Commercial Product Fail of the Week: Toyota Prius

Oh Toyota - where to begin? Cutting corners in recent years led to a plethora of recalls on your vehicles BUT you still had your golden pony, the good ol' hybrid Prius.

Too bad that's a big FAIL. And, no by fail I don't mean, the inability to stop because of the acceleration issues previously noted, I mean FAIL because the number one thing the Prius prides itself of, is the fact that it is eco-friendly - your very own friendly planet advocate.

Okay, so for consumers who want to save money, the gas mileage is still a plus (I will give the vehicle that) but for the hipster, tree-hugging population of America that boycotts Hummers and such, ironically your planet-happy Prius is enemy number 1 to this planet.

Yup, that's right. Those super special batteries the Prius has that enable such great gas mileage, well those batteries cause a ton of damage. Here's an except from one of many articles written about this matter:

The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.

But the main problem that the "Dust to Dust" study has with the Prius' impact on the environment comes next.

That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into "nickel foam," then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in dollars and in pollution.

The study then concludes that -- all the production costs in mind -- the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is expected to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.

Boo hoo, my planet-friendly car is actually a major contributor to those evil pollution concerns!

Commercial product fail of the week: GARMIN GPS

Though I am certain we all have our complaints about GPS systems, nothing can be worse than the "bitch" I have in charge of my car, or Serena.

Serena is a GARMIN GPS I recieved for Christmas a year or so back. Often I curse at her for various reasons, however, my problem goes deeper than that. These car GPS systems have changed the way we navigate. The evolution of navigation went from recieving directions from a friend (and writing down) to printing directions from Mapquest to being heavily reliant upon our digital GPS systems (whether embedded or detached).

My issue is about the purpose of the GPS. On Mapquest we could choose between fastest route, shortest distance, avoid tolls, etc. Supposedly, our GPS finds a combo of the first two - this is it's purpose. Serena FAILS at this.

I have tested this theory - I have printed directions from Mapquest that show the approximate distance/time and I have plugged the same address into the GPS. Without fail, Serena always takes me a route that is both longer distance-wise, and more time-consuming. I know this because when I have ignored her "take the exit in ___ miles" prompts, the ETA adjusts to a shorter TIME than with her calculated route.

This new route is the same route I have printed out from Mapquest, the same route that is less mileage.

I just don't understand. Does Garmin have some kind of stock sharing with STS or JiffyLube? Why does she continously intend to take me on a longer route with higher mileage?

Also, why does she have me U-Turn through toll booths? I won't elaborate - I could guess there is some partnership with EZ-Pass or something. Either way, I hope to investigate these things sooner as I am a heartbeat away from going Office Space on her.

Commercial Product Fail of the Week: Netflix

Time and time again we are betrayed by our beloved discount services. We watch companies pop-up that offer some of our favorite things or services at cheaper prices than we currently have at our dispose. Even the mothership of cheap/discount products, Wal-Mart, trick us in to thinking we have a new one-stop location for an item or product.

This time, Netpricks, I mean Netflix, have Walmartized themselves. Netflix offered convenient video rentals for our tool shed home (tool is a term I learned a few years back that refers to Americans never having to leave their house for everything they need). Netflix's services were a mere $7.99 per month - wow 7.99!? We couldn't rent two DVDs from Blockbuster for $7.99.

Blockbuster...RIP. Thanks to Netflix, you could get cheaper movie rentals without ever even having to leave your house (except of course to walk to your mailbox). Such services at such rates successfuly and rapidly started to shutdown Blockbusters all over the country.

Aha victory for Netflix. Their biggest, and basically only competitor was no longer a factor. Now that they have the video rental market to themselves, it's time...time to raise prices?? Less competition = higher subscription rates and thus, less need to charge even $7.99.

Big business at it's best. And no, the argument regarding a need for more resources (people, places, etc) doesn't hold true for Netflix. They are operated out of one huge warehouse. Think about it, they just need envelopes and DVDs - it's not even like they have a ton of each DVD to send out - otherwise there would be no need for a wait list for your favorite movies.

So, here's to you Netflix. You put Joe the Plumber (err DVD store clerk) out of business, and successfully shut down your biggest competitor. Looks like it's time to add the American people to the list of those you screwed. Problem is, we are YOUR customers. Unlawful rate increases for an unchanged product/service is an ugly side of corporate America that we DO NOT like - bad economy, high gas prices and now greedy Netflix higher-ups, trying to squeeze yet another dollar or 7.99 out of us.

Pro-Pot website slams drug war?

Though this isn't something I would normally blog about - the former journalist in me can't help it. A website, called "Toke of the Town," decorated with pot leaves, has a little section called "News."

To their credit, I am sure News has a different meaning in the world of avid marijuana users, but to my dismay, one specific article is being dugg on digg.com by too many people. If this website put their article, "U.S. Can't Justify Its Drug War Spending: News Reports," in their "views" section, I wouldn't be as peeved.

But it doesn't. And showing statistics as to how we have failed as a country to overcome a drug war, while informative, is simply a conflict of interest coming from a website that is pro-illegal substance. I am sorry it is.

Of course we are failing the drug war - and how does a pot-enthusiast, like those who probably work for Toke, explain otherwise if they are very publicly declaring an affinity for a DRUG. Pot calls kettle black, then criticizes kettle?

I mean seriously. Even more so, what do the U.S. Government budgetary experts at Toke (kidding) suggest we do? Cut funding designated to stopping illegal substances from entering this country? I assume so. And, if that's the case, I shouldn't be so peeved because the source of the subject at hand is surely lacking credibility and probably hitting a bong as we speak while waiting for their unemployment check.

How's that for conflict of interest? Oh wait, unlike this liberal, hippie-babble BS site, I don't have a conflict of interest because I make it pretty well clear that I will talk fact, fiction or opinion on any given topic rather than support something illegal then claim to give people the "News."