You may think that upgrading your 25mpg sedan to a 50mpg hybrid will save the world, but it is far better to get those 10mpg trucks into 20mpg trucks. How is that so? I'm getting 25mpg more with the hybrid, vs only 10mpg more. Do the real math...watch below:
This is what happens when management professors try to teach math. I'll respond with a longer comment later, but the conclusion will basically be this: MPG is a linear equation by mathematical definition and price directly correlates to MPG for cost effectiveness (There's nothing exponential about it). Basically: Their math is right, but their conclusions are wrong.
GJ said about 4 hours later
Agreed, and I'll expand a bit. They don't have a proper thesis, nor statement of problem. What exactly are they trying to address? Because they lack that, it's easy for them to come up with a solution--for it doesn't need to fix a problem they didn't state.
In fact, after watching it, I'm not really sure what their point was. Even as some kind of propaganda piece, it fails horribly.
Geoff said about 5 hours later
OK guys...everyone is on a hybrid craze right? I would say the average american has 2 cars...and usually, I see a sedan and a truck/suv. So, somebody wants to save more gas, so they upgrade their sedan to a hybrid because everyone and their mother is telling them Hybrid is the way to go. A better decision would be to upgrade their SUV/truck to a more efficient SUV/truck. Some would think upgrading their 25mpg sedan to a 45mpg hybrid will save more gas money than upgrading their 12mpg truck to an 18mpg truck, but assuming the right conditions are met (aka, you drive equal amount of miles on both cars, same kind of road conditions/highway/city, etc...), upgrading the SUV or truck to another SUV or truck with slightly better MPGs could actually save them MORE money and use LESS gas, than upgrading their sedan to a hybrid.
I'm not saying hybrids are a dumb buy. For me, I thought dropping my mpg from 17 to 15 wasn't a huge deal. It's only 2mpg (I was thinking about turning off 4 cyl Active Fuel Management). However, 2mpg on my car actually means more than I originally thought. This is just a different way of viewing MPG. And I'm not the only one...at least not the G8 owners. They all say the same thing. I'll disable AFM, I'm only losing 2mpg. Not a big deal. It probably is bigger than they think if they looked at it this way.
Marc said about 5 hours later
Geoff, you're situation is painting a different picture than what this video seems to be trying to market. In your situation, of course you would improve the mileage a little bit on your truck to see more money back in your wallet (That's because you're spending a whole lot more on gas to begin with compared to a 25MPG or 50MPG car).
This video seemingly painted a picture that you're doing a whole lot more by improving your truck a little vs. improving your sedan a lot. It's just not true, it's a matter of perspective. If I double the MPG on my truck and sedan, sure I'm going to see more net money saved on the whole from the truck, but the ratio is still the same and my sedan is still saving me boatloads more than your truck. (I know you agree with this, the video just did a poor job of trying to compare)
This video would have been much better if they did an explanation of why these new hybrid trucks and SUVs are well worth the small increase in MPG. People don't realize that every little bit counts when your gas mileage sucks. When you get closer and closer to the magical number of MPGs where the changes in costs are minuscule to the average income, it doesn't seem like a big deal. But anyway you look at it, if I can lower the amount I'm spending on gas, that sounds pretty dang good and the only way to do that is to increase my MPGs proportionally.
To be honest, people would be better off doing the conversions themselves when buying a new vehicle to see the cost of gas in a money per mile ratio. They would be able to see that at low MPGs, a small increase could save them a lot on gas, but dang that sedan hybrid saves me thousands...maybe I don't need the SUV? Money/mile is a good measurement of what a vehicle is going to cost you in the long run.
Geoff said 1 day later
Right...that was just my thinking. Just never really looked at 2mpg as a big jump. But it is if you've got an inefficient vehicle. It's the same reason why people price things like $299. It looks a lot better than $300....even if it is only $1 difference. :)
Steve said 5 days later
These guys are geniuses! Oh wait. The Europeans have been using liters of fuel/100 kms driven as their fuel economy specification for as long as I've been in the auto industry.
I agree that publishing gallons of gas used per 100 or 1000 miles driven is a good way to express fuel economy. But the government's bigger issue right now is figuring out how to compare energy used per xx miles. That way Chevy doesn't get to claim 240 mpg for the Volt, nor Nissan 300 mpg for the leaf.
GJ said 6 days later
Oh, I dunno, how about kilojoules per mile. Nice agnostic term, nobody needs to worry whether it's gas powered, electric powered, etc.
Oh, wait--then you'd have to figure in how much energy was used to make the gas, or the electricity....oh, never mind.
Steve said 6 days later
Yea, there is no clean way that anyone has figured out to fairly rate how much energy is used to power a car (not just the electricity to charge the car's batteries or the fuel to run the engine, but the cost to generate and distribute the energy).
It will be very interesting to see what the government does to rate the "fuel economy" of the soon to arrive plug in hybrids. From what I've heard, they just "negotiated" a value with Chevy for the Volt, and while they may have used some science to come up with a "negotiated" value, the idea that it's "negotiated" means that it's not a known calculation.
Perhaps a better way to do "energy economy" is calculate a highway energy economy for a full tank of fuel (~40 miles of full electric power than gas power to supplement it), and city fuel economy for whatever the average person's driving distance is for commuting to work AND back (say 50 miles round trip). Then they'd have to put a big caveat on the fact that the city energy economy rating is based on a short trip, and that longer city driving will degrade the energy economy, as you'll be running on gasoline longer.
