I'm amazed to no end by the number of people who think the healthcare legislation currently sitting in the House is going to radically affect them one way or the other. Pay attention:
If it passes, insurance rates will go up since insurance will essentially be mandatory.
If it fails, insurance rates will go up because there will be no new rules to regulate it.
Bottom line: If you have a job and health insurance, your rates are going to go up, just like they always would. See how easy that was?
Friday, March 19, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Indisputable
Some indisputable truths observed by me, unfiltered by politics, religion, or personal prejudice...
Especially taking a cell phone away from a teen or 20-something and watching them turn into a yammering zombie.
While I'm at it, I might as well alienate everyone else by reminding American citizens that you do NOT have a Constitutional right to use a cell phone while driving, so whomever is bitching about "having their freedoms taken away" whenever a local jurisdiction bans cell-phone use or texting while driving needs to learn how to read:
This does not extend to reckless behavior which puts others in danger. The 5th Amendment doesn't cover you on this one:
...and there is in fact due process; just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less so. In other words, your rights end where mine begin. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 6000 people died in 2008 (the latest year for which numbers are available) in distracted-driving-related crashes (Crawley, 2009).
To put that in perspective for those of you who are arithmetically challenged, that's roughly twice the number of people who died on 9/11. And that was just in one year.
Morons.
Reference:
Crawley, C. (2009, September 30). Distracted driving blamed for 5,800 U.S. deaths. Reuters. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from http://64.14.40.68/article/idUSTRE58T3E020090930
- Everything is half-genetic, half-learned. Everything. Did you catch that? EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if it's good, bad, or indifferent. Yes, everything. Addiction, weight, sexual preference, mental disorders, you name it...If it's part of who you are, it's half-nature and half-nurture. (That is to say, Everything.) Time for science to stop looking for politically-correct answers and formally announce that which has been staring them in the face for decades. Did I mention EVERYTHING?
- They're politicians. All of them. Doesn't matter if they're Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, or Communist; liberal, conservative, socialist, fascist, or anarchist...they all have an agenda, and you're not part of it. "Throw the bums out" isn't a campaign slogan, it's a joke; and if you use it as a campaign slogan then the joke's on you. Revolution isn't the answer; that'll just replace the 536 current politicians with 536 new ones, who will also not give a rat's ass about you. While we're on the subject...
- You don't vote with a ballot, you vote with your wallet. The first Tuesday in November is symbolic; if no one spends any money on Labor Day weekend, Thanksgiving, and Christmas combined, that officially puts us in a recession (as defined by the Treasury Department's two-quarters-of-negative-growth rule), and there's no surer way to end a politician's career than with a recession. Also, the size of your wallet determines how much of a vote you have. Been that way for centuries; get over it.
- Gen-X might be the past, but it is also the future. You see, ours is the generation during which the current onrush of technology began, so we're in the unique position of being capable of using it as well as living without it, which leads me to...
- Yes, kids still need to learn the 3 R's. Yes, kids still need to know both the "how's" and "why's" of mathematics. Our future is in the hands of a generation of murmuring idiot-savants who magically spring to life à la "Awakenings" when handed a cell phone connected to Wikipedia. Learn some skills which don't involve thumbs and you might evolve past things which don't have thumbs in the first place.
Especially taking a cell phone away from a teen or 20-something and watching them turn into a yammering zombie.
While I'm at it, I might as well alienate everyone else by reminding American citizens that you do NOT have a Constitutional right to use a cell phone while driving, so whomever is bitching about "having their freedoms taken away" whenever a local jurisdiction bans cell-phone use or texting while driving needs to learn how to read:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "--The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified 12/15/1791
This does not extend to reckless behavior which puts others in danger. The 5th Amendment doesn't cover you on this one:
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."From the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, ratified 12/15/1791
...and there is in fact due process; just because you don't like it doesn't make it any less so. In other words, your rights end where mine begin. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 6000 people died in 2008 (the latest year for which numbers are available) in distracted-driving-related crashes (Crawley, 2009).
To put that in perspective for those of you who are arithmetically challenged, that's roughly twice the number of people who died on 9/11. And that was just in one year.
Morons.
