text:
A SELF-TAUGHT painter with a nostalgic eye has set out to make

his mark on Halifax businesses.

The end of a term position with the National Research Council just weeks before Christmas 2011 set Jake Seibert on a money-making mission that has morphed into a small business he calls The Talking Wall.

Inspired by a friend whose father was a window painter, Seibert posted his artistic talents on Kijiji with the hopes of supplementing his income through a few retail window painting jobs during the holidays.

A representative from Eastlink contacted Seibert the same day and set his sign and mural painting career in motion. Through word of mouth and plenty of door-knocking that winter, Seibert was hired by 23 businesses from Truro to Tantallon, all looking for some holiday flair in their windows.

A year later and back on contract with the research council, Seibert’s work continues to pop up throughout metro Halifax, and he said demand for his window-painting services and his Americana-inspired, simple esthetic is on the rise.

“It’s real, functional, marketing-type work, and that’s what business owners are seeing. They’re not just buying art,” Seibert said.

“The reality is the handmade look is starting to come back. Handmade websites like Etsy are huge; people want handmade stuff and marketing is affected, too.”

Mom and pop pizza shops have snapped up Seibert’s talents throughout the city and his work is also on display on the windows of the Neptune Theatre, the The Bike Pedaler in Dartmouth and at Bell’s Taekwondo in Bayers Lake Business Park, to name a few.

His work is also visible on 40 or so electrical boxes on city streets.

Seibert’s window-painting services run from $10 to $30 per square foot and require an extra 20 per cent to remove the exterior latex paint.

Themed murals at Christmas and Valentine’s Day have been top sellers, but there’s a year-round market Seibert is after. Now back on contract as a lab technician, Seibert is working to obtain clients who want their logo reproduced or a window refresher once a quarter.

Trained by what he calls the YouTube school of art and his artist mother, Seibert is working to perfect his hand-scrawled letter painting technique.

“That’s my pride. I practise on glass, do letters and scrape them off and do them again. It’s an amazing skill, and you really only see it in smaller towns anymore, but when it’s there, you can see one guy’s print on the entire town.

“That’s what I want — to put my thumbprint all over this town.”


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Truncated: length

WARC-Type: response

text:
Homes for sale Cincinnati Ohio-Cincinnati Real Estate

Greater Cincinnati's Real Estate Connection

West Chester, Ohio

Population: 60,958

Median Income

Median Age

Cost of Living Index

  • Median Home Value: $185,000
  • Median Home Age: 19 years
  • Unemployment Rate: 5.9%
  • Future Job Growth: 13.5%

West Chester, Ohio

West Chester Home Search

West Chester, Ohio is conveniently located approximately 30 minutes north of Cincinnati and about 30 minute drive south of Dayton, Ohio. Located in southern Butler county, the area offers tons of amenities for today’s many life styles. The community also boasts some great parks, shopping, entertainment and many cultural offerings. West Chester is expected to become the second largest community in region (by population), behind Cincinnati.

And in 2010, the CNN/Money magazine poll ranked West Chester number 32 of the top 100 “Best Places to Live in the USA”. West Chester offers a wide variety of new and used homes as well as condos and apartments for rent.

West Chester has long had bustling economic development to the north along the Tylersville Rd corridor, with extensive shopping and dining opportunities. Now, with the late 1990’s completion of the Union Centre Blvd interchange in southern West Chester, more than a billion dollars in corporate investment has been made in the area. The community also boasts an excellent park system, including Keehner Park and the Voice of America Park. The VOA Park was created on land formerly used by the Voice of America global broadcasting system, and includes a museum of cold war history. The township also supports arts and educational opportunities, and provides transportation and volunteer services for seniors.

The township is governed by three elected trustees and an elected fiscal officer, and it maintains its own police, fire, road and parks departments. The area is served by the Lakota School District which has consistently been rated Excellent or higher by the state of Ohio. The district maintains two high schools, four middle schools, and fourteen early childhood and elementary schools.

Recent additions to the West Chester community include a new Library, several new medical facilities, and an extensive array of both fine and casual dining choices.

(Demographic and economic data from

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-236-191-2.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-32
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
Posta-Rica: Bad News on the Interview Front

Categories:  News

Hey all. Hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving, and a special thanks goes out to Sarah M, who helped helm the Hatch while I was out of the country. I spent the week in Costa Rica, succumbing to car crashes, stolen cameras, customs officers, bad Internet connections, and constant rain—still, as far as vacations go, I’ve certainly had worse, and I seem to have improved my Spanish level to that of a three-year-old.