Geoff said 6 days later
I didn't realize GM was still moving forward with the Volt. It's been awfully quiet for the past year.
GJ said 6 days later
The problem, which of course I've been yapping about since the Volt was announced, was that battery power is hinky at low temps. Any "energy economy" rating you slap on a battery-powered car has to deal with the fact that chemical batteries perform quite differently at different temperatures. Gas engines do too--but they warm up. I half wonder if Chevy and Nissan (and Toyota, for that matter) heat their batteries artificially once the car is running to up the battery efficiency when it's cold--which of course, may or may not make sense, depending on the battery power drop and cost to provide the heating in the first place.
GJ said 6 days later
And yes, the Volt is here and will be released shortly. Jury's out on real-world usage, but I'm curious to see how it pans out. The price tag alone is probably enough to doom it.
Steve said 7 days later
Price tag isn't too bad. $41,000. A lot for a midsize sedan though. Lease rate is reasonable though - $350 a month. Don't forget you get a $7500 tax rebate from the federal gov't if you buy one.
compared to, oh, say, an un-named toyota, yea, it's still pricey. :) not that gm's in position to run it as a loss-leader to build market share, as was done with that fairly well selling hybrid.
Steve said 7 days later
I just wish there were some way to determine actual real world fuel economy of normal drivers. I'm not a fan of the black boxes that the government wants to install in cars, but if they did, they could use those to determine actual real world fuel economy for cars. Oh, and don't believe the fuel economy that your car calculates for you (on many new cars they do that for you) - I've seen cars give readings 2-3 mpg higher than if you actually calculate the fuel economy yourself.
GJ said 8 days later
Mine is just like that--right now it's saying 22 mpg, the reality is at best 20. The van is about 1.5mpg above what we really get. I strongly suggest you keep a record of your gas mileage anyhow--it's a good tool for detecting a problem, as it shouldn't drop out of the blue unless of course the season has changed and you're now driving in the winter. :)
So this evening I go to start my computer, it starts to run, gets halfway through loading windows, then it loses the display to the screen (computer stops delivering data to monitor - "No input detected" displayed on monitor.
Now, last night, I installed the latest Adobe Flashplayer 10 update. This was the first start up since that install.
Any thoughts on what I should do? Any help appreciated.
This is almost definitely a video card driver, but it can be as simple as your resolution being incorrect.
Go into Safe Mode (F8 between the BIOS and Windows startup screen). There's not really a good way to set your resolution and have it stick from within Safe Mode (and even harder from Normal mode when you can't see anything ;) ). So your easiest solution is to uninstall the video card driver. Go into Control Panel -> Device Manager and find your video card and uninstall the driver for it.
At this point, you can either try installing the latest driver for your card from the manufacturer website, or you can try to boot into Normal mode and let Windows try to find one for you. I recommend getting the one from the manufacturer. After that, make sure your Windows Updates are up to date and you should be good to go.
Steve said about 2 hours later
I'll give that a shot. I also tried loading in safe mode, going to msconfig and disabling all start up things (per someone else's suggestion), no luck.
More information needed. While the video card driver is likely the issue, there could be more at play.
Steve--are you seeing the hard drive continue to run after the screen winks out? Does it seem to behave like it's booting the rest of the way into windows, or does it seem to halt all work at the point where the screen dies?
Does the keyboard respond (can you toggle the caps lock light on or off) once the screen dies.
Depending on your answers, you could also be suffering from a virus attack, or more likely, a disk drive failure. Call me tonight and I'll be happy to walk you through debugging the machine.
GJ said 3 days later
So, are you back up and running?
Steve said 7 days later
No luck yet, waiting on getting home and getting a different video card out of my stash of old computer bits.
My motherboard does not have on board video.
I've tried uninstalling the drivers both from device manager and from add/remove programs. I've manually installed the drivers I had been using (from 2007) and the latest drivers, neither were successful.
Weird thing is, when the drivers are installed, there are two entries under display adapter - XP1600 blah blah blah and XP1600 blah blad blah SECONDARY. Now when I went through add/remove programs to remove these, it showed one as AGP type and one as PCI type. I'm not sure why, it's an AGP card. Now, the drivers are universal drivers for lots of cards, perhaps the drivers are set up to function with some AGP cards and some PCI cards?
Newbie question - can I buy a PCIExpress video card and plug it into my current motherboard (which is AGP but obviously has PCI expansion slots) and use that kind of video card?
Steve said 9 days later
Also tried last night to remove just the secondary display adapter. At first I thought it was working, because windows seemed to boot much further along, but then same issue. Dang. Headed home tonight to get a different video card, and will give it a shot again Monday night.
GJ said 9 days later
No, PCI Express are not compatible with PCI slots. :) Sorry! PCI Express is more modern than AGP, and like AGP, has a dedicated slot on the motherboard pretty much in the place where your AGP slot is now.
You've spent more time that I would have on this--at this point, I'm pretty sure it's a driver issue. I'd just rebuild the dang thing's OS. I can say that AGP drivers were the biggest pains in the ass since the days of DOS. I don't have nearly the same problems with newer PCI-E cards.
