This is why auto manufacturers spend so much money on engineering crumple zones and testing with crash dummies, etc.
No, auto manufacturers spend this money because they have to.
Cars will have exactly the necessary safety features to satisfy government regulations for the market they are sold into.
You can't ship a car made for the chilean market to Germany. Its not possible to retrofit to meet the safety standards. You can, however, ship a car made for the Japanese market to Australia, but you need to replace the seatbelt mechanisms. No seat belt mechanism made for the US market is acceptable in Europe.
Compare a common internationally sold car, such as the Opel/Holden/Vauxhall Astra, the VW Golf or the Subaru Liberty/Legacy, and you'll find the specs differ country to country.
I know this sounds like a troll, but I have a valid point.
People who drive large cars with the ability to control large cars usually are not the problem. The problem are people who drive large cars and lack either the ability or the personality to control such a large vehicle are the problem.
In NSW, Australia, you can do your driving test on a 2 door 800c automatic suzuki, then go and jump behind the wheel of a hummer. Sorry, but that's just crazy. (I believe this is now under review, but its been under review for at least the last 20 years) Pilots have to retrain for each new model aircraft they manage, and similary there needs to be classes of vehicles based on transmission type, weight and size. Vans capable of carrying 10 passengers, even if not for commercial gain, should require testing. I get scared when I see a Mother with 10 kids (presumably not all her own) crawling unbelted around the car while she screams abuse at other drivers for every near-collision she's causing.
The other is a physcological test. If "big car" is a compensation for "small dick". Yeah, rice rockets are a pain in the arse, but when the choice is between contending with 1 tonne of dickhead propelled missile and 4 tonnes of dickhead propelled missile, give me the mag-wheeled Mirage anyday.
I'd also argue that people under 4'6" shouldn't be allowed to drive some of these big SUVs unless they are suitably modified. In jacking up the seat to see out the window means that they can't depress the brake in reflex time. That's just crazy. (Anybody who's driven between Turramurra and Gordon in the North of Sydney knows exactly the types I'm talking about). If little kids have to be over a height to ride a roller coster, people should have to be over a height limit to drive some vehicles. This isn't discrimination. Its public safety.
(Note: I am pretty short myself. I can't ride any model Harley except the FatBoy because my feet aren't close enough to the ground!)
I also agree that Hummers and their like shouldn't be allowed on certain roads. Note that some of the south-bound lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge aren't wide enough for the wheel-base of the Holden (Chevy) Suburban. The infrastructure of the city was never designed to cope with this sort of vehicle.
I lived in Redfern when I was a student at Sydney Union. 11 Hugo St. The back of our-house backed onto The Block.
Interesting couple of years. Hammers through the window, back-yard full of wild kids, drunk women fighting in the street... but yeah... cheap rent. We never felt threatened, and locals didn't seem to care about us.
From what I've seen in the news recently, its got a lot worse that it was when I was there.
Except, when I call you into a "meet the client and wear a suit... okay, a tie then? Ok.. but at least put some shoes on" meeting, please please please don't tell them you've written their application in "brainfuck".
(No, haven't had the experience, but I'm waiting for it)
I got an ABIT N7-S (?), Athlon 2600+, 1GB RAM, dual 8GB HD, 128MB ATI card (Dunno which one, but its got a TV out which was all I was really interested in), funky black case and 17" Viewsonic flat screen monitor.
I paid cash, even though in my (our?) line of work, its an income generating purchase.
If I hook your cell phone to a GPS and have it send me your exact location every 5 minutes, its a very different scenario to me having to hire a black truck and follow you round.
There is a difference between consenting to a level of monitoring, and volunteering to be monitored.
If you use your car to generate incoming (ie, you need one for work or you can't get to work without one), its an income generating purchase.
If you could live without a car, for example, by using public transport (which may very well be out of the question in large areas of the US), then its not a "gotta", its a "wanna".
Also, the car you "wanna" have is probably a lot nicer than the car you "gotta" have.
Consider the following:
Fork out 1000 bucks from your pocket and buy a set of wheels. Obviously nothing fancy, but it serves the "gotta". In the mean time, stick what you would be paying in repayments in the bank. After 12-18 months, upgrade your bomb to something a bit nicer.
