Re: Review -Motive

[Capricorne]

>
> Our lead detective is played by Kristin Lehman. Supposedly had a Castle
> epi, but you have to go back to Judging Amy and Andromeda, for credits I
> am familiar with. Still I don't remember her.

She played almost the same role in a cop series in San Francisco called
Killer Instinct. It got cancelled after 9 episodes. Her boss was Chi
McBride...

[David Johnston]

On 5/18/2013 4:10 PM, ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED wrote:
> Maverick is a CTV police procedural with a forth coming venture to the US
> on ABC over the summer.

What's with the title?

>
> Final Grade: B- -> C+ - Why? Well if the hook is this reveal the killer
> upfront schtick... thats not enough! Lots of puff about being similar to
> Columbo... UMM NO!

It isn't similar to Columbo of course. It's similar to Cold Case.

[JRStern]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 01:30:54 GMT, ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED
<ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:34:27 -0600, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> It isn't similar to Columbo of course.
>

>Not my analogy/reference, several sites refer to this due to the methods
>Lehmans character follows ie: not being organized and methodical.. Just
>one more thing...
>
>
>"Much like the late Peter Falk, Lehman plays the character as someone
>with seemingly chaotic and unprepared methods, while the writers script
>her as a quirky detective who is on top of her game but disarming. It
>doesn�t hurt that Angie loves her old �86 Hurst the way Columbo loved his
>Peugeot, or that she finds herself in comical situations, such as in the
>pilot when she thinks she can talk down a vicious dog."

Columbo worked on the charm (?!) of Peter Falk as much as anything,
and some very sharp acting by guests. It was sort of like Dancing
With The Stars, without the dancing.

So what exactly is an '86 Hurst?

J.

[inf...@mindspring.com]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:21:51 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:

>
>So what exactly is an '86 Hurst?

I would have guessed an Oldsmobile 442:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Hurst/Olds

but Wikipedia says '84 was the last year.

[inf...@mindspring.com]

On further examination, a search on "1986 Hurst" shows '86 models for
sale.

[JRStern]

Well, I'd say any 1980s Olds wasn't much of a car to be nostalgic
about, but I drove a 1960s Peugot once and that wasn't exactly
automotive art, either.

J.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <qldgp8578jfpmhqin...@4ax.com>,

Oldsmobile
http://www.gbodies.com/images/cutlass/86hurstoldsrear.jpg

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[anim8rFSK]

In article <frhgp8l6rg6v6tdu7...@4ax.com>,

In theory an '86 should be a 442, but a lot of people claim to have '86
Hursts. Go figure.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1983-1987-oldsmobile-cutlass-hurst-and-4-4-
2.htm

[Rhino]

You didn't have the right Peugeot then. My friend and his brother bought
a mid-60s Peugeot from a wrecker when they were in high school
and restored it. The motor was still good but most of the rest was a
mess so they redid everything, especially the body work, and soon had a
decent little car. I wasn't much of a Columbo fan but my friend said it
was very similar to the car Columbo drove on the show.

During the reconstruction effort, they found a perfectly round hole in
the front bumper and could see that it was there by design although it
wasn't clear what the purpose was. One of them had random thought and,
based on what was behind the hole, speculated that it could potentially
be a port for a crank start, although it seemed to be far too new to
still have a crank start. It seemed to be the most likely prospect and,
being pretty handy, they soon built a new crank handle for it, the
original one being long gone. Sure enough, when they cranked their new
handle, it turned the engine! Apparently, this particular car was
designed to be hand-startable if you broke down in the middle of nowhere.

We had a lot of fun with that. My friend used to drive it to public
places like drive-in restaurants or the main intersections downtown, and
deliberately stall the car, then hop out with his crank and start it up
again, just like something from the Keystone Kops era. He got a lot of
raised eyebrows from that and plenty of laughter. Most of the people
watching him would never have seen a hand-cranked car in their lives.

The other fun thing about that car was getting gas for it. The filler
cap was hidden under one of the rear taillights so he loved driving it
to an unfamiliar gas station and seeing the attendant go crazy trying to
figure out how to get the gas into the car. Of course this was back in
the days before self-serve stations.


--
Rhino

[JRStern]

The miracle about virtually all cars made before, oh, maybe 1995, is
that they ran at all. Today's engineering and construction is so much
better, it's incredible. I get mildly nostalgic for some of those old
beasts, but objectively their efficiency, performance, reliability,
and durability - all sucked. Not to mention the nostalgia for the
driver being 20, 30, 40 years younger!

J.

[Rhino]

I think drawing the line at 1995 is probably 15 or 20 years late.
I thought cars got noticeably better about the time the Japanese
started to compete seriously, in the late 70s. Before that, we
disparaged their cars as "Jap scrap" or whatever but they really started
to build decent cars after a few years in the North American market. The
American manufacturers were dragged kicking and screaming into competing
with them and eventually American cars started to be higher quality too.

But I miss certain aspects of the older cars, especially the idea that
you could do some of your own maintenance. Nowadays, that's almost
impossible unless you have a lot of expensive tools. Cars are so complex
that you nearly need an engineering degree before you can think about
even the most routine maintenance. Still, some modern cars don't even
need an oil change for the first 100,000 miles so maybe it's a
reasonable to trade maintainability for reliability.

