Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Of late my bank has been on a new drive to irritate all customers under the guise of protecting our security.
UK banks have introduced personal card readers. When prompted you insert your card into your own card reader, enter your PIN and then enter a number that the website gives you. You then enter into the web form the resulting number that your card reader provides. In this way, you have proven that you have physical access to your bank card.
It also isn't always maintained by the homeowner who should be draining the bottom of the heater once a year to remove rust and sediment.
Probably more important (for longevity) to replace the sacrificial anode every 2-3 years.
Your analysis ignores the fact that cost/GB goes down over time. After 3 years, to buy an equivalent 3TB drive will cost less (or you can buy a higher capacity drive for same money).
Where the enterprise drive wins in the analysis above is if you know that, after 3 years, you will need to replace the failed drive with an identical model. There is also a "cost of money" issue, but with interest rates so low, that's not important.
Any car with a modern ECU will advance timing until the knock sensor detects detonation
Doesn't work like that. Knock sensor outputs are used to retard timing. Maximum advance is determined in advance for the engine with recommended fuel. Otherwise a failed knock sensor could quickly result in a destroyed engine.
Perhaps if OP's engine was suffering from excessive knock due to a fault (excessive carbon build-up, incorrect timing, etc.) then higher octane fuel would make a difference.
Even my old 4-banger (gutless) 1997 Saturn SL1 sees a difference in pickup between 87 and 89 octane fuels when at highway speeds.
Don't believe you. You know that there is less energy in a gallon of higher-octane fuel than a gallon of lower-octane fuel, right? Higher efficiency and power through increased compression ratio and more advanced timing provides a net benefit to cars that require higher-octane fuel, but no advantage to cars that are not tuned to use the higher-octane fuel.
Are fly by wire brakes even legal? It was my understanding that there must always be a mechanical linkage between the brake pedal and the brakes, just to give you a hail mary if your brake booter craps out.
No. For many years, Citroen sold cars with power-brakes -- not power-boosted, but power brakes. If you lost pressure in the pressure reservoir (due to a leak or pump failure), you lost all braking. The Citroen I drove had a big red warning light in the middle of the dash that would light up with the word "STOP" if you lost power in the braking/suspension system -- yes, the same pressure system was used for the suspension, so before you lost the brakes, the car would be riding on the suspension bump-stops. I believe Rolls-Royce used the same systems.
The firm added that it did not believe the RF Safe-Stop posed any risk to people using a pacemaker.
Clearly nothing for those pacemaker-carrying luddites to worry about. I mean, the company that created this can't possbly be wrong in their belief that it won't affect pacemakers.
If you doubt this in any way, go do some research. Go look at the cost of healthcare prior to medicare/medicaid, and then the cost of healthcare afterwards. Even a trivial bit of research will show you the huge spikes in costs. These spikes in cost are a direct result of the command economy approach to price setting in healthcare, and the fact that these rate tables are used as a basic for UNC.
While I don't discount the possiblity of some infuence from Medicare/Medicaid, I think that your argument is an over simplification. Look at just about every other country that provides univesal healthcare, yet costs are far lower.
The biggest problem is that healthcare providers are paid for failure. They bill for every procedure, whether it was necessary or effective. Hospitals with poor hygene can look forward to re-admission of patients (and more billing) with post-operative infections, etc..
When you invite the public in, then you have invited them in. All of them.
Citation? Because you are absolutely wrong. Every business has the right to deny access to people, as long as it isn't illegal discrimination.
According to you, casinos in Las Vegas don't have the right to refuse entry to anyone. Really?
According to you, restaurants don't have the right to refuse service to people who don't meet their dress code. Really?
I let some people into my house, but I don't have a "private residence" sign. According to you, I have to let everyone in. Really?
See this article regarding justification for smoking bans: http://trib.com/news/opinion/blogs/byer/why-restaurants-and-bars-are-public-places/article_ae80681f-3098-5b53-be02-ebb145b95b8b.html
The author of that article is a moron. The proposed ordinance it discusses defines "public places" for the purpose of that specific ordinance. It does not change their status as a private place for every other consideration except the smoking ban that the ordinance proposes.
We're talking about this in as of a "right to privacy," and there is no such right in a public place, and a restaurant is considered a public, not private, place, even though it is a private business -- as established by these protected class statutes as well as health-related statutes.
You are so wrong. The owner of a restaurant can deny service to anyone as long as it is not for a set of well-defined but limited reasons (racial discrimination, etc.) as evidenced by widespread rules requiring shirts and shoes in order to be served in many restaurants. The fact that there are health rules does not make it a public place.