You asked for it and were back “Big Man Rides” and we’ve invaded the 2017 International Auto Show, a great venue to see what fits a Big Man or plus woman.
Just as a reminder I stand 6.4 and weight over three hundred pounds(a big man!)
The Sacramento International Auto Show is a third tiered auto show. Its not New York ,Detroit or Los Angeles No new or innovative models No unavailing’s. and many of the manufactures present were not staffed. which is unfortunate. Missing in Action in Sacramento was Land Rover, Jaguar, Genesis,Mini, Volvo,Mercedes, Cadillac, and Tesla.
Also missing was some new models from Ford and Lincoln. Ford new Ecosport SUV and the new for 2018 Ford Expedition and Lincoln’s Navigator was shut tight. The New Buick Regal was missing .
The Good The Bad, The Ugly and Surprises from the 2017 Sacramento International Auto show
People waiting to sit in these vehicles
1. Lexus LC5000
2. Acura NSX
3. Lincoln Continental
4. Chrysler Pacifica
For the second year in a row. More people wanted to test drive Fiat/Chrysler Vehicles *
People waiting in lines to test drive the Charger, Challenger, Chrysler 300,Pacifica and Durango
*However, there was no waiting for any of the Fiat’s
You get for what you pay for and Chevy, Ford and Toyota brought their A game!
America’s Three best selling car makes had professional representatives to answers any and all questions. With tablets in hand, the representatives could direct show attendees to a dealership near their home.
Ford had a giant display and a drive simulator. At Toyota,well dressed professionals were available to answer questions. But the nod goes to Chevrolet, the representatives unlike Ford and Toyota were well spaced all over there floor readily available to answer questions about every Chevy on the floor. I wish they would have featured the well received Bolt.
2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV
White or Grey?
The worst exhibitor by an Elk Grove inch was the local dealer Niello . The Audi/BMW dealership shared a room with Roseville Infinity. None of the vehicles had power with made seat adjustments impossible. Neither dealership staffed the exhibit (11am) no one was available to answer questions about these fifty to seventy thousand dollar vehicles.
Alfa Romeo has returned to the american market after a 20 years absence.
These sexy beasts were left in the lots at Niello
Someone at Niello,thought randomly placing a bland white Giulia with an Irish leaf on the Italian car near the Honda exhibit, was a good idea .
Honda introduced an all new Odyssey for 2018. But if Sacramento is an indication, the year old Chrysler Pacifica was the clearly the crowd favorite.
All new Honda Accord vs Toyota Camry
Both cars are handsome. Cost cutting is more evident in the Accord, it seems narrow. While the Camry has more front seat room, leg and width, the Accord has more rear leg room. Camry’s Interior is absolutely un Camry, its sexy. (did I say that?)
Lil Sleeper 2018 Honda Fit
I didn’t! you might. I was able to get in this tiny car and close the door. That says a lot. If your a big guy and not 6.4, this car may be worth a look. Inside with the rear seats down is amazing.
2018 Subaru Impreza
Subaru? The 2018 may not look much different than the 2017. However its all new on a new platform. I was very surprised by the front leg room (Sorry Accord) and the room overall. The build quality is German like and for 2018 Subaru offers Apple car play and Android Auto. When you factor in all wheel drive 38 on the highway and Subaru’s reputation for safety for less the 25K and its good looking. For singles and small families who occasionally travel to Tahoe or Reno. This is da Stuff!
“No dark Interiors”
2018 Chevrolet Traverse
Clean lines, roomy, and no dark boring interiors
Volkswagen Up’s its the ante
They may have a winner in the 3 row midsize SUV The 2018 Atlas is extremely roomy. My 6’1 friend sat in the third row and lived.
Room to Spare
Cars made by General Motors ( Buick Cadillac Chevrolet GMC) Hyundai (Kia) Volkswagen ( Audi Porsche Volkswagen) on average seem to have a bit more leg/ hip room then the other automakers
Interiors (Something other than Black)
BMWHyundai (Kia)Lexus Volkswagen General Motors
“Big Man Rides”
Were back, we will be testing cars beginning with The Chevy Bolt.
THE text message was just a draft. It had been left unsent.
It’s intention was controversial.
A 55-year-old man who took his own life a year ago had addressed the phone text message to his brother.
It declared his brother and nephew should “keep all that I have”.
“You and (nephew) keep all that I have house and superannuation, put my ashes in the back garden … (wife) will take her stuff only she’s OK gone back to her ex AGAIN I’m beaten. A bit of cash behind TV and a bit in the bank Cash card pin … My will”
The message, which included detailed banking information and a request to bury his ashes at a specific site, was found by a friend who was searching through the dead man’s phone for clues.
The Supreme Court in Brisbane has now declared the text message to be a valid will.
“The reference to his house and superannuation and his specification that the applicant was to take her own things indicates he was aware of the nature and extent of his estate, which was relatively small,” Justice Susan Brown reportedly said.
The judge made the ruling after the dead man’s wife applied to manage her late husband’s estate, arguing the text message was not valid as it was never actually sent.
But Justice Brown found the use of the words “my will” and the detailed references to his superannuation and property indicated he was fully aware of what he was doing.
Justice Brown said she was also aware of evidence indicating he and his wife had an unstable relationship, that he had no relationship with his son, and that they had broken up “just days” before he took his own life.
Review of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” by Bandy X. Lee (ed.), “Twilight of American Sanity” by Allen Frances, and “Fantasyland” by Kurt Andersen.
Sara Gironi Carnevale for The Washington Post)
Gone are the days when euphemisms about President Trump’s mental health insulated the man like so many padded walls. Erratic. Unpredictable. Unstable. Unmoored. Temperamentally unfit. This was what politicians and commentators said when they wished to question Trump’s state of mind but feared the consequences of a more colloquial assessment. Yet the deeper we plunge into this presidency, the more willing people become to call it like they see and hear it.
“I think he’s crazy,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) confided to his colleague Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) in a July exchange inadvertently caught on a microphone. (“I’m worried,” she replied.) CNN’s Don Lemon, flabbergasted after a Trump speech last month, concluded that “he’s unhinged. . . . There was no sanity there.” Even some Republicans have grown more blunt, with Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) recently suggesting that Trump “has not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competence” to succeed as president.
Now, some psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals are shedding long-held norms to argue that Trump’s condition presents risks to the nation and the world. “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump” features more than two dozen essays breaking down the president’s perceived traits, which the contributors find consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies. “Collectively with our coauthors, we warn that anyone as mentally unstable as Mr. Trump simply should not be entrusted with the life-and-death powers of the presidency,” Judith Lewis Herman of Harvard Medical School and Bandy X. Lee of the Yale School of Medicine write in the book’s prologue.
If so, what should we make of the nation that entrusted him with precisely such powers? In his new book, “Twilight of American Sanity,” psychiatrist Allen Frances asserts that Trump is not mentally ill — we are. “Calling Trump crazy allows us to avoid confronting the craziness in our society,” he writes. “We can’t expect to change Trump, but we must work to undo the societal delusions that created him.” And those delusions, Kurt Andersen contends in “Fantasyland,” have been around for a long time. “People tend to regard the Trump moment — this post-truth, alternative facts moment — as some inexplicable and crazy new American phenomenon,” he writes. “In fact, what’s happening is just the ultimate extrapolation and expression of attitudes and instincts that have made America exceptional for its entire history.”
How often do you use your smartphone? The chances are even if you think it is a lot you will have underestimated how frequently you pick up your device.
A study showed last year that the average person handles their phone 85 times a day and spends a whopping five hours browsing the web and using apps – that accounts for a third of the time we are awake.
Research suggests it is a growing obsession. According to analytics firm Flurry between 2013 and the end of 2016, the minutes per day spent on mobiles rose from 152 to 300 and only 8% of that time is spent on a browser.
The apps that demand most of our attention are Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, measured at around 19% of all smartphone use, while 15% is spent on music, media and entertainment.