--
Rhino

[JRStern]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:32:37 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>> The miracle about virtually all cars made before, oh, maybe 1995, is
>> that they ran at all. Today's engineering and construction is so much
>> better, it's incredible. I get mildly nostalgic for some of those old
>> beasts, but objectively their efficiency, performance, reliability,
>> and durability - all sucked. Not to mention the nostalgia for the
>> driver being 20, 30, 40 years younger!
>>
>I think drawing the line at 1995 is probably 15 or 20 years late.
>I thought cars got noticeably better about the time the Japanese
>started to compete seriously, in the late 70s. Before that, we
>disparaged their cars as "Jap scrap" or whatever but they really started
>to build decent cars after a few years in the North American market. The
>American manufacturers were dragged kicking and screaming into competing
>with them and eventually American cars started to be higher quality too.
>
>But I miss certain aspects of the older cars, especially the idea that
>you could do some of your own maintenance. Nowadays, that's almost
>impossible unless you have a lot of expensive tools. Cars are so complex
>that you nearly need an engineering degree before you can think about
>even the most routine maintenance. Still, some modern cars don't even
>need an oil change for the first 100,000 miles so maybe it's a
>reasonable to trade maintainability for reliability.

Most (all) cars need oil change, they claim "no tuneup" for 100k but
frankly it's a lie, they need a dozen filters changed and stuff
"checked".

But yeah, my old Fiat 124 had nothing more complicated than an
afterburner on the exhaust manifold, good ol' carb and distributor
with points. I fiddled with everything, but then someone had to! My
modern Hondas are far, far better cars, but you're right, I can barely
find the places to add oil and water, almost anything more complicated
is beyond me.

But just within the Honda line, the difference from the 1987 car to
the 2005 and newer, is huge.

J.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:32:37 -0400, Rhino

There's just no comparison for safety, fuel efficiency, power per
pound, and reliability. It's been pretty much a continuous
improvement since the huge dip in quality automakers took around 1978
to 1988. Remember the "K Car"?

I have one big gripe with modern cars: too many gadgets. It's the one
thing that is worse. The only major expense I've ever had with my car
is that the switch that makes it impossible for the starter to engage
unless the brake is pushed down broke. The car would not start at
random times and it took three trips to the garage and $500 to fix.

And even worse, there are way too many controls for all the gadgets.
I've rented cars where I could not figure out how to turn the AC fan
up.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:19:59 -0400, Rhino
<no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>On 2013-05-19 12:47 AM, JRStern wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:35:57 -0400, inf...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:31:53 -0400, inf...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:21:51 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So what exactly is an '86 Hurst?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would have guessed an Oldsmobile 442:
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_Hurst/Olds
>>>>
>>>> but Wikipedia says '84 was the last year.
>>>
>>> On further examination, a search on "1986 Hurst" shows '86 models for
>>> sale.
>>
>> Well, I'd say any 1980s Olds wasn't much of a car to be nostalgic
>> about, but I drove a 1960s Peugot once and that wasn't exactly
>> automotive art, either.
>>
>
>You didn't have the right Peugeot then. My friend and his brother bought
>a mid-60s Peugeot from a wrecker when they were in high school
>and restored it.

[...]

>
>The other fun thing about that car was getting gas for it. The filler
>cap was hidden under one of the rear taillights so he loved driving it
>to an unfamiliar gas station and seeing the attendant go crazy trying to
>figure out how to get the gas into the car. Of course this was back in
>the days before self-serve stations.

My sister in law had one. In addition to the odd gas cap placement,
it had manual four-speed transmission . . . on the column!

I thought it was a fairly cool car, all in all.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:13:35 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
wrote:

The thing about cars made before 1980 is that they were cool. I'd
almost prefer to have a 57 Chevy or 65 Mustang to a new generic basic
car.

But they *were* a pain in the neck. I remember well all the times I
had to deal with overheating, virtually unheard-of today.

[Rhino]

Oh yeah.... One of the last of the traditional American cars....

I'm not sure about the safety thing though. Maybe it's an urban myth but
I remember reading a claim that a Model T could take a 30 mph hit and
not break significantly. Today, I believe that the law mandates 2.5 mph
as the speed of a collision which cannot do significant damage to a car.
Basically, even a very low speed collision can do a lot of expensive
damage to a car. You'll owe your body shop a lot of money to fix even a
parking lot fender-bender.

> I have one big gripe with modern cars: too many gadgets. It's the one
> thing that is worse. The only major expense I've ever had with my car
> is that the switch that makes it impossible for the starter to engage
> unless the brake is pushed down broke. The car would not start at
> random times and it took three trips to the garage and $500 to fix.
>

There have been some weird problems even with older cars. I remember
reading about one particular model of car where the engine kept failing.
The dealers worked hard to determine the cause of the failures but I
think they gave up. Apparently, when a problem gets too severe in a
given car, the manufacturer buys it back from them and then the
manufacturer's engineers go over the vehicle very thoroughly until they
figure out what's wrong. Anyway, in this particular case, they
eventually figured out the problem. Apparently, the licence plate was
blocking the air flow needed to keep the engine running smoothly; this
eventually caused the engine failures. As soon as they relocated the
licence plate, everything was fine.

I remember another case where a particular car, not all copies of the
same model, kept failing whenever the car went over a significant bump.
The dealer tried everything but I think that car might have gone back to
the manufacturer too. In any case, the problem eventually turned out to
be the car keys: this particular car owner had a large number of keys on
the ring with the car keys, dangling down on a heavy fob, and when the
car went over a major bump, the keys would bounce so hard that the
stress on the ignition system caused the car to stall because the
relevant circuit was temporarily shorted. Or something like that anyway.

Both of those two were examples from 20 or more years ago.

But other bad things have happened even on recent cars. Remember those
Toyotas that couldn't be stopped three or four years ago? I still get
shiver when I think of the incident that brought that to attention. A
California man, who happened to be an off-duty cop from the California
Highway Patrol, found his Toyota going 180 mph or better on the freeway
and nothing he could do would kill the power. He had his family in the
car and had one of his kids call 911 from the back seat to ask if anyone
at dispatch could think of anything to stop the car. Nobody came up with
anything and the whole family was killed in a very high speed collision.
That sparked a major recall of certain Toyotas. I don't know if that
completely ended the problem though.

> And even worse, there are way too many controls for all the gadgets.
> I've rented cars where I could not figure out how to turn the AC fan
> up.
>

A little standardization of controls wouldn't be a bad idea in some
cases. There is certainly some of that but some controls seem to be
missed. Seat belts are among the worst offenders, as are door handles.
If you get in a strange car, it can sometimes be very touch and go
trying to find the door handle or get the seat belt into its receptacle.

I also had a bit of trouble with my current car when I first got it. I
was trying to figure out how to engage the 4-way flashers because I
wanted them on while I stopped in front of a mailbox for a minute to
mail a letter. I had a heck of a time finding them, even though the car
was just a newer model of my previous car.



--
Rhino

[Rhino]

You couldn't pay me to take a Mustang off a dealer lot.

I bought a slightly used one once - a 1998 four cylinder 5 speed - and
it was just plain AWFUL in terms of handling. I could be going straight
and downhill on a highway and the rear end would start to swing out on
me. I could be driving slowly through a parking garage and find the rear
end swinging out on me when I made a right or left turn. I had two
accidents with it and both of them were caused by the rear end suddenly
swinging loose on me in low traction conditions. Luckily, there were no
injuries in either case but the car needed a lot of repairs both times.
The second time, I just wrote it off and swore I'd never have another
Mustang.

Years later, I was talking to a mechanic who specialized in Mustangs and
he said the problem might have been fixable. Something to do with sway
bars I think. But I prefer to err on the side of caution and simply not
have another one.

> But they *were* a pain in the neck. I remember well all the times I
> had to deal with overheating, virtually unheard-of today.
>

I've had the usual quota of problems with cars but I don't believe I
ever had an overheating problem. Just the luck of the draw, I suppose....

--
Rhino

[Rhino]

I must ask my friend if his transmission was in the column. I rode in
the car many times but never drove it and just don't remember. I believe
it was a '66 Peugeot but I don't think I ever know the model.

> I thought it was a fairly cool car, all in all.
>

It got my friend and his brother around quite nicely for several years
when they had not much money but lots of time to put into it.

I think they finally wrote it off after my friend hit a dog with it and
the car was nearly totalled. (The dog came out even worse,
unfortunately. A German shepherd, he said.) But I could be wrong. They
might have fixed it again and driven it longer before finally writing it
off. Gosh, where do the years go? In some ways, it seems like just the
other day we were driving that car but it's over 30 years ago....




--
Rhino

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:43:35 -0400, Rhino

<no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>On 2013-05-19 4:08 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 14:32:37 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-19 12:13 PM, JRStern wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:19:59 -0400, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-05-19 12:47 AM, JRStern wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:35:57 -0400, inf...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:31:53 -0400, inf...@mindspring.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:21:51 -0700, JRStern <JRS...@foobar.invalid>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what exactly is an '86 Hurst?
>>>>>>>>

[...]

>>> But I miss certain aspects of the older cars, especially the idea that
>>> you could do some of your own maintenance. Nowadays, that's almost
>>> impossible unless you have a lot of expensive tools. Cars are so complex
>>> that you nearly need an engineering degree before you can think about
>>> even the most routine maintenance. Still, some modern cars don't even
>>> need an oil change for the first 100,000 miles so maybe it's a
>>> reasonable to trade maintainability for reliability.
>>
>> There's just no comparison for safety, fuel efficiency, power per
>> pound, and reliability. It's been pretty much a continuous
>> improvement since the huge dip in quality automakers took around 1978
>> to 1988. Remember the "K Car"?
>>
>Oh yeah.... One of the last of the traditional American cars....
>
>I'm not sure about the safety thing though. Maybe it's an urban myth but
>I remember reading a claim that a Model T could take a 30 mph hit and
>not break significantly. Today, I believe that the law mandates 2.5 mph
>as the speed of a collision which cannot do significant damage to a car.
>Basically, even a very low speed collision can do a lot of expensive
>damage to a car. You'll owe your body shop a lot of money to fix even a
>parking lot fender-bender.

There's a downside to that, though. Pilots in very early airplanes
often survived crashes because the scaffold-like frame would collapse
like an accordian. In other words, the more the car crumples, the
less impact is delivered to the occupent.

