics quiz: What happens to the car if the wheels on one side don't turn as fast as the wheels on the other?
I normally don't follow-up to old posts but this time I couldn't resist. Since you fancy yourself such an expert in Physics to quiz me on the topic, please allow me to return the favor:
You are driving a car with a wheel track of 65 inches (that's the distance between the right and left wheels) and a tire diameter of 30 inches. You make an unbanked right turn with a nominal (mid-lane) radius of 50 feet. To keep things simple, assume the road is flat (no crown or grade). Answer the following three questions:
No fair turning to the back section and peeking at the answers. Hint: This is the reason why all four-wheel vehicles intended for on-road use have differentials.
ABS isn't designed to "try and keep the car going in a straight line." Anti-Lock Braking Systems are designed to maintain steering control during panic braking by keeping the tires from crossing over from static friction to dynamic friction. It does this by monitoring the speed of each wheel during braking and releasing the brakes for any wheel that is found to be turning at a much slower rate than all the others (implying that wheel is starting to skid). As you can clearly see, this contraindicates the performance I encountered of all four wheels being modulated by the ABS system when only one wheel lost traction.
Subsequent research supports my assertion that this was a design flaw: A NHTSA recall was issued for the '99 Isuzu Rodeo ABS for just the problem I described in my posting.
The problem is that you don't need to be going over 80 MPH, or even over 55 MPH, to be injured or die in a car wreck.
My 22 year-old son has lost over half a dozen friends to wrecks in Pennsylvania, all of them on rural roads -- mostly one road -- in Pike County. None of these involved speeds over 65 MPH, and most occurred at under 50. Unfortunately, the deadly stretch or road is posted at 35 MPH.
And why the 80 MPH limit? I've driven throughout the USA and I can't recall ever encountering a speed limit higher than 75. And do inexperienced drivers need to go that fast? Wouldn't 65 be safer, even if it limited them to the slow lane?
I think the idea of car manufacturers trying to take responsibility for imposing safe limits is the wrong approach. I'd prefer secure storage of performance sensor and GPS data that I could access via my laptop to learn if my child were driving safely so I can take appropriate action, than some nonsensical and ineffective limits.
While there are a few situations I've been in where the ability to exceed 80 mph has been critical to safety (getting out from behind dangerous drivers on the freeway who are liable to cause a pileup, for instance), that's not the point.
An unsafe response to an unsafe situation is never the best solution. The appropriate action would have been to move over and slow-down until the unsafe driver was far enough ahead, and then continue at appropriate speed to maintain safe separation until you could pull-off into a rest area, have a tinkle, and then continue without further interference.
Wanking off to a Playmate of the Month is somewhat less likely to kill him than running into a telephone pole at 95 MPH.
Unless said Playmate is being viewed on his cell while driving 80 MPH in snow with the traction control engaged, while some death metal song plays gently in the background.
But it was the private insurance companies that brought an abrupt end to the muscle car era of the sixties.
It was the state governments that mandated insurance coverage that allowed insurance companies to gain so much power in the marketplace.
It was the lawyers looking to improve awards settlements and, proportionally, their revenues, that pressured the governments to mandate auto insurance coverage.
It had nothing to do with the gas restrictions, long lines, and 200% increase in the cost of gasoline in the late '70's, or the subsequent quadrupling of prices since?
And Dodge no longer manufactures, the Charger, the Challenger, and Chevy doesn't sell any more Corvettes and isn't bringing back the Camaro? Ford's new Mustang GT is only a rich man's toy?
Granted, the mainstream market isn't built around power anymore, but that doesn't mean there aren't the same selections. The reality is that the overall environment has shifted most young men's attentions from gas-guzzling muscle cars to more nimble and fuel-efficient import tuners, high insurance rates notwithstanding.
However, some poorly implemented (or defective?) ABS systems would modulate the brakes on all four tires even though only one tire was losing traction. Such was the case with my 1999 Isuzu Rodeo. This would result in an unnecessary reduction in stopping ability and increase in stopping distance, and it would happen mostly during light to moderate braking while going downhill or around corners and encountering loose or uneven pavement.
I learned to anticipate and react to these situations and it never caused me any major concern, but I could see how an inexperienced or paranoid driver could conclude that ABS was not entirely a good thing. There were far more times where ABS was a distinct advantage than a disadvantage. Being able to slam full-on the brakes and trust the ABS to prevent a skid relieves you of having to concentrate on modulating the brakes manually, allowing you better able to concentrate on secondary avoidance maneuvers as well as providing some steering response to make those maneuvers work. Could I do the same without ABS? Perhaps, although it would require a great deal of effort and concentration, or a great amount of practice, to be almost as effective.
I guess the moral here is that the experience of the driver -- in general and with a particular vehicle -- is still more important than the technology that enables safer driving.
Different locals have different laws and road conditions. I've driven in winter in Colorado, and there are many places where you can be fined for NOT having tire chains mounted when conditions indicate their use, and many more places where traveling without chains would be considered unwise (unless you enjoy Winter camping in your car, or long hikes through the snow). Conversely, I've also driving in Chicago during the Winter, and can't say that I ever felt uncomfortable with anything but a good set of snow-capable all-weather tires, (but I didn't exactly experience any major blizzards).
