Microsoft's system updates tend to be unobtrusive, at least until a restart is required. Even then, however, the entire update can be downloaded in the background and I can save the restart for later. Their updates for Office, however, are exceedingly obnoxious. I'll open an application, getting ready to do some work, and I'm greeted to an update prompt.
Updates in OSX are as frequent as those for Windows, expect that by default the system checks for them on a weekly basis. What's really annoying is how system updates seem to always require immediate restarts.
iWork and iLife seem to have far more frequent updates than Microsoft's apps. But the absolute worst are Quicktime and iTunes, there seem to be updates almost every time I open those apps.
Adobe is annoying with updates as well, especially considering they never address outstanding issues. Acrobat is the worst of all, particularly since the updates come frequently.
Firefox has gotten pretty bad over the past couple of years. Start it up and oops! I have to wait for an update.
So what's my point? They all do it. Hell, even games and consoles feature regular updates nowadays. The difference is they force you to do them. I guess this is simply the nature of computing today.
There are still many characters used in Japanese that are interchangeable with Chinese. However, because of the extensive use of hiragana and katakana the number of traditional characters Japanese can recognize is far smaller than what Chinese can identify, so Japanese may struggle a bit more. Certainly some meanings have changed but there are still many shared characters. It's not foolproof but a Chinese speaker can manage quite well using only writing, and I've seen quite a few examples of this firsthand. Korean is another story given how different their writing system is.
This attitude that you shouldn't "pander" to people is exactly the problem with open source. Too many people have this self-centered attitude that everyone should be doing things their way. Unfortunately that's now how the world works.
Without question, not everyone's opinion is equally valid. Some people provide more insight than others. But regardless, if you want wide adoption you need to provide an experience as many people as possible will feel comfortable with. That sometimes means compromises and that means listening to what people are saying.
You don't need millions of dollars to do things right. A lot of it is common sense and experience. And helping things further are the numerous studies and all the heavy-lifting Microsoft and Apple have done.
Presumably, the open-source community is pretty large. You mean someone couldn't start a simple research project looking into how people interact with existing operating systems and figure out what works and what doesn't? There are already plenty of people out there making comments about the interface. I was able to make to my comments based on 15 minutes of reviewing two screenshots.
The problem here isn't a lack of money. The problem was a lack of planning, review, implementation and experience.
These open source designs always scream open source. They just lack the polish and careful thought that you get with Windows or OSX. Far too often the designer resorts to being different for the sake of being different. Having done interface design for years now there are a few things that come to mind off the top of my head I'd work on.
A few critiques: Overall the design looks a bit dated. I'm not suggesting they should have done something obnoxious, but it feels like insufficient effort was put into this.
Icons are flat, like they tried going for a dimensional look but either lacked the talent or the inclination to go all the way.
Font selection is clumsy. The font itself is quite good, but it's a bit on the large size given the scale, but more importantly everything is crammed together.
Icons and buttons almost look randomly placed. Why is zoom sitting between some icons and view selection. Is view selection even so important that it needs to be featured prominently? The folder buttons are too pronounced in relation to everything else and there's insufficient visual separation between that and the places dropdown.
There's insufficiently visual separation between windows in the foreground and background, although honestly I think OSX has this problem too. It gets problematic trying to pick something out when multiple windows are open. There's no sense of prioritization to anything so everything blurs together at a glance.
Those windows are poorly balanced. Why is everything left aligned, leaving most of the title banner empty?
This really looks like the rough draft of a GUI. If you want to sell an OS to the average user you've really got to make it approachable. That means making it visually appealing and polished. This is one of those things that doesn't seem important when done right, but people always notice it when something is missing. Also important is giving real consideration to the user experience. These designs look to me like someone simply copied Windows and added in a bunch of elements from OSX. Certainly there's a sense of familiarity users have with Windows, but why not study both OSX and Windows and try to get a sense for what works and what doesn't then build your GUI around that? And based on some comments I've seen it seems elements of the design even break Fitt's laws.
Having used the previous version of Ubuntu I wouldn't really say this is an improvement at all.
It would be great if this came to pass, but it wont. First, you're going to have a hard time getting China to do anything particularly when the people themselves believe that censorship is sometimes necessary. But more importantly, most companies couldn't care less. What they want is cheap manufacturing and some level of experience. China provides both while other developing nations can't yet meet these needs.
And China is a great target for passing the buck. Anything goes wrong with your product blame the Chinese manufacturers. When some of Mattel's toys were found to have a variety of problems what did they do? Blame China. Everyone completely overlooked the fact that Mattel should be directly involved in overseeing the manufacturing of their own products. But why should they care? The whole point of going to China to begin with was to cut costs.
If most companies don't care about the kind the quality of the stuff they sell us why the hell would they care about what China does on its own soil? And currently China is in a situation where it can throw its weight around. Perhaps when India and Southeast Asia are much stronger competitors to China things will change because at that point it will become more apparent that the world doesn't really need China. But of course, that really isn't going to help the case for China easing up on its own people.
And like I've stated, most Chinese don't think there's a problem at all. Frankly, there are far greater atrocities taking place around the world that Google should be speaking up about.
Apple is in a particularly unique situation that they have a base of rabidly loyal consumers. Having worked in the design industry for years I constantly deal with this sort of thing and I have a hard time thinking of an instance when any of these people were openly critical towards Apple. Go online and any time someone is critical others are quick to pounce on them. So basically, what Apple has is a legion of evangelists. Inevitably all this positive will towards Apple filters down to your average consumer who picks up on it.
Another amazing quality Apple possesses is their ability to make even bad ideas palatable. The combination of good aesthetics and great integration just make their products appealing. Apple obviously puts a lot of thought into every product they decide to develop. They don't innovate so much as excel at implementation. They don't rush to implement new technologies and instead wait until it's mature enough they can do what they want with it; the touch screen being a good example of this. Even their designs haven't changed much in nearly 10 years; they've done little more than go back and forth between the metal and white or black plastic shells.
In addition to simply sticking to what works they've created a strong visual identity for themselves that reflects their approach to the technology. They take a more evolutionary approach. Other companies would be obsessed with reinventing their products every couple of years instead. They're always trying to spark some kind of revolution with some kind of killer product they hope will carry the rest of the brand but which never works out in the long run. And others aren't as willing to commit to a potentially good idea if it doesn't pay off in the short term.
Then they have their marketing which really just capitalizes on all these attributes and throws in subtle hyperbole for good measure.
Their products aren't the best on the market for overall use, but no one has yet been able to compete with them on integration and design. You could call it magic simply because few others are willing or capable of doing the same.
With such a long, rich history I'm almost surprised they'd be concerned about this. Then again, I suppose the British Library understands, better than most, the value of archiving content. That said, I'm fairly certain most things of value have been stored away somewhere. But without a doubt there's a point at which we need to cull what has little value, which in all honest, is most of what is found on the internet.