Haha. It reminds me of a gastroenterologist I heard on the radio,
years and years ago, who had a patient with serious stomach pain that
nobody had been able to cure.

It turns out, the guy's pants were too tight.

[///]

>
>A little standardization of controls wouldn't be a bad idea in some
>cases. There is certainly some of that but some controls seem to be
>missed. Seat belts are among the worst offenders, as are door handles.
>If you get in a strange car, it can sometimes be very touch and go
>trying to find the door handle or get the seat belt into its receptacle.
>
>I also had a bit of trouble with my current car when I first got it. I
>was trying to figure out how to engage the 4-way flashers because I
>wanted them on while I stopped in front of a mailbox for a minute to
>mail a letter. I had a heck of a time finding them, even though the car
>was just a newer model of my previous car.

Well, as long as Im doing pet peeves -- why can't they write out the
names of controls in English?

They do realize that you have to pass a written English road test to
get a driver's license, right? Or heck, they can do them in Spanish
for all I care.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:50:46 -0400, Rhino

This car bears no resemblance to the '65 other than the name. It even
*looks* like a Taurus.

It is, or at least used to be, a common Detroit marketing technique,
to bring out a car and then gradually cheapen it, until it was an
unrecognizable piece of junk. Thunderbird is probably the best
example. The Mustang certainly got ruined after a few years, but it
wasn't an expensive car when it came out.

I'd actually consider buying one of the new ones - I think they
brought it out in maybe 2010 or so. But yeah, you got a hunk of junk
for sure.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:57:58 -0400, Rhino

I bought a similar type of car, a 1958 Volvo in 1969 that was all used
up, but I really enjoyed it. It was constant tinkering until one day
I finally cracked the block by turning a hose on it in a fit of rage,
after it overheated the 100th time.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/1958-1965-volvo-pv544-1.jpg

It had a 4-speed on a long shift lever that went all the way to the
big flat floor, and wide bench seats. That's something else I
wouldn't mind having again - some wasted room in front and bench
seats.

[Rhino]

One of my friends had an old Volvo sports car. It was apparently the
same model as the one The Saint drove in the old British TV series,
although I don't think I ever watched the show. I think he liked the car
but I don't think I ever even had a ride in it.

The car my father had when I was learning to drive had the old "3 in a
tree" column shift. I have to say I strongly prefer my 5 speed floor shift!

Bench seats certainly had advantages when carrying lots of people. I can
remember having four in the front seat of my first car, a '69 Fury, when
we went out looking for a Christmas tree. We had 7 people in the back
seat - I like to say 8 because one of them was very tall - and then we
put the Christmas tree in the trunk. That thing had a lot of carrying
capacity! Awful gas mileage of course.

My next car was a '76 Valiant which had this really weird ventilation
system: it was basically two tubes, much like soup cans with hinged
doors on the ends, one at either end of the dash. Both were mounted just
below the dash. The ventilation system was dirt simple: you could open
either door, both or neither. That governed how much air flow you got.
No other controls for air flow anywhere in the car. No A/C either. On a
cold day, you kept those doors closed. On a day, you could open them but
all it did was move the hot air around. Of course you could open the
windows but all that did was move the hot air around. If you wanted
cooling, you bought a drink, went for a swim, or waited for all. The car
wasn't going to cool you off ;-)

--
Rhino

[Barry Margolin]

In article <jfXlt.2624$Ju6...@newsfe22.iad>,
ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED <ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us>
wrote:

> On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:21:51 -0700, JRStern wrote:
>
> > Columbo worked on the charm (?!) of Peter Falk as much as anything,
> > and some very sharp acting by guests.
>

> That I'd agree with. Maybe this is part of some PR schtick that started
> this... I don't know where this meme came from, it continues to be
> brought up on sites for comparison, so I guess it has to be part of the
> PR schtick for the show from the show... It is a fail. Comparing to
> something like Columbo.. Hell I could watch that today! Hmmm.. better get
> some more filler from the archive since most of the schlock today is not
> going to cut it.

I suspect the only reason for the comparison is that both shows start
with the viewers seeing who did the crime, so they're not literally
"whodunit" shows. I doubt there are any other important similarities.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Capricorne]

A few time she does like Columbo. She asks the killer some questions
very nicely, she thanks him or her, and then when she is at the door
she asks the "killer" question.

[David Johnston]

Maybe. But in Columbo the fundamental question is *almost) always "How
can we break his alibi?" In Motive the question is "Why did she do it?"

[anim8rFSK]

In article <8dmip8hle9bekqpqr...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They do realize that you have to pass a written English road test to
> get a driver's license, right?

Not here you don't. In fact, it's a problem to get a manual in English.

Or heck, they can do them in Spanish
> for all I care.

[Rhino]

Good point. I have to believe the engineers looked over the various ways
to protect passengers and decided that air bags were a better option
than massively rigid materials to keep the vehicle from deforming. But I
don't know that for a fact. I get the impression that the styling of a
car tends to get a lot more attention than the engineering sometimes so
maybe the stylists insisted on air bags since it gave them more options
for styling the car. If the car was constructed like a tank, it would be
harder to make it look "elegant" or "sporty" or whatever image they're
going for.

