Quotulatiousness

February 4, 2011

As expected, BBC offers apology for Top Gear anti-Mexican remarks

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Media — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 08:26

It still won’t change anything:

The BBC has now obliged, with a statement which concedes that while the remarks were “rude” and “mischievous”, there was “no vindictiveness” behind them.

The Corporation continues: “Our own comedians make jokes about the British being terrible cooks and terrible romantics, and we in turn make jokes about the Italians being disorganised and over dramatic, the French being arrogant and the Germans being over-organised.”

It adds that “stereotype-based comedy was allowed within BBC guidelines in programmes where the audience knew they could expect it, as was the case with Top Gear“.

The apology concludes: “Whilst it may appear offensive to those who have not watched the programme or who are unfamiliar with its humour, the executive producer has made it clear to the ambassador that that was absolutely not the show’s intention.”

Indeed, said executive producer apologised personally to señor Medina-Mora Icaza, and we look forward to seeing that meeting on Top Gear in due course, complete with witty commentary from Clarkson, Hammond and May.

February 2, 2011

BBC’s Top Gear team spark hostile response from Mexico

Filed under: Americas, Britain, Media — Tags: , , , , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:25

I guess that diplomats must do things like this, but anyone who’s watched more than five minutes of Top Gear would not take them seriously as political commentators. Hilariously funny, yes, but not particularly representative of British or British government views. Mexico, however, has chosen to take offense and has sent a demand to the BBC for a formal apology:

The irreverent British motoring show “Top Gear” has driven into diplomatic hot water after a host branded a Mexican car “lazy, feckless and flatulent” and said it mirrored Mexico’s national characteristics.

Mexico’s ambassador to Britain fired off a letter to the state broadcaster protesting the show’s “outrageous, vulgar and inexcusable insults” and demanding an apology.

In the episode, host Richard Hammond likened a Mexican sports car to “a lazy, feckless and flatulent oaf with a mustache, leaning against a fence asleep, looking at a cactus with a blanket with a hole in the middle on as a coat.”

Co-host James May went on to describe Mexican food as “like sick with cheese on it,” or “refried sick,” while Jeremy Clarkson predicted they would not get any complaints about the show because “the ambassador is going to be sitting there with a remote control, snoring.”

I’m sure the BBC will provide the requested apology, but I doubt that it will change anything. Top Gear without the over-the-top commentary would be just another bloody car show.

January 29, 2011

Inappropriate license plates, Virginia style

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Humour, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:07

Jason Ciastko send a link to this article. You can see why the Virginia authorities decided to recall the license plate (but you’re probably wrong):

A Virginia motorist has apparently had to return their vanity license plate after the Department of Motor Vehicles decided it was too lewd for public roadways.

According to the user-generated news website Reddit, the DMV revoked a special-issue “Kids First” Virginia plate with the personalized license plate “EATTHE” to spell out the phrase, well, you know…

Full story, including the sad bureaucratic recall procedure, here.

Most reactions were like the one from a mom in a minivan plastered with pro-Christian bumper stickers who chased him down.

“I thought she was going to yell at me and tell me I’m going straight to hell, but she and her kids found it absolutely hilarious and she took pics of it with her kids next to the plate,” said Yeaman. “I learned my lesson on judging people before they speak.”

Sadly, the Virginia DMV didn’t talk to him before they judged him offensive and sent him a letter requesting the plates back immediately. With his brother’s encouragement, Yeaman requested a hearing with a mediator to keep the plates, which he didn’t find offensive.

H/T to Craig Zeni for the Jalopnik link.

January 25, 2011

More examples of the poor being taxed to benefit the rich

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Economics, Government, Technology — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:42

Gregg Easterbrook isn’t a fan of flying cars — at least, not flying cars that are fuelled on pure government subsidy:

General Motors has emerged from bankruptcy and taken initial steps to repay its federal bailout money — two good bits of news, although the taxpayer remains on the hook for many billions of dollars extended to GM. Specialty electric-car maker Tesla Motors also had a successful initial public offering and is being celebrated as some kind of testament to the entrepreneurial spirit. For Tesla, this is pure PR.