For those who are interested in such things, I posted some photos on the same Flickr account I’ve been using for Cross Hatch purposes. Comics-related dealings over the course of the trip were, unfortunately, limited to a Spider-Man piñata, a picture of Mickey Mouse on the side of a bar in San Rafael that suspiciously as if it had been painted by Kaz, and the bizarre appearance of Johnny the Homicidal Maniac and Lenore pins in a San Jose hobby shop.

So the bad news: while I returned in one piece, I can’t say the same for my tape recorder. In fact, after scouring my bags repeatedly, the thing doesn’t appear to have returned at all. Whether it was stolen or left behind, I can’t say, but I’m–perhaps stupidly–holding out hope that I left it in a hotel room and might actually see it again some day.

Far more important that the street price of the thing is what’s on it. The final parts of interviews with Rutu Modan, Nick Abadzis, Evan Dorkin, and Cory Doctorow, as well as the entirety of an interview I did with a living comics legend, late last week.

I bring this up here not to lament its loss, but rather to apologize for the fact that I most likely won’t be running interviews for a little while, and those that were left open-ended will likely stay that way.

Anyway, we’ve all got a lot to be thankful for, myself included. A big thanks goes out to all of you readers out there who have helped make The Daily Cross Hatch into the comics blog success story that it’s become this past year, and I promise that there will be a lot more interviews in the near future, once this whole recorder situation gets straightened out.

Now back to work.

–Brian H.

No Comments to “Posta-Rica: Bad News on the Interview Front”

  1. Servicio Social para una mejor Costa Rica | May 6th, 2008 at 4:28 pm

    Noticia importante para todos los ticos: POR NO ACEPTAR TRÁFICO DE INFLUENCIAS LE CORTARON LA CABEZA A BERROCAL: Así de contundente fueron las declaraciones del ex director de la Fuerza Pública, Fabio Pizarro, quien visitó DIARIO EXTRA para exponer lo que considera ha sido un montaje político para dañar la imagen del ex ministro Berrocal y la suya, solo por no aceptar el tráfico de influencias.


text:
  • Anthony Levandowski project manager, Google Self-Driving Car Project
  • Frank Douma research fellow, Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.
  • Azim Eskandarian director, Center for Intelligent Systems Research and professor of engineering and applied science, George Washington University.
  • David Shepardson Washington bureau chief, The Detroit News.

  • 10:06:56

    MR. TOM GJELTENThanks for joining us. I'm Tom Gjelten of NPR, sitting in for Diane Rehm. A new California law now allows self-driving cars on state roads, at least on a test basis. Proponents promise computer-controlled vehicles will reduce accidents and congestion, maybe even eliminate the need for driver's licenses. Opponents worry there could be a loss of privacy for drivers. Joining me in the studio to talk about the future of driving in the digital age: David Shepardson of The Detroit News and Azim Eskandarian with the Center for Intelligent Systems Research at George Washington University.

  • 10:07:32

    MR. TOM GJELTENAnd for those of you who want to hear more about this fascinating development or have questions or concerns about driverless cars, our phone number is 1-800-433-8850. Our email is We'll be getting to your calls and emails later in the show. Of course, you can also join us on Facebook or Twitter. Good morning to both of you.

  • 10:07:55

    MR. DAVID SHEPARDSONGood morning, Tom.

  • 10:07:55

  • 10:07:56

    GJELTENSo if you can just hold off for a few minutes because I want to start with Anthony Levandowski. He's the project manager for Google's self-driving car project, and he's on the line with us this morning from Mountain View, Calif. Thanks for being with us, Anthony.

  • 10:08:14

    MR. ANTHONY LEVANDOWSKIGreat to be here. Thank you.

  • 10:08:16

    GJELTENSo the -- I guess what -- driverless cars have been in development for many years. But the big news this week is this law that passed in California allowing some driving of self-driving cars. Tell us what's in this law exactly.

  • 10:08:32

    LEVANDOWSKIWell, this law is called SB 1298, and it sets forth the framework for the DMV to set up the guidelines that vehicles will need to adhere to in order to, in the future, be able to drive themselves with or without people inside them. It outlines the type of technical standards, the types of insurance requirements. Everything that you would expect a person to go through when they get their driver's license, you would expect a vehicle that doesn't have a driver in it to be able to have.

  • 10:09:08

    GJELTENAnd what vehicles will actually be on the road? I mean, these -- obviously, these vehicles are not available to the general public yet. So are we talking here about test drivers being able to do this? What exactly is going to change as a result of this law being passed?