I heard a variation on that where the guy was complaining about ball
pain for the same reason ;-)

> [///]
>>
>> A little standardization of controls wouldn't be a bad idea in some
>> cases. There is certainly some of that but some controls seem to be
>> missed. Seat belts are among the worst offenders, as are door handles.
>> If you get in a strange car, it can sometimes be very touch and go
>> trying to find the door handle or get the seat belt into its receptacle.
>>
>> I also had a bit of trouble with my current car when I first got it. I
>> was trying to figure out how to engage the 4-way flashers because I
>> wanted them on while I stopped in front of a mailbox for a minute to
>> mail a letter. I had a heck of a time finding them, even though the car
>> was just a newer model of my previous car.
>
> Well, as long as Im doing pet peeves -- why can't they write out the
> names of controls in English?
>
> They do realize that you have to pass a written English road test to
> get a driver's license, right? Or heck, they can do them in Spanish
> for all I care.
>

I'm pretty sure that is a manufacturing practice that saves them money.
If you only display pictures on the controls, then you don't have to
worry about what text labels to paste (or paint or engrave or whatever)
on the controls. For instance, a car sold in the US might logically be
expected to have English labels but given the number of immigrants, some
might argue that it is necessary or at least desireable to have the
controls labelled in Spanish. Or Arabic. Or Chinese. Or maybe a whole
bunch of different languages. Then you run into problems fitting all the
possible languages in the available space. If they just use a symbol
that is, at least in theory, universally recognizable as meaning Air
Conditioning or Windshield Wiper or whatever, it makes it a lot easier
for them to sell the same car in any market. Of course they still need
to produce owners manuals in the language(s) used in the country of sale
so they can't avoid all language-related issues but they can at least
avoid the hassle of trying to figure out how many different phrases they
need to put on/near each control on your car.

Of course there's nothing stopping you from adding your own text
controls. Go to Staples and get a label-maker and go wild. Of course
it's likely to look a lot tackier than having it done by the
manufacturer....
--
Rhino

[Rhino]

On 2013-05-19 9:31 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> In article <8dmip8hle9bekqpqr...@4ax.com>,
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They do realize that you have to pass a written English road test to
>> get a driver's license, right?
>
> Not here you don't. In fact, it's a problem to get a manual in English.
>

Where's "here" for you? I thought you were American but maybe you've
moved....

By the way, I can find manuals for many things - like this laptop - in
many languages just by googling. I haven't specifically tried to find
the manual for my car in, say, Polish or Arabic, but I wouldn't be all
that surprised if I could find it.

Of course you still have to print it from the PDF and that's not going
to look as nice as a professionally bound manual....

> Or heck, they can do them in Spanish
>> for all I care.
>


--

Rhino

[anim8rFSK]

In article <knc6vr$ev4$1...@dont-email.me>,

Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

> On 2013-05-19 9:31 PM, anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <8dmip8hle9bekqpqr...@4ax.com>,
> > Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> They do realize that you have to pass a written English road test to
> >> get a driver's license, right?
> >
> > Not here you don't. In fact, it's a problem to get a manual in English.
> >
> Where's "here" for you? I thought you were American but maybe you've
> moved....

Arizona. They have piles of the manuals for the taking in Spanish, but
you have to wait in line to get an English one. I assume that means you
can take the exam in Spanish as well... yep, here it is from the DMV
site: "Written tests are also offered in Spanish."

>
> By the way, I can find manuals for many things - like this laptop - in
> many languages just by googling. I haven't specifically tried to find
> the manual for my car in, say, Polish or Arabic, but I wouldn't be all
> that surprised if I could find it.
>
> Of course you still have to print it from the PDF and that's not going
> to look as nice as a professionally bound manual....
>
> > Or heck, they can do them in Spanish
> >> for all I care.
> >

--

[anim8rFSK]

In article <knc6q9$e7o$1...@dont-email.me>,

I know it for a fact. There were better options than airbags, but that
murderous bitch Joan Claybrook wanted airbags, and didn't give a damn
who had to die in the process, and she had her safety nazis write
complex regulations that basically forced car manufacturers to put them
in, as nothing else could meet all the rules. The world is a worse
place for her having been in it, and hopefully she won't be much longer.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <A%Slt.1989$Ju6....@newsfe22.iad>,
ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED <ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us>
wrote:

> Maverick is a CTV police procedural with a forth coming venture to the US
> on ABC over the summer.

Did they rename it in the transition from CA to US? Were they worried
someone would confuse it with the classic Western show?

Anyway, in case all the promos confused people, it premieres tonight at
10pm in a special "sneak preview", then moves to its regular timeslot on
Thursday at 9, the time that's mentioned as the premiere in the
commercials.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 19:44:39 -0400, Rhino

<no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>On 2013-05-19 7:15 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 18:57:58 -0400, Rhino
>> <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-19 4:10 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:19:59 -0400, Rhino
>>>> <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-05-19 12:47 AM, JRStern wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:35:57 -0400, inf...@mindspring.com wrote:

. . .

>>
>> http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/1958-1965-volvo-pv544-1.jpg
>>
>> It had a 4-speed on a long shift lever that went all the way to the
>> big flat floor, and wide bench seats. That's something else I
>> wouldn't mind having again - some wasted room in front and bench
>> seats.
>>
>One of my friends had an old Volvo sports car. It was apparently the
>same model as the one The Saint drove in the old British TV series,
>although I don't think I ever watched the show. I think he liked the car
>but I don't think I ever even had a ride in it.
>
>The car my father had when I was learning to drive had the old "3 in a
>tree" column shift. I have to say I strongly prefer my 5 speed floor shift!
>
>Bench seats certainly had advantages when carrying lots of people.

