Wohoo! I got informative + insightful + flamebait mods for my message! That's one of the mods I've been trying for for years (plus the rare chance to use "for" twice in a row).

Now to see if I can achieve the ultimate: getting "funny" along with flamebait and (informative or insightful). Preferably all four, though I'd wonder if that's actually achievable if you start with 2 points.

Franchise opportunities have to be open to anyone (with geographical restrictions in some states), and it's my understanding that auto manufacturers may not have an interest (or at least a controlling interest) in any entity that owns a dealership that sells their vehicles.

As it was explained to me by the engineering dept. at SoCalEdison, the more power I use, the more it costs them, so they'd rather I used less, and if I used none at all that would be perfect.

Incidentally Sam's Club has started putting little wind generators on the lampposts in their parking lots. Manager at the one I frequented in SoCal told me this had already dropped their power bill by 5%, which is significant if you're in retail (even bulk-wholesale-priced retail).

So which case describes Chrome? I have it installed on an iPad, and it lacks most of the "walled garden" flakinesses of Safari, pretty much doing things the way browsers on non-Apple systems do them. Thus, Safari balks when you try to get it to display a PDF in a page, but Chrome does it like you'd expect, and sometimes even sizes it to its container correctly. Safari can display PDFs ok, if it's the only thing in a tab, but if you try to surround a PDF "object" with HTML, Safari flatly refuses, showing the "not implemented" message instead. I've taken to including a link to the PDF inside the "not implemented" failure message, and clicking on that link works fine, showing that Safari is quite capable of displaying such files. It just doesn't like to do so inside a web page with, say, additional information about the PDF. But somehow Chrome implements both cases. Google finds a number of complaints about this, and comments that nobody seems to be able to find a fix for Safari's flakiness in this case (and many more ;-).

Nah; the people who still use the web haven't seen much of anything "ruined". They see the web they've long seen, just with a larger set of web sites each month, and maybe a few new features in their browsers. It's just the suckers that succumb to the vendors' enticements into their Walled Gardens that think things have changed. If they'd install a decent browser (in addition to the crippled browser that came with their tablets), they'd see that the web is chugging along as it always has, some parts of it good and other parts not so good.

The fact that the marketers have pushed their New! Improved! products for small, portable computers doesn't mean that the old products have suddenly lost their capabilities. It just means that some of the customers have been persuaded to switch to other things that may or may not be any better.

The biggest problem with "the web" from a tablet user's viewpoint is all the old sites built by "designers" who haven't yet learned that their sites need to work on whatever screen the visitor has, including the small screens that so many people are carrying around now. The days are past when a site designer could design only for people with screens as big as the fancy one sitting on the designer's desktop. If your site doesn't work on the small screens, you won't attract many of the billion or so people who weren't using the web 5 years ago, but are now.

This isn't the fault of "tablet focused design"; it's a problem caused by designers' contempt for people with such small, cheap and portable equipment. They've been essentially anti-tablet since before tablets even existed. But they're slowly coming around, as they slowly realize how crappy their sites really are, from the viewpoint of most newcomers to the Internet.

(Actually, the web has always worked a lot better if you consciously avoid sites created by "designers". Those built by people with an engineer's concern for usability have always been a lot more useful, and they tend to work pretty well on tablets, phones, etc. The "designers" usually don't think they look pretty. But people continue to use google a lot, for example, despite its blatant lack of "design". Or maybe because of it. ;-)

I've had CFLs all over the map too, from with lifespan in months to over a decade. When they fail, first they get dim, and at that point the transformer is also getting too hot. I pitch them then as a fire hazard (I've had 'em seriously brown the lamp socket).

On thinking about it, tho, CFL and incandescent lifespan was about the same in a given fixture or socket. I put one of each in several fixtures (both open and enclosed, some old, some new), and in the 13 years I owned the house, not a one of those burned out. Conversely anything I put in the open porch socket burned out in a few months, regardless of the season. The large open desk lamps, always in 3 to 5 years. How much a given light was used didn't seem to be a factor.

I've found that the first symptom that the transformer is going bad (without going around burning my fingers on 'em) is that the CFL gets dimmer. Without fail, those have overheating transformers.

I've had 'em last anywhere from a few months to over 12 years. Perhaps significant, incandescent lifespan was similar in the same sockets.

There's a guy north of Los Angeles who did that with junk property -- sold it over and over with owner financing, and the expectation that the buyer would default. Last I heard he'd sold the same junk lot five times and made way more than he had in it.

Back in the ancient times of carburetors, the way most Fords came from the factory, they'd start easy but stall when idling. If you fixed that, they'd idle good but would take two tries to start. (Which I found preferable to having to restart in traffic.)

I like your solution, with the warning light and delayed disable. I'll bet these lenders' liability insurers would prefer it too.

Just for comparison with the cost of a monthly loan payment, I figured out that major maintenance on my old truck averages around $700 every three years. This includes stuff like having the engine and transmission rebuilt.

OTOH, liability insurance (at best rates) over the lifetime of the truck has so far come to four times what I paid for the truck brand new, in 1978.

Absolutely, and without 'censoring' any of the language of his time. I wonder if the newly-censored versions realise what the book is about, or even preserve it. (The one I've looked at was a rather horrible editing job.)

"...The Human Centipede..."

I learn so much from this site.... ;) :O

Sorry, but simply by adding "By entering this vehicle you are agreeing to be monitored" is all that is needed.

Today I Learned: writing a stated opinion or prediction causes it to become true! I think I'll put a sticker in my garden, "By entering this garden, it has rained today."

How does this prevent the non-driver from crashing it into a tree?

Take the recording out of the crashed car, to your desktop. Play back the recording up until a point where the car is near the tree. Then quickly hit a seek button that goes to another part of the video where the car is travelling down a safe unobstructed road. Click Save, eject, and then sneakernet the recording back to the car. Insert it and click load.

HTH.

That's a damn good point. How is a kid to learn to think critically about a controversial topic if all he learns is that studying an unpopular or discredited viewpoint (which is to say, reading one of these books) gets him punished? That might create a radical, but it won't create a critical thinker.