  • 10:09:24

    LEVANDOWSKIWell, what's changing really is more on the fact that, currently today, the technology is ahead of the law. And at Google, we've been focused on developing this technology with safety being our top priority because we believe that it's unacceptable that 40,000 Americans die every year, 1.2 million people worldwide, and roughly 90 percent of these accidents are caused by human error.

  • 10:09:49

    LEVANDOWSKISo as the technology has been evolving in the last several years, we're reaching a point now where -- that we're seeing real benefits of having this technology installed on people's cars in our test slate. And I think it's a great move by Sen. Padilla to put forward measures that would close the gap between what the law says today, which is that a person doesn't need to be driving, which leaves the field wide open to something that's more sensible that has the proper guidelines in place.

  • 10:10:22

    GJELTENWell, tell us exactly how these cars work.

  • 10:10:25

    LEVANDOWSKISo these cars have a variety of sensors on them. They have cameras that look at traffic lights. They have laser scanners that measure the world all around it in three dimensions and radars that track other vehicles and their speeds. And all of this information is sent to a computer in the back of the vehicle that processes information and understands where the vehicle can safely drive on the road and where it's located. So you can imagine, just like your GPS navigation right now, it gives you turn-by-turn directions verbally.

  • 10:10:57

    LEVANDOWSKIWith these additional sensors on the vehicle, you're able to properly have the vehicle drive down the street and understand where the traffic light is. And if it's red, it's going to stop. And then it's going to wait for the pedestrians to get out of the crosswalk before it makes that turn and kind of, you know, remove the aspects of driving that are dangerous for people, which is when we don't pay attention.

  • 10:11:20

    GJELTENAnd do these cars know where they are because of the GPS technology? I mean, they know what road they're on, and therefore, they don't just react to obstacles. But they have intelligence about where they are and what they're doing?

  • 10:11:34

    LEVANDOWSKIRight. We don't rely on GPS fundamentally to keep us driving in a similar lane. But GPS is a really good indicator to know that you're in, you know, downtown D.C., you know, or in San Francisco. But the driving itself really relies on the sensors. Just like, you know, when you drive, you look out the window. You don't look at your navigation display. You need to see what's in front of you, what's in front of the world.

  • 10:11:58

    LEVANDOWSKISo the GPS part is just to guide you in terms of saying you need to be going northbound. But what the car picks up from the ground is really the important part of the driving.

  • 10:12:08

    GJELTENAnd what have you at Google already done with this? You know, I read somewhere that you actually were secretly doing some test driving -- in advance, that is -- of getting official permission to do so.

  • 10:12:21

    LEVANDOWSKISure. So we haven't been doing secret testing. But, you know, the project started back in 2008, and we've been testing our self-driving technology in California. And the number one thing that, of course, motivates us is the ability to improve people's lives dramatically. And so far, we've done about 300,000 miles of testing. And, you know, our vehicles, A, they look a little bit strange 'cause they have all this technology on them, and, B, they have, you know, Google's self-driving car labeled on the side of them. The...

  • 10:12:53

    GJELTENWhere was that done, Anthony, that 300,000 miles that were logged?

  • 10:12:58

    LEVANDOWSKIIt's been done on a variety of highways and surface streets in the Bay Area, in California, Nevada. We've driven in downtown D.C., actually, near the Capitol, and we've driven also in Florida.

  • 10:13:13

    GJELTENBut how did you do that? How did you do that if the laws weren't on the books yet to allow it?

  • 10:13:18

    LEVANDOWSKIWell, so the laws that are on the book currently in California were requiring a person to have a driver's license for the person to drive but no requirement for a computer to be able to drive the vehicle. And that was the same in Nevada, Florida and D.C. today. So it's more -- it's not that we're looking for permission. Permission has kind of always been there. What we're really looking for is kind of setting a sensible guideline so that everybody can do this safely.

  • 10:13:48

    GJELTENYeah. So what's -- I mean, you said quite clearly that, you know, what your interest here is in safe driving and promoting safety. But what is Google's interest as a company? In other words, how did your company in particular come to this interest? How did it grow out of other products you've developed, other research you've done, you know, other business lines that you've been in?

  • 10:14:12

    LEVANDOWSKISo Google's really a technology company, and we love innovation. And we love solving big problems. So, you know, where we see our ability to build new software to have a huge impact in the world, to save lives, make people's lives richer, we see it as a huge opportunity for us to explore. And so we don't have a commercial plan on how this technology will come to market, but we just think that, you know, in our innovation spirits, we can't pass this up. This is something too important for a society to have for it to lie dormant for a long time.