I'm reminded of these preservation societies which seem to be especially prevalent here in the northeast US which go out of their way to get every last minor structure designated as a historical landmark, often to the detriment of beneficial development projects. A couple of years ago this whole area of a city in my area was cleared out, except for this single multi-family home. I'd drive by on the highway and see this huge open field in the middle of which sat this lone dilapidated house. It turns out that some early baseball player was either born there or had grown up there for a few years and one of these groups all of a sudden got it in their heads that they needed to protect the house and force the city to restore it. No one had given a crap about it for all the years it sat there or had suggested doing anything with it until the time had come to tear it down. The fight to protect it dragged on for at least a year. All this effort to preserve an insignificant historical footnote. They finally lost, but by then it was a moot point as the city was facing so many other issues that this redevelopment project hasn't yet gone through.
Most of the internet isn't worth preserving and what has been preserved, in all kinds of media, should paint a very clear picture of the content of the internet over the years. And often what is considered historical significant is different looking back compared to people living through that time. This is especially true with pop culture. Every little thing is the most important thing in the universe until it's forgotten two weeks later.
I've been using MagicJack for over a year now. Who can argue with $20 a year? The primary reason I got the service was for international calls. Local calling is handled almost exclusively with mobile phones. Initially I did have landline with AT&T and ran into issues with voice quality. So considering what I was paying I dropped them and at the strong recommendation of my father got MagicJack. In general it works, but for a long time there were issues with call quality and the occasional dropped calls. Skype wasn't even an option because while it was good for Europe it was absolutely awful for calling to Asia.
MagicJack has dramatically improved over the past 6-8 months to the point where call quality is no longer an issue. On the other hand, the software for the device tends to be buggy and it can be a pretty big source of frustration. The device stops working if the computer goes into sleep mode and is reactivated. Roughly every few weeks it just stops working and has to be restarted, sometimes requiring multiple attempts to get going. And recently it seemed to crap out in the middle of some supposed update, but after some tinkering it was working fine again. I've never even dared trying customer service because it's supposed to be complete garbage and virtually non-existent.
Despite the cost savings I planning on switching to something else. Skype's quality has improved and we used it for video chat, but I'm considering Ooma which, from what I've heard, is supposed to be quite good and fairly reliable. MagicJack is a good idea which has been poorly implemented and there certainly is value in spending a little more for quality.
That may be true for you. But everyone I know who owns a smartphone, this includes, Blackberries, iPhones and Android phones use it primarily for one thing: making calls and sending text messages. The exception is in the corporate environment where people also use their phones for email and the calendar. With Blackberries in particular I've never seen them do anything else with the phone. Almost everyone else I know tinkers with some other features for a few weeks and then the phone is back to being used for it's original purpose. Only one friend of mine, who's background is in IT, and who was unemployed for over 8 months tinkered with his smartphone constantly.
The vast majority of people buying smartphones are over-buying. The occasional convenience of being able to browse the web doesn't make up for how much more the phone and the service plans cost. I've toyed with the idea of getting a smartphone from time to time and have ultimately concluded that I'll spend all this extra money and end up with something overpowered for its core function, which is making calls. If my company expects me to own such a phone for work-related matters then I expect them to pay for the service.
The catch is that the Droid and G1 weren't even released a year apart. DirectX8 was released almost 10 years before DirectX11..NET3 was released roughly 6 years after Windows 2000.
That's a huge difference, especially considering how much computers have improved in the intervening years. And DirectX8 is quite outdated but nearly every PC game on the market still supports DX9, which was released in 2002.
The fact that there are compatibility issues already with Android is very concerning. What they should be doing is establishing a baseline for compatibility. But then again, phone companies and carriers love consumers replacing their phones on a regular basis, so there's little incentive to promote compatibility.
Well, I think the core issue here about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is whether or not humans can actually do anything to stop it. We're looking at proposals which could dramatically disrupt people's way of life and there's no evidence any of it will be effective. Further aggravating the issue is the fact that climate has always been changing and there's countless evidence to support this.
A couple of years ago I read about archeological finds on the Japanese islands from a time when the climate was much warmer and the seas were much higher. I recall reading 8ft higher, but don't quote me on that. The human population there thrived during this period and dwindled when the climate cooled. So that brings up another matter, why is global warming inherently bad? I might be a great thing for a huge portion of humanity although certainly it will likely be a very bad thing for some parts of the world. The real issue is that we've got more people living in more places around the world meaning that the consequences of climate change may be much more profound.
But again, I return to the original question, if the climate has always been changing is there anything we can realistically do to stop this? And if we can make that kind of impact, what about unintended consequences? Certainly we should move away from fossil fuels and do all we can to stop pollution. But these actions have more immediate and quantifiable benefits to humanity. While everyone's concerned about greenhouse gas emissions in China and India everyone is overlooking the more serious acts of pollution.
Recently in China there was a case of extensive lead poisoning in a town near a lead smelter. When people began falling ill the government initially dismissed it as an example of mass hysteria. Ultimately, what was the China's answer? Move the town and keep the factory open. Instead people are stupidly concerned with more abstract threats.
I wont be surprised in the least if we spend untold trillions trying to fight climate change and the climate changes in a way we don't want regardless. So I'd argue money should be going towards ensuring survivability and being able to copy with mass migrations if things go wrong. Perhaps it's time to start considering how to move or outright abandon cities sitting to close to coastlines at risk. It's safe to say climate change is going to happen whether we like it or not.
Go to eHealthInsurance.com. Although my company covers most of my insurance costs they cover only very little for family members. While the plan is generally pretty good it's also expensive. Not wanting to deal with high monthly costs I went to that site and compared plans, finding one that was rated well but priced at a monthly rate I could manage.
I shouldn't get into this because inevitably I'll get modded into oblivion for not following the crowd. Inevitably once we get to talking about healthcare someone has to start claiming that the American healthcare system is crap compared to the rest of the world. They'll bring up the famed infant mortality rate although it's well known that the US counts infant mortality differently than Europe resulting in higher numbers. The death rate in the US is pretty good, better than some European nations and worse than others. But there are a lot of factors that play into death rates. Cancer survivorship in the US is among the highest in the world; I have the benefit of working with a cancer survivorship charity from time to time and am privy to a lot of insightful stats. Then there's the staggering amount of medical research constantly being done in the states.
But I don't need to bring up stats, because being European most of my family lives in Europe. So I know how the average person lives there. First off, whenever we get to talking about politics and social issues the complaints are virtually identical to what we hear in the US. Extremely high taxes, benefits being cut, immigration problems, corruption, the list goes on. The issues with healthcare vary from country to country, but waiting lists are pretty much a universal issue. I have an uncle who was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year. Had he gone through the system he would have had to wait 6 months for surgery. His doctor strongly recommended he pay out of pocket and get the surgery done immediately. This is something that actually happens on a fairly regular basis. Then there's the issue of governments cutting benefits because they just don't have the money to sustain them. I have an uncle who has needed on-going treatment which has been cut by the government forcing him to get private health insurance to augment the government's plan. I have tons of examples, I could go all day listing issues they've encountered. And the thing is, sure they've got socialized health insurance, but most good there are also twice as expensive as they are here. Every time they visit the states it's like a spending spree buying what they can because it's so much cheaper here.
