Good luck. Voted for ya because I did the same thing a while back on a kids toy site and thanks to the folks of the LFSForum (among other forums of course) I won the first monthly prize of $250 Target gift card and my kids received $100 worth of bubble products. Unfortunately I didn't win the overall prize which was $1000 Target card.

Quote from morpha :

TDU1 is still very much alive, you're never alone if you don't want to be

Yeah, but the game isn't capable of going online...

Just like every other game, by the time I get a computer capable to run it, it will be old news and no one will be playing it...

My oldest daughter liked driving around on TDU offline. She isn't old enough to notice the horrid graphics of the severely dumbed down settings I had to run.

It was the same with the Blackberry. It isn't a new concept to brag about your phone with the iPhone.

I would get emails at work from the sales folks and even the emails stated "sent via Blackberry" at the bottom.

One thing I've noticed about cell phone users (I don't have a cell, nor do I want one....) is, they change phones more than I change my underwear.

Over here, you get the phone for free generally when you sign up for a service. You have a contract for say, 2 years. Most people I see with phones are spending $200-300 every six months just because of a new freakin phone released.

About the iPhone.... I see them plenty, but one thing I don't think I've ever seen..... people talking on them as if they were a phone!

I fail to see the infatuation of cell phones by everyone. Everyone do me a favor. If you live just a little bit out of the city, quit calling me on your stupid cell phone. I'm tired of my side of the conversation being nothing but, what? Huh? I didn't catch that. You're breaking up. I can't hear you..... Everyone raves about how great their phones are, but I have never received a call from someone on a cell that wasn't breaking up constantly so that I have no idea what they are saying.

Quote from freddyalek90 :

(found on the Internet)
Picture taken with N95
Picture taken with iPhone 3Gs
I cannot see much difference, can you? Or can I? Maybe I'm a little biased, but the difference is that the 3Gs' is focused... So, even if it has ONLY 3mp, it's a good camera.

There's a big difference in a photo taken randomly of a bunch of junk on a desk in ambient light compared with a photo taken of an object set up like a product shot with a photography lighting setup. And the first picture is from a Nokia N80.

The first one isn't really blurry to my eyes. It's just extremely noisy.

There's nothing more freeing than finally breaking away from wearing a watch. When you wear a watch, the time is always on you, thus you are always looking at the time and always worried about the time.

It takes quite a while to get use to not having a watch. You will repeatedly look at your wrist every 5 minutes for months on end until one day it will all stop.

Quote from e2mustang :

And anyway cops will assrape you if its not on. its even in commercials. for example `click it,or ticket`

I would guess this is a bit of an exaggeration. I'm guessing it is the same as over here in PA, it's a law and it's merely a $50 fine.

I hadn't seen the video yet. This is of course old news now. You guys are just a bit slower to get it way over there.

Imagine, an SUV not able to handle a corner move like that. Seems that this old fictional story needs to be brought up from my old 4wheeling days....

Quote :

A couple of weeks ago, NBC's "Dateline" aired a tv segment all about the dangers of sport-utility vehicles (SUVs). They put the SUV's through a slalom test, and noted that the vehicles were prone to rolling when subjected to sudden steering movements. No kidding Sherlock, they aren't sports cars! They interviewed an ex-SUV owner who rolled a SUV after only putting 12 miles on the odometer, but failed to mention anything about possible driver inexperience. They said that during a collision, SUVs were more likely to injure the occupants of cars than cars would (really? duh). It was uninformed, one-sided, and biased, and drew a lot of comments from the Toyota 4x4 Mailing List when one of the listers brought it to our attention. So, why am I mentioning this on the Humour page, you ask? Well, after reading the replies from the listers, I decided to post the following tongue-in-cheek message:


Subject: Toy4x4 List tests sports cars for Dateline
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 23:37:33 -0700
From: Greg Sue
To: Toy4x4@traptlca.org

Numerous persons have reported that sports cars are dangerous, unsafe,and poorly engineered, so an investigative team from the Toyota 4x4 Mailing List was sent to validate their claims and report back to Dateline. Tested sports cars include Chevrolet Corvette, Mazda Miata,and Acura NSX, which seemed to be representative of all sports cars currently on the market (they are all more-or-less the same).