  • 10:14:47

    GJELTENYou know, I think it's really easy to get excited about this development. Are there any caveats that you want to sort of lay out there right now so that our listeners don't get perhaps too excited about, you know, what they're going to be able to have?

  • 10:14:59

    LEVANDOWSKIAbsolutely. So it's important to remember that, unlike things in Hollywood, technology, you know, takes a long time to develop. And right now, we're at the early stages. The things that we're working on the most are making sure that the system is more reliable than people are. And in many case, we've shown that that's true for some scenarios but not all scenarios. So while I'd love to have everybody be able to have one of these in their driveway next year, it's going to be a lot more longer before the technologies mature enough to go out.

  • 10:15:31

    GJELTENAnd will Google actually manufacture cars or work with manufacturers, provide the technology that then car manufacturers will incorporate? What's going to be your relationship with car manufacturers?

  • 10:15:41

    LEVANDOWSKIWell, we love technology, so we're really interested in building the technology aspect of this, and we're looking forward in talking to all the manufacturers on how to incorporate this into their vehicles. So how it will come out is undecided yet, but we're talking to everyone.

  • 10:15:57

    GJELTENWell, finally, Anthony, how quickly can we expect actually to be able to buy a computer-controlled car?

  • 10:16:06

    LEVANDOWSKIThe -- it's a handful of years, right, so less than the number of fingers on one hand. But more precisely than that, we just don't know today.

  • 10:16:15

    GJELTENAll right, very good. Anthony Levandowski is the project manager for Google's self-driving car project. He joined us on the line from Google headquarters in Mountain View, Calif. Thanks so much, Anthony, for sharing this exciting news with us this morning.

  • 10:16:30

    LEVANDOWSKIYou're welcome. Thank you very much.

  • 10:16:31

    GJELTENAll right. Thank you. David Shepardson, The Detroit News, you have actually ridden in one of these vehicles. How realistic is this idea? Same question that I just put to Anthony Levandowski, you know, how important it is for us to kind of constrain ourselves here a little bit in terms of our excitement?

  • 10:16:51

    SHEPARDSONIt is realistic in certainly the medium term. But in the short term, we're going to see more uses of computer assistance to drive cars. We already see some of those now with devices like adaptive cruise control, which your car keeps you at a set speed and a set distance away from the car in front of you. There are lane departure warning systems, which will alert you if you leave the lane.

  • 10:17:13

    SHEPARDSONAnd probably the most -- the biggest example of the computer actually taking control of your car is in the case of you're not paying attention to a stopped car in front of you, and in some cars, especially luxury cars, the car will actually brake the car and stop it for you. So in the short term, you're going to see more examples of the computer, you know, jumping in when you're not paying attention when you should be 'cause, as Anthony pointed out, at least about 90 percent of accidents are human error related.

  • 10:17:42

    SHEPARDSONBut in the long term, I think, you know, 10 years or so, I do think this is a realistic possibility simply because, you know, you're talking about 32,000 deaths, $300 billion to society. This is a big cost, and computers will likely be able to do a better job.

  • 10:17:55

    GJELTENSo this is a very incremental development. We have -- my car, for example, warns me when I'm getting too close to a post or...

  • 10:18:02

  • 10:18:03

    GJELTENAnd, you know, bit by bit, we're going to see more of these technological innovations in that direction.

  • 10:18:08

    SHEPARDSONAbsolutely. Just for the simple reason that computers do a better job. They don't get tired. They don't, you know, drink too much, and they, you know, they stay on focus, on message.

  • 10:18:17

    GJELTENIt's pretty exciting. David Shepardson is Washington bureau chief for The Detroit News. Also with me here is Azim Eskandarian, director of the Center for Intelligent Systems Research. He's also professor of engineering and applied science at George Washington University. And, Azim, I'm going to go to you in a minute or two. But we're going to take a break right now. Stay tuned.

  • 10:20:04

    GJELTENWelcome back. I'm Tom Gjelten, sitting in today for Diane Rehm. And our subject is computer-controlled cars, driverless cars, something that we used to see on "The Jetsons" that actually is now becoming, step by step, a reality. And my two guests here in the studio are David Shepardson, the Washington bureau chief for The Detroit News and Azim Eskandarian, director of the Center for Intelligent Systems Research at George Washington University.

  • 10:20:29

    GJELTENAzim, I apologize we didn't get to you before the break. We got too wrapped up talking to the guy from Google, which is the company that's really doing a lot of the research for this. But I read somewhere, Azim, that the DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Pentagon outfit that funds so much leading-edge research that was instrumental in developing the Internet, for example, actually had a role in the first wave of innovation that lead to this.