Tesla is capitalized via a $465 million no-collateral federal loan. This means that if Tesla goes out of business, the taxpayer will take the loss, while if Tesla becomes a hit, its management and private investors will keep all the profit. The company bought a factory in Fremont, Calif. The Department of Labor made $19 million in special payments to workers there, federal taxpayers subsidizing the Tesla labor force. The firm’s electric cars entitle buyers to a $7,500 tax credit, plus sales tax exemption in many states, meaning Tesla marketing receives significant subsidies — average people are taxed so wealthy Tesla buyers receive extra discounts. Compared to its size, Tesla is more heavily subsidized than General Motors at the low point. Basically, the company’s existence is a giant raised middle finger to the taxpayer.

And what’s the product? A $109,000 luxury sports car that accelerates from zero to 60 mph in 3.9 seconds, the speed of the hottest Porsches. Such speed has no relevance to everyday driving; rather, it is useful solely for road-rage behavior such as running red lights and cutting others off. Taxes forcibly removed from the pockets of average people now fund a rich person’s plaything. I dread the moment President Barack Obama has his picture taken next to a Tesla, as if throwing the public’s money away on this toy for the Silicon Valley rich were an accomplishment.

The other absurd vehicle in development is the Terrafugia flying car, which just won exemption from a federal airworthiness safety standard. Surely you will feel secure when a flying car exempted from safety standards buzzes your neighborhood, especially when you learn that another federal waiver means the pilot needs only 20 hours of experience before he or she takes off. Maryland, my state, requires 60 hours behind the wheel before receiving a driver’s license. But fly after 20 hours? Hey, wheels up! Surely few of these accidents-looking-for-a-place-to-happen will sell on the free market. So — scan the horizon for a bailout. The Terrafugia company just got a piece of a $65 million military contract to research a flying Jeep-like thing; don’t hold your breath. If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, defense contracting is the last refuge of bad business plans.

Tesla note: The car is well-named, for although Nikola Tesla was an important inventor and a key figure in the development of commercial-scale alternating current (he had one of the basic ideas for getting electricity to homes), he also was a relentless self-promoter, not shy about exaggeration. The famous photo of him in his Colorado Springs laboratory, reading a book as electricity crackles around him, is a double exposure — that is, faked. Tesla’s plan to allow global wireless communication using Earth’s magnetic field was, let’s just say, a long shot — he worked, of course, before satellite-relayed signals were possible — and his claim to be able to deliver electricity to businesses through the air never made much sense. If Tesla were alive today, he’d drive a Tesla.

Terrafugia was last heard from lowering their expected capacity, while raising their prices back in September.

January 11, 2011

It’s not your imagination, Toronto area commuters

Filed under: Cancon, Economics — Tags: — Nicholas @ 13:00

Canadians often have a disturbing eagerness to see themselves coming out atop various world rankings. Let a UN agency or a big NGO list Canada in the top five of any kind of list and they practically declare a national day of celebration . . . it’s kinda pathetic, actually.

Andrew Coyne finds a list that nobody in Canada will find as a source of national pride:

Indeed, for sheer mind-numbing, soul-destroying aggravation, traffic in our largest cities can compete with any in the developed world. A Toronto Board of Trade report earlier this year looked at commuting times in 19 major European and North American cities. Toronto’s ranking? Dead last: worse than New York or London, worse than Los Angeles. But other Canadian cities were scarcely better. Montreal was 18th, Vancouver 14th, Calgary 13th, Halifax 10th.

So, what’s the answer? Ban private vehicles and load everybody into mass transit? If anything would turn Canadians away from their “peace loving” self-image, that might well do it. Canadians love their cars as much as any other western country and more than most. There’s also the fact that for most commuters, taking public transit would increase, not decrease their commuting time.

The reason is simple: it’s quicker by car. As bad as the commute is for drivers, it’s much worse for public transit users: 106 minutes, versus 63 minutes by car. Granted, part of the reason it takes so long to get anywhere by transit is because of all the cars blocking the way. But you’d have to persuade an awful lot of those drivers to give up the comfort and convenience of their cars to put much of a dent in that. And they’d still take longer to get to work even then.

So, what’s the answer? Toll roads.

December 13, 2010

Aha! A new conspiracy theory

Filed under: Britain, Law, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:27

Following up to this post, Chris Greaves offers both a link, and a theory to explain the link.

