marmer

from Swamplot

^ Probably an over-active desire for privacy coupled with a lack of understanding of what architectural "publication" or "documentation" means. Possibly embarassment at the condition of the house, especially the interior. Possibly disabled or infirm family members who shouldn't be disturbed. Possibly, since it's still in the family, there may even be some hard feelings related to Jenkins or the architecture. Your guess is as good as mine, Jason probably has more of a sense of it.

Rio de Janeiro?

No doubt, but that's like saying waffles are a little sweeter than pancakes! And don't get me started on tire noise and "squirminess." I'm just playing witcha, it's a handsome truck and it's probably the best choice for rough roads and heavy loads. But I wouldn't put up with any truck's ride on my primarily highway commute. I even think my boss's BMW X5 is bouncy compared to my Audi A4 wagon. And my mom's '93 Explorer? Even with two-wheel-drive, it's worse than a bucket of Superballs!

^ Yeah, but I'll bet it bounces like a ball. Don't know how you put up with that.

Hot springs/spa type attractions. That kind of thing was really popular in the early twentieth century. That's where Eureka Springs, Hot Springs, Warm Springs, etc. all got their names.

At the bottom of that page are links to other lists of cool abandoned stuff. Thanks for posting that, sheeats!

Probably wants to sell it to a developer.

Thanks, specwriter. Yes, you should go. Everyone who likes cars should go.

Well, enthusiasts have been clamoring for all those great European diesels for years. Their torque makes them lots of fun for city driving. The new BMW 3-series diesel is one of the first to come over here. It's also the first, I think, to meet EPA emissions standards by means of urea injection (carried in a tank and replenished at the dealer every 15,000 miles or so; a urea fill will cost about $50). Emissions and the cost of diesel relative to gasoline have historically been the obstacles to the Euro manufacturers bringing their diesels over. It wasn't cost effective to certify another model for the US market. Now that diesel prices have come down more equal to gasoline, and urea is showing some promise in emissions control, I agree that we will see lots more small diesels. Maybe even diesels used in domestic automobiles, and nearly exclusively in trucks, minivans, and SUVs. The ill-fated Oldsmobile diesel of the late 70s and its Cadillac sibling were gasoline V8s that were converted to diesel, with fairly severe reliability consequences. I mentioned this in another forum but haven't said it here; one of the reasons for the sudden perceived drop in quality of American cars in the 70s and early 80s was the use of desperately underpowered engines in fairly heavy vehicles. This led to a lot of fairly dramatic and expensive component failures. As engine power has increased, the engines are not working as hard, and we are seeing many fewer engine-related reliability issues, even among the historically least reliable brands like Chrysler.

Agree with lockmat's recommendation. Lots of opinions, many of which you won't agree with regardless of which side you're on, but also lots of good background info.

Oooo, I like the Scotland idea. And I am aware from M.C. Beaton's Hamish MacBeth series of mysteries that Inverness is in the Scottish highlands, and has an industrial/public housing element to it. So that will be my guess. Inverness.

No, in fact auto engines have become way more efficient since then, but it is more apparent in reduced emissions and increased power. Improved mileage is a little more noticeable in modern six and eight cylinder engines. Your Cavalier and Civic are way lighter than modern cars; for better or worse there is an expectation of automatic transmissions, antilock brakes, a brace of air bags, stiffer structure and crumple zones, stability control and all those other safety features you see advertised every day. That adds a lot of weight to small and midsize cars and requires more engine power for the same size car. And, to be fair, there was less market and political interest in fuel economy when gas was so cheap for so long.

As the modern auto market in Europe and Japan demonstrates. The Fusion Hybrid is a spectacular car, and may well be a grand slam home run for Ford. I really hope it is. But even it won't be the answer if politicians just keep ratcheting up the standards with no sense of what's practically achievable. I completely agree that uniformity of standards is a good, maybe even necessary thing. I am actually surprised that the states were ever allowed to set their own. I also agree that fuel prices will go up and everyone will want high-mileage cars again right damned now. One thing that looks like it is going to be a little different is that we're starting to see some new "clean" diesels and diesel prices seem a little more reasonable than they have been in past years.

I mostly agree with you, especially about the false sense of security and the idiotic driving. But in my post I intended for the higher driving position and ability to cross flooded streets to be two different things. I've known plenty of people, especially older people, whose knees and hips are more comfortable at the seating height of an SUV. And, all things being equal, some places that are impassable for a Civic are not an issue for an Explorer. If you live in an area where you get water on the roads and you are familiar with them, then sometimes an inch or two of ride height makes a big difference. Obviously you shouldn't drive into deep water in anything. Although silly people do.

