It has gotten better, the fit and finish of the newer vehicles is miles ahead of where it was 20 years ago. Check out what Consumer Reports has to say about the new Impala, it is better than the Toyota Camry in many ways.

It's not like the Camry is a lofty goal anymore, as Toyota has been decontenting their cars every time they redesign them for the past few design cycles. In many ways, Toyota is becoming like GM was in the sense that they're becoming complacent and assume that people will just buy whatever they produce because it has Toyota badges on it. Now, there are some exceptions (the Prius is a very innovative vehicle), but the Camry from 20 years ago was almost Lexus-like in terms of quality. I can't say the same for today's Camry.

"SUVs" may have existed that long, but until the early 80's a SUV were spartan, utilitarian, and very much a truck. You'd buy one because you needed a truck or because you needed a vehicle with serious off-road capability. It wasn't until the 80's with the introduction of the Jeep Cherokee, and similar vehicles like the Nissan Pathfinder and Ford Explorer that SUVs started getting plush and the idea of using a SUV as a family vehicle got started. And in the late 90's vehicles like the Lexus RX established the formula for the modern CUV, which has changed fairly little since then. Modern SUVs/CUVs are pretty far removed from the Jeep CJ.

Part of the problem is that the current crop of minivans are gigantic. It's no surprise that a Honda Odyssey is not getting better mileage than a Pilot, because the Odyssey is frickin' massive. If you want a modern equivalent of the short-wheelbase 80's Dodge Caravan you're not really going to find one, though there are 4 door hatches that have grown enough to be similar in size.

I can't think of a current SUV with a 4-banger, but that's because there's actually very few true SUVs left in the sense that they have a body on frame construction, and the ones that are left are mostly large (Suburban, etc.) You'd have to go used (and probably at least 20 years old) to find a SUV with a 4 cylinder engine. In the past you could get a 4 cylinder Pathfinder, Wrangler, Blazer. etc.

It's the pressure, not necessarily the weight of the vehicle. One of the stupidest things we've done in that regard is taxing large trucks by the number of axles they have. Because of this, trucks are designed with the minimum amount of axles and tires needed to hold up their weight increasing the pressure where they do touch the road. If they were designed to spread out the weight more they'd damage the roads a lot less.

Is that really what people want? Back in the 80's/early 90's the car manufacturers figured out that they can build a family vehicle out of a truck, and because it's classified as a truck they can sell it cheaper because it falls under a different set of rules. So the buyers went to the new car lot, saw the cheaper SUV parked next to the station wagon, and gee, they picked the SUV. Change the rules, and you might find what people "want" will change with it. It's not like SUVs would be banned or anything, they'll just no longer be artificially cheaper than they should be.

1. Volvo is a safe vehicle that meets fuel economy standards without getting an SUV exemption

Actually, you might like to know that Volvo hasn't sold a wagon in the US now for several years. All those wagon-like Volvo's are now SUV/CUV's and are classified as light trucks.

Well, part of the problem is that the manufacturers have taken any gains in mileage and plowed it into higher performance. There's really no reason why a mundane family sedan needs 250+ HP. If they instead went for mileage and spec'd the engine to just be merely adequate, then the fuel efficiency of cars would pull way ahead.

The reason people "want" and are "buying" them is because they are priced cheaper than they should be because the messed up Cafe rules are distorting the market. Fix Cafe, and the prices of SUVs/CUVs would go up because they now are under the same rules as regular cars. Demand would drop and we'd start seeing vehicles like station wagons and hatchbacks make a comeback. People who still wanted one could still buy one, but they would have to pay the price for buying that gas guzzler over a more efficient car.

I don't think it would be so weird, as it would only affect what they did yeas ago. More recent songs would be copyrighted. Recordings and recent performances of the old songs would still be copyrighted even if the song itself was public domain. If they remix/reworked/recomposed the song then the newer versions would be copyrighted. Any derivative works would also be copyrighted. They would also have protections via trademarks and such. Other artists could perform the old Rolling Stones songs, but they couldn't claim to be the Rolling Stones.

I've also seen automatic drink filling machines that automatically dispense ice and the proper amount of soda into the beverage cups. They only use them on the drive-thru though because in the restaurant the customers fill their own cups.

No they didn't. Or at least if they did, they never released them. There was a download for IPv6 on WIndows 2000, which they called a "preview" and not officially supported. Windows XP had it built in but you had to install it. It was still not 100% there in XP yet (for example you couldn't do DNS over IPv6... which was kind of a deal breaker). The first version of Windows that really properly supported IPv6 was Vista.

That was incentivization, not restrictive action. It's one thing to help someone replace an old car and another to disallow them for daily use...

Actually, it was both. It would have just been incentivization if it was just a rebate on a new, fuel efficient car. But since it also required that the car that was turned in be destroyed (as opposed to being resold as used) it also removed a bunch of older cars from the road. Now, the first part I didn't mind so much, but in my opinion the government should not be using my taxpayer dollars to buy up perfectly usable vehicles and intentionally destroy them.

That's why the GP suggested using solar. It's actually a good use for something like solar and wind, since you can make extra fresh water when you have the power to do so, and store it in a reservoir to be used for when you don't.

Crank? Crystal radio all the way!

Seriously though, my cheap MP3 player will run the FM radio for more than 24 hours off a fresh alkaline AA.