Set up an excel spreadsheet, think about the car you want, and work out how much you'd have to spend to get there. Save what you would otherwize be paying on the loan, and see how long it would take you to get there. Depending or your tastes, you could probably do it in 3 to 5 intermediate cars. (Think 3 year old used cars for the intermediates... their depreciation rates are lower, and you'll only be holding them for a year or so).
Suprising, isn't it?
In my calcs, after 5 years, I am actually better off. I OWN the car, no repayments. I can then lower the money I'm putting in the bank, and roll the car over every three years for a new model.
Note, this doesn't work if you drive thousands of miles a week for work.. but if you are doing that, its a "gotta", you are probably receiving a car allowance from your employer, and you can write off most car expenses against your tax anyway.
Re:the future is obvious....
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 1
Same link... but boycotting the much derrided "IT" colour scheme, and attempting to whore karma en the process.
So it's about privacy, not about actual restrictions?
It seems that we have a conceptual difference here.
Being overtly monitored is a restriction.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the world.
Firstly, and somewhat off-topic, why not?
Secondly, the key word in your statement is "reasonable". Who decides what is reasonable? What is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. Chile has a National ID card. All residents, including natural born citizens, are fingerprinted every 10 years and kept on central records. Crime is low, good, but no lower than it is in Australia. They look at the current noise in England over the ID card, and don't know what all the fuss is about.
There is no absolute privacy... with absolute privacy there is no security... but a Big Brother world stifles creativity and indivualism. Looking at those in power (on both sides), it seems that these are not as important and comfort and conformity.
And as far as losing something I never had, I point again to the Pledge of Alligence. Those words were written to mean something. Now they are repeated unthinkingly, like "four legs good, two legs bad" in George Orwell's Animal Farm.
As you cling to the arbitrary notion of privacy, you're doing little more than empowering men to rape and torture women.
That's really an out-of-left-field comment. I'd like to see something to support that association. As somebody who respects both my privacy and women (including my mother, my fiancee and my seven sisters), I somewhat resent what you are attempting to imply.
Re:coincidence?
on
You've Got PC
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Buy now, pay later.
If its not coming out of your pocket today, its cheaper.
People don't think long-term when making purchases. That's why banks can sell consumer credit at high interest rates with low repayments over rediculously long times.
People joke about "Wogs and Cash", but the concept of never going into debt for a non-incoming generating purchase has a lot going for it.
Err, how exactly does this control or restrict you? You don't have to go there.
I don't know how to answer that, because to me its obvious how inserting this sort of obstacle to access is a control. However, I've just been studying control as part of an Management program (yeah yeah), so maybe my definition of what is a control is a bit different.
In general, a control is anything that causes a behaviour to be affected. Its not as black and white and "do this or you'll be sorry". A lot of modern management control is based on exactly this sort of psychology. How many companies have a "we are able to monitor your email" policy, without actually doing any monitoring. Just the idea that "I might get in trouble" stops a large proportion of the problem.
So here, we have a "we may be recording your movements" if you visit the statue of Liberty. That is a restriction on your freedom of movement as you now know that you may be under observation. The fear isn't "they might find out I'm a terrorist", the fear is "I might be mistaken for a terrorist". Those who implicitly trust the technology need to read up on finger-print ID, and those who implicitly trust the goverment should look at watergate, Chile, Nicuagua.. hell.. Halliburton in Iraq.
The only reason that this is as significant as it is because of what is carved into the base of this particular statue.
It scares me that so many people don't see this situation as a sad reflection on where US society is today, in comparison to what it was founded on.
And, we do all remember that this statue was a gift, right? From the French.
America has always been the land of the free, with some caveats
and home of the brave, with a couple of girls' blouses that we don't talk about.
In general, if you treat people like adults, they will act like adults. Its not a huge jump to if you treat people like criminals, they will act like criminals.
Don't you see that have an icon of fredom, the freedom that supposedly the foundation on which the nation is built, under such heavy guard, is an incredibly powerful comment on just how much of the freedom has been lost?
I'm not talking about a couple of loons spray-painting it, I'm talking about decades and decades of bad leadership that has lead to such measures as being necessary and, even sadder, acceptable.
Its time to change the pledge.
"Liberty and Justice for all"
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Liberty: The condition of being free from restriction or control.
When an icon of freedom can't be visited without controls and restriction, what's left?
Re:Of course it'll srupass apple
on
Linux vs. Windows
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
> This is why Bill is so paranoid.
No, Bill is paranoid because he is a zit-pocked git who was picked on at school. When you are always on the end of the pointy stick, you get jumpy and jittery as a survival trait.
Just be cause we are able to, doesn't mean we will.
I've joined the gym maybe three times in my life, and only once managed to keep going for more than a few months... and the only reason for that was the guy who took the classes was a fucking clown who kept doing monty python impressions.
> If you only live to eat, consider dying of starvation.
The point was the "Mortgage" is used by so many people as their reason (or excuse) why they never do something....
"I'd love to start my own business, but there the mortgage" "I'd love to travel, but there's the mortgage" "I hate my job and I'd love to leave, but there's the mortgage".
That, friends, is slavery.
I have no mortgage, I chose not too. I have share investments that subsidise the rent. I can jump jobs and even countries when I feel like it. The amount of money I pay in rent plus what I invest isn't that different from what most people pay in mortgage, and I never had the pain of accumulating that first big deposit. I don't have that much "stuff"... but how much "stuff" do we need?
Sure, in 30 years, those of you who have paid off your house will probably be in a better financial situation than me. But.. fuck. In 30 years I'll be 62. I plan to do some living before then.
I've walked the Inca trail. I've explored 3 continents so far, only 4 to go. I've learns a second language with bits of a third and a fourth. And, man, 95% of the time I'm happy.
> Have you ever told your Boss to Fuck-off when you get angry?
Of course I have. You bow down to your boss? Why? He's probably a manager. He knows how to manage. Doesn't mean he knows the first thing about systems, programming, networks etc etc.
If my boss is wrong, I tell him. If his fuck-up causes me to lose a weekend to the server room, he knows I'm not happy about it. He can sack me if he wants, but I have to say that I don't really care.
Slashdot Mirror
No, auto manufacturers spend this money because they have to.
Cars will have exactly the necessary safety features to satisfy government regulations for the market they are sold into.
You can't ship a car made for the chilean market to Germany. Its not possible to retrofit to meet the safety standards. You can, however, ship a car made for the Japanese market to Australia, but you need to replace the seatbelt mechanisms. No seat belt mechanism made for the US market is acceptable in Europe.
Compare a common internationally sold car, such as the Opel/Holden/Vauxhall Astra, the VW Golf or the Subaru Liberty/Legacy, and you'll find the specs differ country to country.
We also have 6 inch cocks.
I know this sounds like a troll, but I have a valid point.
People who drive large cars with the ability to control large cars usually are not the problem. The problem are people who drive large cars and lack either the ability or the personality to control such a large vehicle are the problem.
In NSW, Australia, you can do your driving test on a 2 door 800c automatic suzuki, then go and jump behind the wheel of a hummer. Sorry, but that's just crazy. (I believe this is now under review, but its been under review for at least the last 20 years) Pilots have to retrain for each new model aircraft they manage, and similary there needs to be classes of vehicles based on transmission type, weight and size. Vans capable of carrying 10 passengers, even if not for commercial gain, should require testing. I get scared when I see a Mother with 10 kids (presumably not all her own) crawling unbelted around the car while she screams abuse at other drivers for every near-collision she's causing.
The other is a physcological test. If "big car" is a compensation for "small dick". Yeah, rice rockets are a pain in the arse, but when the choice is between contending with 1 tonne of dickhead propelled missile and 4 tonnes of dickhead propelled missile, give me the mag-wheeled Mirage anyday.
I'd also argue that people under 4'6" shouldn't be allowed to drive some of these big SUVs unless they are suitably modified. In jacking up the seat to see out the window means that they can't depress the brake in reflex time. That's just crazy. (Anybody who's driven between Turramurra and Gordon in the North of Sydney knows exactly the types I'm talking about). If little kids have to be over a height to ride a roller coster, people should have to be over a height limit to drive some vehicles. This isn't discrimination. Its public safety.
(Note: I am pretty short myself. I can't ride any model Harley except the FatBoy because my feet aren't close enough to the ground!)
I also agree that Hummers and their like shouldn't be allowed on certain roads. Note that some of the south-bound lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge aren't wide enough for the wheel-base of the Holden (Chevy) Suburban. The infrastructure of the city was never designed to cope with this sort of vehicle.
How well will it play Duke Nukem Forever?
I lived in Redfern when I was a student at Sydney Union. 11 Hugo St. The back of our-house backed onto The Block.
:)
Interesting couple of years. Hammers through the window, back-yard full of wild kids, drunk women fighting in the street... but yeah... cheap rent. We never felt threatened, and locals didn't seem to care about us.
From what I've seen in the news recently, its got a lot worse that it was when I was there.
And, yeah, I also chose not to live in Sydney.
In Sydney they call that "getting off at Redfern".
Except, when I call you into a "meet the client and wear a suit... okay, a tie then? Ok.. but at least put some shoes on" meeting, please please please don't tell them you've written their application in "brainfuck".
(No, haven't had the experience, but I'm waiting for it)
I'd like to see these guys do an Windows XP impression.
I got an ABIT N7-S (?), Athlon 2600+, 1GB RAM, dual 8GB HD, 128MB ATI card (Dunno which one, but its got a TV out which was all I was really interested in), funky black case and 17" Viewsonic flat screen monitor.
I paid cash, even though in my (our?) line of work, its an income generating purchase.
It makes a huge difference.
If I hook your cell phone to a GPS and have it send me your exact location every 5 minutes, its a very different scenario to me having to hire a black truck and follow you round.
There is a difference between consenting to a level of monitoring, and volunteering to be monitored.
If you use your car to generate incoming (ie, you need one for work or you can't get to work without one), its an income generating purchase.
If you could live without a car, for example, by using public transport (which may very well be out of the question in large areas of the US), then its not a "gotta", its a "wanna".
Also, the car you "wanna" have is probably a lot nicer than the car you "gotta" have.
Consider the following:
Fork out 1000 bucks from your pocket and buy a set of wheels. Obviously nothing fancy, but it serves the "gotta". In the mean time, stick what you would be paying in repayments in the bank. After 12-18 months, upgrade your bomb to something a bit nicer.
Set up an excel spreadsheet, think about the car you want, and work out how much you'd have to spend to get there. Save what you would otherwize be paying on the loan, and see how long it would take you to get there. Depending or your tastes, you could probably do it in 3 to 5 intermediate cars. (Think 3 year old used cars for the intermediates... their depreciation rates are lower, and you'll only be holding them for a year or so).
Suprising, isn't it?
In my calcs, after 5 years, I am actually better off. I OWN the car, no repayments. I can then lower the money I'm putting in the bank, and roll the car over every three years for a new model.
Note, this doesn't work if you drive thousands of miles a week for work.. but if you are doing that, its a "gotta", you are probably receiving a car allowance from your employer, and you can write off most car expenses against your tax anyway.
Same link... but boycotting the much derrided "IT" colour scheme, and attempting to whore karma en the process.
Mate,
I'd cut my own balls off, squeeze them, and gargle the juice, before I took a job with Microsoft.
It seems that we have a conceptual difference here.
Being overtly monitored is a restriction.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in the world.
Firstly, and somewhat off-topic, why not?
Secondly, the key word in your statement is "reasonable". Who decides what is reasonable? What is reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me. Chile has a National ID card. All residents, including natural born citizens, are fingerprinted every 10 years and kept on central records. Crime is low, good, but no lower than it is in Australia. They look at the current noise in England over the ID card, and don't know what all the fuss is about.
There is no absolute privacy... with absolute privacy there is no security... but a Big Brother world stifles creativity and indivualism. Looking at those in power (on both sides), it seems that these are not as important and comfort and conformity.
And as far as losing something I never had, I point again to the Pledge of Alligence. Those words were written to mean something. Now they are repeated unthinkingly, like "four legs good, two legs bad" in George Orwell's Animal Farm.
As you cling to the arbitrary notion of privacy, you're doing little more than empowering men to rape and torture women.
That's really an out-of-left-field comment. I'd like to see something to support that association. As somebody who respects both my privacy and women (including my mother, my fiancee and my seven sisters), I somewhat resent what you are attempting to imply.
Buy now, pay later.
If its not coming out of your pocket today, its cheaper.
People don't think long-term when making purchases. That's why banks can sell consumer credit at high interest rates with low repayments over rediculously long times.
People joke about "Wogs and Cash", but the concept of never going into debt for a non-incoming generating purchase has a lot going for it.
I don't know how to answer that, because to me its obvious how inserting this sort of obstacle to access is a control. However, I've just been studying control as part of an Management program (yeah yeah), so maybe my definition of what is a control is a bit different.
In general, a control is anything that causes a behaviour to be affected. Its not as black and white and "do this or you'll be sorry". A lot of modern management control is based on exactly this sort of psychology. How many companies have a "we are able to monitor your email" policy, without actually doing any monitoring. Just the idea that "I might get in trouble" stops a large proportion of the problem.
So here, we have a "we may be recording your movements" if you visit the statue of Liberty. That is a restriction on your freedom of movement as you now know that you may be under observation. The fear isn't "they might find out I'm a terrorist", the fear is "I might be mistaken for a terrorist". Those who implicitly trust the technology need to read up on finger-print ID, and those who implicitly trust the goverment should look at watergate, Chile, Nicuagua.. hell.. Halliburton in Iraq.
The only reason that this is as significant as it is because of what is carved into the base of this particular statue.
It scares me that so many people don't see this situation as a sad reflection on where US society is today, in comparison to what it was founded on.
And, we do all remember that this statue was a gift, right? From the French.
Fuck yeah.
You rather take second turn on the insertion tool?
and home of the brave, with a couple of girls' blouses that we don't talk about.
In general, if you treat people like adults, they will act like adults. Its not a huge jump to if you treat people like criminals, they will act like criminals.
Don't you see that have an icon of fredom, the freedom that supposedly the foundation on which the nation is built, under such heavy guard, is an incredibly powerful comment on just how much of the freedom has been lost?
I'm not talking about a couple of loons spray-painting it, I'm talking about decades and decades of bad leadership that has lead to such measures as being necessary and, even sadder, acceptable.
Its time to change the pledge.
"Liberty and Justice for all"
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Ok, just for you...
Liberty: The condition of being free from restriction or control.
When an icon of freedom can't be visited without controls and restriction, what's left?
> This is why Bill is so paranoid.
No, Bill is paranoid because he is a zit-pocked git who was picked on at school. When you are always on the end of the pointy stick, you get jumpy and jittery as a survival trait.
I read that as I get to wash the cat, and I thought "cool, nice to know I'm not the only one who does that when the girlfriend's out of the house".
> But I have a younger sister who can run circles around me.
Stop giving her red gummy bears.
I earn $1,300,000 after tax every month, but I live in chile.
(Thats a bit over US$2k a month in the hand, depending on the exchange rate. It was better when I got here!)
Just be cause we are able to, doesn't mean we will.
I've joined the gym maybe three times in my life, and only once managed to keep going for more than a few months... and the only reason for that was the guy who took the classes was a fucking clown who kept doing monty python impressions.
But... yeah.. treadmills are boring as bat shit.
> If you only live to eat, consider dying of starvation.
The point was the "Mortgage" is used by so many people as their reason (or excuse) why they never do something....
"I'd love to start my own business, but there the mortgage"
"I'd love to travel, but there's the mortgage"
"I hate my job and I'd love to leave, but there's the mortgage".
That, friends, is slavery.
I have no mortgage, I chose not too. I have share investments that subsidise the rent. I can jump jobs and even countries when I feel like it. The amount of money I pay in rent plus what I invest isn't that different from what most people pay in mortgage, and I never had the pain of accumulating that first big deposit. I don't have that much "stuff"... but how much "stuff" do we need?
Sure, in 30 years, those of you who have paid off your house will probably be in a better financial situation than me. But.. fuck. In 30 years I'll be 62. I plan to do some living before then.
I've walked the Inca trail. I've explored 3 continents so far, only 4 to go. I've learns a second language with bits of a third and a fourth. And, man, 95% of the time I'm happy.
> Have you ever told your Boss to Fuck-off when you get angry?
Of course I have. You bow down to your boss? Why? He's probably a manager. He knows how to manage. Doesn't mean he knows the first thing about systems, programming, networks etc etc.
If my boss is wrong, I tell him. If his fuck-up causes me to lose a weekend to the server room, he knows I'm not happy about it. He can sack me if he wants, but I have to say that I don't really care.
ITS A JOB. ITS NOT A LIFE.