The Toyota 4x4 Mailing List Investigative Team (T4MLIT) took these vehicles out for a day to some of the roads they usually drive, and have made the following observations:

All vehicles exhibited a severe lack of articulation on rocky and rutted terrain (average RTI: 14). This apparent engineering error greatly contributed to numerous 3-point situations, necessitating increased throttle usage to get through certain obstacles. This increased throttle usage put driver and vehicle at great risk in off-camber situations, resulting in a roll-over of the Miata. The Miata's windshield and frame collapsed under the weight of the vehicle (the only convertible-top vehicle in the group), and it was only luck that the test driver did not suffer serious injuries. Although the driver of the Miata had only put 12 miles on the odometer, he maintained that his unfamiliarity with the vehicle's handling had nothing to do with the obvious design flaw.

All vehicles also exhibited a striking lack of ground clearance. This fact was painfully obvious when we took the NSX through a small creek, only to have the undercarriage hang up on a small rock. The resulting water cascading in through the drivers' window was slightly disconcerting to the driver, who was used to driving his taller Toyota 4Runner. The end result was that the ECU shorted out and died, but not before water was sucked in through the unusually low-mounted air intake. Our test drivers found it amazing that any vehicle manufacturer
would build a vehicle with such limited ground clearance, then expect anyone to drive it on a back-road.

The vehicles were not equipped with the proper equipment for the terrain. This test involved a high-speed run on a twisting logging road, including some muddy patches. As the Corvette was the only vehicle to escape unscathed thus far (save for some minimal body pinstriping and undercarriage scrapes), we were only able to test it, and not the others. It was decided that this would not abnormally skew the test results, as this vehicle was similar in design to the other now-disabled test vehicles, and would in all likelihood produce identical test results. We found that the V8-equipped Corvette, with it's wide Z-rated mall-terrain tires, tended to fishtail wildly in corners with just a minimal application of throttle. In addition, those tires were absolutely useless in any kind of mud, and would not self-clean no matter how much spinning they underwent. This appeared to be due to the lack of voids between the lugs; we think that perhaps a narrower all-season tire may be a more appropriate venue. Finally, when we aired the tires down, the 45-series tires did not have enough sidewall bulge to protect the 17-inch aluminum rims.

As the Corvette was still running, we decided to subject it to a crash test with a SUV. Our testers used a 1997 4Runner with an ARB front bumper, 3" lift, and 33" tires, and attempted to engage the Corvette in a head-on collision. The 4Runner ended up driving over the hood of the Corvette, crushing in the Corvette's windshield with it's front tires. We propose that manufacturers who build such low-slung, aerodynamically-shaped vehicles should incorporate a frame-mounted 6-point cage to protect the occupants in the event of a front-end collision with a SUV. Still, others have proposed that instead of
manufacturing passenger cars to tougher crash standards, SUVs and other vehicles should instead be manufactured to the lower crash tolerances of passenger cars! The T4MLIT thinks that all vehicles, including sports cars, semi-tractor units, and buses, should be built to SUV standards, to keep everything fair. But I digress.

This brings us to the obvious conclusion that no sports cars should be driven on rocky or rutted terrain, or they will suffer damage or even a life-threatening roll-over. And when driven on the street, they have a tendancy to severely injure their occupants when involved in an accident with a well-built vehicle. To paraphrase the great Ralph Nader, all sports cars are unsafe at any speed.

Note: The T4MLIT has submitted a warning-label design proposal to the sports car manufacturers to warn new drivers of the potential hazards:

WARNING!

This vehicle has stiffer springs, and less ground clearance than you are used to. It will not handle like your SUV. Do not attempt to drive this vehicle in the same manner as you would your SUV; doing so may result in serious injury or even death. Please read your owners' manual before attempting any hard-core 'wheeling.



Greg Sue
no-clue@trapmindless.com
http://www.geocities.com/Baja/Dunes/9948/

Quote from Shotglass :

we keep on telling you people its just better in every way to be european but you wont listen... you never will

Don't have to tell me Shot. The only reason I'm in an auto is because I had to get rid of mine prematurely because of a problem (Toyota Tacoma rusted frame a year before Toyota bought them back at 1.5 times the value) at the same time Wifey's vehicle needed replaced. Wanted her to have something newer and more reliable with the kids in the car so I got her old junk as a hand-me-down.

I drove an auto from 1988-1990 as a parent's hand-me-down, then drove manual through 2007 when I ended up with my wife's car. Back then I was a new driver. Now, it's been driving me crazy for the past 3 years.

Quote from piggy501 :

I've had a thought. Listening to these Autoglass adverts, "Jemimah went over a pothole and CRACK, the chip turned into a great big smash. She had to pay £100 pounds, etc."

You guys have that same exact commercial too?