That said, the US healthcare has a fundamental issue. It's too damn expensive. There's a very real danger of a person going broke just paying for medical treatment. And insurance companies absolutely are screwing us badly. Something needs to be done and honestly I don't know what it is. How do you cut costs across the board, I mean everything related to the healthcare industry is expensive. How do we force down costs without bringing about rationing. I mean, it even touches on matters like education. I think there's something seriously out of whack with the pricing of services in the US. When it costs $100+ an hour to have your car worked on by some inept mechanic it's not surprising that someone like a doctor is charging far, far more for his work. It's pretty hard to start haggling on price when you're laid out on a stretcher and are more concerned with your affliction being dealt with.
My big concern is that it seems like politicians are more concerned with making favors to special interests and forcing their will on us than they are with actually fixing the system. But from everything I've seen around the world I'm not really convinced that just going with a socialized system is going to do the job or even make things better.
I'd really like to know where this myth comes from. The median household income of most EU nations is lower than the US. And Europeans have the added hit of extremely high taxes, the VAT, income taxes, etc. although Americans seem to generally be hit harder with property taxes. But the fact remains that Americans have far more disposable income than people of most nations. Of course this results in Americans not spending their money as wisely.
Most people seem to believe that because content is available in electronic form that it's somehow significantly cheaper to produce than in print. Having had some experience with the printing industry I can assure you that printing costs are relatively small compared to the overall cost of producing a newspaper or magazine. And in the case on NY Times or WSJ printing costs must be even cheaper given the relationship they've obviously established with their printers, assuming it isn't done in-house. Also keep in mind that some of the expense that may be spared by not printing physical copies inevitably goes to hosting and site maintenance.
And most publications live on advertising, almost more so than actual sales. Another department at my company does a lot of publication work and their clients have cut pages if they don't have a sufficient density of advertising versus content. There are obvious exceptions where they're just taking advantage and cramming the magazine excessively full of ads. Magazines like Maxim, Cosmopolitan and other such crap come to mind.
However, advertising on the web versus print are very different animals. While web ads can be more intrusive they're also easier to ignore. It's a lot easier to quantify their effectiveness. So it's difficult to charge what would be charged for print ads. Although in print, the publications actually have the work of having to place these ads and ensure there are no printing issues with them.
I had to deactivate ad block to get a sense for how they place advertising. I'm surprised by how few ads both NYTimes and WSJ run on their homepage. WSJ features a house ad at the time (advertising for themselves) and the first other ad appears pretty far down on the right which means if you're browsing on a netbook, for example, you probably wouldn't even see it. NYTimes has two small ads to either side of their header and then links to sponsored content here and there which most people may miss.
On the other hand, visit some of the news aggregate sites, anything from Gawker Media is a good example. Their sites feature more invasive advertising and they routinely do themed promotions, like one they're running now for some HBO show. So they're obviously getting a lot more bang for their buck even though they're producing far less content themselves. Of course the audience is a little different. I think most readers of WSJ and NYTimes would be pissed if suddenly they started covering their sites in advertising. Whereas the visitors to these other sites, who I'd say skew younger, tend to have lower standards and are more tolerant of this sort of thing. But of course, it enables them to continue offering content for free.
The work that NYTimes and WSJ does is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. So if charging for content doesn't work they need to embrace a more advertising-heavy model. And even then they may be forced to cut staff and content which will hurt the quality of their work and make them a little more generic.
I personally hate advertising. But I acknowledge that sometimes you have to pay a little more for quality. Unfortunately, on the internet people seem to believe that everything should be free. They're apparently oblivious to all the work that goes into creating this content.
The recent introduction of Toy Story sets and on-going Indiana Jones and Star Wars sets would indicate otherwise.
As for specialized pieces, if the new themes are any indication Lego has embraced them more than ever before. I think the problem with the early generation of Star Wars sets was not so much due to specialized pieces but rather unimpressive designs. Lego acknowledged the problem and has taken a lot more care in making more robust and impressive sets.
There are still sets, under the Creator series which feature, almost exclusively, more traditional pieces. Most sets, however, are incorporating a lot of specialized parts. In some cases it's a good thing, but I think the problem goes beyond just those pieces. The problem seems to be that Lego is approaching most sets as standalone playsets. They no longer present alternative designs on the back like they used to. And a lot of the sets I've come upon leave me with the feeling of being incomplete, especially when they incorporate stuff from the Bionicle series. This problem is especially pronounced in the newer themes. It's like they've gone for flashy-looking sets but provide little substance. And a lot of these pieces are so specific in their use that it's tough to combine them with other sets to build something new.
Despite all this, Lego sets are still far, far superior and much more faithful to the original concept than Mega Bloks and the junk they produce. Most sets consist of shameless Lego knockoffs and lame tie-ins.
I have a simple question. When has the climate not changed? The climate has been far warmer and far colder than it is now many times in the past. How can anyone legitimately claim that humanity is truly responsible for the changing climate. There is plenty of archeological evidence of humans thriving in warmer climates. How can anyone possibly know what the baseline climate is?
It seems to me that the real problem is that there are more people living in more places. Humanity, or at least what they've built is more threatened by shifts in climate. Now, if the argument is that we should engage in reshaping the climate, that's another story altogether.
It may be possible that humanity is applying some pressure to climate shifts but I don't see how anyone could deny it would be happening whether or not we were here. It's simple logic.
And how am I supposed to take any of the threats seriously when the people making such claims aren't concerned enough to curtail their own pollution. Look at the complete waste that was Copenhagen. I don't see Al Gore giving up his private jet, his mansion or the numerous other homes he undoubtedly owns. I suppose it's us suckers who are supposed to sacrifice everything while the elites can go right on doing whatever they feel like.
You could see it that way. Or you could say that European and Asian governments have done a better job of indoctrinating their people and few think for themselves. I'd rather have a population that is skeptical than blindly follows whatever they're told.
I do agree that the educational system in some ways is better in Asia and only marginally better in Europe. But that's because of teacher's unions, poorly run education boards, this absurd believe that throwing more money at the system will fix everything. The fact that so many asians, and foreigners in general excel in the American school system demonstrates that bigger problems are parenting and popular culture.
But don't worry, Asia is slipping too and Europe has already been on a long decline. It's only a handful of European nations that outperform the US in education.
What is the climate but a combination of the weather all over the world? Every single time someone points out colder than normal weather in their part of the country it's dismissed as an isolated incident not indicative of anything. But then there's be some particular region where it happens to be warmer than normal, such as Vancouver, and the media, predictably jumps all over it as an example of climate change. I guess it only counts when it's warmer than normal, not when it's colder.
If the climate is shifting around so that some places get warmer, others colder, some get more precipitation and others less how exactly is this different from what has been happening for millions of years? I'd say that the problem isn't the climate but rather the fact that there are more humans around the world exposed to more climates and with far more invested in where they've chosen to live. What I'd like to know is how scientists and politicians reconcile the fact that there is archeological evidence that humanity has thrived in warmer periods when the seas were a lot higher than they are now.
The simple fact is whether or not humans are around the climate would be changing. That's an undeniable fact. Certainly we need to protect our environment but I feel this push is dictated more by politics and social engineering than any legitimate threat.
The car is named after Michèle Mouton, her nickname apparently was Shelley, the most successful female rally driver to date. Apparently she's considered the most successful female driver in all of motorsports. And it just so happens she drove Audi's and she was the first woman to win the Pikes Peak hill climb. I'd say that's a far more appropriate reference than anything from Asimov.
The government cutting funding to NASA is like an alcoholic telling a social drinker he's had too much to drink.
The Constellation program might have had issues, but then this administration could have instead demanding a thorough review of the program to better focus it. Instead we get a bunch of half-measures in its place with no clear long term commitment.
People can argue until they're blue in the face that robots can do a very good job of space exploration, and indeed they can, but they will never be an suitable replacement for manned space travel. The thing here, is that we should be thinking simply of exploration, but rather long-term human presence in space. In the myopic view of too many people there is no long-term benefit in that. But if we applied the same lack of imagination to most human advances we'd still barely be beyond subsistence farming. Although, I suppose there are some who would love to see just that. The point is these are the sorts of things that require a long-term commitment.
It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the private sector will take over what NASA has been forced to abandoned. This implies that companies haven't been involved all along. The private sector has been closely tied to space exploration since day one, however it's just a fact that they're driven by profit. It's far harder to commit to long term programs when they've got property, equipment and employees to pay for, nevermind the investors. The long term is what the government is perfect for and why it was important that they remained focused on programs like Constellation.
Instead we have the US government stupidly investing $8 billion in high speed rail without a proper conventional rail and public transit infrastructure. And where are we going to get the trains? The US doesn't make them, and they have no experience building rail lines. Hell, they can't even keep conventional trains running in my area, every couple of months a train pulls down power cables. So this means we have to go to either Europe or Japan; billions in stimulus spending will automatically go to help foreign companies. Japanese rail lines, including conventional rail are more efficiently run and fares are far more reasonable than they are in the US for a comparable trip. And again, there's an extensive rail network in Japan so that once I get off that high speed train I can get on a regular train and get right where I need to go. How will I accomplish this in the US? I get to my destination and am now completely dependent on someone with an automobile to pick me up. And worst of all, high speed rail lines are seeing stiff competition from air travel and Japan has been seeing some declines in ridership.
Someone people seem overly eager to defend what this administration is doing. There may be a couple of positives here and there, but overall it's poorly conceived crap, intended more to pander to special interests than it is to do anything that actually helps this nation. China and India obviously see the value in pushing space travel and manned space exploration.
I remember when this guy's magazine, Next Magazine, was introduced in Taiwan. It was basically a sensationalist tabloid style rag. The magazine's big thing was shock. They ran stories which graphic photos of dramatic accidents, high-profile murders and sex scandals. Or at least they went as far as they could get away with, which was pretty far. They were also notorious for running stories which turned out to be untrue. If I remember correctly they were one of the originals to run the story of people in China supposedly eating unborn fetuses. It turned out it was all staged as a statement by some artist.
This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors. However, I'm curious to know if this guy has been inspired by others. A couple of years ago I found Taiwanese magazines publishing illustrations of crimes to depict what had happened. Except that they get comically gratuitous with what they depict. It was so absurd I had to clip a few of these to show some friends in the states. In one case a girl was about to get raped and instead offers to perform fellatio on the rapist instead. When he's done his business and leaves, she takes the "evidence", spits it out in a napkin, and takes it to the police. This was all conveniently illustrated in detail, the girl on her knees with the guy standing in front her, and the girl spitting out the stuff. While this technique has been applied to many kinds of stories, predictably, the majority involve sex crimes of one sort or another.
I think news networks have already been running similar cartoons and the Taiwanese government has gotten involved to deal with this. It's pretty much a blatant violation of broadcast rules, but it's pretty easy to dance around the rules there. I'm sure many will argue free speech, but the think here is that this is not driven by desire to inform the public. It's driven by a desire to shock and titillate to boost ratings. People will definitely complain about how indecent it is, but they're all going to happily tune in anyway. It wont be long, however, until this guy no longer has a monopoly on this sort of thing. Everyone will be quick to copy this, at least until the government puts a final stop to this.
I have no great love for Wert and the Jalopniks, finding them to consistently side with the GOP on social issues and sidestep into political discourse way too much for a blog on cars.
If you think they have a tendency to side with the GOP you clearly haven't been ont he site long enough. And I can't recall them over getting into political discourse beyond criticizing Cash-for-Clunkers. In general, however, Gawker Media, which is the company Jalopnik is owned by has a libertarian bent trending towards liberal. About the only reason I could see for you to hold the opinion you do is that they love cars. Perhaps you'd prefer that they were constantly bashing car for all the evils they've supposedly brought upon this world.
I haven't heard anything about brake pads being totally burned through. And brake pads don't just burn through. They overheat and when they overheat they stop braking properly, but when they get down to temperature they start braking again. In the latest issue of Car & Driver they do braking tests on three cars running at wide-open throttle. That includes a V6 Camry, an Infiniti G37 and a Roush Mustang. They were able to bring all three cars to a stop from 70mph and 100mph. Brakes will overpower virtually any engine.
However, you have to brake with conviction. The reason why brakes might overheat is that drivers don't immediately realize the severity of their predicament. So they stab at the brakes but then release them expecting the car will stop accelerating. It doesn't but by the time they start trying to actually stop the car the brakes are already getting hot. So at that point they start overheating and lose their ability to stop the car.
But of course, there are other options for stopping a car. The first is putting it in neutral. The second is shutting the car off. Although the second option can be problematic if you lose assisted steering and braking. If those assists are electronic then you can keep the electronics running and still easily guide the car.
The problem here is that this has been a known issue for several years now and Toyota has dismissed it, probably attributing it to user error. Toyota has already been facing problems of rusting frames on a huge number of their pickups. A lot of companies do this sort of thing, but Japanese companies have a particular tendency to not acknowledge issues. They'll address them in future updates but continue denying there's an issue with existing products.
I have to say, this is one area where the US excels: consumer protection. Problems with vehicles almost always go public and recalls are issues sooner in the US than in the rest of the world. Only in the past couple of weeks has it been acknowledge that this problem extends to Toyotas overseas when this problem has been brewing in the US for much longer. I've noticed the same pattern with recalls from other automakers, including VW/Audi's problematic dual clutch transmissions. The US is the first market to have gotten the extended 10-year warranty. In the UK, however, it almost seems like they're still denying a problem even exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's system updates tend to be unobtrusive, at least until a restart is required. Even then, however, the entire update can be downloaded in the background and I can save the restart for later. Their updates for Office, however, are exceedingly obnoxious. I'll open an application, getting ready to do some work, and I'm greeted to an update prompt.
Updates in OSX are as frequent as those for Windows, expect that by default the system checks for them on a weekly basis. What's really annoying is how system updates seem to always require immediate restarts.
iWork and iLife seem to have far more frequent updates than Microsoft's apps. But the absolute worst are Quicktime and iTunes, there seem to be updates almost every time I open those apps.
Adobe is annoying with updates as well, especially considering they never address outstanding issues. Acrobat is the worst of all, particularly since the updates come frequently.
Firefox has gotten pretty bad over the past couple of years. Start it up and oops! I have to wait for an update.
So what's my point? They all do it. Hell, even games and consoles feature regular updates nowadays. The difference is they force you to do them. I guess this is simply the nature of computing today.
There are still many characters used in Japanese that are interchangeable with Chinese. However, because of the extensive use of hiragana and katakana the number of traditional characters Japanese can recognize is far smaller than what Chinese can identify, so Japanese may struggle a bit more. Certainly some meanings have changed but there are still many shared characters. It's not foolproof but a Chinese speaker can manage quite well using only writing, and I've seen quite a few examples of this firsthand. Korean is another story given how different their writing system is.
This attitude that you shouldn't "pander" to people is exactly the problem with open source. Too many people have this self-centered attitude that everyone should be doing things their way. Unfortunately that's now how the world works.
Without question, not everyone's opinion is equally valid. Some people provide more insight than others. But regardless, if you want wide adoption you need to provide an experience as many people as possible will feel comfortable with. That sometimes means compromises and that means listening to what people are saying.
You don't need millions of dollars to do things right. A lot of it is common sense and experience. And helping things further are the numerous studies and all the heavy-lifting Microsoft and Apple have done.
Presumably, the open-source community is pretty large. You mean someone couldn't start a simple research project looking into how people interact with existing operating systems and figure out what works and what doesn't? There are already plenty of people out there making comments about the interface. I was able to make to my comments based on 15 minutes of reviewing two screenshots.
The problem here isn't a lack of money. The problem was a lack of planning, review, implementation and experience.
These open source designs always scream open source. They just lack the polish and careful thought that you get with Windows or OSX. Far too often the designer resorts to being different for the sake of being different. Having done interface design for years now there are a few things that come to mind off the top of my head I'd work on.
A few critiques:
Overall the design looks a bit dated. I'm not suggesting they should have done something obnoxious, but it feels like insufficient effort was put into this.
Icons are flat, like they tried going for a dimensional look but either lacked the talent or the inclination to go all the way.
Font selection is clumsy. The font itself is quite good, but it's a bit on the large size given the scale, but more importantly everything is crammed together.
Icons and buttons almost look randomly placed. Why is zoom sitting between some icons and view selection. Is view selection even so important that it needs to be featured prominently? The folder buttons are too pronounced in relation to everything else and there's insufficient visual separation between that and the places dropdown.
There's insufficiently visual separation between windows in the foreground and background, although honestly I think OSX has this problem too. It gets problematic trying to pick something out when multiple windows are open. There's no sense of prioritization to anything so everything blurs together at a glance.
Those windows are poorly balanced. Why is everything left aligned, leaving most of the title banner empty?
This really looks like the rough draft of a GUI. If you want to sell an OS to the average user you've really got to make it approachable. That means making it visually appealing and polished. This is one of those things that doesn't seem important when done right, but people always notice it when something is missing. Also important is giving real consideration to the user experience. These designs look to me like someone simply copied Windows and added in a bunch of elements from OSX. Certainly there's a sense of familiarity users have with Windows, but why not study both OSX and Windows and try to get a sense for what works and what doesn't then build your GUI around that? And based on some comments I've seen it seems elements of the design even break Fitt's laws.
Having used the previous version of Ubuntu I wouldn't really say this is an improvement at all.
It would be great if this came to pass, but it wont. First, you're going to have a hard time getting China to do anything particularly when the people themselves believe that censorship is sometimes necessary. But more importantly, most companies couldn't care less. What they want is cheap manufacturing and some level of experience. China provides both while other developing nations can't yet meet these needs.
And China is a great target for passing the buck. Anything goes wrong with your product blame the Chinese manufacturers. When some of Mattel's toys were found to have a variety of problems what did they do? Blame China. Everyone completely overlooked the fact that Mattel should be directly involved in overseeing the manufacturing of their own products. But why should they care? The whole point of going to China to begin with was to cut costs.
If most companies don't care about the kind the quality of the stuff they sell us why the hell would they care about what China does on its own soil? And currently China is in a situation where it can throw its weight around. Perhaps when India and Southeast Asia are much stronger competitors to China things will change because at that point it will become more apparent that the world doesn't really need China. But of course, that really isn't going to help the case for China easing up on its own people.
And like I've stated, most Chinese don't think there's a problem at all. Frankly, there are far greater atrocities taking place around the world that Google should be speaking up about.
Apple is in a particularly unique situation that they have a base of rabidly loyal consumers. Having worked in the design industry for years I constantly deal with this sort of thing and I have a hard time thinking of an instance when any of these people were openly critical towards Apple. Go online and any time someone is critical others are quick to pounce on them. So basically, what Apple has is a legion of evangelists. Inevitably all this positive will towards Apple filters down to your average consumer who picks up on it.
Another amazing quality Apple possesses is their ability to make even bad ideas palatable. The combination of good aesthetics and great integration just make their products appealing. Apple obviously puts a lot of thought into every product they decide to develop. They don't innovate so much as excel at implementation. They don't rush to implement new technologies and instead wait until it's mature enough they can do what they want with it; the touch screen being a good example of this. Even their designs haven't changed much in nearly 10 years; they've done little more than go back and forth between the metal and white or black plastic shells.
In addition to simply sticking to what works they've created a strong visual identity for themselves that reflects their approach to the technology. They take a more evolutionary approach. Other companies would be obsessed with reinventing their products every couple of years instead. They're always trying to spark some kind of revolution with some kind of killer product they hope will carry the rest of the brand but which never works out in the long run. And others aren't as willing to commit to a potentially good idea if it doesn't pay off in the short term.
Then they have their marketing which really just capitalizes on all these attributes and throws in subtle hyperbole for good measure.
Their products aren't the best on the market for overall use, but no one has yet been able to compete with them on integration and design. You could call it magic simply because few others are willing or capable of doing the same.
With such a long, rich history I'm almost surprised they'd be concerned about this. Then again, I suppose the British Library understands, better than most, the value of archiving content. That said, I'm fairly certain most things of value have been stored away somewhere. But without a doubt there's a point at which we need to cull what has little value, which in all honest, is most of what is found on the internet.
I'm reminded of these preservation societies which seem to be especially prevalent here in the northeast US which go out of their way to get every last minor structure designated as a historical landmark, often to the detriment of beneficial development projects. A couple of years ago this whole area of a city in my area was cleared out, except for this single multi-family home. I'd drive by on the highway and see this huge open field in the middle of which sat this lone dilapidated house. It turns out that some early baseball player was either born there or had grown up there for a few years and one of these groups all of a sudden got it in their heads that they needed to protect the house and force the city to restore it. No one had given a crap about it for all the years it sat there or had suggested doing anything with it until the time had come to tear it down. The fight to protect it dragged on for at least a year. All this effort to preserve an insignificant historical footnote. They finally lost, but by then it was a moot point as the city was facing so many other issues that this redevelopment project hasn't yet gone through.
Most of the internet isn't worth preserving and what has been preserved, in all kinds of media, should paint a very clear picture of the content of the internet over the years. And often what is considered historical significant is different looking back compared to people living through that time. This is especially true with pop culture. Every little thing is the most important thing in the universe until it's forgotten two weeks later.
You're right, and this happens constantly. It's just that usually it's done more subtlety than this.
I've been using MagicJack for over a year now. Who can argue with $20 a year? The primary reason I got the service was for international calls. Local calling is handled almost exclusively with mobile phones. Initially I did have landline with AT&T and ran into issues with voice quality. So considering what I was paying I dropped them and at the strong recommendation of my father got MagicJack. In general it works, but for a long time there were issues with call quality and the occasional dropped calls. Skype wasn't even an option because while it was good for Europe it was absolutely awful for calling to Asia.
MagicJack has dramatically improved over the past 6-8 months to the point where call quality is no longer an issue. On the other hand, the software for the device tends to be buggy and it can be a pretty big source of frustration. The device stops working if the computer goes into sleep mode and is reactivated. Roughly every few weeks it just stops working and has to be restarted, sometimes requiring multiple attempts to get going. And recently it seemed to crap out in the middle of some supposed update, but after some tinkering it was working fine again. I've never even dared trying customer service because it's supposed to be complete garbage and virtually non-existent.
Despite the cost savings I planning on switching to something else. Skype's quality has improved and we used it for video chat, but I'm considering Ooma which, from what I've heard, is supposed to be quite good and fairly reliable. MagicJack is a good idea which has been poorly implemented and there certainly is value in spending a little more for quality.
It's not a secret if it's printed right there in the EULA.
That may be true for you. But everyone I know who owns a smartphone, this includes, Blackberries, iPhones and Android phones use it primarily for one thing: making calls and sending text messages. The exception is in the corporate environment where people also use their phones for email and the calendar. With Blackberries in particular I've never seen them do anything else with the phone. Almost everyone else I know tinkers with some other features for a few weeks and then the phone is back to being used for it's original purpose. Only one friend of mine, who's background is in IT, and who was unemployed for over 8 months tinkered with his smartphone constantly.
The vast majority of people buying smartphones are over-buying. The occasional convenience of being able to browse the web doesn't make up for how much more the phone and the service plans cost. I've toyed with the idea of getting a smartphone from time to time and have ultimately concluded that I'll spend all this extra money and end up with something overpowered for its core function, which is making calls. If my company expects me to own such a phone for work-related matters then I expect them to pay for the service.
The catch is that the Droid and G1 weren't even released a year apart. DirectX8 was released almost 10 years before DirectX11. .NET3 was released roughly 6 years after Windows 2000.
That's a huge difference, especially considering how much computers have improved in the intervening years. And DirectX8 is quite outdated but nearly every PC game on the market still supports DX9, which was released in 2002.
The fact that there are compatibility issues already with Android is very concerning. What they should be doing is establishing a baseline for compatibility. But then again, phone companies and carriers love consumers replacing their phones on a regular basis, so there's little incentive to promote compatibility.
Well, I think the core issue here about whether or not climate change is anthropogenic is whether or not humans can actually do anything to stop it. We're looking at proposals which could dramatically disrupt people's way of life and there's no evidence any of it will be effective. Further aggravating the issue is the fact that climate has always been changing and there's countless evidence to support this.
A couple of years ago I read about archeological finds on the Japanese islands from a time when the climate was much warmer and the seas were much higher. I recall reading 8ft higher, but don't quote me on that. The human population there thrived during this period and dwindled when the climate cooled. So that brings up another matter, why is global warming inherently bad? I might be a great thing for a huge portion of humanity although certainly it will likely be a very bad thing for some parts of the world. The real issue is that we've got more people living in more places around the world meaning that the consequences of climate change may be much more profound.
But again, I return to the original question, if the climate has always been changing is there anything we can realistically do to stop this? And if we can make that kind of impact, what about unintended consequences? Certainly we should move away from fossil fuels and do all we can to stop pollution. But these actions have more immediate and quantifiable benefits to humanity. While everyone's concerned about greenhouse gas emissions in China and India everyone is overlooking the more serious acts of pollution.
Recently in China there was a case of extensive lead poisoning in a town near a lead smelter. When people began falling ill the government initially dismissed it as an example of mass hysteria. Ultimately, what was the China's answer? Move the town and keep the factory open. Instead people are stupidly concerned with more abstract threats.
I wont be surprised in the least if we spend untold trillions trying to fight climate change and the climate changes in a way we don't want regardless. So I'd argue money should be going towards ensuring survivability and being able to copy with mass migrations if things go wrong. Perhaps it's time to start considering how to move or outright abandon cities sitting to close to coastlines at risk. It's safe to say climate change is going to happen whether we like it or not.
Go to eHealthInsurance.com. Although my company covers most of my insurance costs they cover only very little for family members. While the plan is generally pretty good it's also expensive. Not wanting to deal with high monthly costs I went to that site and compared plans, finding one that was rated well but priced at a monthly rate I could manage.
I shouldn't get into this because inevitably I'll get modded into oblivion for not following the crowd. Inevitably once we get to talking about healthcare someone has to start claiming that the American healthcare system is crap compared to the rest of the world. They'll bring up the famed infant mortality rate although it's well known that the US counts infant mortality differently than Europe resulting in higher numbers. The death rate in the US is pretty good, better than some European nations and worse than others. But there are a lot of factors that play into death rates. Cancer survivorship in the US is among the highest in the world; I have the benefit of working with a cancer survivorship charity from time to time and am privy to a lot of insightful stats. Then there's the staggering amount of medical research constantly being done in the states.
But I don't need to bring up stats, because being European most of my family lives in Europe. So I know how the average person lives there. First off, whenever we get to talking about politics and social issues the complaints are virtually identical to what we hear in the US. Extremely high taxes, benefits being cut, immigration problems, corruption, the list goes on. The issues with healthcare vary from country to country, but waiting lists are pretty much a universal issue. I have an uncle who was diagnosed with prostate cancer last year. Had he gone through the system he would have had to wait 6 months for surgery. His doctor strongly recommended he pay out of pocket and get the surgery done immediately. This is something that actually happens on a fairly regular basis. Then there's the issue of governments cutting benefits because they just don't have the money to sustain them. I have an uncle who has needed on-going treatment which has been cut by the government forcing him to get private health insurance to augment the government's plan. I have tons of examples, I could go all day listing issues they've encountered. And the thing is, sure they've got socialized health insurance, but most good there are also twice as expensive as they are here. Every time they visit the states it's like a spending spree buying what they can because it's so much cheaper here.