The prince’s office also declined to comment, but stressed that the royal couple did not seek medical help after Thursday’s altercation.

Officials are assessing royal security after the attack on Charles and Camilla, whose Rolls-Royce strayed into the path of protesters against tuition fee hikes.

They hit the car with sticks, fists and bottles and chanted “Off with their heads” before the vehicle pushed its way through the crowd and drove off.

One casualty of the review may be the classic Rolls-Royce Phantom VI the couple were using, a gift to the Queen on her Silver Jubilee in 1977. The 33-year-old limousine does not have bulletproof windows or other modern protection features.

So what’s the conspiracy theory, you ask? Here you go:

Liz Windsor: (Thinks) How to get rid of Camela?
(later) I know, I’ll give her a Rolls Royce whose windows are not bullet-proof.
Heh heh.

December 8, 2010

Volkswagen’s Dresden auto plant

Filed under: Europe, Technology — Tags: — Nicholas @ 08:21

H/T to Roger Henry for the link.

December 7, 2010

Cool idea . . . don’t expect it to be allowed

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Law, Liberty, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:24

This is a cool idea:

I am building a radar detector that plugs into your iPhone. When RadarLoc detects radar, it notifies other drivers in the area, making radar effectively visible for miles. I think of it as transparency in government. To the extent that visible traffic enforcement slows traffic, RadarLoc encourages law-abiding behavior.

RadarLoc is open source, open hardware and open data. My plan is to make the radar data available on RadarLoc.org, so anyone can build on it. If you don’t like my app, you can build your own–I tell you how to talk to the hardware and how to use the data service. Information wants to be free.

Unfortunately, radar traps are not actually there to encourage safer driving: they’re there as revenue sources. This is why (at least in some jurisdictions) you’re not supposed to warn other drivers of radar traps, even though by doing so you’re encouraging other drivers to drive more slowly (therefore making the road safer). Radar detectors of any kind are illegal in Ontario, for example.

H/T to Chris Anderson for the link.

November 13, 2010

Some music just doesn’t belong in commercials

Filed under: Media — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 11:44

By way of @muskrat_john (John Kovalic), who wrote “Love the Pogues. Love my Subaru Forrester. Saw Forrester commercial use Pogues song. Surprisingly, I died a little inside.”:

November 7, 2010

Can you do this with your vehicle?

Filed under: Cancon, Military, Randomness — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:57

H/T to Roger Henry, who says “A well coordinated team, but, Halifax, Canada?? Where’s the snow?”.

October 21, 2010

I still think they should call it the “milliVolt”

The much-less-than-promised Chevy Volt goes on sale next month. If it had been a private company delivering so few of their promises, lawsuits or regulatory sanctions would be forthcoming. Because it’s a product of Government Motors, we’re being told that the “Electric Edsel” is not fraud, it’s fantastic:

Government Motors’ all-electric car isn’t all-electric and doesn’t get near the touted hundreds of miles per gallon. Like “shovel-ready” jobs, maybe there’s no such thing as “plug-ready” cars either.

The Chevy Volt, hailed by the Obama administration as the electric savior of the auto industry and the planet, makes its debut in showrooms next month, but it’s already being rolled out for test drives by journalists. It appears we’re all being taken for a ride.

[. . .]

So it’s not an all-electric car, but rather a pricey $41,000 hybrid that requires a taxpayer-funded $7,500 subsidy to get car shoppers to look at it. But gee, even despite the false advertising about the powertrain, isn’t a car that gets 230 miles per gallon of gas worth it?

We heard GM’s then-CEO Fritz Henderson claim the Volt would get 230 miles per gallon in city conditions. Popular Mechanics found the Volt to get about 37.5 mpg in city driving, and Motor Trend reports: “Without any plugging in, (a weeklong trip to Grandma’s house) should return fuel economy in the high 30s to low 40s.”

Car and Driver reported that “getting on the nearest highway and commuting with the 80-mph flow of traffic — basically the worst-case scenario — yielded 26 miles; a fairly spirited backroad loop netted 31; and a carefully modulated cruise below 60 mph pushed the figure into the upper 30s.”

