"I know it's been argued before, but copying music is not stealing." Yes, and it's a weak argument. In the case the item stolen is not a tangible good. It is a future sale. That's the argument, at least, and in *some* cases it is a legitimate one.
The problem isn't the fact that she illegally downloaded songs. It is the fact that a corporation can effect a court ruling to the tune of 220K for "stealing" songs. A fine is reasonable. What she did was illegal, and not only that, of questionable morals. But! 220K? That's oppressive. I'd be curious to know more details, because that sounds an awful lot like some underhanded work was going on here.
The RIAA has a site where you can pay, with your credit card, settlement fees. So, the RIAA accuses you of illegal file sharing and threatens you with a lawsuit (and thanks to this one, that threat carries more weight). Not wanting to go to court, they can pretty much extort about anything from you they want. In fact, I'd argue that their "settlement" process is little more than extortion. Most people don't have settlement money lying around, and the site accepts credit cards, so what do people do? Get even more in debt to some large corporation. It may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like some collusion is taking place here. The American people are being forced into servitude to the large, rich, and powerful corporations. It's almost like a modern day feudal system. And in this case, why? Over music.
She should have been forced to pay (maybe fourfold?) for the songs she got caught downloading. This 220K figure is ridiculous. She is taking the fall for other people who downloaded the song for her since they cannot catch her. That's not fair. Yes, life's not fair but the law *should* be. That's the whole point of law.
I think I know why you're so bitter. You have singlehandedly taken the task of defending the purity of the/. moderation system AND that of defending MSFT here on Slashdot. It's hard being the defender of the indefensible, isn't it?
You are one of those people who constantly root for the underdog while claiming the moral higher ground. You are one of those annoying retards who likes something when others bash it. All I did was express an opinion about a product which is evidently near and dear to you (did you help develop it, spanky?) You reply with flaming venom and sarcasm. Now, I don't care if you disagree. But when you try to ridicule me, you cross a line. I am stupid why, because my opinion differs from yours? Grow up. Learn stuff.
You hate BS? You only think you can smell it a mile away. But there's a reason the scent follows you around. Hide that, retard.
"I understand spending substantially more for a tiny improvement if you're talking about a hobby. Are the $3000 guitars $2900 better than the one i can buy in target? Doubful. But for a hobbiest RIO is skewed in the extreme."
Eh. Change the analogy up a bit. A guitar is like a stereo receiver and the strings are like the cables. If an audiophile told me that a $5000 receiver is better than a $1000 one, I'd wholeheartedly believe him. I could imagine all of the quality components therein. If a guitar player told me that his $300 strings were better than my $6 ones, I'd laugh at him; they're flippin' strings! $30 strings, maybe. $30 monster cable, maybe. Cables, like strings, are relatively simple. The thing that makes audiophiles so foolish in my eyes is not that they spend $10000 on a system, it's that they buy $5000 cables and $500 wooden knobs (purportedly, I mean people sell them right?)
I think your reasoning is sound, though. A hobbyist can justify a $3000 guitar or a $5000 length of speaker cable, where the uninitiated might find that foolish. I am a guitar player and I can assure you, if I had the disposable income, I'd own SEVERAL $3000 guitars and amps.
Totally. I use 16 gauge lamp cord for my stereo. Works just fine. 16 gauge monster cable might sound a *little* better, but the ROI just isn't there. If you want better sound, get a heavier gauge wire (and you probably don't need bigger than 16 anyhow). This shielded, hand wound, virgin copper, gold plated pear cable crap is nonsense.
This whole thread just got started because I replied to some guy who mocked tubes. The whole point was to show an application where tubes make a difference. I know he was joking, but don't count tubes out!
And yes, you are spot on, the amp IS part of the instrument.
I have heard/played several of the amp emulators, line 6 etc. They don't quite get it. They get close, sure, but like so many other things the devil is in the details. A $1000 line 6 amp is NOT going to sound like a Fender blackface. It just isn't. Obviously, that doesn't mean it isn't feasible, as you have already said. It's just that none of the modern emulator amps that I have ever heard quite replicate the right sound. I am sure that some amp maker out there could come up with some type of halo project and create an amp with DSP that sounds spot on. But then again, for what that would cost, why not just buy the real thing?