Although, that did happen to me, exactly how the commercial went. Had a chip, hit a pothole, and CRACK.... I never had the chip fixed because the windshield was so pitted that it needed replaced anyways. Insurance wouldn't cover just a badly pitted windshield, but it did cover a cracked windshield. So, had the windshield replaced when it cracked.

Also, I did have the glass company (it's SafeLite Auto over here with that commercial) fix a chip on my wife's car through my insurance. After they repaired the chip with their "patented resin", I couldn't see the chip at all.

Quote from Asphalt Scream :

There is a thing I donot understand:
Without considering the modern gearboxes wich have automatic and sequental modes a classic automatic has this layout:

PRND12, where "N" is the neutral. You should have a button on the side of the lever wich let you move the shifter once pressed, something like a clutch button.
Now, if the man had an automatic he still could be able to disengage the engine and then stop right?

A bit old news now. They've gone on to the Lexus recall...

Yes, you can shift to neutral with an automatic. You don't even have to push the button. Just a bump on the gear selector will pop it into neutral. A simple concept, but people just simply think it's "automatic, I'm not suppose to move that thing."

My wife included. Every time we are running to the store in her car, we are climbing a long, steep, windy hill. I take it out of overdrive (button on the side of the lever) and I hear constantly, "What's that orange light on the dashboard?" "Why do you take it out of overdrive?" "Quit taking it out of overdrive!" blah, blah... Drives me crazy.

Quote from tinvek :

my own sweeping generalisation would be:

the most dangerous drivers are those within their first 5 years of driving or their last 5 years of driving

Oh great. I turn 38 in 2 weeks. No male on my father's side that I know of has made it past 43. I guess that means I'll start becoming an old person who drives bad here pretty soon.....

Razor sharp, DWB, as always (especially since my monitor is no longer blurry .)

Love that shot Spankmeyer. I think I said it before, but I'll say it again. Love your processing.

G25/7 isn't the first wheel to come out. I got my first 15 years ago, and it was the 2nd version. That means the video could possibly remind the majority of you when you were 6 yrs old.

Both of my daughters played LFS off and on from the time they were 4. My oldest even played online on the Noobs Sumo server when she was 6 or 7 I think.

Just one question with all the arguing over what Klutch said and the others...

What would have you hypocrites said if a thread popped up here two years ago that "George Bush killed as Air Force 1 crashed?" You all would have been on here posting the same thing that Klutch and the others you are flaming said.

Quote from piggy501 :

Thats a CRATER!

I'll say.

As for Bob's hole (that doesn't sound good.....) that would just be a little dip around here. There are sections of road that it would be impossible not to hit the hole because they stretch across the road and extend for several feet beyond the first hole. I can't believe you sliced a tire on a little dip in the road such as that, especially since you would have been turning onto that road, thus wouldn't be flying 100 mph.

Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :

For DWB!

And here I respected both you and DWB as "adults", hehehe

As for will it make you faster or slower....

If you've been playing console racing games with a controller and don't drive or haven't driven in real life much, then it may make you slower at first.

On the other hand, if you've been driving for 20 years for real and don't play console games, then I don't see how it would be slower. A wheel is how you drive a real car.

I've been racing in computer games for 15 years and have always had a wheel, so I don't have experience with a game pad. But I still don't see how it could be slower switching to a wheel unless you have never driven a real car.

Quote from Bose321 :

Don't like it now, because it's not 720 degrees, no nice leather like the Fanatec, and the quality, like the other logitechs isn't that high.
Maybe fun for a year, highest 2, but then they're useless.

Bought mine in 2004. Used it with NR2002 driving through 2 seasons and NR2003 through 1 season. Played NFS Porsche Unleased for quite a while with it. Found LFS in 2005 and ran with the MOMO for 4 years. I haven't raced much for the past year and a half or so.

Mine still works. The "fun for a year maybe 2" is bogus.

It would definitely be much better with something with 900 degrees turning such as a DPF or G25 without a doubt, but the MOMO is good.

Problems I had was a spring breaking in the shifter which I just swapped the left shifter to the right. The pedals start to spike, but it was a very simple fix with some electrical tape. I broke the tab holding the pot in place, but just used some JB Weld to hold it in. It still works after 6 years pretty decently.

If you are looking at the MOMO, first I would think you are not rich or spoiled like many others seem to be. Obviously, they are going to be biased at an expensive wheel over something like the MOMO. You can't judge stuff by what rich folks think.