As I said in an earlier post:

I’m very much in favour of an economical electric car: the Volt doesn’t meet that definition. It’s been rushed to market for political, not for economic reasons. It’ll be kept in the market regardless of sales figures for the same reason: it allows Barack Obama and senate leaders to point at the Volt as tangible proof that they care about the environment and reducing American dependence on foreign oil.

October 9, 2010

QotD: The American car

Filed under: Economics, Environment, Liberty, Quotations, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:03

In making automobiles more safe and ecologically friendly, we’ve often lost sight of the basic cost benefit factor — I think this is probably more true in the safety than in ecology — and one of the things that is precious about the American automobile industry is that it provided a cheap and reliable means of transportation for practically everyone in society, and then when those vehicles became used vehicles, it gave cheap and mostly reliable transportation to everybody, to the point where the Oakies in the dust bowl were in Model T fords and not on foot. When we undertake to make the automobile this humming, electronic device that provides a perfect egg of safety and closure and creates no adverse externalities (as people like to say these days) we lose sight of the purpose of the damn thing in the first place. And the purpose was to allow freedom — freedom and horizontal mobility to the masses. That’s why cash for clunkers was just sinful. You’re taking a bunch of perfectly good vehicles, inexpensive vehicles that could be used by people without much in the way of material means, and crushing them. If someone took a valuable resource — something that could really be useful to people — and destroyed it, they’d be in jail if they were private citizens.

P.J. O’Rourke, “P.J. O’Rourke Likes Puppies and America, Dislikes Flip Flops at the Airport [Texas Book Festival Interview]”, Austinist.com, 2010-10-08

September 9, 2010

Terrafugia moving swiftly towards terribly expensive, impractical

Filed under: Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:09

The ever-hopeful reporters at The Register‘s flying-car desk are lowering their expectations for the Terrafugia Transition:

The firm behind the world’s most plausible near-future flying car has pushed back delivery dates again, and suggested that vehicles may wind up costing substantially more than had been planned.

Terrafugia Inc, engaged in developing the Transition “roadable aircraft”, made the announcements in a statement issued yesterday. The company says it is now setting up for “low volume production” in a new facility in Massachusetts, and that this “could allow low volume production to begin as early as late 2011”.

The most recent Terrafugia forecast had suggested that initial deliveries would begin in 2011, but it now appears that actually the company will only commence building the aircraft at that stage. Furthermore, Transitions were originally expected to sell for $148,000: Terrafugia now says the initial price is “expected to be between $200,000 and $250,000”.

Along with the pushback in production dates, the design has been down-rated for carrying capacity: now only 330 pounds of passenger and cargo when fully fueled. That won’t be enough for two average American men, never mind their kit.

Ever wonder why Japanese cars didn’t become popular at first

Filed under: Economics, Japan, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:09

Even with an American ad agency working for them, the market wasn’t ready for this in 1969:

September 2, 2010

Rival electric car manufacturers already positioning for dirty ad campaigns

Filed under: Environment, Media, Technology — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:27

Lewis Page rounds up the GM-versus-Tesla ad campaigns of the near future:

As US motor mammoth GM gears up for the launch of its plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt, it has applied to trademark the term “range anxiety” — meaning the fear suffered by battery-car owners regarding their ability to get home again after a given journey. Upstart battery car maker Tesla Motors has issued a panicky and unconvincing statement in response.

[. . .]

GM feels that “range anxiety” is a major reason why its original EV-1 battery car of the 1990s failed.

”We’ve been here before,” says GM marketing honcho Joel Ewanick. “We have first-hand experience with what the issues are.”

In short, the difficulty with an all-electric battery car is that there is little certainty of actually being able to complete any journey even close to the vehicle’s rated range, as battery endurance is highly variable — and manufacturers can’t publicise the worst-case (or even perhaps the likely-case) figures. If they did, nobody would ever buy their products.

[. . .]

Meanwhile, reputable Swiss boffins have lately pointed out that in fact a VW Golf powered by one of the new, super-low-emission injected turbodiesels is responsible for less carbon emissions over its lifespan than one with a li-ion battery running on typical grid power.

So, to wrap up the discussion briefly, nobody will be buying Tesla Roadsters or Government Motors Volts for their economic virtues: they’ll be buying them as expensive status-signalling devices to show off their (real or imaginary) environmental awareness.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress