>> ^therealblankman:
Congrats, banfiz. You win the prize for most descriptive video title ever!


Awww, did I spoil the surprise for you?

Five LITER engine? The thing is able to make a Ford mustang motor drive you at 15 mph? Inefficient indeed. Yet curiously, it makes no sound!

All those numbers, and all they had to say was "losses would be comparable to a little while longer in Iraq."

I have to say though, my 14-year old Ford runs great and spends almost no time in the shop. New tires and a brake tune-up for inspection are the only times it's been in for more than 5 years (and to be honest I can't remember anything before that). It is solid and tough, even after some unfortunate mistakes it has endured over the years (think dry radiator... oops). ~200k miles. My brother's mustang went to ~300k before being retired.

The Chevy I had before it was another matter. Everything that could fail, did: transmission, cooling, electrical, suspension, exhaust, power steering, fuel injection...

There's some truth in these claims, but let us not be persuaded by fear. Has no one noticed this video was posted by GM? Companies that aren't sustainable will go out of business. GM has been struggling for years. This is not news.

I've had my Toyota since a month after the WTC attacks, and I've never had to take it in for repairs. My friend just bought a Ford Mustang last year and has already taken it in for a major repair.

As this industry suffers a collapse, others will take its place - possibly smarter American auto manufacturers? As people lose their jobs, they will find employment in other industries. We can't expect an industry to always be profitable and on top. Sometimes they cannot remain sustainable, and disappear. Here's an example: trains. When's the last time you (Americans) opted to take a train instead of flying or driving? Not often enough to keep that industry profitable, and this was the industry that helped build this country.

No bailouts. We need to stop.

I agree.

I was the same way as a kid. Every boy I ever met was. We all wanted to be pilots, and we all had our favorite planes. Mustang, Spitfire, Corsair, the P-58, etc.

My grandpa was training to be a tail-gunner in a bomber when the war ended, and he gave me some of his old training manuals, and I tell you, I was in heaven. I was holding the real deal in my grubby little mitts. Lost them along the way, but I'm sure you understand.

It's the whole gestalt of the era. The uniforms looked cooler. The Big Band music came and went. The technology was something we could still basically wrap our heads around. Abbot & Costello movies were big.

The reality of it all, especially for Europeans, must have been horrifying, but it's hard to look at that footage and not wish I was there.

The difference is that if you take out insurance against your stock dropping in value, your insurer only has to pay you (not every investor in that company) because only you are paying out the premiums to the insurance company. If the company chooses to insure several people who are invested in the same company, that's a risk they take, and it's calculated.

The analogy with all Mustang drivers doesn't hold because there's no foreseeable circumstance under which all Mustang drivers would suddenly crash at the same time. A better analogy would be if all the passengers in one airplane took out life insurance from a small insurance company, and the ratings agency was watching as that airplane slowly ran out of fuel over the ocean.

>> ^flechette:
I'm not a banker, or really excellent with money, but insuring stocks and bonds, even to other bankers, seems like a downright stupid idea, even before this great explanation. I understand how you can compare a car/driver insurance policy to a stock/business insurance policy, but there's one HUGE difference. When a driver has a wreck, it's a small amount of those cars that were involved. When a business fails (and it's stock) EVERYONE WHO HAD THAT STOCK crashes! It'd be like saying everyone who was driving a Ford Taurus had a wreck all at one time today! How in the world do you expect to cover that!?

Thanks for the promote. Anything to keep that salad tossing video out of my top slot!

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
This video needs more votes: *promote!

My aunt traded her mustang for one of these when they first came out!!

LLLLooooser!

*discard dupe

Being that it's just part of a competition to win a Mustang... no upvote as it's pretty lame I'm afraid.

That sound ... keep your Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Mustangs, Thunderbolts, Lightnings and Yaks, i've seen them all. But the DB 605 ... that sucker goes straight to the spine, i always get the shakes when i hear it live.

>> ^jmd:
Meh, I had an explanation of everything but it was way to long. In short, this isn't fake, but it IS most likely a demo produced with the intent of selling his idea to a bigger company.

Oh you're so going to have to eat all those words... this is faker than a fake thing covered in fake stuff and served in a fake store.

Look at the first part of this video. WHY would you have depth of field changes (focus pulling) other than it being a pre-rendered demo from a cg artist as it is.

Then go to OTOYs website the 'tech' behind this and look at their screenshots of environments and notice how much lower quality they are than those you see in many shots of this patched together collection of video from all over the place.

Then read that it requires a plugin whereas this video states 'no plugin required', which begs the question, how do you get any sort of interactive environment on a phone, server generated or not, without some sort of plugin? Going to render it in HTML?

Sure there are those looking at serverside rendering, but the graphics shown in this demo are NOT server side rendered real time images being able to be created for x thousand people all using the system at once

Saying that they hired him because they use more of his video in this than just the opening is madness, it just states they stole MORE than just that opening render of his, they ALSO stole the renders he did of the mustang and truck.

Also, cityspace exists as another company, but then it's tagged as Liveplace. Liveplace exists as a website with... shock, NOTHING on it other than an email harvester

Such a steaming load of crappy fake crap.

Just ask yourself, if it wasn't fake at all, WHY have the clips from the guy's renderings in there at all? WHY?

And some of the stuff in there is just previous OTOY material..

And then there are a collection of still renders thrown in there for no good reason.

Argh... Stop believing everything you see people

I looked at the guy's website (the one they "stole" from) and it seems he's got 2 models in the "ingame" rendering as well. They've probably hired him.

http://3dblasphemy.com/personal/MUSTANG.html
http://3dblasphemy.com/OPTIMUS/OPTIMUS.html

A Mustang?!

"You're an American classic -- fast, strong, and bold. You're not snobby or pretentious, but you have what it takes to give anyone a run for their money."

the quiz said i was a Mercedes SLK. but it's wrong. dig ragtops, but too showy.
the 3 cars i grew up obsessed with were:

lamborghini countach - never wanted to actually own one, mind you. terribly impractical. so, not really 'me', but, from a design museum perspective? bitchin'.

1973 XB GT Ford Falcon Coupe - first car i searched for yesterday, to rechannel into * wheels.
better known as, the last of the V8 interceptors... woulda' been a shame to blow it up.
sorta' the yin to lambo's yang, though, so... not really 'me'.

i'd have to go with door #3: the mustang.