*related=http://videosift.com/video/Mercedes-AMG-vs-V8-Supercar-vs-F1-car-Speed-Comparison 2013 race

2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by NicoleBee.

Seems to be a *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Super-Mario-Mercedes-Benz-Car-Commercial-Japan

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*backup=[...snipped...] from http://www.shacknews.com/article/84702/mario-kart-8-getting-mercedes-benz-dlc-in-japan

No sir, the best car is a 1982 Mercedes Benz 300SD TurboDiesel. Can't kill it, runs like a relaxed dream, bought for $1,500.

If there is a button the the steering wheel that gives an extra 100hp for overtaking by whatever method, I'm willing to call it push to pass. I expect that hitting the button would switch the engine to a high power torque mapping, use the MGU-H to spool up the turbo faster, and give a MGU-K boost exactly like last year's KERS button. I would also expect that not every team uses a steering wheel button for this function, but if Williams called it "push to pass" over the radio, I expect that they do. You could also have a separate engine mapping to do the same thing, and I expect that probably some teams do.

The RBR infringement was a bit more complicated than that. The FIA sensor was giving them inaccurate readings (it was reading high), and the FIA told them to apply an offset to the sensor values. They chose to use another method to ensure they weren't exceeding the 100kg/hr limit, and were excluded on the grounds that they had not sought permission from the FIA to do so and that it is not within their discretion to run a different fuel flow measurement method without the permission of the FIA.

I expect their appeal will be on the grounds that they did not in fact exceed the limit, and gained no advantage from their actions... and despite Christian Horner's level of confidence it could go either way. The last report I heard was that although they have lodged their intention to appeal, they have not yet actually tabled the appeal (but have a few more hours to do so).

Actually Mercedes were warned about the same issue. They chose to turn down their engines a bit to avoid the problem.

Formula one has been about getting around the rules at least since the 80s, and RBR have been very good at it. The camera mounting is very much in the category of satisfies the letter of the law, but very much goes against the spirit. I like the approach of using the camera mount as an extra wing actually (is it only the one team who did this?).

It occurs to me that:

* his breath may indeed reek of alcohol
* the first officer seems to know him and his car (he calls him Stephen, identifies his car as a blue Mercedes and "Stephen" denies neither)
* the officer may have seen his car nearby
* that may constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion of drunk driving

So... maybe this is just police doing their job, including trying to trick the guy into admitting he'd been drinking -- not the same as framing if it's never produced as evidence.

It occurs to me that:

* his breath may indeed reek of alcohol
* the first officer seems to know him and his car (he calls him Stephen, identifies his car as a blue Mercedes and "Stephen" denies neither)
* the officer may have seen his car nearby
* that may constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion of drunk driving

Time to edit the title and description.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

End of an era: signing off final Mercedes-Benz V8 F1 engine has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo on that post.

Wow... I would have had a bit of a hard time largely due to my car's power steering not working and the oddly tight parking of cars along the horizontal (not to mention sloppy parking by the white car), but even so... back up with a small left turn, so you are basically behind the white car and in the same direction as it, hard left out, probably have to small right reverse to get lined up with the exit, but smooth sailing from there... Heck, even his original plan was going fine until the 55 second mark when he decides to cut forward right, keep it going left bro, then back right and you are out...

The one I would have trouble with is the big grey station wagon with the white Mercedes van behind him. He doesn't have nearly as much wiggle room, and even he seemed to start his turn the wrong way, unless he was going to back down the exit from there (hard to tell what is past the left of the screen).

http://www.joelapompe.net/2013/09/24/chicken-test-fuji-mercedes-ogilvy-jungvonmatt/

So what is this ad saying exactly? Mercedes-Benz have replaced car suspension with chicken necks?