  • 10:20:58

    GJELTENAnd as I understand it, Azim, DARPA was interested in developing drone vehicles for use in combat, like drone aircraft that are very well-advanced, very far advanced and in widespread use in war fighting right now. Is that correct?

  • 10:21:13

    ESKANDARIANThat's correct. Yeah, DARPA had a major role in developing autonomous vehicles. Earlier, I think around 2005, they put out a major challenge called desert challenge, which required cars to be driven autonomously for long distance in a desert environment where you had the possibility of GPS signals missing and through rough terrain. And then later they had another major challenge called Urban Challenge, which was the same challenge, similar challenge but an urban environment, requiring autonomous cars to be driven in an urban environment with traffic lights and other cars.

  • 10:21:52

    ESKANDARIANSo, of course, autonomous vehicles will have both commercial applications as well as military application. That was the -- DARPA's role in enhancing the military capability as well as the commercial capability.

  • 10:22:05

    GJELTENAnd where does the technological innovation actually stand right now? I mean, are the obstacles at this point more legal, as David and Anthony were both talking about, economic in terms of, you know, dealing with cost of manufacturing? Is the technology -- are the ideas actually already there to do a lot of this stuff that we're dreaming about?

  • 10:22:26

    ESKANDARIANI believe the technology is already there. My personal research is in the area of advanced driver-assistance systems, which is some of the technologies that David already alluded to in terms of adaptive cruise control, lane departure warning, lane departure control, blind spot detection and many other technologies that you see in the vehicle right now. So as you mentioned earlier, these technologies can be collectively put together to drive the car autonomously eventually.

  • 10:23:00

    ESKANDARIANNow, the sensor technology is there, and the actuation technology in driving the car by itself is also available. But I think the sensor technology and the collective of these programs that run the car together is expensive with today's standards. But after mass market production of these systems, I believe the cost will not be an issue. So I think, from an engineering perspective, the automation technology is currently available.

  • 10:23:31

    GJELTENAnd how much of the technology is in the vehicle itself as opposed to the environment? I'm wondering if, you know, whether we're going to see something like what trolley cars used to have, which was, you know, something embedded in the pavement that guided the trolley car. Are we going to see technology embedded in roads? Are we going to see, you know, traffic lights that are part of this network? I mean, it would seem to me that it seems like a lot of the technology has to be outside the vehicle.

  • 10:23:59

    ESKANDARIANWell, it's a collective of both technologies. I think in intelligent vehicles by themselves, autonomous vehicles by themselves, that most of the technology currently is inside the vehicle. If you look at the driving scenario, what the autonomous vehicle is trying to do is to duplicate or replicate what humans do when they're driving. We sense the environment. We respond to the environment by trying to keep -- caught at the center of the lane. We accelerate and brake. And we are replacing all of those by machines.

  • 10:24:33

    ESKANDARIANSensors will sense the environment. The computer program will do the thinking of navigation and instructing the different actuators in the vehicle, and the actuators will drive the vehicle within the lane. Now, this is all inside the vehicle. But there is a trend of a new technology coming up which is called vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications.

  • 10:24:55

    ESKANDARIANAnd that vehicle-to-infrastructure communication will require that the infrastructure be equipped with communication technology and part of the computer programs that can interact with the vehicle and send signals to the vehicle for safety applications. And you can imagine various applications, for example, in intersections, which is a major concern, you can have traffic signals that are equipped with this technology to interact with the drivers.

  • 10:25:25

    GJELTENAmazing. David Shepardson.

  • 10:25:26

    SHEPARDSONIn fact, just last month, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced in Ann Arbor a 3,000-car test of vehicle-to-vehicle research to actually get these cars on the road, getting cars talking to each other so when they come to an intersection, if one car is going to speed through, it alerts the other car. And they had done testing on infrastructure. The reason the infrastructure has not been as popular is just the sheer cost.

  • 10:25:49

    SHEPARDSONYou know, you're talking about, you know, millions of intersections, lights, roads. And it's more cost-efficient, I think, now to have devices in vehicles. We can get vehicles talking to one another and sensing, you know, lights and so on. It will be far cheaper than having to put this on every intersection in the country.

  • 10:26:08

    GJELTENHow realistic do you think are these claims that are being made that this will dramatically reduce traffic accidents, casualties?