That said, the US healthcare has a fundamental issue. It's too damn expensive. There's a very real danger of a person going broke just paying for medical treatment. And insurance companies absolutely are screwing us badly. Something needs to be done and honestly I don't know what it is. How do you cut costs across the board, I mean everything related to the healthcare industry is expensive. How do we force down costs without bringing about rationing. I mean, it even touches on matters like education. I think there's something seriously out of whack with the pricing of services in the US. When it costs $100+ an hour to have your car worked on by some inept mechanic it's not surprising that someone like a doctor is charging far, far more for his work. It's pretty hard to start haggling on price when you're laid out on a stretcher and are more concerned with your affliction being dealt with.
My big concern is that it seems like politicians are more concerned with making favors to special interests and forcing their will on us than they are with actually fixing the system. But from everything I've seen around the world I'm not really convinced that just going with a socialized system is going to do the job or even make things better.
I'd really like to know where this myth comes from. The median household income of most EU nations is lower than the US. And Europeans have the added hit of extremely high taxes, the VAT, income taxes, etc. although Americans seem to generally be hit harder with property taxes. But the fact remains that Americans have far more disposable income than people of most nations. Of course this results in Americans not spending their money as wisely.
Most people seem to believe that because content is available in electronic form that it's somehow significantly cheaper to produce than in print. Having had some experience with the printing industry I can assure you that printing costs are relatively small compared to the overall cost of producing a newspaper or magazine. And in the case on NY Times or WSJ printing costs must be even cheaper given the relationship they've obviously established with their printers, assuming it isn't done in-house. Also keep in mind that some of the expense that may be spared by not printing physical copies inevitably goes to hosting and site maintenance.
And most publications live on advertising, almost more so than actual sales. Another department at my company does a lot of publication work and their clients have cut pages if they don't have a sufficient density of advertising versus content. There are obvious exceptions where they're just taking advantage and cramming the magazine excessively full of ads. Magazines like Maxim, Cosmopolitan and other such crap come to mind.
However, advertising on the web versus print are very different animals. While web ads can be more intrusive they're also easier to ignore. It's a lot easier to quantify their effectiveness. So it's difficult to charge what would be charged for print ads. Although in print, the publications actually have the work of having to place these ads and ensure there are no printing issues with them.
I had to deactivate ad block to get a sense for how they place advertising. I'm surprised by how few ads both NYTimes and WSJ run on their homepage. WSJ features a house ad at the time (advertising for themselves) and the first other ad appears pretty far down on the right which means if you're browsing on a netbook, for example, you probably wouldn't even see it. NYTimes has two small ads to either side of their header and then links to sponsored content here and there which most people may miss.
On the other hand, visit some of the news aggregate sites, anything from Gawker Media is a good example. Their sites feature more invasive advertising and they routinely do themed promotions, like one they're running now for some HBO show. So they're obviously getting a lot more bang for their buck even though they're producing far less content themselves. Of course the audience is a little different. I think most readers of WSJ and NYTimes would be pissed if suddenly they started covering their sites in advertising. Whereas the visitors to these other sites, who I'd say skew younger, tend to have lower standards and are more tolerant of this sort of thing. But of course, it enables them to continue offering content for free.
The work that NYTimes and WSJ does is not cheap by any stretch of the imagination. So if charging for content doesn't work they need to embrace a more advertising-heavy model. And even then they may be forced to cut staff and content which will hurt the quality of their work and make them a little more generic.
I personally hate advertising. But I acknowledge that sometimes you have to pay a little more for quality. Unfortunately, on the internet people seem to believe that everything should be free. They're apparently oblivious to all the work that goes into creating this content.
The recent introduction of Toy Story sets and on-going Indiana Jones and Star Wars sets would indicate otherwise.
As for specialized pieces, if the new themes are any indication Lego has embraced them more than ever before. I think the problem with the early generation of Star Wars sets was not so much due to specialized pieces but rather unimpressive designs. Lego acknowledged the problem and has taken a lot more care in making more robust and impressive sets.
There are still sets, under the Creator series which feature, almost exclusively, more traditional pieces. Most sets, however, are incorporating a lot of specialized parts. In some cases it's a good thing, but I think the problem goes beyond just those pieces. The problem seems to be that Lego is approaching most sets as standalone playsets. They no longer present alternative designs on the back like they used to. And a lot of the sets I've come upon leave me with the feeling of being incomplete, especially when they incorporate stuff from the Bionicle series. This problem is especially pronounced in the newer themes. It's like they've gone for flashy-looking sets but provide little substance. And a lot of these pieces are so specific in their use that it's tough to combine them with other sets to build something new.
Despite all this, Lego sets are still far, far superior and much more faithful to the original concept than Mega Bloks and the junk they produce. Most sets consist of shameless Lego knockoffs and lame tie-ins.
I have a simple question. When has the climate not changed? The climate has been far warmer and far colder than it is now many times in the past. How can anyone legitimately claim that humanity is truly responsible for the changing climate. There is plenty of archeological evidence of humans thriving in warmer climates. How can anyone possibly know what the baseline climate is?
It seems to me that the real problem is that there are more people living in more places. Humanity, or at least what they've built is more threatened by shifts in climate. Now, if the argument is that we should engage in reshaping the climate, that's another story altogether.
It may be possible that humanity is applying some pressure to climate shifts but I don't see how anyone could deny it would be happening whether or not we were here. It's simple logic.
And how am I supposed to take any of the threats seriously when the people making such claims aren't concerned enough to curtail their own pollution. Look at the complete waste that was Copenhagen. I don't see Al Gore giving up his private jet, his mansion or the numerous other homes he undoubtedly owns. I suppose it's us suckers who are supposed to sacrifice everything while the elites can go right on doing whatever they feel like.
You could see it that way. Or you could say that European and Asian governments have done a better job of indoctrinating their people and few think for themselves. I'd rather have a population that is skeptical than blindly follows whatever they're told.
I do agree that the educational system in some ways is better in Asia and only marginally better in Europe. But that's because of teacher's unions, poorly run education boards, this absurd believe that throwing more money at the system will fix everything. The fact that so many asians, and foreigners in general excel in the American school system demonstrates that bigger problems are parenting and popular culture.
But don't worry, Asia is slipping too and Europe has already been on a long decline. It's only a handful of European nations that outperform the US in education.
What is the climate but a combination of the weather all over the world? Every single time someone points out colder than normal weather in their part of the country it's dismissed as an isolated incident not indicative of anything. But then there's be some particular region where it happens to be warmer than normal, such as Vancouver, and the media, predictably jumps all over it as an example of climate change. I guess it only counts when it's warmer than normal, not when it's colder.