Reference:
Crawley, C. (2009, September 30). Distracted driving blamed for 5,800 U.S. deaths. Reuters. Retrieved March 16, 2010 from http://64.14.40.68/article/idUSTRE58T3E020090930
Monday, March 15, 2010
For i in istanbul != constantinople
I'm typing this on a netbook. It's not a notebook. It's not a laptop. It's a netbook. That means < 12-inch screen and no optical drive. Also, more likely than not, means one of the uber-efficient Intel CPUs (which are actually not all that efficient, but I can't explain why without making your head spin Exorcist-style. Just take my word for it.) I had an Acer Aspire One netbook with an 11.6-inch screen that I felt was too big; I needed something more portable. Sold that and got an HP Mini 1101 with a 10.1-inch screen and 160 GB hard drive (as opposed to the 250GB drive in the Acer). I upgraded the RAM though; I'm no fool, and I like me some horsepower. So I have a netbook (which is not a laptop) which is so "just right" Goldilocks would give me a look like Lindsay Lohan with a hangover.
I mentioned it was a netbook, right?
So why are there so many intellectually-challenged barely-vertebrates who not only don't get the difference but go further and question why I would want such a crippled laptop? I understand people not being up on the latest technology; I have an IT degree and don't by any means expect everybody to know the difference between an Intel Socket 1366 and a Socket 1156 by sight. But don't criticize me because I do. In my time, I'd wager maybe 75% of people who own a laptop with more than 16 inches of screen size don't need it. These people assume bigger is always better, or as I like to call it, the Sam Kinison Rule: If one is good and two is better, then I want ten. So they spend a boatload of money on a machine they might use 10% of, oblivious to their inability to get replacement parts for a too-big laptop which is going to die an expensive death just like every other laptop.
Does this logic apply to me? Of course not. I wouldn't be blogging about it if it did, would I?
So I have my happy little netbook, and I have Dingbat Co-Worker #45 ask me if I "like those little laptops". She's friends with Dingbat Co-Worker #15, who has made it her goal in life to Own Six Of Everything. DCW#15 wonders, just loudly enough for me to form an opinion, why someone would bother with something so small with no DVD player in it. Well, idiot, it might be because I don't need one, kind of like how you don't need that pink (yes, pink) 20-inch Dell that you brought to work even though you couldn't figure out how to get it online; now if you would please be so kind as to get back under the boss' desk and for the life of Brian stop pretending you know something before you injure yourself.
Ordinarily I would stop caring at this point but DCW#15 has already had children, thus perpetuating the cycle of idiocy. Come to think of it, so has DCW#45. Oh, the humanity.
So back to the star of the show, my HP Mini. I so dig this kind of portability. I rarely have a need for an optical drive and the size actually lends itself to applications one would not ordinarily think of. Like a car stereo. I ran around to various places and got various things MacGyver-style and I'm going to build a pedestal in my truck for it, similar to those you find in police cars for full-sized laptops. Once there (though not permanently mounted) I have some Radio Shack cable adapters and I can wire it to a couple of car stereo amplifiers...
Think about it: Is it really that crazy?
Aftermarket car stereos have 7-inch screens and play DVDs for crying out loud, and those models will easily run north of $700. My netbook cost $300 and I get Winamp as a car stereo out of the deal. Not like I can (or want to) watch DVDs while driving anyway, but if need be I can fit a movie or 6 on the hard drive, and on a 10-inch screen no less. I don't have to tear apart my dash to replace the stock radio or get any more creative with the wiring. Also, it's the ultimate anti-theft device when someone looks in your car and sees only the original radio; after all, unlike a conventional car stereo I can bring the netbook in with me when I get to my destination and use it for other stuff. I think I'll do an Instructable.
Just don't call it a laptop.
I mentioned it was a netbook, right?
So why are there so many intellectually-challenged barely-vertebrates who not only don't get the difference but go further and question why I would want such a crippled laptop? I understand people not being up on the latest technology; I have an IT degree and don't by any means expect everybody to know the difference between an Intel Socket 1366 and a Socket 1156 by sight. But don't criticize me because I do. In my time, I'd wager maybe 75% of people who own a laptop with more than 16 inches of screen size don't need it. These people assume bigger is always better, or as I like to call it, the Sam Kinison Rule: If one is good and two is better, then I want ten. So they spend a boatload of money on a machine they might use 10% of, oblivious to their inability to get replacement parts for a too-big laptop which is going to die an expensive death just like every other laptop.