  • 10:26:16

    SHEPARDSONI think a lot. I mean, number one, you're talking about 90 percent of accidents are human error. And there's so much money that can be saved and so many lives saved. You're talking about $100 billion we spent on congestion costs, $300 billion on just the cost of crashes, the 2.2 million people a year who are injured in accidents. And, yes, the fatality rates come down dramatically. It's 32,000 people who died last year. That's 1.1 people who die per 100 million miles traveled. By comparison, in 1950, it was about seven people who died per 100 million miles traveled.

  • 10:26:51

    SHEPARDSONSo we've made dramatic progress in reducing deaths, but it's still the number one cause of death for people aged 5 to 34. And there is, you know, just a huge demand to see improvements. And, you know, you're not going to ever build a car so safe that the driver is not going to make mistakes. And the only way you will avoid long-term drivers making mistakes is if you give the computer more control. It sounds like, you know, a science fiction movie, but...

  • 10:27:18

    GJELTENAzim, you know, sticking with this safety issue, Morgan writes us an email, "What happens when the computer crashes? Is it game over?" All computers have glitches. We know that. What happens if you're driving down the road 70 miles an hour, and, all of a sudden, your computer freezes?

  • 10:27:35

    ESKANDARIANRight. Well, the major challenge in these autonomous driving is obviously to have robust and reliable sensor systems and actuating systems. Now, if the computer crashes, you can always design a system which would -- will be far tolerant, and it will have enough redundancy built into the system that will bring the vehicle to a safe stop. And that has been experimented with. And you can model different failures and try to come up with countermeasures for those.

  • 10:28:06

    ESKANDARIANSo that's the role -- even now, we can have driver-assistance systems that can do that. For example, in emergency maneuvers, take over the control of the car when the driver fails to maneuver the car properly.

  • 10:28:19

    SHEPARDSONShe's exactly right. I mean, that's why Google has already put 300,000 miles out. That's where they're going to put at least a million miles on before they actually try to test this. I mean, the public relations nightmare of a single accident being caused by a computer, I think, could set back the program 10 or 20 years. And, I think, keep in mind the first five, 10, 15 years, you're not going to be sleeping in the back of your car when this driverless car is driving around.

  • 10:28:42

    SHEPARDSONYou're going to be in the driver's seat having to pay attention. Maybe you're going to be able to not always look forward, but the car is going to alert you to more dangerous situations. And, you know, initially things like getting on and off an exit ramp, I mean, the computer -- the technology is not there yet in terms of the most complicated maneuvers. I mean, initially, you're on a long stretch of highway. That's a type of thing where we're going to feel more comfortable allowing the computers to take over rather than piloting a more difficult...

  • 10:29:08

    GJELTENSo we start out in a rural area. And driving in an urban area is far more difficult, far more challenging.

  • 10:29:14

    SHEPARDSONPedestrians, everything else.

  • 10:29:15

  • 10:29:16

    ESKANDARIANWell, I think even in the urban area, there is a role for autonomous vehicles because, just this morning, I spent about 45 minutes in a stop-and-go traffic coming to the studio here. So that's a scenario where you're going at a very slow motion, and the sensors will be able to detect the vehicles in front and the pedestrians and whatever else that happens in the traffic in a regular traffic situation.

  • 10:29:40

    ESKANDARIANSo you can imagine the increase in productivity where people are sitting in a congested environment but the vehicle is driving by itself because that's one of the safe areas where autonomous vehicles could be driven.

  • 10:29:51

    GJELTENIn theory.

  • 10:29:52

    ESKANDARIANIn theory.

  • 10:29:53

    GJELTENDavid, what's the -- you know, Google is not a car manufacturer. Google is a technology company, an innovator. Car companies are, you know, facing some pretty stressful times right now. I mean, GM just about went bankrupt. What is the attitude in Detroit toward these cars? 'Cause I can imagine, you know, it can vary from excitement to nervousness. I mean, are people going to sort of no longer see cars as toys, which is a big part of the advertising for automobiles for the last 80 years?

  • 10:30:25

    SHEPARDSONIt's twofold. Number one, car companies want to be with it with technology. That's why you see a lot more technology in your cars now, being able to read your emails to you, being able to send text and Facebook updates, you know, by voice. So car companies want to do that, in part, because they're worried, frankly, that kids are not going to want to drive as much. In fact, studies show younger Americans are not getting their driver's licenses.

  • 10:30:48

    SHEPARDSONThey'd rather, you know, text their friends. So they are looking for ways to keep cars rolling. And, you know, in theory, hey, if you could still do the type of things you want to do -- you could text, you could do whatever while the car gets you from point A to point B -- they like that. But on the other hand, there's a tremendous liability issue here. You know, just this week, the auto companies, the trade groups said, hey, we're worried that, you know, once we sell our car, you know, Google or whoever can modify it, but we don't have any control over what happens to our car.