Thanks, Niche. I have seen numbers lower than 20%, but admittedly in auto-biased publications, so I can live with the 20. But it really bothers me. The auto industry has done what the government and its customers told them they wanted. They have created fuel economy with reduced emissions that would absolutely dazzle the first anti-car commentators of the 1970s. And, in some happy cases, they have created high performance, too. And now privately-owned internal combustion vehicles are somehow the ruination of the planet, and industrial transportation, aviation, power generation, and construction vehicles are rarely if ever mentioned.

I could certainly be wrong, but I think anything larger than a 24 foot box truck requires a commercial driver's license.

Yes, exactly. It really bugs me that people are so quick to assume that no one needs a SUV or pickup truck. I'd be willing to bet that most people who bash SUV's haven't really taken a close look at them. They ride like crap, their handling and braking are awful, they are hard to park, they use a lot of gas, and they are expensive to buy. Probably even the most die-hard SUV owner would agree with all of those. So why do people buy these monsters and put up with them? Hint: it's not a status symbol (though the BADGE may be). It's so they can have a higher driving position, so they can drive through flooded streets a little more confidently, so they can feel safer in a collision (whether they really are is a different question), so they can actually move stuff once in a while, and so they can go somewhere with friends and family in one car. And even if you took all the privately-owned SUVs and pickups off the road, you still would have millions of them being used as commercial vehicles, because they are the only vehicles that can do the job.

Whatever. I like Obama, and I voted for him, but he's going to have to understand that simply playing with numbers on fuel economy and emissions standards alone aren't going to result in the production of vehicles that meet people's needs. True, you can commute in a tiny car, if that's all you need it for and comfort doesn't matter. But you can't pull a trailer, carry a load, or move very many people with one. And, thanks to the auto industry, we now have improved gasoline and diesel engine efficiency to the highest level they have ever been. Just the plain chemistry and physics of the fuels involved make it clear that all the big gains are past us. I actually don't have a very optimistic view of the future of transportation. The kinds of torque and horsepower required for large trucks, buses, and most commercial vehicles aren't likely to happen without either diesel-electric systems or some other kind of massive electric motor system. And you're not going to be able to get the kind of juice those need without some kind of significant onboard energy source. In today's world that's a diesel engine. In a post-petroleum world, I don't know. It ain't solar. Maybe mini-nukes? Though the shielding and accident potential are a real problem. And aviation? Without some kind of real anti-gravitics, aviation as we know it will be gone in less than a century.

Wheelchair accessible, or maybe even child accessible? You wouldn't want a toddler using the microwave, but it can certainly make sense for a supervised 8-year old to use it.

Thanks. The decision to increase enrollment is a result of some fairly recent and detailed self-study and apparently was fairly unanimously supported among the administration, faculty, and students. It's no secret but it wasn't all that widely publicized outside Rice. My own little part of the University is not planning any increases in enrollment, however. And, yes, you are right about the six-figure salaries. With one small caveat -- it is theoretically possible to get a position in a major orchestra and start at around $100,000. Of course such positions are very rare and the people who get them right out of undergrad school are unusually talented. This is why almost all orchestral musicians go to grad school. When I was there in the early 80's, the Chem E and Bioc programs were considered the fastest track to big money. Of course, it wasn't easy money, and lots of people washed out. Now I would doubt that even engineering, while still popular, is automatically going to get anyone a job. Comp Sci also tends to attract a lot of students and have a high placement rate. And now that I think of it, a lot of humanities majors do wind up in financial or real estate careers, which is probably why you encountered some. Before its downfall, Arthur Andersen was a big employer of fresh Rice graduates.

Rice made its reputation in science and engineering. In the last third of the twentieth century they began to give more priority to the humanities. They created a music school and a business school, and enhanced the architecture school. Now of course, with nanotech and biotech one might legitimately argue that those fields are Rice's biggest strengths. But I have NEVER heard anyone say that Rice primarily focuses on liberal arts. St. Thomas, yes. You are correct that Rice has never really figured out what to do with its undergraduate business program. When I was there it was considered the major of last resort for those who couldn't cut a "real" major, and the institutional philosophy was quite strong that professional studies in business were only meaningful at the graduate level. Rice is building new residential colleges and expanding the existing ones, with the goal to increase the student body about 30% in the next five years. Beyond that, probably not so very much.

Budapest?

Yeah, I'm with the people who are saying that as new old goes, this is pretty sweet. If I had the money I'd be tempted.

Of course. Just don't suggest that it be torn down.