Tube amps are "living" things. Even how you route the wires can make a difference in how it sounds, especially in the older point to point wired amps. The tubes, the types of components you use (think of all the different types of capacitors you can get...carbon filament, silicon, paper, etc), everything, makes a difference. Amps fascinate me. I'd love to take my knowledge of electronics and love of guitars and make amps someday. They are, more than anything else I can think of, more than the sum of their parts.
An amp that *doesn't* clip? So, what, do you play through a HiWatt or something? A keyboard amp? A bass amp? One of those crazy Roland amps that I see a few jazz guys using (the ones who for some reason don't have a polytone)?
You think a stompbox sounds better than natural tube saturation? For real? Usually, stompboxes try to mimic the real thing. What you describe be some kind of device. And where can I get said stompbox?
Glad to know I am not the only illiterate dyslexic around here.:)
"funnier than throwing a corpse" That is funny! My sigs are inspired by the titles on red meat comics (redmeat.com). "funnier than throwing a corpse" could be a slug line too.
yeah, add that to the list...I guess you got me there.:)
What songs require a switch between standard and dropped D? Why couldn't you just play the whole song in dropped D? Got an open G chord or something? Slash chords that get weird in dropped D? Just curious.
As a side note, I used to play in dropped D a lot (so I could play Helmet songs, what else!?), and I got to where I just knew how far to turn the peg to get me there. I'd even tune a little low and tune it back up (since tuning up rather than down seems to lock the pitch in better). That fifth interval is pretty to easy to hear, and also easy to hear when you get it wrong. Unless you like your power chords sounding like tritones. I have to admit you got me on the list of reasons you'd need to tune your guitar midsong, but I still think this auto-tuning guitar is just a gimmick. Then again I also don't use many effects. I just like it stripped down and simple I guess.
I find this whole audiophile thing to be absurd, but tubes are the real deal. Maybe not for stereo systems, but for guitar amps there is a noticeable different between those that are tube and transistor based. Tubes saturate differently than transistors. In many applications this is undesirable, but in the case of a guitar amp you will usually want some saturation. Tubes and transistors produce demonstrably different waveforms. Audiophile products (like the wooden knobs referenced earlier) often rely upon pseuso-scientific claims that are not demonstrable.
Transistors do sound more harsh. That's why a lot of heavy metal guys prefer transistor amps (Dimebag Darrell really was the first guy I can think of who was vocal in his preference of tranny amps because of the harsh sound). I'd bet that most people could tell the difference between a transistor amp and a tube amp. It's subtle, but it's there. It's like the dynamic range compression that you find on newer recordings. You may not actively *notice* it, but the sound tends to fatigue your ear. There was a nice article on that here on/. a few weeks ago.
Right on, I was thinking the same thing. The cable's product page has a snippet from Dave Clark: "Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace--these cables smack that right on the nose big time."
Jeez. So, the swing and beat isn't in the music? It's in THE CABLES! Too bad the people who go see live shows can't enjoy the music and dance to it! What they need are cables!
If your guitar goes out of tune in the middle of a song, you need to 1) fix your guitar, 2) stop beating the crap out of your guitar when you play, or 3) get new strings
I dunno, I think if you can't tune your guitar with a 440hz tone, then you need to work on your ears. Since Gibson == expensive, this is not geared to n00b players. What kind of advanced player cannot tune by ear?
I'll reply to you since you appear to be the best reply of the bunch. What a parade of pedantic buffoons! My goodness.
Agreed, inferior is a slippery word. I have said in the past that the Zune might be a decent device, if it weren't for the fact that it's totally crippled. WiFi? Cool, except you can't do much with it (although syncing with it will be nice). Arguably a nicer screen? Sure. FM support? I don't really care, but I can see where that'd be useful for some. I do not have a Zune, though I know a few people with Zunes and have played around with them. Apple has them beat in terms of simplicity and usability. Features are neat, but mainly I listen to music on my iPod. Let me listen to my music and don't bother me with a learning curve. Don't bother me with software incompatibilities. Let me throw my music on my iPod and get from in front of my computer. I don't have an iPod because I just love gimmicky devices -- I have an iPod because I like to listen to music and books. My iPod is an easy, low maintenance, and convenient way of facilitating that. Everything else, to me, is clutter.
