What's The Point of Supercars?

Mind blowing performance. Impressive specifications. Sexy styling. Limited production. Some say that supercars are the ultimate driving machines, but I've got a hunch that many of today's top performance automobiles are not being used to their full potential...or even being used at all.
The supercar industry has seen some of its most groundbreaking innovations in recent years, thanks to advances in technology. Everything from crash testing to aerodynamic modeling can now be perfected in the lab using computer modeling and simulations before the first vehicle rolls off the production line.
Not only does this cut down the amount of time required to bring a new vehicle to market, but it has also led to the development of some of the wildest and most unique vehicles ever produced. Computer-aided design allows engineers to explore new concepts and ideas that just were not possible a decade ago.

From paddle-shifters mounted on the steering column to heavy-duty carbon ceramic brakes, modern supercars are dripping with innovation. Carbon fiber body panels stay rigid and strong as advanced traction control systems help channel massive amounts of power to the pavement. Hand-assembled engines pump out huge horsepower at high RPMs and will run for years without needing a rebuild.

Yes, it's safe to say that supercars are some of the most over-engineered vehicles on the road today. A design team at Ferrari or Lamborghini may spend more time perfecting the suspension of one vehicle than it would take for a mass-production automaker to revise its entire lineup. The amount of effort that goes into developing a true road-raping machine is often reflected in its six or seven figure price tag.

But how often do you see supercars like Ferraris and Lamborghinis on the road? When was the last time you saw a Koenigsegg at the corner store or an F430 at the movie theater? Unless you live in South Florida, probably never.

The truth is that in spite of their incredible engineering, supercars do not make good daily drivers. Many exotic car owners also have an ordinary car for driving to the post office and the grocery store. The supercar is kept in the garage most of its life and will be driven perhaps a few hundred miles a year to car shows and around the block on sunny days.

Although a supercar can accelerate to 60 mph in the blink of an eye, its driver must still obey the speed limit. While the limited production makes them highly desirable, it also makes them difficult to get parts for. Because of the expensive price tag, a fender bender or theft would be disastrous.

Supercars also have high maintenance costs including premium fuel, synthetic oil, and special order tires. They gulp fuel and have no room for passengers or cargo. Insurance is expensive and so are speeding tickets. When you get right down to it, supercars are a lot like ordinary cars, only less useful and more expensive.
That's not to say we shouldn't have supercars. It is through the development of such exotic, high-performance vehicles that our regular cars become more advanced. What I am saying is that it's an absolute shame to see the fastest and best engineered vehicles sitting around all the time, being pampered instead of being driven!
It is a shame to see a classic Ferrari on the auction block at Barrett Jackson with 6,000 original miles on the clock. It is a shame to see today's most obsessively engineered vehicles hiding under car covers and being trailered to shows. It's a shame that supercars are priced well out of range of plenty of people who would love to drive them regularly.

What's the point of spending thousands of hours designing and testing a vehicle so it can sit on the grass at Pebble Beach? What is the point of engineering a vehicle that can travel at 250mph, only to have it spend the majority of its life sitting still?

The vehicles that are built to go the fastest are the ones that are driven the least. Rather than be driven and enjoyed as the designers intended, they spend their days covered up in garages, museums, and trailers at car shows. Now, where's the sense in that?

I am not the only one who feels this way:
http://www.supraforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=463108

What the Government Does

When I was younger, I had a very limited understanding of government. I always wondered what politicians in Washington DC actually did all day.

Why was there so much bureaucracy and red tape? Why couldn't a room full of people agree on anything other than the time of day? Since then, I have come to understand the purpose of government a little better and why there is so much disagreement in our nation's capitol.

There are certain functions the government must perform in order to BE the government. It must oversee the creation and distribution of money and coinage through the Mint. It must maintain the armed forces for the defense of our country. It must also follow the Constitution and make sure it is upheld.

Everyone agrees that the government must perform these duties at the bare minimum. Beyond those fundamentals, people start to disagree with each other about what else the federal government should be responsible for.

Some people think the functions of government should be limited to these actions and no more. They feel that the States should possess the power to pass and enforce laws at their own level, rather than be dictated to by politicians and bureaucrats. Let each state decide what is best for itself, rather than rely on nationwide laws to be passed.

