Sounds like you might want to lean on your regional bureaucrats and allow other varieties to be sold. Even the thread submitter can get real gas, as can plenty of others around America.
Not if you live an a designated problem air quality zone. It has nothing to do with regional bureaucrats, either.
Toyota is not nicer than Toyota. VAG cars are unreliable heaps of electrical failures, just like a Chrysler.
Sure they are, or are you saying a Yaris is as nice as a Camry?
Yeah, if you want something that will be in the shop extracting one to two thousand dollars out of your pocket every few thousand miles, by all means, buy a high-end Audi, BMW, or Mercedes.
I've owned the latter two, and if you take them to the shop for everything, yes, they will cost you more, but it's not every few thousand miles by a long shot. You can DIY for about the same as other vehicles, even a few classes lower.
You'll have less maintenance problems with an F150 than you will with any of that German shit you mentioned. There's a reason why the F-Series is the most popular vehicle in the world.
Except I don't want to drive a 12 mpg bucket of soon to be rust with all the excitement of a horse drawn carriage, unless, of course, I spend as much or more than one of those aforementioned imports. And honestly, I don't recall a well-running F150 above 75K that wasn't a constant source of repair work. They'll run without all that work, but not well. I personally didn't own one, but have several friends that do. The highest mileage one was around 120K.
I have bought German cars, so I well know what that's actually like — nowhere near as rosy as you suggest.
Perhaps I've just been lucky or by working on them myself, avoided some of what you've experienced? I'd say less than $2K spent across 100K miles excluding tires is not an unreasonable amount, on any of my last 3 vehicles. 100K is, admittedly a magic number, because that's when a whole slew of maintenance items come due, all pretty close together. If you combine them all, and DIY, you'll come out the other side for less than $2K and a weekend's work, resulting in what should be another 50+K of relatively maintenance free driving if you don't track your car (excluding oil changes). If you have the dealership do it all, well, let's just say it might be enough to pay for a new car.
Like Stephen Hawking....good think they didn't listen to you...
Stephen makes his own decisions and chooses to continue at this time. Perhaps the better response would have been "determine the possible outcomes and ask whether she wants to continue with any of those, or pull the plug." Unless it is put out there as an option, some may not be able to make their will known.
Some people have never opened a hood (excuse the gp). What's funny is my first 2 vehicles were 7x year models, neither made it to anything near 100K. And that's in miles, for others that are posting. Hell, only one made it to 100K km. I've owned/driven multiple cars from every decade since from every major manufacturer out there, and quite a few across the 100K mile point. GM's 3800 was still a major engine at least up to 2000. It's a major POS, from an efficiency standpoint, although it does keep on trucking, at least through 80K. I have a Toyota V8 with at least 250HP and torque to match. It gets 18 mpg in the city and has been as high as 27 on the freeway, although normally it's closer to 24 (SUV). GM gets they claim 15 except we have 10% ethanol, so it's probably closer to 11 for them in city driving.
I have had various sports cars all with over 200HP that run between 30 and 40 on the freeway, roughly 20-25 in the city. Domestics are nowhere close to any of these ratings. Their engines are all shit, and we won't even get into a discussion about the quality of the rest of the vehicle construction. If I want cheap and reliable, low end Toyota or Kia. If I want something slightly nicer, either Toyota or VW. If I want something high end, Audi, BMW, Mercedes. If I want high end but lower maintenance because I can't/don't want to do it myself: Lexus. If I want a rust bucket that will run 200K, an american SUV/truck might do it, but it'll cost me in maintenance and gas and it won't be trouble free. It won't go much further unless I drive a lot more than average.
It's not the imports that are killing the american car industry, rather the fact that the american car industry is still stuck in the 60s with bandaids to deal with new efficiency requirements. Maybe if they could look past the next quarter, and actually focus on their customer, they might produce a decent vehicle. Of course, they'd also have to ditch 99% of their dealers, and possibly their current brand(s)
....whereas the TSA had the carte blanche in the name of Fatherland Security!
and yet you could always opt out. Don't be a sheep.