Otherwise, we are picking up the phone to play games (11%) use Snapchat (2%) or watch YouTube videos (4%).
If you are beginning to question whether we are addicted, we could well be. Some 11% of people in Western countries have a technology addiction. And, like most vices, it is damaging our health.
Swansea University researchers found that heavy phone users had a spike in blood pressure and heart rate when they put their devices down – as well as feelings of anxiety.
But it’s not all bad. Doubtless, you will have experienced many of the positive aspects of the smartphone boom yourself.
Smartphones give owners access to information, services, education or communication at affordable prices. According to USAID, a 10% increase in mobile penetration can boost a country’s GDP by 1%, while 93% of women reported feeling safer with a phone.
The key then, it seems, is to find a way to reap the benefits of having smartphone technology while not letting it control our lives.
TEDx speaker Anastasia Dedyukhina founded training company Consciously Digital to help individual and corporate clients become more productive online.
She told metro.co.uk that many of the times we pick up our mobile devices we are not doing so consciously.
‘I usually start workshops by asking people how much time they think they spend online and then we actually measure it and consistently all groups underestimate how much they spend online by two hours a day,’ she said.
‘Two hours a day is actually one month a year. It is because we are unconscious. We are always reacting.’
She said the constant distraction has a big impact on our productivity.
‘It happens to all of us,’ she continued. ‘You go to check your emails just for a second and then you see something else and then something else, and then you just click this link and then lo and behold two hours later, you say “oh, what did I want to do?!’
‘There is research that says if you are doing something and your mailbox is open and you see an incoming email it takes your brain about 64 seconds to go back to what you were doing even if you didn’t open it.
‘If you receive 60 emails in a day that’s one hour of your productive time wasted.’
The upshot is that devices that were marketed as being able to free up our time are doing the opposite and absorbing more of it.
Anastasia explained that faster browser speed – enabling us to access more content – and design features like notifications are drawing us in.
‘Notifications are a very good example. Most notifications you receive are not very relevant,’ she said.
‘The whole idea of staying online longer is being sold as something useful but the truth is that while it is great that we have this technology you really don’t need to be connected all the time.’
The TEDx speaker has adopted what some might see as an extreme solution.
She spends most of her time using a Nokia so old that she says people don’t steal it when she leaves it lying around. Her smartphone is kept in a drawer and then used when travelling.
‘For me it is difficult to use it on a daily basis, I very easily get back into the behaviour of checking my Facebook and emails and that is what I am trying to explain; we cannot rely on our willpower,’ she said.
‘It’s the same as having a cookie in your pocket and being on a diet. You will eat it.’
But she doesn’t think the solution is for everyone to unplug. Instead, she advises people to set themselves artificial boundaries.
‘Depending on what type of job you do and lifestyle you lead, you can play with it,’ she said,
‘For example, a healthy thing is not to use your device in the places where you relax and where you process information.
‘That’s your bedroom but this is also other places such as at the dining table.’
These have to be self-imposed and strict rules.
She uses the example of Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google parent-company Alphabet, who often switches off his phones before dinner.
‘You can choose not to use them in particular areas or not at a particular time,’ she adds. ‘I know some families have WiFi going off at 8 or 9pm so there’s not a decision about whether they should watch something or not.’
She said adopting such an approach will make you more productive.
‘I think it helps to discipline yourself when you know you have a specific time period to finish your work. If you don’t you tend to procrastinate,’ she added.
She said not having her smartphone with you eliminates choices.
‘Barack Obama used to have similar clothes, the same size, the same material because he didn’t want to make choices. Every time we have to make a choice it depletes our will power a little bit,’ she continued.
‘If every time you get a notification you have to decide am I going to have to use the phone or not it depletes your willpower and then it becomes more and more difficult as you progress through the day.
‘This is why it is important to have routines.
‘Some people might choose to say I am not working from 10pm. Whatever works for you but it’s important to understand the cost. The cost is that you are not living your life.’
Anastasia is far from the only voice in the movement urging us to spend more time offline.
Chris Bolin, a software engineer at Formidable, has created a website that’s only available offline.
He uses the web page to promote his personal manifesto, arguing disconnecting ourselves from the internet boosts our productivity.
He argues: ‘The external interruptions are legion and well documented: you have a new message on Gmail, Slack, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn. Friends, family, coworkers, and spammers: each have direct access to your precious attention.
‘But it’s the internal distractions that are truly pernicious. You can mute Twitter notifications and log off from Slack, but how do you stop your own mind from derailing you?’
The ‘offline advocate’ thinks the solution is to spend time both on and offline, explaining further down his missive that if you need the internet for work ‘do your research online; create offline.’
Former Google design ethicist Tristan Harris argues the same thing.
On his website, Time Well Spent, he offers four steps that will help us to reduce the time we spend on our phones.
Turn off all notifications
Clear your first page of all apps and just include tools
Force yourself to type and search for an app instead of just clicking on the icon
Get a separate alarm clock and charge your phone outside your bedroom
If you want to monitor how much time you spend on your phone, you can use apps like Moment, which was released a few years ago on iOS.
Creator Kevin Holesh built the app after recognising how much his smartphone addiction was affecting his relationship with his partner.
He explained in a blog post on Medium:: ‘Relaxing meant whipping out our iPhones and catching up on the latest happenings in social media. Her drug of choice is Instagram. Mine is Twitter.
‘We stopped doing fun and productive things and chose the path of least resistance.
‘About six months ago, I realised I had a serious problem. I was addicted to my phone, exactly like I predicted when I first waded into these always-connected waters. I felt naked if my phone wasn’t weighing down my right pocket.’
But ultimately, Anastasia argues there is no one simple solution. The complexities of modern life mean finding an answer that works for you.
‘Don’t rely on your willpower,’ she said.
‘There’s no unique recipe, just make one step and see how it works for you and whether it is changing something.’
I’m often astounded by what I read on social media. Fights, vendettas, often very personal and detailed, all for the world to see. Others use social media as a Doctor or Therapist as a place to share their feelings. Many are hurt and angered by the feedback they receive from friends,family.
These are actual posts from Facebook
My husband comes home drunk every other night I’m so tired of it. I passed my test at school yesterday and he didn’t care!!!!! Oh he said! I’m tired of his one minute erections. I’m so tired of him acting all superior to everybody. I hate every thing about him and home. I could be at school all day. ****** is a little pig, her room is disgusting. everything is a fight with her. When she turns 18, she and her father can have each other. I want and deserve a better life!
Men are shit! I’m tired of talking to these punk assessed mutha fuckers here in Atlanta. I am moving outta here and I’m going back home before I stab a punk ass.
I hate my brother in law he’s always stoned. Y oh Y did my sister married him? She wasn’t knocked up. I hate everything about him and his family. His uncles wife made me a sandwich and I put it in the garbage. They say they are Christians, but go to church on Sunday Mornings hungover and everybody knows it.
Before the internet, there were diaries, close friends ,confidants and therapists.
These tools exist today. Individuals who post personal information about others have told us, they lack self control. Once they’ve pushed Enter. They have not only humiliated friends and family resulting in irreparable damage to those relationships, they have exposed their character flaw to the world.
Its difficult to come back from public humiliation
If someone I knew posted personal information about anyone. It would forever change our relationship.
I don’t have a PhG degree. However, what I do know, if you’ve shared personal detailed information of love ones, close friends on social media, it say’s something about your character and in time, I will become a victim of that character flaw.
Once the author hits it is in the Universe forever. More and more current and potential employers are using social media to vet future employees. While they can’t demand you friend them or share the contents of your social media. Its not difficult to access your page. As I learned a couple of summers ago. You see the more friends an individual has,the easier it is to access his or her page. It isn’t illegal. Your page often tells us who you are as an individual. its tells us if your kind. messy or vindictive.
The sword cuts both ways
I love social media, there are some really great people on social media, many read this blog. There are others, who’s sole purpose is to create mayhem online. They ,bully and leave mean and insulting messages on your thread.