Steve said 9 days later
I'm giving it one more shot - swap out video cards. After that, yes, I'll rebuild the OS. I can just do a simple uninstall and reinstall, right? Will I need to reinstall all the programs that are currently installed? I don't want to format the drive, just uninstall and reinstall.
I really haven't spent that much time - I was gone from Friday through Wednesday. And I have my work laptop, and Parsla has her own laptop, so I'm not really missing it too much. Only thing I'm missing is downloading the latest Top Gear episodes, which I'll do tonight at my house using Parsla's old PC (which is installed at my house).
GJ said 10 days later
You could do a repair install of Windows first--that'd keep your apps.
What I was talking was a full install--which means, you wipe the drive and start fresh. Generally speaking, it's good to have a spare drive around so you can save all of the old drive so you don't later find a "whoops, I missed something!"
GJ said 10 days later
the repair install doesn't clean up the drivers much though--so I don't think it'll work, but it may be worth a first shot.
Steve said 10 days later
I do have two drives in this machine, but I think I foolishly installed all of my programs (MS Office, etc) on the same primary drive as the OS. If I have format the drive, I'll be putting all of the other programs on their own drive. Found two video cards here at home, a GeForce 2 Titanium and an ATI radeon All In Wonder, both 64 mb DDR. Pathetic compared to my 512mb ATI radeon XP1600 Pro that is causing me issues, but since I don't really play games on my computer (other than bejewled 2), It should work to help diagnose the problem.
Geoff said 11 days later
Drop ATI, and go Nvidia. I had nothing but problems with my ATI video cards (driver problems). Ever since I replaced them with Nvidia, everything has been going great. You can get a 512 AGP Nvidia card for dirt cheap. I've got an GeForce 7300GT that has been working great for me for a few years now.
GJ said 11 days later
Nice religious post, Geoff. I've had tons of problems with both Nvidia and ATI AGP cards, and the most stable AGP I ever ran was an ATI All in Wonder 9600XT. I have a couple of those babies lying around here, if you want one Steve. If you want a really unstable but fast and noisy AGP card, I have a Zogis (nvidia) 6800XT (256mb 128bit ddr2 memory). It's unstable as all hell but very powerful for an AGP card. Probably too powerful, thus the stability issues. Have lots of memory lying around that might fit your machine too, so let me know and I can send you all kinds of crap. Drives, too, but none are very big or very new. Figure on 40-60-80 mb sizes.
Now, fast forward to today, and I am having zero issues with my current Nvidia cards--one an 8800GT and the other a GT240 Superclock. OK, OK, I've seen a BSOD once in a while (oh yeah, bioshock would do that endlessly on the 8800GT) and KOTOR 1 and 2 are still unstable as all hell on ANY nvidia card, but other than that it's golden.
Geoff said 13 days later
Just going by my experience. I've owned a few of their cards, including an expensive FireGL. Had nothing but driver problems. No issue to date with either of my Nvidia cards that replaced them. I've got an 8800GT and works just fine. ATI simply doesn't support their cards as well. They refused to release a proper driver for the FireGL card for Windows Vista/7, which renders it useless. Quite dissatisfied with ATI. There are obviously some cheap versions of each which I could understand if they sucked. The FireGL card was supposed to be a premier workstation graphics card (I paid $650 for it). Had problems from the get go and now sits collecting dust. But that old bargain $40 nvidia card, works like a charm. Go figure. Go Nvidia.
GJ said 13 days later
LOL, you can run a FireGL in Vista/7. It's just not very straightforward because ATI didn't write an official driver. Think your biggest mistake was spending that much on a video card in the first place. :)
Trying to run an AGP card with Win 7 and/or Vista is silly, however. If you aren't into PCI-E land by then, you definitely don't want to be beyond XP. It's not so much the power of the graphics card, it's more that the mobo/chip is likely too old and slow to run either system sufficiently. Contrary to what some techs are saying, Win 7 is far heavier than XP.
Geoff said 13 days later
At the time that was the only dual DVI video card with sufficient memory to handle the 3D graphics and video I work with. It was indeed, a very poor purchase, I agree.
I can tell you no system can run Vista well. So just skip that one altogether. Win7 however runs quite nice. You are probably correct though that an old system with an AGP card should stick with XP. Still doesn't excuse ATI from writing a proper driver. It is especially difficult to try and fix the driver on your own, when you can't view your screen properly either :)
GJ said 13 days later
That's why you need 5-7 video cards lying around the house, like me!
Steve said 13 days later
Well, I have 3 video cards. Swapping out video cards did not help. Grumble. And of course I left my windows XP installation disk back at my house. So yes, GJ, I'm not about to reformat and reinstall. Yippee! As you said, should have done that a while ago. I just can't help myself in trying to figure out what went wrong. But last night, I came to the conclusion that I will never be able to figure out what went wrong.
My ATI card worked great for years. I can't complain one bit. I'm pretty sure it's not an ATI problem but something else screwed up my computer. Maybe I'll try my old GeForce2 titanium just to try a different brand (the old video card I tried yesterday was an old ATI A-I-W Radeon 7500 64 mb).
GJ said 14 days later
Well, given that it's not a hardware issue, and you've played with the drivers, Windows is definitely the cause. At the minimum, do a repair install. Worst case, do the full rebuild.
Steve said 18 days later
Grrrr. Reinstalled windows, formatted C drive, issue still persists.
