Actually, I knew you weren't American. So comparing you to Bush was a bigger insult, considering how unpopular he is among the international world. Though, I should've checked his popularity in the Netherlands. I doubt it's much higher than just about anywhere else in the world.
Also, If I'm an average driver and I react this way think of the 1 billion or so other average drivers out there who would react the same. That adds up to a lot of property damage and anger that could've easily been prevented with good civil engineering and the money used to buy the cameras.
Camera's as they are today, are a Win/lose situation... it makes more sense to change that over to a Win/Win and I've offered several solutions to make it a Win/Win. If you can't see that, then I pity you.
I didn't know if it was lossy or not. That's why I advocated copying it onto multiple formats. Also, I never said you should shrink it out of it's original format. If I was to backup onto a dual layer dvd I'd keep it in it's original lossless format and just burn the data. It might take a 50 pack or so. But, in storage on high quality DVD's I'm willing to bet it'll last a while.
I could see the cost exploding if they keep the data in a data wharehouse so that they can actively access it at any given time. However, if they were to put it on laser disc, blue ray, dvd, HDDVD and a hard drive. Then, leave it sitting in a vault they wouldn't have to worry about it. The hard part is still having ready easy access to the original file.
Really?? How about this, everything you've said pretty much shows you as being a supporter of terrorism. Terrorists don't change. They are incapable of understanding points that I've painted above. The fact that you've refused to acknowledge any of these points and instead refer to tactics of assumption without even asking questions makes you still look like a terrorist. Pehaps you are buddies with President Bush. You two act the same...
You go after something I used simply as a reference more than anything. You attack it like a politician which is about the same as president Bush. Refuse to understand the point that it was making. Grow up... Stop being a Bush supporter.
And, If I was an average driver. I could care less. I've driven on more cities and roads than most people have in a lifetime. I'll let my accident record speak for itself in that. I wish most drivers had the same ability or luck as you imply it is.
Just to note, I'm hardly an average driver. I drove daily for work(Sales/marketing) for about 10 years before I settled down local. In the last 15 years I've driven roughly 750,000. Most people don't do that in even 45 years.
Also, think about it. A 2 second light on a 4 lane road which is equivalent to what, 30mph. Minimum it'll take.2 to.5 seconds for the light to change, then, an average driver.3 seconds to proccess a response to a light change even if thier foot was already on the brake to begin with if not add another half second for moving foot and apply brake. Then, going from 30-0mph in 1-1.5 seconds is hardly a normal stop for any driver. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a 2 second light for up to 15mph, and 3.5 seconds for up to 40mph then 5 seconds at 50 and above? If you did that then you'd have very few issues? Plus, the cameras wouldn't generate any major revenue.
Typically lights are set this way. I can tell you from my driving experience that Typical downtown areas and streets have 3.5 second yellow lights even on two lane roads. Why should a city have anything less? Wouldn't it be safer to give them a consistent timing across all cities? Even the time it takes for lights to change from one direction to the other is 3 seconds. That timing is there for a reason. To make roads safer and prevent accidents.
Also, you call and imply that.2 seconds is a blatant red light. I've seen some blatant red lights in my time and.2 seconds is hardly what I or most officers would call a red light running. Actually if you were smart you'd know that it's less time than it takes for a light to turn from yellow to red. Try going drag racing at the track some time and you'll understand what I mean. Actually, if you are curious, you can test your own reaction timing on the link at the end of my post to see what I'm saying(Try doing it while being relaxed). The typical person reacts around.2 to.35 seconds in thier ready for it prime condition. Distracted in the slightest they'd likely react around.4 to.5. If you are a road engineer you adjust for the higher end because its a safer bet. It's like designing a building in an area that gets hurricanes typically only up to 110mph but every once in a while it goes up to 140mph. Which wind speed are you going to design it for?
Stop thinking of drivers as cattle in a box. Think of them as people.. They have emotions, they are flexible, they get tired, they get happy, they notice things on the side of the road and are quite frequently slightly distracted at any given moment. They are not automatons nor should they be.
So, next time you say a 2 second light is more than enough time to prepare and stop. Think about going from 30-0 in about 1 second. Because thats about the time you have with a 2 second yellow light. Imagine if there were ice/snow on the ground. I garruantee you wouldn't be able to stop.
Sorry, I've been driving for 15 years. no accidents on my record, never a red light until a camera caught me. Speeding tickets, sure... But eh... Plus, I was the lead car bub. Next, you are accusing me of things that don't even apply to the situation. If there was a car there I would likely be stopping. If there was a pedestrian on the corner I'd be stopping. But alas none of the above. Everything isn't a race to beat the light.