Does this logic apply to me? Of course not. I wouldn't be blogging about it if it did, would I?
So I have my happy little netbook, and I have Dingbat Co-Worker #45 ask me if I "like those little laptops". She's friends with Dingbat Co-Worker #15, who has made it her goal in life to Own Six Of Everything. DCW#15 wonders, just loudly enough for me to form an opinion, why someone would bother with something so small with no DVD player in it. Well, idiot, it might be because I don't need one, kind of like how you don't need that pink (yes, pink) 20-inch Dell that you brought to work even though you couldn't figure out how to get it online; now if you would please be so kind as to get back under the boss' desk and for the life of Brian stop pretending you know something before you injure yourself.
Ordinarily I would stop caring at this point but DCW#15 has already had children, thus perpetuating the cycle of idiocy. Come to think of it, so has DCW#45. Oh, the humanity.
So back to the star of the show, my HP Mini. I so dig this kind of portability. I rarely have a need for an optical drive and the size actually lends itself to applications one would not ordinarily think of. Like a car stereo. I ran around to various places and got various things MacGyver-style and I'm going to build a pedestal in my truck for it, similar to those you find in police cars for full-sized laptops. Once there (though not permanently mounted) I have some Radio Shack cable adapters and I can wire it to a couple of car stereo amplifiers...
Think about it: Is it really that crazy?
Aftermarket car stereos have 7-inch screens and play DVDs for crying out loud, and those models will easily run north of $700. My netbook cost $300 and I get Winamp as a car stereo out of the deal. Not like I can (or want to) watch DVDs while driving anyway, but if need be I can fit a movie or 6 on the hard drive, and on a 10-inch screen no less. I don't have to tear apart my dash to replace the stock radio or get any more creative with the wiring. Also, it's the ultimate anti-theft device when someone looks in your car and sees only the original radio; after all, unlike a conventional car stereo I can bring the netbook in with me when I get to my destination and use it for other stuff. I think I'll do an Instructable.
Just don't call it a laptop.
About that title...
Have you made your judgment yet? Does it refer to the idea of a hybrid-drivetrain SUV? Am I referring to the tinfoil-hat brigade who run vegetable oil in their converted Army-surplus halftracks? Am I being clever and trying to make a statement of irony, saying there can never really be such a thing as an SUV which is not harmful to the environment?
I don't care what preconceived notions brought you to debate the title of this blog; chances are you're wrong.
First off, it's a red herring: There are only 3 true sport-utility vehicles ever mass-produced: The original Land Rover, The original Ford Bronco (from the late-'60s), and the original Jeep (and its attendant Japanese clones). That's it. Just three. The number shall be three. The number shall not be four, nor shall it be two, etc. Everything else is either a truck or a car. Quit with your internal dialogue: "But Chris, mysoandsohasallwheeldriveanditsitsreallyhighandmyinsurancecompanysays..."
Shut up. You're wrong. Get over it.
To qualify as a true sport-utility vehicle, it has to have three (there's that number again) specific features:
Here's the deal: Some chowderhead didn't realize his Samurai wasn't a car (but wasn't quite a truck) when he took a freeway offramp faster than prudence and gravity dictated. The insurance industry sagely predicted that there were many other equally-moronic people out there and recognized this handful of vehicles for what they were, or weren't as the case may be. In a fit of CYA, Detroit labeled everything with 4-wheel-drive and an appropriately-high center of gravity an SUV. Shortly afterward, all cars ceased to exist except the Prius.
Oh, yeah, almost forgot...the blog title? My wife has a Geo Tracker (SUV) and I have a Chevy Blazer (not an SUV, though my stepdaughter will attempt to argue with me until one of us runs out of breath). They're both green. The same shade, as it happens (they're both GM and from the same era, so that's not as hard as it sounds). After we got back from test-driving the Blazer, my wife pointed out that it was the same color as her Tracker. I looked at the Tracker, then the truck, then said, "Only we could do that by accident." True story.
The blog name just popped into my head, actually.