GJ said 18 days later
Assuming this: format C drive, install windows, doesn't matter which video card, and you're still having issues. Monitor bad? That's pretty rare, but it happens. Have another one you can try?
Steve said 19 days later
But if the monitor were bad, why would it work in safe mode? I have one at my house, will be a while before I can try it.
GJ said 19 days later
safe mode runs in a lowest common denominator in terms of monitor abilities--640x480, 60hz, 16 colors. Your monitor may no longer be able to run in a higher mode. This is not uncommon if you're using a CRT monitor. While they last damn near forever, when they go they can lose their ability to operate at higher frequencies, which keeps you from using the resolution you probably have it set for in windows.
If you have a flat screen LCD monitor, this isn't likely the case since they operate on a totally different hardware implementation (in other words, they're not a cathode ray tube!).
Marc said 20 days later
Your video cards don't happen to require a power source do they? If so, the power supply can be an issue as well. Might only plug in the minimal hardware that is absolutely necessary to get the computer running and/or try a different power supply.
Yesterday, Google announced that their long-beta application Google Voice was now available for everybody (in the US) to use. So now most of you will ignore me because it's just Marc talking about another Google or Apple technology you really won't use. Hold back that urge.
So what are some cool things you can do with Voice? Here's a few:
Have one phone number (picked by you) for any area code in the United States. You don't have to even live there.
Any time someone calls this number, you have lots of options. Forward the call to one of your other phones, OR forward it to a bunch of phones and first one to pick up, wins.
Call screening. Want to know who's calling? Google Voice will take their name like a good secretary and let you know via your phone. Then you have the option to send them to voicemail or pick it up.
Did you miss the call? Dang. Well how about a transcribed e-mail of the voicemail they leave sent directly to your e-mail inbox. Would you prefer a text message instead? Your choice.
Want one phone number for your whole family, but want certain numbers forwarded to certain phones, or certain numbers just blocked out right? Voice can do that too.
This is really cool technology. For me, I've just setup a phone number in my area code, which now I can stop all the people complaining that they need to make long distance calls to reach my cell phone. But some of these other features look pretty cool too! It works with any phone too, but mobile phones have a couple more options than regular land lines.
Note this won't replace any phone service you currently pay for. This is just a nice way to share a phone number or manage your voicemail in a pretty cool way. I can't speak to how well the transcribed voicemails are, but from what I've heard they're pretty good.
GJ said 2 days later
Ok, even GJ is using this. So far, no complaints. Of course, I haven't really given out my awesome phone number yet.
They have such unique and fun videos, but I feel like their music is solely created to be the "background noise" to their videos. I would never listen to their stuff outside of these videos. You a big fan of their music GJ? (BTW: You make a remark about Rush, I'll be tempted to post their latest single onto the blog :) ).
GJ said about 9 hours later
I tend to like their stuff. Earlier albums were mostly harmless pop, the latest album is a bit deeper and more complex. I wouldn't begin to claim they are the World's Best Band, or that their drummer is the second coming of Neal Peart (thanks the heavens).
What OKgo have done is revitalize the video music business. Videos used to be pretty cool when I was a kid. Most of them suck eggs now. What OKgo does with them is very entertaining, and I give them props for that.
Geoff said 3 days later
I agree, I wouldn't listen to this particular song outside of the video either. It does complement the video very well, and a great video it is. I can't say I've ever demoed one of their albums. Maybe I should at least try it out.
They do make good videos though; very fitting for today's marketplace too.
GJ said 4 days later
Nothing too surprising from you two, after all, you've been ruined by Rush for so many years I don't think there's any hope to expand your musical tastes.
In all seriousness, though, this song is pretty good. It's just not top-40 material, nor it is traditional rock. I would invite you to listen to all three of their albums. The first two are just plain fun--lots of pop, very listenable, not very deep. This newest album is heading off into more complex tonal structures, but they haven't advanced tremendously in the lyrical department. Still, it's another solid effort and they're gotten decent reviews by the music press as well.
Still, OK go is just one of about a zillion bands / acts that I listen to regularly. I wouldn't put them anywhere near the top--but they're higher than Rush in my list. LOL.
Marc said 4 days later
I take offense to the expanding my musical tastes comment! While Rush is clearly the best band, I do listen to a wide array of music. I've given OK Go a couple shots, and I just can't get into them. For a band that is OK Go-ish and I enjoy much more, I recommend Franz Ferdinand.
I will listen to pretty much any band and likely enjoy them to some extent short of honkey-tonk country, rap, emo, screamo, and some of the thrash/death metal. I also don't give pop too much time, but I do enjoy some of the music, I just find it very "designed" and don't get much feeling out of the music. For example, Lady Gaga has found the "design" to make a popular song, some are even catchy, but every song sounds the same and it's nothing new and exciting from a musical standpoint.
Clearly I'm not a top-40 material kind of guy anyway, being a Rush fan, I think there's only been 3 or so songs that made it there and they certainly aren't my favorites. I feel the same way about OK Go that I do about The White Stripes (and everything Jack White does). The music is so simple that it's boring 10 seconds into it. I'm always waiting for a "spine-chilling" moment, but they never deliver.
I recommend watching this clip from "It Might Get Loud." It's a movie featuring Jimmy Page, Jack White, and The Edge (U2) talking about their various styles. The movie kinda sucks, but there's a moment in the movie where they're all showing off their various riffs and styles and they each don't understand each others' music very well. Then Jimmy Page plays part of "Whole Lotta Love." You could see in Jack White and The Edge's face that they are just clearly overwhelmed and you see the emotion come over them. THAT'S the kind of music I look for.
And because you ripped on Rush, here's the new single :)
GJ said 4 days later
LOL, I know how to press your buttons! Yup, I would agree with your Franz Ferdinand comment--I've been listening to FF for a few years now.
Also saw It Might Get Loud, that wasn't a horrible movie, but you certainly had to like music for music's sake to sit through it. I didn't read White and the Edge as being overwhelmed. I think, rather, that's it's a powerful experience getting to hear Page fire up Whole Lotta Love right in front of you--especially for White, who probably grew up with that music as a kid.
In the mean time, I'm going back to my Black Keys. I'm in a blues groove of late.
GJ said 4 days later
OK, I listened to the Rush single.
Interesting guitar lick at first, and decent groove. Then it kinda got prog-rock fugly...and that was before the singing started. All went downhill once Geddy opened up. Then I looked at the video timer---holy crap, six minutes of this?? You gotta be brain damaged to enjoy this.
Geoff said 4 days later
Just use Pandora. You'll find all kinds of stuff you've never heard of. Lately, I've jumped from Hendrix, to BB King, to Paramore, a stint of some Van Halen, Steve Miller Band, Everclear, Floyd and back to Rush. If this isn't a jump in music, I'm not sure what is. There was even a hint of Coldplay in there...which is actually good music to lay in some gut busting drum beats. Much easier to throw down in songs with little to no drum tracks so I can make up what I want (and in most cases, make the song more enjoyable to me).
Evanescence has a few good tracks (especially the unreleased stuff) that are good to play too as well. My Immortal is one of my favorites. Changes the experience of the song entirely.
Now, you want to get cooking, go pop in "Thrill Of It" by Robert Randolph & The Family Band. If you've got other recommendations by people who actually play their own instruments, please share.
Geoff said 4 days later
Oh and GJ, if you've got a blues groove going, check out Foghat's latest album, Last Train Home. Good stuff.
Marc said 4 days later
If I was Pandora, I think I would mark any song with guitar arpeggios as prog-rock fugly for GJ :P. Rush also wrote another new single BU2B (it's on YouTube too), that might hit your agnostic/atheist bone.
And Geoff, I don't know how you listen to Coldplay. That stuff puts me to sleep every time. I actually think they should have a label similar to the Parental Advisory so that people don't play it in their cars late at night, I've accidentally changed lanes due to Coldplay many times. :)
I'm going to probably lose all credibility, but I've been on a Huey Lewis and the News kick, which was only amplified (pun intended) by the TBS marathon of Back to the Future last weekend. I think there's enough guitar/sax solos in there to be considered rock/blues even though iTunes swears it's pop. :)
Marc said 4 days later
Oh and If you want to hear prog rock, fire up some Porcupine Tree. Those guys have some really awesome songs (Wedding Nails, Blackest Eyes, The Sound of Muzak) and then some super prog rock epics, which I can't sit through. I do recommend seeing them live though, they put on quite the show.
My other favorites for now are John Mayer (his bluesier albums Continuum and Battle Studies...not some of his older albums as much), Matt Nathanson, Switchfoot, and the occasional Pearl Jam tune (basically everything off the Ten album is a masterpiece).
I'll have to check out the Foghat album, haven't given them a listen in quite some time.
GJ said 4 days later
Geoff, I'll check out Foghat. You check out Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson if you want some real blues action. Oh, *that* Foghat. Yeah, I listened to them back when I was a kid. Did they release something recently that doesn't sound like rock in the disco era? :)
Marc, I'm not gonna pick on you for HL&TN. I have most of their albums, and while it's not my scene anymore, I do spin them up now and again. Few albums touch Sports in terms of power pop, and some of their later non-pop stuff is pretty decent too.
Some albums I can recommend without hesitation:
Fastball--All The Pain Money Can Buy
Sugarbomb--Bully
Black Keys--Rubber Factory
Death Cab For Cutie--Narrow Stairs
Fountains of Wayne--Welcome Interstate Managers
Raconteurs--Consolers of the Lonely
Carbon Leaf--Indian Summer
That's what's been making my playlist of late, but gosh, there's lots more where that came from.
GJ said 4 days later
oh, a key--fastball is alt pop, sugarbomb is kinda like queen, black keys are modern blues, death cab is just plain alternative, FoW is alt pop, Raconteurs is Jack White and Brendan Benson (so you should know what you're getting there), and Carbon Leaf does Celtic stuff mostly but this album is closer to alt-folk with a definite Celtic influence.
Geoff said 4 days later
Hey Marc, I don't listen to Coldplay by itself. But it does work well to mix in some drums because it is, well, um, snoozy. But, I bet with my drumming on crack it would wake it up for you a bit!
Foghat is a new album, just released last week I believe. Give it a listen and see what you think.
Steve said 4 days later
Geoff, that was supposed to be a jump in music? P-P-P-P-P-Please.... Come talk to me when your ipod has Metallica (the greatest rock band of all time, bar none - BAR NONE), Niel Diamond, Gwen Stefani, Sarah McLahlan, John Denver, George Straight, a few musicals, jan and dean, Motley Crue, RBD, Ashlee Simpson, Miranda Lambert, a version of the Halleluah chorus, Eminem, Cypress Hill, and Shakira.