So.. Stop making assumptions and trying to attack me to descredit the main point of my post. It's a childish tactic only used by people with a personal interest in what the main-point is fighting against.
Lastly, I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm looking to show an understanding of what mood these cameras give to drivers. My point is that drivers are not becoming better drivers because of cameras. They are getting angry.. That anger leads them to drive even more unsafe than before and even worse they will do things to cost those same cities and governments property damage equivalent to the cost of thier 380 dollar ticket. Defeating the whole purpose of a redlight camera in the first place.
My other points still stand
-if a street is properly constructed with all timers and speeds set right a camera should only be recording about 3-4 violations a day on a busy road. Any more than that should require redesign of the street to make it safer.
-Tickets should be accompanied by full disclosure about the road. IE why they put cameras there, why the speed is set that way, recent accidents, how many tickets a day this camera records, what number they were. Please send payment, thank you etc.
The whole point of traffic enforcement is to make drivers aware and safer. Cameras don't achieve this. Officers do. I think it's time to make cameras a direct budget thing in that cities cannot have any of the money from the revenues that cameras generate. All money goes only into expanding public transportation and making highways safer.
Plus, we should limit the profits to private companies who give cities sneaky ideas like shortening the yellow lights, dropping the speed limits, etc. These companies should be limited to a modest 7 percent profit..
Sorry, I've been driving for 15 years. no accidents on my record, never a red light until a camera caught me. Speeding tickets, sure... But eh... Plus, I was the lead car bub.
Next, you are accusing me of things that don't even apply to the situation. If there was a car there I would likely be stopping. If there was a pedestrian on the corner I'd be stopping. But alas none of the above. So.. Stop making assumptions and trying to attack me to descredit the main point of my post. It's a childish tactic only used by people with a personal interest in what the main-point is fighting against.
Lastly, I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm looking to show an understanding of what mood these cameras give to drivers. My point is that drivers are not becoming better drivers because of cameras. They are getting angry.. That anger leads them to drive even more unsafe than before and even worse they will do things to cost those same cities and governments property damage equivalent to the cost of thier 380 dollar ticket. Defeating the whole purpose of a redlight camera in the first place.
My other points still stand
-if a street is properly constructed with all timers and speeds set right a camera should only be recording about 3-4 violations a day on a busy road. Any more than that should require redesign of the street to make it safer.
-Tickets should be accompanied by full disclosure about the road. IE why they put cameras there, why the speed is set that way, recent accidents, how many tickets a day this camera records, what number they were. Please send payment, thank you etc.
The whole point of traffic enforcement is to make drivers aware and safer. Cameras don't achieve this. Officers do. I think it's time to make cameras a direct budget thing in that cities cannot have any of the money from the revenues that cameras generate. All money goes only into expanding public transportation and making highways safer. Plus, we should limit the profits to private companies who give cities sneaky ideas like shortening the yellow lights, dropping the speed limits, etc. These companies should be limited to a modest 7 percent profit..
2 second yellow on a 4 lane road. WTF??? Also, I didn't have my foot on the accelerator. I actually had it on the brake as I was approaching the right hand turn. The pictures even clearly show this with my brake lights on. But, apparently I braked too much and went.2 over going at a safe pace rather than an insane one.
Also I did a survey of said light. It nails about 25 people an hour. This, in my opinion is to the point that you should be adjusting lights, rebuilding roads, etc. to increase traffic saftey rather than writing 200 plus tickets a day. A camera shouldn't be recording more than about 2 violations a day if the engineers built the road properly and set the speed accordingly correct.
After getting nailed by a redlight camera when turning right.2 seconds after the light turned red. I can totally understand the frustration here. The camera takes a picture, the officer reviews it, stamps a ticket on it and sends you your fine. No explaination, no please, no thank you for your payment. Etc.
If were and officer pulling me over, the officer would have told me why it was unsafe, the reason he pulled me over and have a good day or at least been a small conversation with a few laughs. But instead, I get a totally dry letter with no explaination of how my action was unsafe, or, the reason they put that camera there, nothing.. My emotional reaction was pure anger, and actually drove worse for a few months in that town because of it.
The way its done now, it gives the impression that they set them up to make money. Because of that, it serves more to annoy. I just feel angry about the whole thing. I'll gladly pay more taxes to put more officers on the road, because they don't just write tickets. They also set the examples, and help with other things like fires, public saftey, medical, etc. I will not pay to put more camera's on the road because it's primary achievement is annoying drivers rather than making roads safer.