The nice thing about a column shift and bench seats is not just
passenger room, but junk room. Ever eat a meal while driving?

It also makes for more comfort on long trips, since (assuming you have
cruise control) you can move your right knee up onto the seat beside
you. Or, you could put a cooler lengthwise on the front seat.

The people who made bucket seats really don't understand that being
able to shift your position ultimately makes for more long-term
comfort than a "scientific" chair that you are trapped in.

Of course, if you have the shift (manual or auto) on the column, you
can't have an unutterably complex system of lights and winshield wiper
controls sticking out of the column. Heaven forbid that a car should
have a simple knob sticking out of the dash that you pull to turn the
lights on.

In fact, having the automatic-transmission shift mechanism on a
console to the side is one of the stupidest things about current car
design. Having the shift on the column and the indicator right in
front of your eyes just makes so much sense.

[...]

>
>My next car was a '76 Valiant which had this really weird ventilation
>system: it was basically two tubes, much like soup cans with hinged
>doors on the ends, one at either end of the dash. Both were mounted just
>below the dash. The ventilation system was dirt simple: you could open
>either door, both or neither. That governed how much air flow you got.
>No other controls for air flow anywhere in the car. No A/C either. On a
>cold day, you kept those doors closed. On a day, you could open them but
>all it did was move the hot air around. Of course you could open the
>windows but all that did was move the hot air around. If you wanted
>cooling, you bought a drink, went for a swim, or waited for all. The car
>wasn't going to cool you off ;-)

The first car I drove regularly was my mother's '61 Valiant station
wagon. Same cooling system.

And, for yet another gripe about current car design: Those blasted
plastic vents that don't slide worth beans. I'd be glad to pay extra
for metal pin construction that would actually allow you to turn the
vents exactly the direction you want them.

[David Johnston]

On 5/20/2013 9:32 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <A%Slt.1989$Ju6....@newsfe22.iad>,
> ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED <ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us>
> wrote:
>
>> Maverick is a CTV police procedural with a forth coming venture to the US
>> on ABC over the summer.
>
> Did they rename it in the transition from CA to US? Were they worried
> someone would confuse it with the classic Western show?
>

No. The show was never called "Maverick".

[Robin Miller]

Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <A%Slt.1989$Ju6....@newsfe22.iad>,

>

> Anyway, in case all the promos confused people, it premieres tonight at
> 10pm in a special "sneak preview", then moves to its regular timeslot on
> Thursday at 9, the time that's mentioned as the premiere in the
> commercials.
>

Tonight's episode is scheduled at the same time as the season finales of
Revolution and Hawaii 5-0, as well as a new episode of Warehouse 13.
Fortunately, W13 repeats, and Revolution (at least) can be watched on
demand on Comcast.

--Robin

[Hunter]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:34:27 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

>On 5/18/2013 4:10 PM, ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED wrote:
>> Maverick is a CTV police procedural with a forth coming venture to the US
>> on ABC over the summer.
>

>What's with the title?
>
>>
>> Final Grade: B- -> C+ - Why? Well if the hook is this reveal the killer
>> upfront schtick... thats not enough! Lots of puff about being similar to
>> Columbo... UMM NO!
>
>It isn't similar to Columbo of course. It's similar to Cold Case.
----
I believe it is similar to "Columbo" in the way you know the killer up
front and we see the police solve the crime. Maybe the won't have
anyone like the good lieutenant in a crumpled old rain coat driving a
rattrap-eggbeater of a car so that everyone including the criminal of
the week would underestimate him gravely, but the method of story
telling is the same.

Patrick Jane of "The Mentalist" does that sometimes.

Of course to add some real drama and unpredictability it may be that
sometimes they don't solve the case or worse they arrest, try, and
convict the wrong person.

Wether it is similar to "Cold Case" or not in style I have to see it
first. It will air tonight 5/20/13, in the States.

------>Hunter

"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."

-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907

[Hunter]

----
Exactly.

[inf...@mindspring.com]

On Tue, 21 May 2013 03:44:02 GMT, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
(Hunter) wrote:

>>
>>I suspect the only reason for the comparison is that both shows start
>>with the viewers seeing who did the crime, so they're not literally
>>"whodunit" shows. I doubt there are any other important similarities.
>----
>Exactly.

After having watched the frist episode I have to agree. No other
resemblance to Columbo I could see. I'll give it another week or two
to gain traction but I'm underwhelmed with the premiere.

[Hunter]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 21:07:12 -0400, Capricorne <capri...@gmail.com>
wrote:

----
Yeah, but you see that in a lot of police procedurals, likely in real
life too.

[Adam H. Kerman]

ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED <ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us> wrote:

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

>Our lead detective is played by Kristin Lehman. Supposedly had a Castle
>epi, but you have to go back to Judging Amy and Andromeda, for credits I
>am familiar with. Still I don't remember her. I keep thinking Uma Thurman
>when she is on screen. That is both good and bad. Looks better with
>straight hair! Not bad...the curly hair just by the thinest margins keeps
>her off the HQR list.