Geoff said 4 days later
well that's not just what my iPhone contains...I do have some east coast hip hop, a little country, and a german prog rock opera album about Don Quixote (by Vandas Plas) and of course many others, including some on your list there (sorry, Ashlee Simpson won't ever find her way on to my deck, that is just plain wrong).
Now, here is another funky song for you all. Get yourself The Shotgun Wedding Quintet's "We Take It Back" song. It's a hip hop symphony featuring all white guys. Damn good tune.
We all obviously have a wide taste in music.
Marc said 4 days later
I'll have you know, Kirk Hammett (Metallica's guitarist) says Alex Lifeson (Rush) was one of, if not the, biggest influences on him in the Rush documentary (Beyond the Lighted Stage, due out next week on DVD :)). Oh, and a Death Cab for Cutie band member made an appearance too, which I was surprised by. I think it was the drummer.
I'm actually more likely to say AC/DC or Aerosmith is the greatest rock band from a music + live show combination. Kiss is up there too, but their music is pretty sub-par. Rush puts on a good show, but they just don't have the rock band lifestyle. Their music is obviously better though. :P Metallica has some really fantastic stuff (read: Black Album, Master of Puppets), but boy they have some really horrible stuff (read: The entire St. Anger album). From what I've seen of their live performance, they're an energetic band, but they don't have much of a show going on. This is more Rush's style too, but they're about 20 years older, so they're not quite as energetic anymore. :)
As a relatively big sidenote, if you're a Queen fan, do NOT get the Queen + Paul Rogers album. It absolutely blows. It sounds more like a bad version of Bad Company. I heard it come on my iPod this morning going in to work, and I can't believe I still have it on my iPod.
GJ said 5 days later
Yeah, the feedback from the Queen / Paul Rogers album was really nasty. I haven't even bothered to give it a listen.
Steve--Metallica is the greatest rock band? Queen, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Who and the Rolling Stones would like a word with you. :)
GJ said 5 days later
Geoff said 5 days later
Yeah I'd think the Beatles might have issue with Metallica as the best band ever as well. While I'm not a huge Beatles fan, they clearly had more influence on the world than any other rock band. Runners up would be Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin. The Who, The Doors, Queen, Pink Floyd, Kiss, Metallica, etc, all great influential groups, but I don't imagine they had nearly the influence that The Beatles had in the rock genre, or in music in general. They are one of the few musical icons that almost everyone recognizes. The only other comparable would be Elvis & Michael Jackson as a musical icon, despite what you think of their music, they were all "great" musicians.
Rush, while having some of the best musical talent on earth, simply didn't care for the limelight. They defined their music, not the record label or the media. I look forward to the new movie about them, and I would encourage any music lover to consider it as well. It should be a fantastic story. It is not often to see such incredible talent stick together in the rock world (whether they break up, overdose, or go to jail as some of the greats have).
Despite what you think of their music, Rush opted for the road most never travel in the rock world, and have been successful doing so. Considering they rank 3rd for the most consecutive gold or platinum studio albums by a rock band, only bested by The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, says something.
With that said, Rush is still the best band ever in my book. I know of no 3 man band that can make this much noise...let alone a 4 or 5 piece group...and do it so well. Most musicians would agree. And if you ask me, greatness should be judged by the greats. (myself included of course :)
Marc said 5 days later
I'm surprised you like Death Cab for Cutie. They're pretty good, but their singer sounds a lot like Geddy, although slightly lower register, in many of their songs.
Raconteurs is Jack White's best stuff. He's still a bit of a silly singer, but in this group they've got a decent overall sound.
I've heard of Carbon Leaf, but never given them a chance. Just heard "Life Less Ordinary." That's a pretty awesome tune.
Marc said 5 days later
Geoff - I traveled [a pathetic?] 2 hours to Greensboro, NC to go see the Rush documentary on the big screen. You're gonna love it. It's not Rush fanboyism either, it's very interesting insight into the record industry, musical changes through the late 60s to present day, and the interesting stories of touring with KISS, Ted Nugent, and finally moving on to being the headliner. I learned a lot of things I had never heard about the band too, which was pretty surprising.
Geoff said 5 days later
awesome, I can't wait!
GJ said 5 days later
Oh, yeah, how could I forget the Beatles? Probably because they're not high on my list of favorites, either. ;)
Marc--Ben Gibbard and Geddy Lee both share geeky voices, but Geddy's is shrill. I don't find Ben's shrill. That, and I like Ben's lyrics.
Life Less Ordinary *is* an awesome song. Give the rest of the album a listen, you won't be disappointed. Of course, once you start down that road, check out Great Big Sea. We caught Carbon Leaf (again) here in Albany back in April, and Great Big Sea is coming here for the Irish Fest we're attending along with Enter The Haggis and Gaelic Storm in September. Good times, good times.
Geoff said 6 days later
Listening to Carbon Leaf now. Got their entire Discography, but trying out the Indian Summer album first. So far so good!
Abby said 6 days later
May I start in on how addicted I am to listening to Carbon Leaf? ;]
GJ said 6 days later
Do pay for their stuff, if you haven't. They aren't exactly rich, and they're now on their own label.