  • 10:31:17

    SHEPARDSONWe're going to be held liable. They're going to sue us if someone, you know, modified our car and used part of the systems to do this driverless car. So I think, generally, they're pretty cautious. But on the other hand, the major auto companies are doing research on this. I mean, GM in 2008 thought that driverless cars can be possible by 2018. So they're definitely all interested in this. The question is some companies are a little more eager to get it done sooner, and others are going to kind of wait and see.

  • 10:31:43

    GJELTENYou know, mentioning -- with reference to legal liability, we have a listener who wrote, who's wondering: "One would assume that if the state of California is going to permit driverless vehicles on its roads, that the details of legal liability have been defined and will be implemented." But I think I remember Anthony basically saying that this is at the very first stage, at the root, that the legal liability issues have not all been worked out yet.

  • 10:32:05

    SHEPARDSONRight. Basically, your own insurance policy you have to have as a driver will cover you. The question is, will the insurance companies -- and that's the talks right now -- will they require additional coverage for essentially the hardware? We have to have a separate policy if the car is driving as opposed to you in the driver's seat.

  • 10:32:23

    GJELTENAnd what is the attitude of the -- I mean, is the -- the car manufacturers have to also worry about what their legal liability would be if this technology breaks down. And, you know, it's one thing if that -- if a driver messes up and, you know, causes a serious accident. If the computer messes up, does that mean that the manufacturer of the computer is liable?

  • 10:32:41

    SHEPARDSONSure, and the parts. I remember in 2008 when there was a huge issue about Toyota and sudden acceleration where electronic glitches took the blame. I mean, people are worried. I mean, we have very large, complex computers already in our cars, running lots of systems. And so there's already a question of the liability, you know, for the computers in cars.

  • 10:33:00

    GJELTENDavid Shepardson is Washington bureau chief of The Detroit News. I'm Tom Gjelten. You're listening to "The Diane Rehm Show." And we're talking about the prospect of driverless cars in the short-term future, not the long-term future like we might have thought. You can join our conversation. Our phone number is 1-800-433-8850. Our email, as you know, is

  • 10:33:23

    GJELTENAnd just a few minutes, we're going to get to our callers, but I want to go now to Frank Douma. He's research fellow at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, and he's joining us on the phone from his office in Minneapolis. Good morning, Frank.

  • 10:33:40

    MR. FRANK DOUMAGood morning.

  • 10:33:41

    GJELTENLet's pick up with you because just before the break here, we were talking about these legal liability issues, which is something that you have been looking at a lot. What do you...

  • 10:33:50

  • 10:33:51

    GJELTENWhat is the state of the current legal system? Is it ready to deal with these very new liability issues that are coming along?

  • 10:33:59

    DOUMAI would say that it probably is not. The way most laws are written governing how people drive their cars on the road assume that there is a human in control and ultimately going to be responsible for most things that happen when things go wrong. And as the computer takes over more and more of these duties, that becomes a defense for the person who is in the driver's seat and otherwise probably having to face the liability, as everyone assumed it's going to be the case.

  • 10:34:34

    GJELTENKevin, one of -- I'm sorry, Frank, a listener, Kevin, wonders if self-driving cars will fix the DWI problem. How about that?

  • 10:34:43

    DOUMAWell, it would seem that they would functionally, but, legally, that is very, very unclear. The closest analogy that I've been able to find have been cases where someone has been over the limit of intoxication, and so they chose to park their car off the road and fall asleep and try to sleep it off.

  • 10:35:08

    DOUMAAnd they were found guilty of DUI because they had the key in their pocket and therefore had the potential, at any time, to drive off while they were still over the limit. So, in this case, if there's even a potential for somebody to take over the car again while it's driving itself, they probably would also face DUI liability.

  • 10:35:33

    GJELTENAnd what do you expect will be some of the specific regulations that are written into laws that limit what can be done with computer-controlled cars? I think you've already done some research into what the state of Nevada is doing in this regard, as well as California. What are some things that drivers, or that occupants, of driverless cars can, cannot do?

  • 10:35:56

    DOUMAWell, most of the laws -- you know, California's is very much sort of a guideline to sort of, OK, let's get the regulations going law at this point. It's quite general. The Nevada law has -- had some regulations come out, and so you can see a little bit more. It's still not overly specific, but probably the -- one of the most interesting things I've seen coming out of Nevada is they specifically exempt self-driving cars from their texting while driving ban. They specifically say that someone in the driver's seat of a self-driving car while it's in self-driving mode can be texting.