I first recall her from Strange World. More recently, she was the campaign
staffer Billy Campbell slept with in The Killing.

Much of the time, her acting bores me. She seemed to have more life
in Motive, though.

I wasn't enthusiastic about the pilot. The partner bored me, especially
the instinct versus evidence arguments, which were poorly handled. Lauren
Holly offered a tiny bit of interest. The killer bored me. There was nothing
interesting about him, nor any attempt to explain his personality.

The murder appeared to be pre-meditated, despite his denials.

I asked immediately about why the dog didn't back. Hasn't every detective
read The Hound of the Baskervilles?

Maybe I'll watch the second episode.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Capricorne <capri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Our lead detective is played by Kristin Lehman. Supposedly had a Castle
>>epi, but you have to go back to Judging Amy and Andromeda, for credits I
>>am familiar with. Still I don't remember her.

>She played almost the same role in a cop series in San Francisco called
>Killer Instinct. It got cancelled after 9 episodes. Her boss was Chi
>McBride...

I remember that show. It was horrid.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>I believe it is similar to "Columbo" in the way you know the killer up
>front and we see the police solve the crime.

Uh, Columbo didn't solve the crime. Columbo knew who the killer was upon
arriving the crime scene and refusing to look at the corpse. The television
audience had no idea why Columbo knew who the killer was.

At least Kristen Lehman made some effort to investigate.

>Patrick Jane of "The Mentalist" does that sometimes.

Jane accuses everyone without evidence. He's right on one of them.

[Adam H. Kerman]

It wasn't terribly satisfying in the end, though.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Rhino <no_offline_c...@example.com> wrote:

>You didn't have the right Peugeot then. My friend and his brother bought
>a mid-60s Peugeot from a wrecker when they were in high school

>and restored it. The motor was still good but most of the rest was a
>mess so they redid everything, especially the body work, and soon had a
>decent little car. I wasn't much of a Columbo fan but my friend said it
>was very similar to the car Columbo drove on the show.

>During the reconstruction effort, they found a perfectly round hole in
>the front bumper and could see that it was there by design although it
>wasn't clear what the purpose was. One of them had random thought and,
>based on what was behind the hole, speculated that it could potentially
>be a port for a crank start, although it seemed to be far too new to
>still have a crank start. It seemed to be the most likely prospect and,
>being pretty handy, they soon built a new crank handle for it, the
>original one being long gone. Sure enough, when they cranked their new
>handle, it turned the engine! Apparently, this particular car was
>designed to be hand-startable if you broke down in the middle of nowhere.

Great story.

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <knh39p$2mb$1...@news.albasani.net>,

I believe the partner is Justin Louis? To some extent, I'm surprised
he's still getting this much work... ;p

> especially
> the instinct versus evidence arguments, which were poorly handled. Lauren
> Holly offered a tiny bit of interest.

If by "interest", you mean "morbid fascination with plastic surgery gone
horribly, horribly wrong"... then... maybe?

> The killer bored me. There was nothing
> interesting about him, nor any attempt to explain his personality.
>
> The murder appeared to be pre-meditated, despite his denials.
>
> I asked immediately about why the dog didn't back. Hasn't every detective
> read The Hound of the Baskervilles?
>
> Maybe I'll watch the second episode.

I'll have to pull the first episode off OnDemand (if it's even available
there...) - Why? Because everyone is insisting upon sticking
*everything* on Monday nights this effing Summer!! >:/

(Oh, but don't worry - according to Barry Margolin, I'm "wrong" about
that, despite the fact that Mondays are already so crowded that I
couldn't even fit in recording the "Motive" pilot... :/ )

--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!

[Hunter]

-----
I like it overall, but it rates a "five" with me: Good enough to watch
every week but if it is cancelled, so what?

Regarding the plot: I at first thought the jerks that was dumping
popcorn on the head of the band member (who was the murderer) would be
the victim. God knows I would've been very inclined to let the
perpatrator go if I was on his jury LOL!

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <knh39p$2mb$1...@news.albasani.net>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED <ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us> wrote:
>
> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e
>
> >Our lead detective is played by Kristin Lehman. Supposedly had a Castle
> >epi, but you have to go back to Judging Amy and Andromeda, for credits I
> >am familiar with. Still I don't remember her. I keep thinking Uma Thurman
> >when she is on screen. That is both good and bad. Looks better with
> >straight hair! Not bad...the curly hair just by the thinest margins keeps
> >her off the HQR list.
>
> I first recall her from Strange World. More recently, she was the campaign
> staffer Billy Campbell slept with in The Killing.
>
> Much of the time, her acting bores me. She seemed to have more life
> in Motive, though.

Agreed - this may have been Lehman's best (lead) role, to date.

> I wasn't enthusiastic about the pilot. The partner bored me, especially
> the instinct versus evidence arguments, which were poorly handled. Lauren
> Holly offered a tiny bit of interest.

Again, Justin Louis (who has gone back to his real surname, I
notice...)... :/

> The killer bored me. There was nothing
> interesting about him, nor any attempt to explain his personality.

I've gotta agree with you there.

> The murder appeared to be pre-meditated, despite his denials.