Don't forget, that the camera manufactures also have rigged google so that if you search anything out about them you'll find nothing but good about them for the first 20 pages or so.
I personaly shed no tears for the destroyed cameras. They dug thier own hole with them.
Well, if a book pushes you out to be this overconfident cocky SOB that can do anything with just a pinky. If you let shit like that move around the world a bit anyone new you deal with has certain expectations of you that are absolutely impossible to meet. Chuck norris is probably the equivalent of the dali lama. But, nothing out there really shows that.. I'm also guessing the book probably doesn't explain this in a disclaimer..
Actually, as a dedicated vendor salesperson selling printers. I alone only working about 12 hours a week sold roughly 3 million a year worth of printers, ink, and paper. Company burned me, so I convinced over half those customers to go to another company and I've probably cost them at least triple that in lost revenue since.
I'm only slightly vengful... In an Ebeneezer scrooge mixed with the memory of an elephant sort of way.
If they looked within thier own ranks I'm sure they could find some young people to bring in new ideas and methods to help boost the company.
I think they'd be better off bringing back commissions. Since that ended the service I've had there sucks.
Okay, 5.9L 6BT right??? I remember looking at doing a swap years ago.. I think the Drivetrain and engine was about 2200 lbs. With electrics you could cut that quie a bit because you wouldn't need all the extra weight for drivetrain. Batteries are about the only sticking point at this moment. But with evolving tech it's only a matter of time before we find a way around that. Technically we could do a uranium powered car. However, that would throw up a whole nother host of issues like using up a mineral thats extremely limited and cannot be reproduced.
First, I was hoping for a late model Chevy remake of the Firebird(Best looking car ever made)
Second, the wheels on the Ford suck... They should at least be aerodynamic and functional like KITT's. Not, sticking out 3 inches from the fender well and low profile. Seriously, what happened to all the aerodynamic wheel designs on the market???
Finally, I predict flop due to the crappy car... The only thing that could save it now is Will Smith becoming the new Knight Rider. If you are going to be disruptive with the car you may as well be disruptive with the actor.
First, I was hoping for a late model Chevy remake of the Firebird(Best looking car ever made)
Second, the wheels on the Ford suck... They should at least be aerodynamic and functional like KITT's. Not, sticking out 3 inches from the fender well and low profile. Seriously, what happened to all the aerodynamic wheel designs on the market???
I predict flop due to the crappy car... The only thing that could save it now is Will Smith becoming the new Knight Rider.
I bought a 32 inch TV analog brand new for 400 bucks... Thats 300 less than the digital one. Plus, the analog is bigger than the sized digital that will fit into my space. If I went digital I'd have to downgrade to a 27 inch TV because all of them are widescreens now days. With analog I can barely fit in a 32 inch. Not to mention those digital screens can't take nearly the same abuse as the old analog TV's can.
Case in point, Friends decided to go digital they got it, put it on the wall. 3 months later one of their kids was playing around in the living room and they bumped into the new TV which was so light and flimsy that it fell over and cracked the screen. Luckily this was covered by their homeowners insurance. But still it left a powerful lesson in the new light electronics. They aren't designed for their actual use. They crack when things are thrown at them, they break easy. They aren't sized well. They fail frequently(my brother bought one and has had it serviced 4 times) In less than a year!!! Each time they give him a loaner, which doesn't fit in his cabinet!!!! They also, keep it for 4 weeks.
One thing you missed about electric engines... They have wayyyyy more tourque than a comparable weight V8 engine. Hell the telsa has soo much tourque that they haven't been able to find anything outside of a single gear transmission strong enough to handle it's power output.
Something to note, uranium is not a naturally reproducing mineral it's supply is literally finite. And, Uranium was apparently formed in super novae about 6.6 billion years ago. It is not common in the solar system. And, today its slow radioactive decay provides the main source of heat inside the earth, causing convection and continental drift. This heat is also used to warm the earth.
With this in mind, Uranium is really the last source of power we should be using to power our civilizations. It is not something that naturally reproduces itself. We find a rather large amount of it here on earth. By taking unranium out of the core of our earth could we be finding ourselves in the same situation we are in now with coal and Oil.