Pause before you enter. If you need to talk, your often better served offline. Using a trusted network (or one person ) of friends or therapist. Find a quiet moment when you can talk to those you have issues with and calmly state your case. Dare to listen without judgement. At the end of the day, nothing may change, but you were heard.
If you would be embarrassed , humiliated by your thoughts, actions, words appearing on social media, its possible the individuals your talking about may feel the same way.
Experts weigh in on tech etiquette for saying sayonara to a relationship.
From: You Beauty.com
That’s how Berger broke up with Carrie Bradshaw via a Post-It note on an infamous episode of Sex In the City back in 2003. A decade later, he likely would have done it through a text message, instant message, email or heck, even Twitter. But is it really wise to break up with someone in so few words and through such an impersonal form of contact?
“All you have to do is ask yourself if you want to be ‘that person,’ ” YouBeauty relationship expert David Sbarra, Ph.D., argues.
That said, there are cases in which you can absolutely tidily end things via text. First and foremost, if the person has been a real jerk, feel free to curtly cut them loose. Or “[after] one or two dates, then perhaps it’s not a big deal, especially if texting is one of the main ways you communicate,” Sbarra advises.
When dating, Dana*, 37, relies on texting her beaus. It makes her feel bolder in the beginning and also, in the end. She has no problem letting go of guys she’s casually dating via text, and on occasion, she’ll even hand over her phone to a good friend to draft the farewell message.
Dana argues, “Why look someone in the eye foran uncomfortable conversation when you don’t have to?”
But karma believers beware: Even though breaking up via text is as easy as typing “C U l8er,” it’s not good form. “This is about showing respect for the other person,” Sbarra points out. “I cannot respect you in 150 characters—it just doesn’t work.”
Stephanie*, 31, was dating a guy for six months when he decided to go on a European vacation and send her an email that he didn’t want to keep seeing her when he got back.
“At the time, I wished he would have approached me more directly,” she recalls. “Breaking up via email or text is cowardly. It allows the person to keep a shield of supposed strength, when in fact it really only disguises weak characteristics.”
Without the chance to get answers, the dumpee can go into a tailspin of whys and what ifs in an attempt to get the closure they crave. We’ve all heard it takes two to tango, so isn’t it only fair that it takes two to break up?
“[Dumping someone] is easier to do in writing, that’s for sure,” notes Sbarra. “And, that’s why so many people do it this way. [A face-to-face break up] might well be hurtful and painful, but that’s part of the pageantry of life.”
Benjamin Le, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Haverford College and co-founder of the Science of Relationships, would even argue that dumping someone via email or text is actually harder for the dumpee to cope with than saying it to his or her face. “The key [part of a break up] is to give and get closure,” Le notes. “The uncertainty of not knowing why a relationship has ended is one of the problems with a short and impersonal breakup.”
Anika can relate. The 28-year-old, who had already suffered through a break up via a Post-It note (guess that old boyfriend didn’t have HBO), was dumped by another boyfriend via email. They had been together for almost a year and although in the emails he explained that it wasn’t her fault per se and that he just needed space, she still struggled with the break up because she hadn’t got the chance to talk it through with him.
Anika was finally able to move on, but “only after I told myself that person no longer existed and wiped them from my memory.”
If she could do that break up again and have it her way, Anika thinks she might choose to save the time of a face-to-face meeting and have the conversation over the phone. “At least with a phone call it can be done from the comfort of my own home,” she reasons.
But perhaps the only thing worse than a tactless dumping is no dumping at all. Le points out that study after study has shown that “one of the most hurtful things that one person can do to another is ignore them or give them the cold shoulder.”
With that in mind, Le insists that if you aren’t interested in pursuing a relationship with someone, you have to at least send a polite response text or email declining his or her invitation or communication. It’s absolutely your prerogative to want to break up. You’re not a villain, unless you allow yourself to be cruel with your words or by sticking with the silent treatment.
So when you’re just not feeling it after a couple of dates, Sbarra suggests a simple text will suffice like, “John, I don’t think this is going to work out for us. I am sorry. I wish you the best. Take care.”