They also have some fantastic engines. The down side is everything else.
Fantastic engines? Compared to what? Ford Escorts or a 90s Hyundai? Fantastic engines would be those 4-cylinder Toyota, Subaru or Honda engines that run efficiently for 200K miles, or diesel engines from mercedes or volvo that can go 500K. Not some 70s style inefficient powerplant that reliably falls apart pre 100K in some way and requires half a rebuild at a minimum, provided the rest of the car is still functioning.
I've owned and driven quite a few cars into the high mileage territory (i.e. ~200K) and the 3 domestics I had didn't make it to 80K without significant trouble. To be fair, the absolute worst was a Renault, needing significant engine/transmission work at 50K. I currently have 2 that are about to cross 100K, one will need a valve cover gasket replacement when the spark plugs are done as a non-standard maintenance piece. I suspect both of these will cross 200K without a problem. Neither is domestic. At this point, I'd need to see a reliably reported $0 maintenance cost over 100K miles domestic at least 20% cheaper than an import's price for an equivalent vehicle before I'd even consider it. That means all maintenance covered for 100K miles, except tires, and maybe brakes, although several imports cover the later also for 40-50K.
Sorry, not so simplistic: there are websites out there with data still from the dawn of the web. That's well over 20 years ago. There are also all the "public records" type sites, that contain information even older. Those would be what I'd consider appropriate.
As for you putting up such a web site, they should go after you then, if it's libel. If not, well, you're shit out of luck if it's true. Just my opinion. I'm not sure how this particular decision acts on "currently" published items. If the site is taken down, then Google would be responsible for removing said references. (Do recall, they do cache a lot of pages) At one point even wayback results came up, but they dropped that pretty quickly.
There's a simple short answer, Google will need to keep the history of said piece, and then deal with it appropriately. It's the price they must pay, or anyone really, who deals with historical documents. The difference with electronic documents when you're the scale of Google is that the cost of storing all documents is less than only storing current documents, so they cheaped out. If this was being printed on paper, someone would be cutting out all the deadwood. 20 year old bankruptcy filing documents? Axed and so on. Google just serves it all up. All that's happening here is that now there's a statement that these types of documents should fall to the wayside, and that's not a bad thing honestly.
Note that some convictions are time-bound in various situations, like job applications. Others, like pedophilia, will place you on the sex offenders registry, so they actually don't need to be excluded entirely, although perhaps sandboxed results after a certain time period. After all, while a general search for someone probably shouldn't have a 30 year old conviction on it, if you were searching for local sex offenders and their history, then it probably should. Context matters, and currently Google does not pay attention to this concept of context at all.
Building on that, going into "historical" mode might allow deeper searches, but these should be discouraged for general searches primarily because documents are still available, but perhaps shouldn't show up unless a concerted effort is made to search for them, perhaps via a different entry mechanism and a throttling control.
I'll repeat what I said earlier:
Appropriate regulation would be to restrict ISPs to only providing connectivity services to the end-user. No ownership of content or other services of any kind. Much like electricity providers cannot also run the grid unless they're a monopoly. No one can realistically compete with them since if the generation costs for the competition are undercutting the grid provider's price, they can merely up the access fees. Regulate them there, you say? There's far too many shenanigans going on with GAAP to have that come out any differently under regulation, and far more opportunity for corruption and fleecing.
Otherwise we have plenty of home grown talent, and the H-1B program exists to suppress their wages. I assure you that most H-1B's are very far from the best in their fields.
No, it doesn't. The H1-B program specifically forbids it as a tool for lowering wages, and even has provisions permitting civil and criminal suits against those who do use it for that purpose. Most H1-B recipients get paid about the same rate as everybody else.
While that may be the intent of the program, I can assure you of the following truths:
I have seen both instances with several companies I have worked at and had contracts with. You can spew all the legalese crap about the program you want, it doesn't change what's actually happening one iota. The net effect of H1-B programs is to artificially lower pay in the US, at least as far as IT jobs go.
We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"