Second, the only thing nuclear energy is going to do is essentially force us to rely on something that we cannot find easily for energy. When the fuel runs out, earth starts to cool and the ice age approaches.. What will be the final result??? I'll let you figure that one out. Hint, there will be no returning from the final ICE no matter how many green house gasses you pump into the atmosphere. Nuclear is a bad idea... Fusion however, is a totally different option... Because it takes the wastes of fission in our earths core and combines it until it gets to Iron which isn't radioactive at all.
I wouldn't mind, so long as it was a temporary thing, and it had a few rules attached.
-GPS and data are encrypted for no fussing. -All data is logged and downloaded via cable rather than transmitted. -the data couldn't be collected by any news agency and if it was collected by unapproved methods it cannot be used without paying the athlete 100k up front with no less than 2 days notice. Only 10k with 30 days notice. -Data would only be accessible only by key people on the olympic comittee and a few handpicked people, - They would be under strict rules not to release data on the whereabouts of any athlete without unless it was absolutely necessary for proving conviction. If proven in giving out data without following rules. Fines of up to 10k per day of data given will be assessed.
All fines cannot be erased by bankruptcy and can be embellished from your check. The only way to bypass fines is if you get unamious pardoning from olympic comitte.
Then, I could see the possibility of having a GPS in my gym bag.
I'm thinking, that they use two different kites. They use a light one to go up to the high hieghts of wind. Then they use the lighter one to work with a pulley system of some sort to pull the heavy kite up into the windy hieghts so they aren't fumbling around for two hours going nowhere trying to get this super heavy long lasting sail in the air. Once you got the heavy sail in the air pull the lighter kite down and store it in a place where it can dry out.
Epson, HP, lexmark will literally stop printing once the chip thinks its out of ink. Canon's driver will simply bug you to death make you take the ink out and put it back in... But it will literally print until its completely gone. However, with the sponge system they got once it's really pretty much gone and the only ink you got left is in the sponge you can only print a page or two at a time or you get blank spots.
My Two previous Epson printers. Epson stylus 980(great printer) would print then stop and tell you it was out of ink based on a counter in the printer. All you needed to do was take ink out, put it back in, and do 3 cleaning cycles to clear the print head. It would continue to work for another 300-400 pages on the black and 100-160 for the color. Basically I'd get an extra 50 percent out of the ink before it really ran dry. The newer epson Cx-5200 has chips on the ink tanks with counters that don't reset like before, what sucks is that now cleaning cycles take a significant chunk out of your ink supply. Whats worse, Epson makes you replace these tanks and do 3 cleaning cycles before they will do replacement.
Actually, I think the worst part is that Epson(nowdays unlike the past) literally designs thier printers nowdays to stop working in under 2 years. In which case, you buy a new printer. But the kicker is that they change thier ink formulations so often any ink you had stored up for your old printer will not work on your new printer even if its only a year old. I think Epson makes it impossible for offbrand to succeed by taking up so much of the shelf with their vast selection of ink tanks which are often unique to maybe 3-5 different models that they produced at one time. It's funny in that Epson could easily fix thier printers so it's only another replacement part and the printer works for another 10-15 years. But, alas they don't...
Also, I'd say that out of the brands out there. Epson probably has the most percentage profit on Ink. HP comes close with thier new low end models though. If you were shopping for a printer this christmas get one of the newer 5 tank Canon's or shoot for a high end HP business ink jets if you want to save money on ink.
Also, another system I've seen out there is CIS(continuous ink systems) for many printers. You can do a search on google for them. Usually a couple hundered extra to spend but in high volume full bleed 13x19 prints it brings your cost per page from 2-3 dollars on ink to.10 a page on ink.
That Sail manufactures will all be getting a piece of this. It takes a lot of money to make a good long lasting sail. Not to mention keeping it in good repair overtime. Ocean air and the Sun aren't exactly friendly to Quality Sailing materials that are used on a daily basis.
Interopability only works in specific environments. The biggest environment out there is dealing with sales and retail data/management.
If google were to go as far as creating a large database for translation of data into information then, that might be useful in the large scale businesses. But for most of the people out there today it's just simply not going to work.
PS, all the ideas google is doing now with interopability are ideas that microsoft pushed out with office 2003. Perhaps it was in the implementation that they got mixed. Those same ideas are avialible with office 2007 and messenger.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I knew you weren't American. So comparing you to Bush was a bigger insult, considering how unpopular he is among the international world. Though, I should've checked his popularity in the Netherlands. I doubt it's much higher than just about anywhere else in the world. Also, If I'm an average driver and I react this way think of the 1 billion or so other average drivers out there who would react the same. That adds up to a lot of property damage and anger that could've easily been prevented with good civil engineering and the money used to buy the cameras. Camera's as they are today, are a Win/lose situation... it makes more sense to change that over to a Win/Win and I've offered several solutions to make it a Win/Win. If you can't see that, then I pity you.
