• She was shaving because she was on her way to see her boyfriend
• Her ex-husband was in the car with her
• He was steering
• She was driving (sort of) on a suspended license

At least she wasn’t talking on her cell phone too.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. Pittsburg Cops accused of brutality
2. Woman kills intruder during 911 call
3. Salvador Rodriquez says he’d rather let someone be raped then be a snitch

Thirty-four minutes later, I was contacted by Bose Service who stated that they had seen my tweet and wanted to help. I figured what the hell. I figured that they were maybe handing out adapters to fix the problem (either for free or a small charge) but no, after a little back and forth I found this out.

So here I am, stuck with a less functional sound dock with my only option being to spend $99 to “fix” it or just buy a new one. Ya, thanks but no thanks.

I would like to add a note that I don’t just a problem with Bose (though I am severely disappointed with their “in ear head phones” that only stay in when you sit perfectly still”) on this but also with Apple. It takes real disdain to hand out licenses to make third party accessories and then fuck them over like that.

In this case, Apple screws over the accessory maker who then screws over their existing customer base. Like they say, shit rolls down hill.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. I need his job
2. Google Buzz, argle bargle or fooforaw?
3. Droid speed test and other sundries

I’m sure we all remember back in ‘94 when a woman put hot coffee between her legs, spilled it, and burned her hoo ha. For her gross negligence she was (initially) awarded several million dollars.

That, to my vague and hazy recollections, is the day the lawsuit jackpot started. Soon everybody who did something stupid was suing the manufacturer, the seller, and their neighbor in an attempt to make a buck.

Inane warning signs proliferated like weeds. But no, that wasn’t enough, not for William Ogletree.

On December 30, 2009, the dawn of a new era began. Not simply content with finding ways to hurt himself doing idiotic things with mundane items, he is threatening a lawsuit because he forgot his coat and no one bother to have “…collected the coat, kept it in a secure place and held it for a reasonable period of time for the owner to locate it”.

That’s right, folks, he forgot his coat and its someone else’s fault that he didn’t get it back. Apparently the City of Houston, The Westfield Concession Management, Inc, and Continental Airlines are supposed to be his mommy.

Hat Tip: The Smoking Gun

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. GEICO, evil or stupid?
2. The most expensive clerical error in history?
3. Bring forth the whipping boy, he will suffer much for this!

One of the first comments struck me as interesting.

Posted by: fletc3her | 03/4/10 | 4:50 pm |

I think it’s great that the auto industry is starting to improve mileage even in sports cars and muscle cars. But, I do wonder what the actual day to day mileage of one these cars will be. If you push the car to get the advertised 0-60 speed then you are not going to get the advertised mileage. Less powerful cars force the driver to drive efficiently simply by virtue of not having enough horsepower to waste a lot of gas.

He says that less powerful cars force the driver to be more efficient because it simply does not have the power. Apparently he believes that an increase in horsepower necessitates a drop in fuel economy. It is true that they tend to be highly correlated but vehicle performance is more complicated than that.

For a brief primer, horsepower is a measurement  of work with work being force expended over a distance. The next big engine measurement is torque. Torque is a measure of instantaneous force and typically refers to a twisting action, in the case of an internal combustion engine, the crankshaft acting upon the input shaft of the transmission.

Torque is then multiplied through the gears in the transmission (or divided in the case of an overdriven gear). It is then multiplied one last time in the rear differential before being divided by the wheels (think of them as really big gears).

The power output of the engine varies with engine speed, torque reaching its peak before horsepower. When these peaks are reached varies from engine to engine but it is the gear multiplication that picks up the slack at low engine speeds.

The reason that this is important is that the engine is most efficient when it is producing the most power. This is why mileage in the “city” is always worse than “highway”, you are constantly running the vehicle through the lower and less efficient RPMs. An excellent example is watching the black smoke on a diesel from a stop. Diesels are very inefficient at low RPMs and the momentary black smoke is cause by a lot of unburnt fuel. Physics also comes into play, with regards friction and momentum (it takes a lot of energy to move a vehicle from a stop than it is to just keep going).

This brings me back to my earlier point about “forcing efficiency”. Smaller displacement engines (four cylinder and even smaller six cylinder) have very high power peaks four, five, and even six thousand RPMs. The little power that the engine does produce does not actually come into play for a long time. As stated earlier, this is overcome through the use of aggressive gearing. This has the dual purpose of multiplying torque and spinning up the engine faster.

The interesting thing about this, is that the smaller engine (in a similar weight and shaped vehicle) is working harder than a larger engine would. It uses less fuel simply by virtue of having a smaller displacement.

This comes back the Mustang mentioned in the beginning of this post. It (and the new Camero) are part of a new breed of small displacement, high power engines. While this is not a new trend (think of when the Mustang dropped the 5.0 for the 4.7). it has been accelerating due to rising fuel costs.

This extra power, gives you the ability to motivate the vehicle with less effort (fuel) which is why you are now seeing amazing performance in vehicles with mileage ratings once associated with compact cars.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. Charging Electric Vehicles, or Won’t someone think of the power grid!
2. A rolling stone

The first is The Count teaching that pansy ass vampire from Twilight what it means to be a vampire.