My new car! posted by Kristen on June 15, 2010 @ 12:52PM
2009 Nissan Murano SL in platinum graphite only 4,000 miles!!
Looks great! You going to get it inspected by your fave mechanic, and have any kind of guarantees should they find anything wrong?
Not that there is, but 4000 miles on an 09 model seems suspect. You pulled a carfax (or whatever Experian's product is called) on this, right?
Kristen said about 1 hour later
Yup, sure did. It was put on the market in October 2009 and leased to someone as a "fleet vehicle" in December 2009. They put 4k miles on it over the course of about 6 months, which sounds reasonable to me. Looks like it was someone's company car for 6 months or so.
It's still under the manufactur's warranty too, of course.
Geoff said about 2 hours later
you should be good then. Looks like a nice car! I'd love to hear first impressions once you get it.
GJ said about 2 hours later
yup, good work checking on that!
Marc said about 3 hours later
Looks pretty sweet! Your "Earl's in the trunk" bumper sticker won't be too fitting anymore now that you have a hatchback. :)
Steve said about 7 hours later
Nice ride, enjoy!
No bumper stickers allowed on a new car, sorry....unless it's a "my kid beat up your honor roll student."
Kristen said about 7 hours later
I lost that Earl sticker just a few months after I got it--the first time the sunfire's bumper was damaged. (the time that it wasn't my fault) I owe Steve some thanks b/c it was his recommendation on the Nissan Rogue that eventually led me to the Murano. Can't wait to put the vanity plate on. "SMK MSTR" Hint: think LOST! Wish I could fit one more letter.
I caught an interesting article that I thought was worth sharing in relation to the oil crisis going on. It's bashes Obama a bit, but what is more interesting is the attack on EPA regulations and the stifling of genetic research that could have been used to assist in the clean up of the spill. Of course it would be better that the spill never happen, but stuff happens. Read the Article.
From the start of the article: "I dislike President Obama's style and substance. A whiner and left-wing ideologue, he is remarkably slow-witted when out of range of speechwriters and teleprompters. I'll say one thing for him, though: He brings a sense of irony to government."
With a ridiculous start like that, I'm not bothering with anything else he has to say. It's telling when the first words on paper are an insult of that caliber.
Geoff said about 19 hours later
lol too bad, you missed some good stuff I think. What can we commend Obama on lately anyway?
GJ said about 21 hours later
Is this a thread to talk about the oil spill and response to it, or are you looking to debate Obama's performance to date across any and all areas?
GJ said about 21 hours later
OK, I went back and read the rest of the article. This guy is a crank who thinks he understands genetics and bio-engineering. Hint: he doesn't.
Geoff said about 23 hours later
his credentials seem fairly legit...what's your angle, the EPA isn't stifling genetic research? I thought the government has done a pretty good job at holding science back, no?
And for the topic of discussion, we can attack or defend Obama if we like. Has he done enough with this disaster? Should he be doing more, has he pressured BP enough to clean up this mess? Could this be Obama's Katrina?
GJ said about 24 hours later
When the web speeds up a bit, I'll have to take a look. I didn't catch his credentials, but regardless of them he comes across like a "Go genetic research, damn the negligible consequences" guy.
.
The idea of introducing a new animal / plant / bacteria into an environment to fix a problem is not a new one. The law of unintended consequences is also not new, but not understood well. Let's just say that there are few if any of these implementations that have ever turned out as planned, thanks to that aforementioned law. The idea that we have some magic bullet to solve the oil problem and the government is suppressing it is a fairly stock and naive line of reasoning.
To understand the law of unintended consequences, start here. Also give Freakanomics a read.
Geoff said about 24 hours later
Well I believe he said they were starting with a fairly neutral organism to begin with and adjusting characteristics to enhance it's "oil eating" ability. I'm not quite sure it has the same risks that killer bees had, whom managed to break free anyway and we're still alive and kicking.
Not to say there aren't risks with genetically engineering organisms, but since these organisms have been developed over 25 years ago in some form or another, I'd think they'd have sufficient testing done to employ the use of them by now.
Abby said 1 day later
if I can jump in.... basically every biology teacher in BH would shoot whoever introduced brand-new organisms to an ocean ecosystem that's already in trouble. :) even the most harmless-seeming creature can completely destroy its surroundings.
(I'm only here because my Bio regents is tomorrow. hah.)
Steve said 1 day later
Well said Abby. Geoff, you might not understand how serious a problem could be caused by introducing a new organism to an environment. Hot topic this year out here is Asian Carp - and keeping them out of the Great Lakes. A couple years ago it was the emerald ash borer - I have one of the few surviving Ash trees in southern Michigan in my yard. Over 90% of the ash trees in Michigan are dead from the emerald ash borer. There are several examples of new organisms totally changing an ecosystem.
Killer bees is not an issue in NY (yet), but it certainly is down south (southern US that is).
GJ said 1 day later
Killer bees actual issue isn't that they are prone to attacking humans. It's their decimation of the honey industry that is the far greater problem, since African bees tend to displace European ones, and they produce far less honey. One more application of the law of unintended consequences. :)
Now, I did hear that BP bought a bunch of machines from a company funded by Kevin Costner that supposedly clean up oil. I was expecting to see some nonsense-related gimmick, but they're actually using giant centrifuges. That's an interesting idea, and it should work...but I bet it's not good for the micro organisms in the water....if any are still alive in that contaminated water to begin with! So, for a rare change, my skeptical view got a pleasant refutation!