I didn't know if it was lossy or not. That's why I advocated copying it onto multiple formats. Also, I never said you should shrink it out of it's original format. If I was to backup onto a dual layer dvd I'd keep it in it's original lossless format and just burn the data. It might take a 50 pack or so. But, in storage on high quality DVD's I'm willing to bet it'll last a while.
I could see the cost exploding if they keep the data in a data wharehouse so that they can actively access it at any given time. However, if they were to put it on laser disc, blue ray, dvd, HDDVD and a hard drive. Then, leave it sitting in a vault they wouldn't have to worry about it. The hard part is still having ready easy access to the original file.
Really?? How about this, everything you've said pretty much shows you as being a supporter of terrorism. Terrorists don't change. They are incapable of understanding points that I've painted above. The fact that you've refused to acknowledge any of these points and instead refer to tactics of assumption without even asking questions makes you still look like a terrorist. Pehaps you are buddies with President Bush. You two act the same... You go after something I used simply as a reference more than anything. You attack it like a politician which is about the same as president Bush. Refuse to understand the point that it was making. Grow up... Stop being a Bush supporter. And, If I was an average driver. I could care less. I've driven on more cities and roads than most people have in a lifetime. I'll let my accident record speak for itself in that. I wish most drivers had the same ability or luck as you imply it is.
Just to note, I'm hardly an average driver. I drove daily for work(Sales/marketing) for about 10 years before I settled down local. In the last 15 years I've driven roughly 750,000. Most people don't do that in even 45 years.
.2 to .5 seconds for the light to change, then, an average driver .3 seconds to proccess a response to a light change even if thier foot was already on the brake to begin with if not add another half second for moving foot and apply brake. Then, going from 30-0mph in 1-1.5 seconds is hardly a normal stop for any driver. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a 2 second light for up to 15mph, and 3.5 seconds for up to 40mph then 5 seconds at 50 and above? If you did that then you'd have very few issues? Plus, the cameras wouldn't generate any major revenue.
.2 seconds is a blatant red light. I've seen some blatant red lights in my time and .2 seconds is hardly what I or most officers would call a red light running. Actually if you were smart you'd know that it's less time than it takes for a light to turn from yellow to red. Try going drag racing at the track some time and you'll understand what I mean. Actually, if you are curious, you can test your own reaction timing on the link at the end of my post to see what I'm saying(Try doing it while being relaxed). The typical person reacts around .2 to .35 seconds in thier ready for it prime condition. Distracted in the slightest they'd likely react around .4 to .5. If you are a road engineer you adjust for the higher end because its a safer bet. It's like designing a building in an area that gets hurricanes typically only up to 110mph but every once in a while it goes up to 140mph. Which wind speed are you going to design it for?
.23 when I'm waiting for it. .42 when I'm just relaxed.
Also, think about it. A 2 second light on a 4 lane road which is equivalent to what, 30mph. Minimum it'll take
Typically lights are set this way. I can tell you from my driving experience that Typical downtown areas and streets have 3.5 second yellow lights even on two lane roads. Why should a city have anything less? Wouldn't it be safer to give them a consistent timing across all cities? Even the time it takes for lights to change from one direction to the other is 3 seconds. That timing is there for a reason. To make roads safer and prevent accidents.
Also, you call and imply that
Stop thinking of drivers as cattle in a box. Think of them as people.. They have emotions, they are flexible, they get tired, they get happy, they notice things on the side of the road and are quite frequently slightly distracted at any given moment. They are not automatons nor should they be.
If you want to test your own reaction time, http://www.topendsports.com/testing/reactiontest.htm
Mine is
So, next time you say a 2 second light is more than enough time to prepare and stop. Think about going from 30-0 in about 1 second. Because thats about the time you have with a 2 second yellow light. Imagine if there were ice/snow on the ground. I garruantee you wouldn't be able to stop.
Reposted for plain old text gammar...
Sorry, I've been driving for 15 years. no accidents on my record, never a red light until a camera caught me. Speeding tickets, sure... But eh... Plus, I was the lead car bub. Next, you are accusing me of things that don't even apply to the situation. If there was a car there I would likely be stopping. If there was a pedestrian on the corner I'd be stopping. But alas none of the above. Everything isn't a race to beat the light.