My recollection is that the Chicago area is flat and has very good snow removal capabilities, so the cost/benefit of tire chains is probably very poor. But, if need to regularly drive during early hours in Chicago, before the plows and front loaders can finish their task, and your vehicle doesn't doesn't normally handle well in the snow, then tire chains might well be necessary. Personally, I hate dealing with chains and would have them only for an emergency, instead relying on dedicated snow tires for Winter driving.
The point here is that different circumstances dictate different responses.
What truck is that?
I've adjusted my tire pressure, have taken great pains to drive conservatively (anticipating stops well in advance, keeping RPM's under 2,500 during acceleration, reducing my highway speed to 65MPH instead of, hmmm, about 80), leaving for work ahead of or behind peak traffic, and switching to full synthetic engine, trans and differential oil.
Net gain: 16 MPG vs 14.4 MPG. I calculate that, after the extra cost of the synthetic oils, I will save about $70-100/year (@ $3.50/gal avg). Intangibles are better tire and brake wear, and potentially fewer repairs when the warranty expires. '07 Nissan Pathfinder SE V6/4WD, and YES I do need that type of vehicle: I have 3 kids in school and sports, I need room for their gear and friends, we camp frequently and tow a camper and often drive off-road to camp or fish, and I am on emergency call so I need to be able to go through deep snow.
But trying to drive this way in rush-hour traffic (which last 3 hours each AM and PM around here) is stressful. Leaving anything more than a one-car-length space is like putting up a neon sign saying "cut me off" in NJ. It's hard to justify for the paltry savings.
If there was an affordable 4-passenger PHEV that could run for 60 miles on an overnight charge, I would seriously consider purchasing one to use as my primary vehicle, and save the Pathfinder for camping, long trips, and occasions when the extra capacity or 4WD was required. Though it might not save me any money, at least not for the short-term, at least I'd feel a sense of accomplishment at cutting my oil consumption. More so than the measly 1.6MPG gain I've experienced so far.
For example, I sold an item for $150, final value fee was $12.35 and paypal took another $4.82. That's a good chunk of the sale when you are the one designing the auction page and putting the items up for sale. All in hope that the buyer isn't going to rip you off by reversing the charges after pretending they never got the item and you can't leave them negative feedback anymore. There is a need for a new auction site to open that is like eBay used to be.
Exactly the feeling of a lot of the sellers on eBay. Look through the spectrum of the retail market and you'll see that 10% is a fairly good margin on most good sold. Between auction and Paypal fees, eBay is earning over 11% for doing nothing more than providing a venue. That makes for a crappy deal for sellers and buyers alike. Unfortunately, as eBay has a de facto monopoly on auctions in the US, what other choice do you have? So you do what many eBay sellers do... inflate your shipping and handling charge to cover some of the eBay fees.
I pity people who buy new merchandise on eBay. If you do your research, you can always find new merchandise cheaper someplace else. The fee structure eBay imposes guarantees that non-affiliated resellers enjoy a 7-8% overhead advantage.
Choice? I wish! In my area Comcast bought out everyone and now they are the only player in the game. Needless to say their service is horrible and their customer service is horrendous! Something really needs to be done about these ridiculous cable monopolies.
flashback 15 years...
Choice? I wish! In my area, Bell Telephone is the only player in the game. Needless to say their line quality is horrible and their customer service is horrendous. Something really needs to be done about these ridiculous telephone service monopolies.
Don't worry, the march of technology will deal with this issue as well, at least in populated areas where FttH and high-speed wireless can be reasonably deployed. Of course those that live in sparsely populated areas will still have limited options, but that's one of the prices to be paid for solitude (and really huge ranches).
With all due respect, if you ("you" in general, not the parent poster) can't speak English then what the fuck are you doing living in an English speaking country? I live in New Zealand and we get these stories all the time how there are special translation services being offered and suggested for those who are "English impaired". WTF? How are these people even allowed to immigrate here?
Unlike many other nations, the USA does not specify an official language in its constitution or laws. There are parts of the country where Spanish is more popular than English. Of course there are also neighborhoods where Italian, Russian, Hindi, Yiddish, etc is the predominate language.
I understand that English and Maori are the official languages of New Zealand. Would you discriminate against a New Zealander who spoke only Maori?
The FCC needs to be soundly beaten with a Clue Stick. They were the ones who set the definition for High Speed Internet to anything above 260kbps. Based on that, do you really want them to set the minimum specifications for HD?
This sounds like PrizePoint.com or Uproar.com (the original version, which lived between 1998 and 2006, not the new version, which sux even more). The idea was you earned points that could be redeemed for prizes by playing cheesy Java-based games. Of course the quid pro quo was being barraged by ads.
Ultimately, the games and prizes weren't worth putting-up with all the ads. Ad-blocking caused revenues to plummet and those who didn't block ads just stopped visiting. Uproar and Prizepoint merged and then eventually died after burning through millions of VC dollars.
I don't see anything better happening this time around.