Geoff said 1 day later
We're talking about any oil spill here. Whatever ecosystem that existed there, especially this spill, is nothing like it used to be. I'd talk more about this, but there is a 2 year old who needs to go to bed.
GJ said 1 day later
Ok, Dr. Moreau. Whatever you say.
Geoff said 1 day later
To me, it seems absurd to discount genetically engineered organisms entirely because of unintended consequences of a micro organism being introduced to an ecosystem. First, what is this organism...perhaps it already exists in some form in the habitat. I can tell you the Oil that ended up there didn't exist prior, and I'm sure that damage done already probably outweighs the risk of this micro organism...unless you think they'll self replicate endlessly until they consume the earth like nanobots plan to in the near future. Perhaps they will, I don't know enough about this oil eating organism.
Just seems odd to me that we humans do more "damage" to the worlds ecosystem by infrastructure, hunting, industrial accidents, war, overpopulation on a daily basis, but then when some bring up the idea of a genetically enhanced organism to help combat these problems, we tell them their crazy.
Personally, I think this is hypocritical. While I don't agree it is smart to reckless introduce new species to an ecosystem, I do believe this is one option to consider for oil spills. It may not be the best option, or maybe it isn't a viable option at all, but it should be considered based on the risks of introducing a new organism to destroyed ecosystem. That is, of course, unless you think the oil is a welcome addition to the ecosystem.
If you think any kind of interruption in an ecosystem that has unintended consequences should be avoided in any way shape or form. I advise you to stay in bed. You may step on an ant or run over a squirrel in your car. Could have dire, unintended consequences on the ecosystem.
Lets be real, we interrupt the ecosystem all the time. The possibility that genetic engineering could actually assist in oil spill cleanups, or lake cleanups, or pesticides, or what have you, may actually benefit us. It should be an option to at least consider.
I mean, 98% of what you eat in the US is non-native crops and livestock. You can't tell me ALL introduced species are bad.
Marc said 1 day later
I don't think discounting the introduction of these organisms right out the door is a good idea. We all know introducing a new organism can cause problems, but as Geoff said, the oil is already causing problems and we know what that means for the ecosystem.
It seems like there's some basic tests that should be run with these organisms, and I'd actually love to see more info about the tests they've run. What is the sole purpose of this organisms, do they ONLY eat up oil? What happens when there isn't oil, do they simply die off or do they find other forms of nutrients by jumping into the food chain. Similarly, for the current organisms (if there are any left), what would they think of their new neighbors. Would they eat them up? Maybe not with other food in the area, but as food becomes scarce, what happens if they do start eating them? How does that affect their bodies and the dependents that eat them?
It certainly requires a lot of testing, but if there's already been some fairly extensive testing and things look pretty promising, is there a way we can safely try it on smaller, controlled areas? There's always a risk of not being able to control it, but as long as people can generally agree this won't be as disastrous as the oil spill, it might be worth a shot.
Geoff said 1 day later
Yup, even if it is not a viable solution, the pursuit of genetic engineering is something we need to continue.
I just thought it was an interesting article on how that could be a possible solution to cleaning up oil spills. If we could find an organic approach vs burning it, that would be good to know. More research would need to be done, but it gets you thinking, which is always a good thing in most cases.
GJ said 1 day later
Geoff, you should also read up on the either/or logical fallacy. You employ it a lot--it kills your argument line.
What organism is it? It almost doesn't matter. That's the whole point of unintended consequences. You bring in organism A, who, say, already exists in this biosphere prior to the oil spill. It's been engineered to eat oil. You've made a pretty radical change to it's life cycle. It eats something different--what does it poop? That may even be somewhat safe (that's probably the point of the organism), but we now have a number of unknowns:
What happens to what it used to eat? What takes it's place, or does anything? If nothing, what keeps its previous meal in check? What depends on this organism? What impact will its changed chemistry have on predators? On scavengers? How about on the next level of predators and scavengers? What happens once there isn't enough oil left? Sure, many will die off, but some will likely mutate and find themselves able to eat something new. Wonder what that'll be? How successful will they be, and again, what impact will that have on the environment?
Now for the real facts. There are various strains of bacteria that eat oil, and have been used to clean up previous spills. They are not outlawed by the EPA, contrary to what Geoff's linked article claims. Why aren't they being used? It could be simply that these bacteria have been used for surface oil spills, and would not be effective to resolve the plume issues. Also likely--due to the different scenario, more testing must be done.
I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been used yet. There's hints that some calls were made to the companies that make this product, but no followup occurred so far. Hard to say if there any truth to that, but I haven't seen any evidence to date that this kind of bacterial approach has been used.
In regards to not burning it--why the heck wouldn't you burn it? Isn't that what we'd be doing with the oil eventually? It seems funny that people have a problem with this approach--but again, that only addresses the oil on the surface. I've heard really no good solutions at all for removing the underwater oil plumes.
Worse, the leak has yet to be plugged. Haven't seen any good ideas for addressing that problem either.
...because they'd bring porn to school! So goes the theory proposed by one Michael Pakaluk, a supposed scholar who wrote an interesting column in the Boston Archdiosese's newspaper recently.
Looking back, I had no idea how many of my Catholic schoolmates came from gay households! Practically the whole football and hockey teams, for starters. And the Cub Scouts, too!