So.. Stop making assumptions and trying to attack me to descredit the main point of my post. It's a childish tactic only used by people with a personal interest in what the main-point is fighting against.
Lastly, I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm looking to show an understanding of what mood these cameras give to drivers. My point is that drivers are not becoming better drivers because of cameras. They are getting angry.. That anger leads them to drive even more unsafe than before and even worse they will do things to cost those same cities and governments property damage equivalent to the cost of thier 380 dollar ticket. Defeating the whole purpose of a redlight camera in the first place.
My other points still stand
-if a street is properly constructed with all timers and speeds set right a camera should only be recording about 3-4 violations a day on a busy road. Any more than that should require redesign of the street to make it safer.
-Tickets should be accompanied by full disclosure about the road. IE why they put cameras there, why the speed is set that way, recent accidents, how many tickets a day this camera records, what number they were. Please send payment, thank you etc.
The whole point of traffic enforcement is to make drivers aware and safer. Cameras don't achieve this. Officers do. I think it's time to make cameras a direct budget thing in that cities cannot have any of the money from the revenues that cameras generate. All money goes only into expanding public transportation and making highways safer.
Plus, we should limit the profits to private companies who give cities sneaky ideas like shortening the yellow lights, dropping the speed limits, etc. These companies should be limited to a modest 7 percent profit..
Sorry, I've been driving for 15 years. no accidents on my record, never a red light until a camera caught me. Speeding tickets, sure... But eh... Plus, I was the lead car bub. Next, you are accusing me of things that don't even apply to the situation. If there was a car there I would likely be stopping. If there was a pedestrian on the corner I'd be stopping. But alas none of the above. So.. Stop making assumptions and trying to attack me to descredit the main point of my post. It's a childish tactic only used by people with a personal interest in what the main-point is fighting against. Lastly, I'm not looking for sympathy, I'm looking to show an understanding of what mood these cameras give to drivers. My point is that drivers are not becoming better drivers because of cameras. They are getting angry.. That anger leads them to drive even more unsafe than before and even worse they will do things to cost those same cities and governments property damage equivalent to the cost of thier 380 dollar ticket. Defeating the whole purpose of a redlight camera in the first place. My other points still stand -if a street is properly constructed with all timers and speeds set right a camera should only be recording about 3-4 violations a day on a busy road. Any more than that should require redesign of the street to make it safer. -Tickets should be accompanied by full disclosure about the road. IE why they put cameras there, why the speed is set that way, recent accidents, how many tickets a day this camera records, what number they were. Please send payment, thank you etc. The whole point of traffic enforcement is to make drivers aware and safer. Cameras don't achieve this. Officers do. I think it's time to make cameras a direct budget thing in that cities cannot have any of the money from the revenues that cameras generate. All money goes only into expanding public transportation and making highways safer. Plus, we should limit the profits to private companies who give cities sneaky ideas like shortening the yellow lights, dropping the speed limits, etc. These companies should be limited to a modest 7 percent profit..
2 second yellow on a 4 lane road. WTF??? Also, I didn't have my foot on the accelerator. I actually had it on the brake as I was approaching the right hand turn. The pictures even clearly show this with my brake lights on. But, apparently I braked too much and went .2 over going at a safe pace rather than an insane one.
Also I did a survey of said light. It nails about 25 people an hour. This, in my opinion is to the point that you should be adjusting lights, rebuilding roads, etc. to increase traffic saftey rather than writing 200 plus tickets a day. A camera shouldn't be recording more than about 2 violations a day if the engineers built the road properly and set the speed accordingly correct.
After getting nailed by a redlight camera when turning right .2 seconds after the light turned red. I can totally understand the frustration here. The camera takes a picture, the officer reviews it, stamps a ticket on it and sends you your fine. No explaination, no please, no thank you for your payment. Etc.
If were and officer pulling me over, the officer would have told me why it was unsafe, the reason he pulled me over and have a good day or at least been a small conversation with a few laughs. But instead, I get a totally dry letter with no explaination of how my action was unsafe, or, the reason they put that camera there, nothing.. My emotional reaction was pure anger, and actually drove worse for a few months in that town because of it.
The way its done now, it gives the impression that they set them up to make money. Because of that, it serves more to annoy. I just feel angry about the whole thing. I'll gladly pay more taxes to put more officers on the road, because they don't just write tickets. They also set the examples, and help with other things like fires, public saftey, medical, etc. I will not pay to put more camera's on the road because it's primary achievement is annoying drivers rather than making roads safer.