Now if you’re on the receiving side, you can still take closure into your own hands. If you receive a beep on your smart phone that turns out to signal a break up message, you have every right to hit reply.
Sbarra says, “Why not send something like, ‘What’s the story? Wanna talk … like, for real talk?’” And hopefully, you’ll get the closure you need to move on to bigger and better things.
The tin foil hat, while fashionable, is an ineffective way of keeping the government’s radio waves from infiltrating and manipulating your mind. In fact, the hat may boost certain radio frequencies, which is OK because there’s no such thing as mind-controlling waves anyway.
But you might have heard that you should really worry about the radio waves that spew out of your cellphone—that they can cause brain cancer. That too, I’m happy to report, probably isn’t true. At least, no one has yet proven a solid link between cancer and phone use. But that’s where things get complicated.
First off, radio waves are indeed a form of radiation. But they’re relatively low-frequency waves, and are therefore low energy. High frequency, high energy waves like X-rays can damage your DNA—radio waves cannot. (What radio waves can do, though, is heat up your flesh. But again, the energy is too weak to do any damage to your ear, much less your brain.)
Still, beginning in the 1950s, researchers began speculating that radio waves might cause cancer. “But that was just speculation,” says Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. “We really still don’t have definitive answers as to whether they do cause cancer.”
The first real studies looking at the link between cellphones and cancer asked patients with brain tumors which ear they typically held their phone on. And sure enough, three quarters of them favored the side of the head where their tumors developed. Correlation, right? Well, not necessarily. First of all, the respondents had a 50 percent chance of choosing a given side, so 75 percent of them guessing correctly could be a fluke. That, and there was a huge potential for bias here. “The people who are answering the question, they know which side of the brain the tumor is,” Brawley says, “so they might actually answer the question to favor that side.”
Really, the problem is ethics. I’ll rephrase that: Ethics are lovely, in science or otherwise, but they limit what scientists can and can’t do experimentally. They can’t just sit people in the lab and bombard them with known carcinogens to see what happens. The same goes for radio waves: If this particular kind of radiation did turn out to be linked to cancer, and you’d fired incredible amounts of radio waves at your patients’ brains, you’d feel like a bit of a horse’s patootie.
Researchers, then, have to work instead with model organisms like mice and rats. And that’s exactly what they did last year in a study you likely heard about because the media got a bit … carried away with it (headlines e.g. “‘Game-Changing’ Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer”). The scientists did find that rats exposed to radio waves developed tumors, but like with the human brain tumor study, this study came with some serious caveats.
For one, rats may be a decent stand-in for humans, but they’re not humans. Their tissues may react to radio waves differently. And then there’s the dosage: The researchers hit their tiny subjects with up to seven times the radiation a human would get with a cellphone. We’re talking exposures of nine hours a day for months straight. And in the end, the research wasn’t peer reviewed—a big tick in the “let’s carefully consider this study” column.
So with frustratingly scant data on the link between cellphones and cancer, health organizations have to carefully word their positions: Phones might cause cancer because evidence either proving or disproving a link just isn’t there. The UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, for instance, has declared cellphone use “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
“A lot of people were really concerned when they heard the United Nations cancer agency has declared that cellphones might cause cancer,” says Brawley. “But when you realize that lipstick, pickles, and styrofoam are on that list, it puts it into a different perspective.” None of those things are necessarily super high-risk—the IPRC designation just leaves open the possibility that some carcinogenicity exists.
In other words, a dearth of data means that no one would conclude right now that that cellphones cause cancer. “I think it’s an unsettled question, it’s a legitimate question,” Brawley says. “I believe the answer is no.” After all, he notes, brain tumor rates haven’t increased over the last 40 years. “However, none of us can tell you what the 30 or 40 year experience of people using cellphones will be,” he adds, “because we haven’t had cellphones that long.”
So unless you find that tin foil hat to be irresistibly fashionable, you might want to consider parting ways. Or keep the hat and just text more. Who am I to jam your style?