I used the word hate simply in reply to the OP (maybe I bit at a troll...I dunno). I suppose another word or phrase would have been more apropos. Whatever. I don't have the mental energy to hate the Zune. Maybe re-using the word hate made me look absurd or crazy. I say the people who cannot see past a single (mis|re)used word to get the sense of a post are absurd, and by that definition I got about five absurd replies. So what.
I don't know about the bit about MSFT hitting a homerun, though. The Zune, like all of the other devices, seems to be just another boring also-ran. But, on the off chance that they *do* come with something better...when it comes time to replace my iPod, it'll get a serious look. I am a consumer, and want the thing that meets my needs the best for the least amount of money. I don't care who provides that. Brand loyalty is misplaced loyalty.
The only reason I am replying to this post is that it made me laugh. That has to count for something, even if you said I was backpedaling. As if!
I feel about the same way about the Zune as I do when I see a colossal trainwreck of a web site (since I am a web developer). No, there is no personal vendetta, it just irritates that someone could be *that* inattentive to details...well, no, details is the wrong word here. I should say inattentive to things that *aren't* minor details, like, oh, backwards compatibility with your other products. The way I see it, that's attributable to three factors in varying measure: 1) arrogance, 2) incompetence, and 3) apathy.
Re:Refresh my memory...
on
ZOMG New Zunes
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"Do we hate this irrationally still?"
No. It is hated because it's an inferior product. Maybe it has nice capabilities, but these are then crippled by obsession over "content protection". The Zune is made to placate the RIAA, from it's DRM laden squirt "feature" to the pirate protection cost built into the price. It totally ignores even MSFT initiatives like playsForSure, which is just sloppy in my opinion. In fact, that's why I hate it the most. Not because of the DRM (because I don't care about that since I won't buy one) but because of the sloppy you'll-take-what-we-give you attitude from MSFT. They didn't even have the foresight to make it play well with their own stuff.
So, to sum up: hated, yes. Irrationally, no. There is no newsletter to read here, just read about the product.
In my experience, Sharepoint is useful for one thing: generating pages of links to other pages of links to other pages of links wherein there are word documents with links to other pages of links which, *maybe*, have some real search results, though never the ones you really needed or were searching for. Sharepoint does that *really* well.
I am sure some of the fault lies with the people implementing Sharepoint sites. But if Sharepoint site after Sharepoint site sucks and is generally worthless, you have to begin suspecting the technology. It's like so much other stuff coming out of Redmond these days: probably a decent idea in its own right, but not well thought out. And that means it fails miserably in sub-optimal real world conditions.
Is it a coincidence, or did/. once order discussions by user ID? On that story you linked to, the comments appear to be ordered that way, low IDs first (with AC leading, which is also interesting since Taco just posted that AC = 666)
Before you mod a post as flamebait for having an obscene sounding word like Muttersprachler, take three seconds and use Google translate. He just used German to indicate that the person with the grammatical error seemed to be a native German speaker. Whomever modded that post as flamebait was a Wienersnitzel.
"It's sad, what it says about people, that 'ratio enforcement' is even necessary, out there in Torrent-Land." Ooooo, what a shocker. For all of the talk about "freedom of information" and the "evil media companies"*, what it comes down to is many people just want something for nothing. And if you're willing to take something for nothing (like music), why not also take more than your fair share of something else without contributing back? It just seems like a logical conclusion.
* they are evil, and I am not disputing that plain fact. The mafiaa has essentially killed music, but that's just OT for this thread.
I use public transport to get to and from work. I know that doesn't work well everywhere. And having one car does require sacrifices, like coordinating weekend schedules. But not having to pay extra insurance, taxes, car payments, having to do maintenance on another car, etc, makes up for it. I will have two cars someday, I am sure of it. I just so happen to live near the bus line that takes me to work. If that changes, then I'll most likely buy an old (mid 90's) Honda or Toyota.
Slashdot Mirror
"I know it's been argued before, but copying music is not stealing."
Yes, and it's a weak argument. In the case the item stolen is not a tangible good. It is a future sale. That's the argument, at least, and in *some* cases it is a legitimate one.
The problem isn't the fact that she illegally downloaded songs. It is the fact that a corporation can effect a court ruling to the tune of 220K for "stealing" songs. A fine is reasonable. What she did was illegal, and not only that, of questionable morals. But! 220K? That's oppressive. I'd be curious to know more details, because that sounds an awful lot like some underhanded work was going on here.