Well, sort of - the break-in was premeditated, but the murder was
spontaneous of necessity.

> I asked immediately about why the dog didn't ba[r]k. Hasn't every detective

> read The Hound of the Baskervilles?
>
> Maybe I'll watch the second episode.

I will definitely give this one a few more episodes. It's basically got
no timeslot competition anyway (I think just USA's "Graceland", which I
fully intent to not watch anyway) outside of "Person of Interest" reruns
(for now...).

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ian J. Ball <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e

>>The murder appeared to be pre-meditated, despite his denials.

>Well, sort of - the break-in was premeditated, but the murder was
>spontaneous of necessity.

I didn't think it was necessary to creep into his bedroom. He hadn't
finished searching the rest of the house, where he was more likely to
be able to retrieve his notebook. I didn't see him looking through
dresser drawers, where people might put smaller objects. He just crept
up to the bed, directly.

I think he was imagining confronting the guy, or beating him.

Perhaps premeditated is the wrong word, but it absolutely wasn't
necessary. He deliberately put himself in a position in which he'd
be discovered.

[Ian J. Ball]

On May 23, 10:48 am, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

The notebook was in the teacher's bag, which was in the teacher's room
where he was sleeping. That was subtly revealed in the flashbacks.

[Adam H. Kerman]

He was staring at the sleeping man.

[Hunter]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 00:25:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED <ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us> wrote:
>
>s
>p
>o
>i
>l
>e
>r
>
>s
>p
>a
>c
>e
>
>>Our lead detective is played by Kristin Lehman. Supposedly had a Castle
>>epi, but you have to go back to Judging Amy and Andromeda, for credits I
>>am familiar with. Still I don't remember her. I keep thinking Uma Thurman
>>when she is on screen. That is both good and bad. Looks better with
>>straight hair! Not bad...the curly hair just by the thinest margins keeps
>>her off the HQR list.
>
>I first recall her from Strange World. More recently, she was the campaign
>staffer Billy Campbell slept with in The Killing.

-----
Yeap. Gwen Eaton. One of the last suspects standing.

>
>Much of the time, her acting bores me. She seemed to have more life
>in Motive, though.

----
Perhaps it wasn't the actress so much as the character Gwen Eaton
being boring as she was a low key "person", but maybe she did improve
as an actress.

>
>I wasn't enthusiastic about the pilot. The partner bored me, especially
>the instinct versus evidence arguments, which were poorly handled. Lauren
>Holly offered a tiny bit of interest. The killer bored me. There was nothing
>interesting about him, nor any attempt to explain his personality.

----
He was an outsider ploting a school massacre because he felt picked on
is the best that can be said.

>
>The murder appeared to be pre-meditated, despite his denials.

----
Actually it wasn't premeditated at least not in terms of malice
aforethought; not what he intended to do from the get go. He just
wanted the notebook that the teacher confiscated back. Just creep in,
search, get the notebook and then creep back out, but the teacher woke
up tried to call the police and so the student killed him. But it was
premeditated in the fashion that he deliberately reached for the
trophy to kill him at that moment.

>
>I asked immediately about why the dog didn't back. Hasn't every detective
>read The Hound of the Baskervilles?

-----
"Back? Oh you mean "bark". The case turned on the fact that the dog
didn't bark and so the dog must have knew the culprit.

>
>Maybe I'll watch the second episode.

-----
It wasn't bad but the method in which the real killer tried to get
away with it was basically the same.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>ota2013_2014_season_CANCELED <ota2013_2014_s...@notota.us> wrote:

>>s
>>p
>>o
>>i
>>l
>>e
>>r
>>
>>s
>>p
>>a
>>c
>>e

>>>Our lead detective is played by Kristin Lehman. Supposedly had a Castle
>>>epi, but you have to go back to Judging Amy and Andromeda, for credits I
>>>am familiar with. Still I don't remember her. I keep thinking Uma Thurman
>>>when she is on screen. That is both good and bad. Looks better with
>>>straight hair! Not bad...the curly hair just by the thinest margins keeps
>>>her off the HQR list.

>>I first recall her from Strange World. More recently, she was the campaign
>>staffer Billy Campbell slept with in The Killing.

>Yeap. Gwen Eaton. One of the last suspects standing.

>>Much of the time, her acting bores me. She seemed to have more life
>>in Motive, though.

>Perhaps it wasn't the actress so much as the character Gwen Eaton
>being boring as she was a low key "person", but maybe she did improve
>as an actress.

I didn't like her in Strange World at all. She harmed was was an otherwise
fascinating series.

>>I wasn't enthusiastic about the pilot. The partner bored me, especially
>>the instinct versus evidence arguments, which were poorly handled. Lauren
>>Holly offered a tiny bit of interest. The killer bored me. There was nothing
>>interesting about him, nor any attempt to explain his personality.

>He was an outsider ploting a school massacre because he felt picked on
>is the best that can be said.

Why was he so isolated that he pretended to be invisible? That's well beyond
bullying victim. The script failed to explore what made him what he was,
so it was boring.

>>I asked immediately about why the dog didn't back. Hasn't every detective
>>read The Hound of the Baskervilles?

>"Back? Oh you mean "bark". The case turned on the fact that the dog
>didn't bark and so the dog must have knew the culprit.

You haven't read that novel either, Hunter?