Reference:
Bradsher, K. (2002, Spetember). High and Mighty: SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way. New York: PublicAffairs.
I don't care what preconceived notions brought you to debate the title of this blog; chances are you're wrong.
First off, it's a red herring: There are only 3 true sport-utility vehicles ever mass-produced: The original Land Rover, The original Ford Bronco (from the late-'60s), and the original Jeep (and its attendant Japanese clones). That's it. Just three. The number shall be three. The number shall not be four, nor shall it be two, etc. Everything else is either a truck or a car. Quit with your internal dialogue: "But Chris, mysoandsohasallwheeldriveanditsitsreallyhighandmyinsurancecompanysays..."
Shut up. You're wrong. Get over it.
To qualify as a true sport-utility vehicle, it has to have three (there's that number again) specific features:
- Has to have at least a partially-removable top of some sort. Sunroofs don't count.
- Has to have a frame/chassis which is completely separate from any other vehicle within that line. That means not a truck frame, and not a car frame.
- Has to have both sporting AND utilitarian capabilities. Like, at the same time.
- Chevy Avalanche/Cadillac Escalade EXT/GMT800 and GMT900: Trucks. Ugly ones too, and I'm a Chevy guy. Based on the Suburban chassis which is also a truck by virtue of being based on the Tahoe/Yukon frame, which are also...wait for it...trucks. Hint: The GMT stands for "General Motors Truck".
- Chevy Equinox/Saturn Vue: Car. Designed originally by Suzuki, so it had a fighting chance, then it was made front-wheel drive and given a 25-year-old motor.
- Chevy Blazer: The original came close but was built on a Silverado frame. The S-10-based version is a truck, because it's, y'know, an S-10.
- Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute: Very tall car.
- Ford Explorer: Truck, on the Ranger frame. Same with the Bronco II before it, though a friend of mine was seriously considering taking a Sawzall to the roof of his which would have put it in contention.
- Ford Expedition/Excursion: Trucks on steroids. The original Excursion was not only built on the F350 frame, but it was too tall to fit through a conventional garage door. Sporting? Not exactly, but it might be a creative way to get around the removable-roof thing.
- GMC Acadia/Buick Enclave/Chevy Traverse/Saturn Outlook: Car for people who don't want to admit they're driving a station wagon/minivan. The Lambda platform is based on the Epsilon platform, which is a Malibu. Neither is sporting and if you try to take the top off any of them you will end up with an expensive metal sculpture and not much else.
- The only Jeep to qualify is the original, which has retained its basic design for decades. Everything else wearing the Jeep name is a truck. Fun Fact: AMC (the previous owner of the Jeep name, for you kids out there) lobbied the Federal Government to get the Cherokee reclassified so as to get around the Clean Air Act in the early '80s which indirectly led to SUV becoming a more or less official designation (Bradsher, 2002).
- Toyota RAV4: The original came this/close, but alas was built on a Corolla frame.
- Mitsubishi Outlander/Honda CR-V: Cars.
- Isuzu: The Rodeo/Amigo were the closest but were built on truck frames.
- Lexus/Infiniti/Porsche/BMW/Mercedes-Benz: Puh-lease.
Here's the deal: Some chowderhead didn't realize his Samurai wasn't a car (but wasn't quite a truck) when he took a freeway offramp faster than prudence and gravity dictated. The insurance industry sagely predicted that there were many other equally-moronic people out there and recognized this handful of vehicles for what they were, or weren't as the case may be. In a fit of CYA, Detroit labeled everything with 4-wheel-drive and an appropriately-high center of gravity an SUV. Shortly afterward, all cars ceased to exist except the Prius.
Oh, yeah, almost forgot...the blog title? My wife has a Geo Tracker (SUV) and I have a Chevy Blazer (not an SUV, though my stepdaughter will attempt to argue with me until one of us runs out of breath). They're both green. The same shade, as it happens (they're both GM and from the same era, so that's not as hard as it sounds). After we got back from test-driving the Blazer, my wife pointed out that it was the same color as her Tracker. I looked at the Tracker, then the truck, then said, "Only we could do that by accident." True story.
The blog name just popped into my head, actually.
Reference:
Bradsher, K. (2002, Spetember). High and Mighty: SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way. New York: PublicAffairs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)