Other people feel that the federal government should play a much larger role in our lives. They feel that the government's overall job is to take the money collected from the income tax and redistribute it to wherever it is needed most.

How does one determine which causes or ideas have the greatest need for government aid? Who deserves those federal dollars, how much they deserve, and what they're going to do with the money are all important questions to be considered. This is precisely what politicians debate all day, every day.

The federal government is more than just a building full of longwinded Senators and Representatives in Washington D.C. It is a made up of hundreds of social welfare organizations that employ tens of thousands of people all across the country.

In one way or another, the government subsidizes (pays for): a national retirement system called Social Security, money to each of the 50 states for construction projects (with stipulations), federal loans for college students, federal loans for homebuyers, and subsidies to farmers so they will not grow certain crops.

The government also regulates broadcast media including television, radio, and consumer electronics through the FCC. They set safety standards for the vehicles we drive through the NHTSA and the foods we eat through the FDA. They set strict laws relating to aviation and marittime industries. They operate our national parks under the National Park Service. They provide a nationwide system of mail delivery through the Post Office.

These and hundreds of other organizations and regulatory agencies are all funded by the federal government (see the complete list). Each organization has an annual budget to work with, which never seems to be enough.

It is very difficult to decide how much of the money collected from the annual Income Tax should go to each of these hundreds of organizations. Which is most important: widening a freeway in Florida or making sure that the Superfund program has the money to clean up a toxic waste site in Pennsylvania?

What will the government do to help farmers in the midwest during a drought, or college students in California who cannot afford tuition? Can they make more annual inspections of the nation's nuclear power plants if they hold off on buying new planes for the Air Force for another year? What could the consequences of that decision be?

And therein lies the problem: there are only so many dollars available and a trillion ways to spend them. Of course, the Representatives from each of the states will lobby before the Congress for more money for their own states. Representatives from California will explain why California needs more money for its college students. Representatives from Florida will plead their case for that wider freeway.

Each of the hundreds of organizations that the government supports feels that it should get all of its requested funding. Every organization feels that it is of great national importance, from the space program to the arts council. Because it is not possible to give everyone all of the money they desire, compromises must be made.

The federal government attempts to please everyone by deciding that Florida will get two additional lanes and the Air Force will get X number of planes and the Superfund program will get a 5% budget increase over the previous year.

Of course, the outcome of every decision is hotly contested by talk show hosts, private citizens, and even other government agencies. Being a politician on Capitol Hill means taking part in a vicious tug-of-war for those precious government dollars. Everyone wants them and yet there are not enough to go around. That is what they argue about all day in Washington.

The Worst Silly Names of Web 2.0

The Internet has changed dramatically over the past few years. No longer do users simply read and absorb information in a one-sided conversation. Everyday people are now publishers of information via blogs, wikis, forums, comments, and YouTube videos. They engage in social networking and are making their voices heard. In this new era where everyone is a producer of content, we have entered the realm known as "Web 2.0."

Web 2.0 is not a technology, but a collection of websites that have several things in common. To be considered "2.0," a website will typically include some or all of the following:

-Maintains focus on user generated or edited content
-Encourages people to publish content about themselves
-Enables people to communicate quickly
-Is usually free of charge
-Explosive, viral popularity

Critics like myself are quick to point out that these sites also sport clean, oversimplified designs with HUGE fonts, rounded corners, cutesy-colorful icons, and utterly silly names that would make your English teacher cringe in disgust. Seriously, why do so many popular websites have such awful names? Take a look at these examples:

Twitter
Flickr
Frappr
Zoomr
Retrievr
Digg
Reddit
Skype
Meebo
Bebo
Orkut
Del.icio.us
Ma.gnol.ia
37Signals
43Things
Fandango
Yelp
Kijiji
Joost

I'm not the first one to notice that these names sound like something out of a Dr. Seuss book. This is one bandwagon that's apparently far from full. I wish people would go back to picking creative, meaningful, or somewhat appropriate names for websites again. These silly names are so pitifully unimaginative that it makes me sick to think about it any longer. I'm going to go read a book now, for humanity's sake.

I'm not the only one who feels this way:
http://moz.com/blog/want-to-make-up-stupid-words-then-create-a-social-media-site
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/gelflog/archives/seussical_domain_names.php
http://themarketingguy.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/social-networking-or-not-working/
http://www.dotomator.com/