Don't forget, that the camera manufactures also have rigged google so that if you search anything out about them you'll find nothing but good about them for the first 20 pages or so.
I personaly shed no tears for the destroyed cameras. They dug thier own hole with them.
Well, if a book pushes you out to be this overconfident cocky SOB that can do anything with just a pinky. If you let shit like that move around the world a bit anyone new you deal with has certain expectations of you that are absolutely impossible to meet. Chuck norris is probably the equivalent of the dali lama. But, nothing out there really shows that.. I'm also guessing the book probably doesn't explain this in a disclaimer..
It was a formating issue.... unfortunately we can't go back and edit our formating. I wish we had a 5 minute rule or something.
Actually, as a dedicated vendor salesperson selling printers. I alone only working about 12 hours a week sold roughly 3 million a year worth of printers, ink, and paper. Company burned me, so I convinced over half those customers to go to another company and I've probably cost them at least triple that in lost revenue since.
I'm only slightly vengful... In an Ebeneezer scrooge mixed with the memory of an elephant sort of way.
If they looked within thier own ranks I'm sure they could find some young people to bring in new ideas and methods to help boost the company.
I think they'd be better off bringing back commissions. Since that ended the service I've had there sucks.
Okay, 5.9L 6BT right??? I remember looking at doing a swap years ago.. I think the Drivetrain and engine was about 2200 lbs. With electrics you could cut that quie a bit because you wouldn't need all the extra weight for drivetrain. Batteries are about the only sticking point at this moment. But with evolving tech it's only a matter of time before we find a way around that. Technically we could do a uranium powered car. However, that would throw up a whole nother host of issues like using up a mineral thats extremely limited and cannot be reproduced.
First, I was hoping for a late model Chevy remake of the Firebird(Best looking car ever made)
Second, the wheels on the Ford suck... They should at least be aerodynamic and functional like KITT's. Not, sticking out 3 inches from the fender well and low profile. Seriously, what happened to all the aerodynamic wheel designs on the market???
Finally, I predict flop due to the crappy car... The only thing that could save it now is Will Smith becoming the new Knight Rider. If you are going to be disruptive with the car you may as well be disruptive with the actor.
First, I was hoping for a late model Chevy remake of the Firebird(Best looking car ever made) Second, the wheels on the Ford suck... They should at least be aerodynamic and functional like KITT's. Not, sticking out 3 inches from the fender well and low profile. Seriously, what happened to all the aerodynamic wheel designs on the market??? I predict flop due to the crappy car... The only thing that could save it now is Will Smith becoming the new Knight Rider.
I bought a 32 inch TV analog brand new for 400 bucks... Thats 300 less than the digital one. Plus, the analog is bigger than the sized digital that will fit into my space. If I went digital I'd have to downgrade to a 27 inch TV because all of them are widescreens now days. With analog I can barely fit in a 32 inch. Not to mention those digital screens can't take nearly the same abuse as the old analog TV's can. Case in point, Friends decided to go digital they got it, put it on the wall. 3 months later one of their kids was playing around in the living room and they bumped into the new TV which was so light and flimsy that it fell over and cracked the screen. Luckily this was covered by their homeowners insurance. But still it left a powerful lesson in the new light electronics. They aren't designed for their actual use. They crack when things are thrown at them, they break easy. They aren't sized well. They fail frequently(my brother bought one and has had it serviced 4 times) In less than a year!!! Each time they give him a loaner, which doesn't fit in his cabinet!!!! They also, keep it for 4 weeks.
that diesel is a v10... with the drivetrain including transmission, driveshaft and rear end it probably weighs more than the whole telsa does.
One thing you missed about electric engines... They have wayyyyy more tourque than a comparable weight V8 engine. Hell the telsa has soo much tourque that they haven't been able to find anything outside of a single gear transmission strong enough to handle it's power output.
Something to note, uranium is not a naturally reproducing mineral it's supply is literally finite. And, Uranium was apparently formed in super novae about 6.6 billion years ago. It is not common in the solar system. And, today its slow radioactive decay provides the main source of heat inside the earth, causing convection and continental drift. This heat is also used to warm the earth. With this in mind, Uranium is really the last source of power we should be using to power our civilizations. It is not something that naturally reproduces itself. We find a rather large amount of it here on earth. By taking unranium out of the core of our earth could we be finding ourselves in the same situation we are in now with coal and Oil. Second, the only thing nuclear energy is going to do is essentially force us to rely on something that we cannot find easily for energy. When the fuel runs out, earth starts to cool and the ice age approaches.. What will be the final result??? I'll let you figure that one out. Hint, there will be no returning from the final ICE no matter how many green house gasses you pump into the atmosphere. Nuclear is a bad idea... Fusion however, is a totally different option... Because it takes the wastes of fission in our earths core and combines it until it gets to Iron which isn't radioactive at all.
