Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers

Stupid.
should be able to import anything that is not currently imported by a
manufacturor.

rhys

 

It's a purposeful warpage of the old saying 'throws a monkey wrench
into the works'. A former co-worker came up with that, I've used it since
because I think it's much funnier

 

I didn't get credit, but I got in a book written by a lecturer here at Uni,
we were having a debate and one of my remarks in refuting the opposing
arguement made the lecturer go all thoughtful and she asked after class if
she could quote me in the textbook on the subject she was writing.

rhys

 

Or anything that meets ECE specs, but hey, this is the Land of the Free we're
talking about. Can't have that!

--Aardwolf.

 

Even more important, in what journals has he been published.

Matt

 

All of the above depends on an accurate means of dating things that
occurred before any of us were around, and that simply doesn't exist.
And there is no way to calibrate accurately or prove it anyway.


Matt

 

Because of CAFE, you are correct. Damn CAFE to hell. -Dave

 

Oh, well I'm 5'10" with disproportionately long legs. I wouldn't be
comfortable in most cars unless someone 6'2" would be comfortable in them.
Still, I don't consider myself (or guys 6' and over, for that matter) to be
unnaturally large. There are many car buyers who are not 5'9". -Dave

 

It's very easy to get an accurate rate. By measuring the precession (sp?)
of stars now we can tell how they appeared thousands of years ago.
Some acient cultures appear to have been able to make these calculations
as well. The same goes for layers of ice, tree rings, soil depth, etc
etc etc...

 

call yourself "above average"... makes it sound better...

 

Then I have a whole rack of bones to pick with the designer; he appears
so incompetent that even Bechtel wouldn't hire him.

 

The key word is "appear." It is extremely unlikely that we will ever
know "for sure" what happened years ago. We can look at lots of
circumstantial evidence and try to draw logical conclusions, but the
reality is that we'll simply never know with certainty and some
scientists just seem unable to accept that. So, they claim certainty
about things that simply aren't and lose credibility.

Matt

 

In your case that may well be true. Blame in on evolution since the
original design was created. Scope creep and field changes are common
problems and tend to ruin many elegant designs.


Matt

 

Approximately 10/25/03 12:40, Matthew S. Whiting uttered for posterity:

I'm fairly sure that *you* were being proposed as the ISO 9001
quality dropout from your allegedly intelligent designer.

 

Keep evolving, maybe some day you'll come up with a good retort.

Matt

 

It's very clear that discussion with you absolutely pointless. Now that
you take appear out of context. If you want to live in the 12th century
fine, I don't.

The reality is alot is *KNOWN* with a great deal of certainity. You just
refuse to accept it because it doesn't match with your reading of a book
of faith. What would you call someone who held up some book by L.Ron
Hubbard and refused to believe anything that wasn't in it?

 

I kind of wonder about that myself. Every police officer I know has some
amount of ammunition and road flairs in the trunk. A hard enough impact on
the ammo can set it off, and considering the speeds at which the cars were
hit, I would think it could contribute to a fire. I really don't think any
car would hold up to the kind of impacts these things have had, and the
numbers are relatively low considering the age and number of cars on the
road.

 

All of the diesels have their own very special set of problems.... Difficult
to start in cold climates (my next truck will still be a SuperDuty diesel),
the need to be religious about servicing the air filter, the amount of
damage that can be caused by substandard fuel ( compared to a gas motor),
higher costs regarding scheduled maintenance, difficulty in finding service
outlets.... the list goes on.

I can't speak for the current crop of Land Cruiser.... if they still use an
indirect injection pump, these are fragile and are likely based on the old
RoosaMaster pump - expensive is a word I could use. If they use the newer
HEUI injector technology, specialized electronic test equipment is required
for much in the way of running problem diagnostics. I don't believe there
are any 'golden' solutions. I can't see diesel fuel being any cheaper in
Nova Scotia than here in oil country.

Still, it boils down to driving whatever floats our boats..... If it takes
an $80 fillup to keep my loving bride feeling safe and comfortable, then an
$80 fillup is what it shall be.Though I am a big proponent of minimizing
emissions, I will always view it "in context".

 

If in the US the problem is also the availablity of diesel engines. Most are
petrol and of diesels, most are old tech kept over form older models.
Many good diesels are kept out for strange reasons. the very effective Isuzu
4jb1 2.8 TD was never used in US Isuzus, only the anemic C223 2.2L diesel
was offered, along with under powered 2.8L petrol GM V6. Theres similiar
stories with other brands, the good diesels were never released in the US.

rhys

 

Cummins had the 600 horse KTA motor 'bout 20 years ago..... I tried out an
"opened up" silver 92 Detroit..... had the big injectors, a reworked turbo
and governed about 2800 or 3000. With the RTO12513 and a brownie behind
that, two shifts on an empty 5 axle would have you doing 70mph.... I was too
friggin' sane to try 8th over in the main and OD in the brownie at the same
time...

That Benz looks like a bit of a pussy....