The second is a seemingly inane video of someone invading a classroom dressed as a chicken. At least is is until the professor stands all he can stands and he can’t stands no more. Hilarity ensues.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. One of these things is not like the other
2. Evildoers in bars beware!
3. Bose says I should pay $99 to fix something I didn’t break

First, while poking around the internet for this, I discovered that there is some variation in terminology. For our purposes, a muzzle break is (either built in or added to the barrel) porting that direct some of the projectiles gases upwards and/ or backwards in order to control muzzle climb.

A compensator is a weight added to the end of the barrel to reduce muzzle climb.

Now my personal opinion on compensators is that they are a bad idea. Support for this is that it is very difficult to find pictures of them. While the extra weight does reduce muzzle climb, it also increases the weight of the barrel which forces the barrel down when you are aiming. Training could get around this to a certain degree but eventually hand fatigue would get the better of you. In my opinion, there is only one person can pull one off.

Springfield XD40 with ported barrel

Colt 1911 compared to S&W 500

As for muzzle breaks, it depends. For pistols, they are purely for competition. The fact that you are having searing hot gases escaping from your barrel in your general direction is a bad idea if you ever except to have to fire it when it is not pointed straight ahead and at arms length. Muzzle breaks also radically increase the perceived noise of the weapon. This is due to the the explosion of the round being partially redirected towards the shooter. Finally, the foot or so of flame that erupts from the muzzle break wreaks (worse) havoc on your night vision, makes you a wonderful target, and, if indoors, can set the ceiling on fire (a bad thing). There are of course exceptions to this.

There are a few pistols that fire a powerful enough round that a muzzle break is required. The Smith and Wesson Model 500 which fire the massive .500 Magnum round (I have the urge to use the word shell) is an excellent example of this.

So far I have just discussed pistols, rifles make more liberal use of muzzle breaks because they typically fire much more powerful rounds than pistols. My personal favorite example of this is the M82 sniper rifle. This behemoth fires the .50 BMG anti-materiel round. This round is capable of reaching out and touching someone at a distance of 2.5 clicks.

Needs a muzzle break

Muzzle breaks on rifles suffer from the same drawbacks as those found on pistols, such as added noise and increased visibility and catching the overhanging foliage on fire. Of course in the case of such large caliber rifles, a muzzle brake is a necessity to control the muzzle climb. Notice in the video how the escaping gases are directed backwards and noticeably push the shooter backwards.

So what’s the take away from all this? Compensators are useless since a muzzle break serves the same function but does not cause barrel drop and hand fatigue. Muzzle breaks are only for pistols if they are meant for competition or fire such massive rounds that the recoil would otherwise be unmanageable.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. British soldiers also complaining about 5.56mm NATO
2. Woman kills intruder during 911 call

I took this at Brown-Daub Jeep in Easton, PA.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. Terrorists are among us and they are furry!

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. An opened letter
2. The Internet will never amount to anything, a retrospective
3. Connotations, Denotations and playing with words

Click on the image for a large version

The first one is quit obviously of the IHYSETCOT variety. Luckily for everyone, this person, well bot, is nice enough to to make the links so scary looking that only the terminally stupid or dangerously curious would click on them.

The second one is of the SEO variety. It is suitably generic and appeals to the blogger’s vanity (Drat! How did they discover my one weakness!) Underneath the name you’ll see the URL bronsteinreport.com. This is the web site that is attempting improve its search engine ranking by throwing out links wildly like a frat boy sows his oats.

Now I understand that this post was exceptionally dry and what you really came to see was the latest issue of Blog Spam Illustrated, so I won’t deny you:

Don’t say I never give you anything.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. An Ode to Blog Spam (Fuck You)
2. Droid speed test and other sundries
3. Waterloo has met its waterloo

Today, I took my daughter in for her nine month check up. Visiting a pediatrician’s office is a good place to hear the godawful names that some parents come up with (presumably while drunk). There was a little boy there whose parents are apparently travelers. They are such world treading people that they wanted to make sure everyone else knows it, so, of course, they name their son Rome. I’m sure he’ll be a hoot in geography class.

Then there was another poor kid named Jayden. Holy crap, why don’t you just name him Clay Aiken and be done with it. I mean there’s a reason why the studio changed John Wayne’s name from Marion.

Now the worst offender that I’ve heard of lately belongs to the sister of one of my wife’s friends (say that five times fast). She named her newest son Linkin, yes like the park… I mean band.

I’m not sure why some parents sit down and try to think of the stupidest, most off the wall name that they can think of for their children but I do have a theory. Just think of the one other thing were people sit down and think of the stupidest, most off the wall names: pets.

I believe that there are parents out there who think of their children in the same way they do their pets. It shows, too, like pets, they are all cute and cuddly when their born but eventually they grow up into loud, obnoxious beasts (teenagers) and by then their no fun anymore so their parents allow them to run wild around the neighborhood going in other people’s yards and impregnating their pets, I mean children.

OK. I’m done, I’ll dial back the crotchetiness a bit besides, it’s almost time for Matlock.

Tweet this!

Related (maybe) posts:

1. Salvador Rodriquez says he’d rather let someone be raped then be a snitch
2. Vultures Circling
3. I need his job