If the climate is shifting around so that some places get warmer, others colder, some get more precipitation and others less how exactly is this different from what has been happening for millions of years? I'd say that the problem isn't the climate but rather the fact that there are more humans around the world exposed to more climates and with far more invested in where they've chosen to live. What I'd like to know is how scientists and politicians reconcile the fact that there is archeological evidence that humanity has thrived in warmer periods when the seas were a lot higher than they are now.
The simple fact is whether or not humans are around the climate would be changing. That's an undeniable fact. Certainly we need to protect our environment but I feel this push is dictated more by politics and social engineering than any legitimate threat.
The car is named after Michèle Mouton, her nickname apparently was Shelley, the most successful female rally driver to date. Apparently she's considered the most successful female driver in all of motorsports. And it just so happens she drove Audi's and she was the first woman to win the Pikes Peak hill climb. I'd say that's a far more appropriate reference than anything from Asimov.
The government cutting funding to NASA is like an alcoholic telling a social drinker he's had too much to drink.
The Constellation program might have had issues, but then this administration could have instead demanding a thorough review of the program to better focus it. Instead we get a bunch of half-measures in its place with no clear long term commitment.
People can argue until they're blue in the face that robots can do a very good job of space exploration, and indeed they can, but they will never be an suitable replacement for manned space travel. The thing here, is that we should be thinking simply of exploration, but rather long-term human presence in space. In the myopic view of too many people there is no long-term benefit in that. But if we applied the same lack of imagination to most human advances we'd still barely be beyond subsistence farming. Although, I suppose there are some who would love to see just that. The point is these are the sorts of things that require a long-term commitment.
It's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the private sector will take over what NASA has been forced to abandoned. This implies that companies haven't been involved all along. The private sector has been closely tied to space exploration since day one, however it's just a fact that they're driven by profit. It's far harder to commit to long term programs when they've got property, equipment and employees to pay for, nevermind the investors. The long term is what the government is perfect for and why it was important that they remained focused on programs like Constellation.
Instead we have the US government stupidly investing $8 billion in high speed rail without a proper conventional rail and public transit infrastructure. And where are we going to get the trains? The US doesn't make them, and they have no experience building rail lines. Hell, they can't even keep conventional trains running in my area, every couple of months a train pulls down power cables. So this means we have to go to either Europe or Japan; billions in stimulus spending will automatically go to help foreign companies. Japanese rail lines, including conventional rail are more efficiently run and fares are far more reasonable than they are in the US for a comparable trip. And again, there's an extensive rail network in Japan so that once I get off that high speed train I can get on a regular train and get right where I need to go. How will I accomplish this in the US? I get to my destination and am now completely dependent on someone with an automobile to pick me up. And worst of all, high speed rail lines are seeing stiff competition from air travel and Japan has been seeing some declines in ridership.
Someone people seem overly eager to defend what this administration is doing. There may be a couple of positives here and there, but overall it's poorly conceived crap, intended more to pander to special interests than it is to do anything that actually helps this nation. China and India obviously see the value in pushing space travel and manned space exploration.
I remember when this guy's magazine, Next Magazine, was introduced in Taiwan. It was basically a sensationalist tabloid style rag. The magazine's big thing was shock. They ran stories which graphic photos of dramatic accidents, high-profile murders and sex scandals. Or at least they went as far as they could get away with, which was pretty far. They were also notorious for running stories which turned out to be untrue. If I remember correctly they were one of the originals to run the story of people in China supposedly eating unborn fetuses. It turned out it was all staged as a statement by some artist.
This new concept seems designed to skirt the sensors. However, I'm curious to know if this guy has been inspired by others. A couple of years ago I found Taiwanese magazines publishing illustrations of crimes to depict what had happened. Except that they get comically gratuitous with what they depict. It was so absurd I had to clip a few of these to show some friends in the states. In one case a girl was about to get raped and instead offers to perform fellatio on the rapist instead. When he's done his business and leaves, she takes the "evidence", spits it out in a napkin, and takes it to the police. This was all conveniently illustrated in detail, the girl on her knees with the guy standing in front her, and the girl spitting out the stuff. While this technique has been applied to many kinds of stories, predictably, the majority involve sex crimes of one sort or another.
I think news networks have already been running similar cartoons and the Taiwanese government has gotten involved to deal with this. It's pretty much a blatant violation of broadcast rules, but it's pretty easy to dance around the rules there. I'm sure many will argue free speech, but the think here is that this is not driven by desire to inform the public. It's driven by a desire to shock and titillate to boost ratings. People will definitely complain about how indecent it is, but they're all going to happily tune in anyway. It wont be long, however, until this guy no longer has a monopoly on this sort of thing. Everyone will be quick to copy this, at least until the government puts a final stop to this.
If you think they have a tendency to side with the GOP you clearly haven't been ont he site long enough. And I can't recall them over getting into political discourse beyond criticizing Cash-for-Clunkers. In general, however, Gawker Media, which is the company Jalopnik is owned by has a libertarian bent trending towards liberal. About the only reason I could see for you to hold the opinion you do is that they love cars. Perhaps you'd prefer that they were constantly bashing car for all the evils they've supposedly brought upon this world.
I haven't heard anything about brake pads being totally burned through. And brake pads don't just burn through. They overheat and when they overheat they stop braking properly, but when they get down to temperature they start braking again. In the latest issue of Car & Driver they do braking tests on three cars running at wide-open throttle. That includes a V6 Camry, an Infiniti G37 and a Roush Mustang. They were able to bring all three cars to a stop from 70mph and 100mph. Brakes will overpower virtually any engine.
However, you have to brake with conviction. The reason why brakes might overheat is that drivers don't immediately realize the severity of their predicament. So they stab at the brakes but then release them expecting the car will stop accelerating. It doesn't but by the time they start trying to actually stop the car the brakes are already getting hot. So at that point they start overheating and lose their ability to stop the car.
But of course, there are other options for stopping a car. The first is putting it in neutral. The second is shutting the car off. Although the second option can be problematic if you lose assisted steering and braking. If those assists are electronic then you can keep the electronics running and still easily guide the car.
The problem here is that this has been a known issue for several years now and Toyota has dismissed it, probably attributing it to user error. Toyota has already been facing problems of rusting frames on a huge number of their pickups. A lot of companies do this sort of thing, but Japanese companies have a particular tendency to not acknowledge issues. They'll address them in future updates but continue denying there's an issue with existing products.
I have to say, this is one area where the US excels: consumer protection. Problems with vehicles almost always go public and recalls are issues sooner in the US than in the rest of the world. Only in the past couple of weeks has it been acknowledge that this problem extends to Toyotas overseas when this problem has been brewing in the US for much longer. I've noticed the same pattern with recalls from other automakers, including VW/Audi's problematic dual clutch transmissions. The US is the first market to have gotten the extended 10-year warranty. In the UK, however, it almost seems like they're still denying a problem even exists.
I think this crowd generally gets its opinions from Daily Show, Huffington Post, Media Matters and the like.