If you removed the crapware that HP sent out with it.. You'll be fine.. Just takes like 3 or 4 hours to do it all though... Extremely annoying...
I wouldn't mind, so long as it was a temporary thing, and it had a few rules attached.
-GPS and data are encrypted for no fussing.
-All data is logged and downloaded via cable rather than transmitted.
-the data couldn't be collected by any news agency and if it was collected by unapproved methods it cannot be used without paying the athlete 100k up front with no less than 2 days notice. Only 10k with 30 days notice.
-Data would only be accessible only by key people on the olympic comittee and a few handpicked people,
- They would be under strict rules not to release data on the whereabouts of any athlete without unless it was absolutely necessary for proving conviction. If proven in giving out data without following rules. Fines of up to 10k per day of data given will be assessed.
All fines cannot be erased by bankruptcy and can be embellished from your check. The only way to bypass fines is if you get unamious pardoning from olympic comitte.
Then, I could see the possibility of having a GPS in my gym bag.
I'm thinking, that they use two different kites. They use a light one to go up to the high hieghts of wind. Then they use the lighter one to work with a pulley system of some sort to pull the heavy kite up into the windy hieghts so they aren't fumbling around for two hours going nowhere trying to get this super heavy long lasting sail in the air. Once you got the heavy sail in the air pull the lighter kite down and store it in a place where it can dry out.
Epson, HP, lexmark will literally stop printing once the chip thinks its out of ink. Canon's driver will simply bug you to death make you take the ink out and put it back in... But it will literally print until its completely gone. However, with the sponge system they got once it's really pretty much gone and the only ink you got left is in the sponge you can only print a page or two at a time or you get blank spots. My Two previous Epson printers. Epson stylus 980(great printer) would print then stop and tell you it was out of ink based on a counter in the printer. All you needed to do was take ink out, put it back in, and do 3 cleaning cycles to clear the print head. It would continue to work for another 300-400 pages on the black and 100-160 for the color. Basically I'd get an extra 50 percent out of the ink before it really ran dry. The newer epson Cx-5200 has chips on the ink tanks with counters that don't reset like before, what sucks is that now cleaning cycles take a significant chunk out of your ink supply. Whats worse, Epson makes you replace these tanks and do 3 cleaning cycles before they will do replacement. Actually, I think the worst part is that Epson(nowdays unlike the past) literally designs thier printers nowdays to stop working in under 2 years. In which case, you buy a new printer. But the kicker is that they change thier ink formulations so often any ink you had stored up for your old printer will not work on your new printer even if its only a year old. I think Epson makes it impossible for offbrand to succeed by taking up so much of the shelf with their vast selection of ink tanks which are often unique to maybe 3-5 different models that they produced at one time. It's funny in that Epson could easily fix thier printers so it's only another replacement part and the printer works for another 10-15 years. But, alas they don't... Also, I'd say that out of the brands out there. Epson probably has the most percentage profit on Ink. HP comes close with thier new low end models though. If you were shopping for a printer this christmas get one of the newer 5 tank Canon's or shoot for a high end HP business ink jets if you want to save money on ink. Also, another system I've seen out there is CIS(continuous ink systems) for many printers. You can do a search on google for them. Usually a couple hundered extra to spend but in high volume full bleed 13x19 prints it brings your cost per page from 2-3 dollars on ink to .10 a page on ink.
That Sail manufactures will all be getting a piece of this. It takes a lot of money to make a good long lasting sail. Not to mention keeping it in good repair overtime. Ocean air and the Sun aren't exactly friendly to Quality Sailing materials that are used on a daily basis.
Interopability only works in specific environments. The biggest environment out there is dealing with sales and retail data/management. If google were to go as far as creating a large database for translation of data into information then, that might be useful in the large scale businesses. But for most of the people out there today it's just simply not going to work. PS, all the ideas google is doing now with interopability are ideas that microsoft pushed out with office 2003. Perhaps it was in the implementation that they got mixed. Those same ideas are avialible with office 2007 and messenger.