A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

which PC



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #751  
Old June 25th 07, 08:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
dennis@home
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 330
Default which PC


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
news
Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.


It was probably more than a truck passing them..
trucks routinely drive at 80+ around here and they don't blow any vehicles
over.
I would suspect driver error was the cause.. maybe swerving to avoid the
truck he had nearly pulled into?


  #752  
Old June 26th 07, 04:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Roger (K8RI)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default which PC

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:30:47 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
news
Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.


It was probably more than a truck passing them..
trucks routinely drive at 80+ around here and they don't blow any vehicles
over.
I would suspect driver error was the cause.. maybe swerving to avoid the
truck he had nearly pulled into?


Nope, he was driving straight down his own lane according to the
report. He was moving slow and they passed only a couple feet apart.
I've had them rock a full size SUV but no worry about going over. OTOH
I had the gust front of an oncoming storm put mine right up on two
wheels but a slight turn away put the wheels back down.




  #753  
Old June 26th 07, 04:51 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Turco
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,436
Default which PC

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 -0500, John Turco
wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

heavily edited, for brevity

Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn
hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error.


edited, for brevity

My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.


Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.


edited

Hello, Roger:

Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g


Cordially,
John Turco
  #754  
Old June 26th 07, 10:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default which PC

John Turco wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 -0500, John Turco
wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
heavily edited, for brevity
Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn
hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error.


edited, for brevity

My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.

Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.


edited

Hello, Roger:

Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g


Cordially,
John Turco


Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often
deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the
right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to
restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters
requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have.
  #755  
Old June 26th 07, 04:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default which PC

Ron Hunter wrote:
John Turco wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:


My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.

Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.


Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g



Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often
deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the
right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to
restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters
requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have.


The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap.

--
john mcwilliams
  #756  
Old June 26th 07, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Tony Hwang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default which PC

John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:

John Turco wrote:

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:



My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.

Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.


Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g




Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often
deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the
right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to
restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters
requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have.



The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap.

Hi,
How come? If you treat crap like crap it's OK. Are you going to drive it
like a Corvette? I see many crappy drivers on freeway every day year
round. I wonder how they got their licence. Driver controls his/her car,
so called motor vehicle operator just knows how to start a car and move
it along the road.
  #757  
Old June 27th 07, 06:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Roger (K8RI)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default which PC

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:17:03 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote:

John Turco wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 02:12:12 -0500, John Turco
wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:32:27 -0500, John Turco wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:
heavily edited, for brevity
Sounds like detroit and their deathtraps of the 50's and 60's. Turn
hard and the car flips over -- obviously it's operator error.


edited, for brevity

My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.

Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.


edited

Hello, Roger:

Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g


Cordially,
John Turco


Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often
deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the
right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to
restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters
requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have.


Both statements are true but the tracker had very narrow limits.
A narrow, short wheel base with a high center of gravity is just
asking for trouble. On top of that they did not set low like they
should have. Once past the point of no return you are along for the
ride.
  #758  
Old June 27th 07, 09:41 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default which PC

John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:
John Turco wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote:


My real point was, U.S.-built cars of the "50's and 60's" weren't
prone to rolling over. Their makers subscribed to the "longer, lower"
philosophy of automotive design.

Among the benefits of this approach - the lone one, perhaps - was
resistance to flipping. Remember, also, that the "SUV" market was
virtually nonexistent, back then.

Moving to more modern times, a friend had a Geo Tracker. They had
pulled out onto the 4-lane and were passed by a semi that was "really
haullin". It flipped the tracker right over on it's side. the
treacker was light, had a short and narrow wheel base, and a high
center of gravity.

Now, that's what I'd call a "deathtrap!" g



Yes, but ANY vehicle can be driven beyond its capabilities, with often
deadly results. Often the problem is that the driver didn't take the
right action in a panic, and made the results worse. Trying to
restabilize a vehicle that is outside its safe performance parameters
requires both skill, and experience, which most drivers don't have.


The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap.

When one buys a high-COG vehicle, he should have enough sense to KNOW it
can't be driven like a high performance sports car. BTW, ALL cars are
dangerous, especially when driven beyond their design parameters.
  #759  
Old June 27th 07, 04:02 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default which PC

Ron Hunter wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote:


don't have.


The point is that the GEO is a dangerous piece of crap.

When one buys a high-COG vehicle, he should have enough sense to KNOW it
can't be driven like a high performance sports car.


How many folks who bought a GEO have any sense at all?
BTW, ALL cars are
dangerous, especially when driven beyond their design parameters.


Yes, Ron, you've made that completely obvious statement many times. And
you don't need to SHOUT!

--
john mcwilliams
  #760  
Old June 27th 07, 11:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
just bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 308
Default which PC


"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 10:29:10 -0700, just bob wrote:

Also I am all in favor of an external drive for storing pics and
perhaps another one for backups such as Acronis True Image.
Of course, the new DVD's may store most of your data or
programs depending on what you currently have or will have --
DVD rewritables that is, to keep ongoing cost down.
Miles


DVD's are too small and too slow. I just did a four-day event and I've
got
about 50GB or raw files. I'm not going to 1) put this on many DVDs or 2)
write that on a couple HD DVD's and wait hours and hours to burn and have
crap read speed.

Nope, I backup to external hard drives, two of them. And I can work from
them directly. I now own about ten external USB HD's.


Not really. DVDs are not too small and too slow. It's more
accurate to say that they may be too small and too slow for you, but
probably entirely adequate for most people. This reply, btw isn't
really intended to be critical of your method so much as giving me
an opportunity to discuss Blockbuster's just announced decision to
back the Blu-Ray disc format.

Having said that, your backup needs are not at all typical, and
from what you've said so far, while you're archiving something,
you're not really performing true backups, unless you have one copy
of all of your files saved on five of the hard drives and another
copy on the remaining five hard drives. If your business couldn't
survive the loss of your files due to theft, fire or some other
disaster, complete archive copies stored at different locations
would be wise, and high capacity tapes might be more practical than
using hard drives.

But before very long Blu-Ray discs may be a practical alternative.
I say this because just this morning I heard a business news item
indicating that Blu-Ray just made a substantial move to become the
standard format eclipsing HD-DVD, with Blockbuster's decision to
back the Blu-Ray format. They made this decision because they found
that in a study of rentals of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD titles in 250 of
their stores, more than 70% were Blu-Ray. They've decided to only
stock Blu-Ray titles in their 1450 US stores. (Another report says,
however, that the HD-DVD titles will continue to be available in the
250 stores where they're currently being rented). What's more,
Microsoft also admitted that their Xbox 360 may eventually support
Blu-Ray discs which have a 50GB capacity per dual layer disc, and
multilayer discs will eventually up that to 100GB to 200GB/disc.

The initial Blu-Ray 2x drives have data rates of 72Mbps but
several 4x/144Mbps drives should be available shortly, and
eventually 8x/288Mbps drives. One of the 4x drives (Benq) can burn
the 50GB dual layer discs, so burning 50GB should take about 45
minutes, so you shouldn't have to "wait hours and hours to burn".
If you need to use two discs to hold the entire 60GB, you may still
get all of the files backed up in under an hour.


One of the reasons I like the hard drives is I can update the data. And yes,
storing a copy offsite is the only true backup.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.