The RIAA has a site where you can pay, with your credit card, settlement fees. So, the RIAA accuses you of illegal file sharing and threatens you with a lawsuit (and thanks to this one, that threat carries more weight). Not wanting to go to court, they can pretty much extort about anything from you they want. In fact, I'd argue that their "settlement" process is little more than extortion. Most people don't have settlement money lying around, and the site accepts credit cards, so what do people do? Get even more in debt to some large corporation. It may make me sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it seems like some collusion is taking place here. The American people are being forced into servitude to the large, rich, and powerful corporations. It's almost like a modern day feudal system. And in this case, why? Over music.
She should have been forced to pay (maybe fourfold?) for the songs she got caught downloading. This 220K figure is ridiculous. She is taking the fall for other people who downloaded the song for her since they cannot catch her. That's not fair. Yes, life's not fair but the law *should* be. That's the whole point of law.
Ok, skippy, I'll grace you with a reply.
/. moderation system AND that of defending MSFT here on Slashdot. It's hard being the defender of the indefensible, isn't it?
I think I know why you're so bitter. You have singlehandedly taken the task of defending the purity of the
You are one of those people who constantly root for the underdog while claiming the moral higher ground. You are one of those annoying retards who likes something when others bash it. All I did was express an opinion about a product which is evidently near and dear to you (did you help develop it, spanky?) You reply with flaming venom and sarcasm. Now, I don't care if you disagree. But when you try to ridicule me, you cross a line. I am stupid why, because my opinion differs from yours? Grow up. Learn stuff.
You hate BS? You only think you can smell it a mile away. But there's a reason the scent follows you around. Hide that, retard.
Exactly. And that's what you want. That's the whole point of using tubes: the way they saturate.
"I understand spending substantially more for a tiny improvement if you're talking about a hobby. Are the $3000 guitars $2900 better than the one i can buy in target? Doubful. But for a hobbiest RIO is skewed in the extreme."
Eh. Change the analogy up a bit. A guitar is like a stereo receiver and the strings are like the cables. If an audiophile told me that a $5000 receiver is better than a $1000 one, I'd wholeheartedly believe him. I could imagine all of the quality components therein. If a guitar player told me that his $300 strings were better than my $6 ones, I'd laugh at him; they're flippin' strings! $30 strings, maybe. $30 monster cable, maybe. Cables, like strings, are relatively simple. The thing that makes audiophiles so foolish in my eyes is not that they spend $10000 on a system, it's that they buy $5000 cables and $500 wooden knobs (purportedly, I mean people sell them right?)
I think your reasoning is sound, though. A hobbyist can justify a $3000 guitar or a $5000 length of speaker cable, where the uninitiated might find that foolish. I am a guitar player and I can assure you, if I had the disposable income, I'd own SEVERAL $3000 guitars and amps.
Totally. I use 16 gauge lamp cord for my stereo. Works just fine. 16 gauge monster cable might sound a *little* better, but the ROI just isn't there. If you want better sound, get a heavier gauge wire (and you probably don't need bigger than 16 anyhow). This shielded, hand wound, virgin copper, gold plated pear cable crap is nonsense.
This whole thread just got started because I replied to some guy who mocked tubes. The whole point was to show an application where tubes make a difference. I know he was joking, but don't count tubes out!
And yes, you are spot on, the amp IS part of the instrument.
I have heard/played several of the amp emulators, line 6 etc. They don't quite get it. They get close, sure, but like so many other things the devil is in the details. A $1000 line 6 amp is NOT going to sound like a Fender blackface. It just isn't. Obviously, that doesn't mean it isn't feasible, as you have already said. It's just that none of the modern emulator amps that I have ever heard quite replicate the right sound. I am sure that some amp maker out there could come up with some type of halo project and create an amp with DSP that sounds spot on. But then again, for what that would cost, why not just buy the real thing?
Tube amps are "living" things. Even how you route the wires can make a difference in how it sounds, especially in the older point to point wired amps. The tubes, the types of components you use (think of all the different types of capacitors you can get...carbon filament, silicon, paper, etc), everything, makes a difference. Amps fascinate me. I'd love to take my knowledge of electronics and love of guitars and make amps someday. They are, more than anything else I can think of, more than the sum of their parts.
An amp that *doesn't* clip? So, what, do you play through a HiWatt or something? A keyboard amp? A bass amp? One of those crazy Roland amps that I see a few jazz guys using (the ones who for some reason don't have a polytone)?
You think a stompbox sounds better than natural tube saturation? For real? Usually, stompboxes try to mimic the real thing. What you describe be some kind of device. And where can I get said stompbox?
Glad to know I am not the only illiterate dyslexic around here. :)
"funnier than throwing a corpse"
That is funny! My sigs are inspired by the titles on red meat comics (redmeat.com). "funnier than throwing a corpse" could be a slug line too.
yeah, add that to the list...I guess you got me there. :)
What songs require a switch between standard and dropped D? Why couldn't you just play the whole song in dropped D? Got an open G chord or something? Slash chords that get weird in dropped D? Just curious.
As a side note, I used to play in dropped D a lot (so I could play Helmet songs, what else!?), and I got to where I just knew how far to turn the peg to get me there. I'd even tune a little low and tune it back up (since tuning up rather than down seems to lock the pitch in better). That fifth interval is pretty to easy to hear, and also easy to hear when you get it wrong. Unless you like your power chords sounding like tritones. I have to admit you got me on the list of reasons you'd need to tune your guitar midsong, but I still think this auto-tuning guitar is just a gimmick. Then again I also don't use many effects. I just like it stripped down and simple I guess.
I find this whole audiophile thing to be absurd, but tubes are the real deal. Maybe not for stereo systems, but for guitar amps there is a noticeable different between those that are tube and transistor based. Tubes saturate differently than transistors. In many applications this is undesirable, but in the case of a guitar amp you will usually want some saturation. Tubes and transistors produce demonstrably different waveforms. Audiophile products (like the wooden knobs referenced earlier) often rely upon pseuso-scientific claims that are not demonstrable.
/. a few weeks ago.
Transistors do sound more harsh. That's why a lot of heavy metal guys prefer transistor amps (Dimebag Darrell really was the first guy I can think of who was vocal in his preference of tranny amps because of the harsh sound). I'd bet that most people could tell the difference between a transistor amp and a tube amp. It's subtle, but it's there. It's like the dynamic range compression that you find on newer recordings. You may not actively *notice* it, but the sound tends to fatigue your ear. There was a nice article on that here on
Right on, I was thinking the same thing. The cable's product page has a snippet from Dave Clark:
"Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move. Great swing and pace--these cables smack that right on the nose big time."
Jeez. So, the swing and beat isn't in the music? It's in THE CABLES! Too bad the people who go see live shows can't enjoy the music and dance to it! What they need are cables!
If your guitar goes out of tune in the middle of a song, you need to 1) fix your guitar, 2) stop beating the crap out of your guitar when you play, or 3) get new strings
Ok, let me restate that. n00b players *shouldn't* spend that much on a guitar.
Or, better yet, do. Then I'll buy it from you at a cut rate when you give up because learning guitar (or music in general) takes a real commitment.
It's just a fancy robo-roadie
I dunno, I think if you can't tune your guitar with a 440hz tone, then you need to work on your ears. Since Gibson == expensive, this is not geared to n00b players. What kind of advanced player cannot tune by ear?
I'll reply to you since you appear to be the best reply of the bunch. What a parade of pedantic buffoons! My goodness.
Agreed, inferior is a slippery word. I have said in the past that the Zune might be a decent device, if it weren't for the fact that it's totally crippled. WiFi? Cool, except you can't do much with it (although syncing with it will be nice). Arguably a nicer screen? Sure. FM support? I don't really care, but I can see where that'd be useful for some. I do not have a Zune, though I know a few people with Zunes and have played around with them. Apple has them beat in terms of simplicity and usability. Features are neat, but mainly I listen to music on my iPod. Let me listen to my music and don't bother me with a learning curve. Don't bother me with software incompatibilities. Let me throw my music on my iPod and get from in front of my computer. I don't have an iPod because I just love gimmicky devices -- I have an iPod because I like to listen to music and books. My iPod is an easy, low maintenance, and convenient way of facilitating that. Everything else, to me, is clutter.