I don't think they make the MOMO any more because of the G25. I wouldn't get a MOMO used as you have no idea how abused it was, but new for the $70 I bought mine for, it's a perfectly usable wheel.

Quote from ElonB13 :

but is it good to drive with

Yup if you don't have the cash to buy something expensive.

Quote from Osco :

how many of your future posts will mention the fact that your head gasket it blown?

Saw a white C63 AMG and a white 911 turbo yesterday.

Sorry. It's a thread about cars. That's the car I saw.

Today I saw, er, a Chevy truck. And another. And another. And I think a Ford truck. Then a Chevy truck. And another....... Sure is a lot of people who like to suffer around here driving Chevys....

Man, you people live in some rich areas....

I saw a fantastic 1994 Honda Civic. Fantastic because I have personal experience with this particular car. What other car is out there running fantastic, like anything from some other manufacture straight off the showroom floor, with 185k on the clock and now with 6000 miles on the blown headgasket.

Saw a 2006 Mazda Tribute S. Both cars listed thus far I see every day because they are in my driveway.

I saw a beat up Ford Focus.

I saw countless Chevy Pickup trucks and countless motorcycles (80+ F the last 3 days, beautiful weather.)

I've seen a Ferrari once in my life on the road. I've seen a total of 3 Lamborghinis in 38 years. I have seen a handful of Porsches.

Yesterday I saw the new Camaro other than in pictures. Those things are badass looking.

Quote from PaulH :

At least it is a lot damn better than the new Google search layout...has a new "Everything" sidebar down the left hand side of the search results and takes up 1/3 of the screen. It's horrible....

I see absolutely nothing on Google as you've described. Google looks no different than it has for years.

Quote from zeugnimod :

Don't tell me you are reading youtube comments.

I do. I mostly look up guitar videos and guitar lesson videos. Some of the comments are quite useful. Now all the little kiddie videos of kids farting or whatever other stupid non-humorous stuff like what is mostly posted in the "hillarious video" thread is a different matter. A bunch of little kiddies posting stupid comments for a stupid video that neither are funny, I wouldn't read those.

Quote from SilverArrows77 :

...and when Youtube sees need to provide a guide on how to use a video viewing page...

Already there. There's a "quick tour" link on the video pages.

Wow! They moved the vid info under the vid instead of beside it! Oh, it's so horrible!

What else useful has changed? I can now view how many people viewed it on a graph that wasn't there before? How often do you use the stuff that's different? I guess all the kiddies with their immature comments that frequent youtube would use some of the useless "features" that I had never known was there....

The subscriptions, favorites, and the video, everything else is useless. Who cares if it changed. It hardly changed a bit. The biggest change I saw was the youtube logo graphic.

Quote from majod :

why?

edit: well AA bateries should be much cheaper, but! I put ONE canon battery in my dslr...capacity 2000mAh...i went to a trip to ukraine for 7 days...made over 400 photos...and I had to change my battery on 7th day on my way home...

The number of days doesn't relate to the number of photos or the hours of operation. How long was the camera turned on each day?

I ask that because I took a trip for work and turned my camera on at noon. It was a 5 hour road trip in which I took about 300 photos. The camera was left on the whole day. Stopped to check in at the hotel and switched cards which was the only time the camera was turned off. At about 6:30 pm, we went to the hockey arena in which I spent another 4-4.5 hours taking 300-350 photos at the hockey game. I turned it off after the game because I was at the mercy of the driver and he wanted to go to the casino (I'd never spent $20 faster in my life than I did that first 3 minutes I was there, Haha.) I have a discharge function on the camera and when I got back to my room, I set it to discharge the batteries for about 2 hours while work paid for my beer for those 2 hours. I don't have a battery meter, it only tells me when they are depleted, but when I got back to my room for the night, they were still discharging. That was around 2 am, so 14 straight hours and 600 or so photos, about 1/4th of those with flash, and the batteries still had charge.

My other experience with AA NiMH batteries is with charging a 130 mah Lipo battery in my micro RC airplane. I could charge the Lipo probably 10 times plus flight time with the controller with a single charge on the NiMH. That's quite a bit considering I am also charging the Lipo with it as well.

I pay $10 for 4 batteries and the charger and $5 for a package of 4 batteries. I see off-brand camera proprietary batteries run for $20 or OEM for $40-45.

So, I would estimate that I could run all day (long day, 12-14 hours) and at least half the next day on 4 NiMH, or just toss them in the charger overnight every night for $10 worth of batteries and charger, probably with the capability of taking 1000 photos with a full charge.