I used the word hate simply in reply to the OP (maybe I bit at a troll...I dunno). I suppose another word or phrase would have been more apropos. Whatever. I don't have the mental energy to hate the Zune. Maybe re-using the word hate made me look absurd or crazy. I say the people who cannot see past a single (mis|re)used word to get the sense of a post are absurd, and by that definition I got about five absurd replies. So what.
I don't know about the bit about MSFT hitting a homerun, though. The Zune, like all of the other devices, seems to be just another boring also-ran. But, on the off chance that they *do* come with something better...when it comes time to replace my iPod, it'll get a serious look. I am a consumer, and want the thing that meets my needs the best for the least amount of money. I don't care who provides that. Brand loyalty is misplaced loyalty.
*sigh*
The only reason I am replying to this post is that it made me laugh. That has to count for something, even if you said I was backpedaling. As if!
I feel about the same way about the Zune as I do when I see a colossal trainwreck of a web site (since I am a web developer). No, there is no personal vendetta, it just irritates that someone could be *that* inattentive to details...well, no, details is the wrong word here. I should say inattentive to things that *aren't* minor details, like, oh, backwards compatibility with your other products. The way I see it, that's attributable to three factors in varying measure: 1) arrogance, 2) incompetence, and 3) apathy.
"Do we hate this irrationally still?"
No. It is hated because it's an inferior product. Maybe it has nice capabilities, but these are then crippled by obsession over "content protection". The Zune is made to placate the RIAA, from it's DRM laden squirt "feature" to the pirate protection cost built into the price. It totally ignores even MSFT initiatives like playsForSure, which is just sloppy in my opinion. In fact, that's why I hate it the most. Not because of the DRM (because I don't care about that since I won't buy one) but because of the sloppy you'll-take-what-we-give you attitude from MSFT. They didn't even have the foresight to make it play well with their own stuff.
So, to sum up: hated, yes. Irrationally, no. There is no newsletter to read here, just read about the product.
In my experience, Sharepoint is useful for one thing: generating pages of links to other pages of links to other pages of links wherein there are word documents with links to other pages of links which, *maybe*, have some real search results, though never the ones you really needed or were searching for. Sharepoint does that *really* well.
I am sure some of the fault lies with the people implementing Sharepoint sites. But if Sharepoint site after Sharepoint site sucks and is generally worthless, you have to begin suspecting the technology. It's like so much other stuff coming out of Redmond these days: probably a decent idea in its own right, but not well thought out. And that means it fails miserably in sub-optimal real world conditions.
Very interesting.
I guess AC doesn't want any friends. I never liked that guy much anyhow!
Holy crap, I just learned something new!
/. once order discussions by user ID? On that story you linked to, the comments appear to be ordered that way, low IDs first (with AC leading, which is also interesting since Taco just posted that AC = 666)
Is it a coincidence, or did
Before you mod a post as flamebait for having an obscene sounding word like Muttersprachler, take three seconds and use Google translate. He just used German to indicate that the person with the grammatical error seemed to be a native German speaker. Whomever modded that post as flamebait was a Wienersnitzel.
It's not important yet...kind of like airport security before 911.
After China pwns all of the DoD's sensitive data, you can bet they'll pump all kinds of money at it.
"One of the most tediously boring things I've ever had to do was to write Java GUI code."
Well, I guess that explains why *using* java GUI applications is one of the most tediously boring tasks one can ever perform.
"It's sad, what it says about people, that 'ratio enforcement' is even necessary, out there in Torrent-Land."
Ooooo, what a shocker. For all of the talk about "freedom of information" and the "evil media companies"*, what it comes down to is many people just want something for nothing. And if you're willing to take something for nothing (like music), why not also take more than your fair share of something else without contributing back? It just seems like a logical conclusion.
* they are evil, and I am not disputing that plain fact. The mafiaa has essentially killed music, but that's just OT for this thread.
I use public transport to get to and from work. I know that doesn't work well everywhere. And having one car does require sacrifices, like coordinating weekend schedules. But not having to pay extra insurance, taxes, car payments, having to do maintenance on another car, etc, makes up for it. I will have two cars someday, I am sure of it. I just so happen to live near the bus line that takes me to work. If that changes, then I'll most likely buy an old (mid 90's) Honda or Toyota.