  • 10:36:39

    GJELTENThat's amazing. So they've already anticipated that and decided that these cars are safe enough to drive that you can actually text while you're driving, which everybody else is telling us is a really bad idea. But if you have a computer-controlled car, you can do it.

  • 10:36:52

    DOUMARight, right. And in Nevada, the way -- one way to help enforce that is that self-driving cars will have a very different-looking license plate. And so somebody can -- officer can realize that, oh, this is somebody that is texting, but they're in a car that could be driving itself.

  • 10:37:10

    GJELTENWell, Frank Douma, please stay on the phone with us. We're going to come back to you after the break. He's -- Frank is a research fellow at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. He's been looking into a lot of the legal liability issues around the use of computer-controlled cars.

  • 10:37:26

    GJELTENI'm also joined here in the studio by David Shepardson, the Washington bureau chief of The Detroit News, and Azim Eskandarian, director of the Center for Intelligent Systems Research at George Washington University. And after the break, we're going to be going to our phones. Please stay with us. This is "The Diane Rehm Show."

  • 10:40:04

    GJELTENWelcome back. I'm Tom Gjelten, sitting in today for Diane Rehm. And we're talking about the prospect of computer-controlled cars, driverless cars that -- where you can sit there and read emails or watch TV -- I don't know if you can take a nap yet or you'll be able to take a nap, but it certainly is a -- an exciting development.

  • 10:40:25

    GJELTENAnd my guests are David Shepardson, the Washington bureau chief for Detroit News, Azim Eskandarian, director of the Center for Intelligent Systems Research at GW University here in Washington. And joining us on the phone is Frank Douma. He's research fellow at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota. Couple of emails here -- did raise a similar question.

  • 10:40:46

    GJELTENTerry wonders whether this will be something that can help blind people get to work. It's always been an issue of blind people, public transportation and so forth. And Jason says he lost his ability to drive in 1991 due to Leber's disease, which resulted in him being legally blind. Azim Eskandarian, does this technology offer promise for blind people, either totally blind or partially blind, to actually be able to drive?

  • 10:41:18

    ESKANDARIANSure. We have to see what -- how we look at this technology. If you're talking about totally autonomous vehicles, the vehicles that do not need the driver intervention at all, then of course, this technology can help blind people as well as any other disability. Basically, what is expected of the driver is to specify the destination and the computer program will use a navigation system, plan a trip -- optimal trip, and then execute the commands that would drive the car to that destination.

  • 10:41:53

    ESKANDARIANSo, regardless of the status of the driver, the car can be driven. That requires that the vehicle will be driven in totally autonomous mode that will allow no driver intervention. Of course, the discussions we had earlier, we had scenarios where we said the driver can intervene and interact with the vehicle and take over the control. For this particular application, the driver will not be allowed to do that.

  • 10:42:18

    GJELTENFrank Douma, I have one last question for you before you take off. Google is involved in this, and Google, of course, is associated in the minds of many people with privacy issues. Are any privacy issues raised by the prospect of this technology becoming widespread?

  • 10:42:35

    DOUMAYeah. This is something that definitely needs to be looked at. I'm not saying that we're going to all just to have to give up our privacy to enjoy it -- enjoy self-driving cars. But we've got an issue here of, whereas most drivers in a non-self-driving car or just overly dumb car can decide that they are, you know -- they'll make their decision about where they're going to go and how they're going to get there. And that decision and those other points about where they're at all stay in their own head.

  • 10:43:07

    DOUMANow, you are sharing that information, at least with the car. And when you're talking about the vehicle, the infrastructure of vehicle, the vehicle situations, you have that data being shared with other parties as well. And we need to have a legal structure that will identify how and when that data can be used beyond the particular interactions that are needed to make the car drive itself.

  • 10:43:31

    GJELTENLots of legal issues to be worked out here. I'm not sure that my -- I think my car would be offended at being called a dumb car, Frank. But in any case, thanks very much for joining us.

  • 10:43:40

    DOUMASure. My pleasure.

  • 10:43:41

    GJELTENFrank Douma is research fellow at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, and he's been looking carefully into a lot of the legal issues around the introduction of computer-controlled cars, driverless cars. I want to go now to Dennis, who's on the -- Dennis, there you are. Dennis is on the line from Allegan, Mich. Good morning, Dennis.

  • 10:44:04

    DENNISGood morning. Question is, is what do you do about malicious hackers? You know, in any system that can be developed is going -- can be overcome by something who's at least as logical as the designer. A really easy one would be if somebody wants to stop your car in traffic, they could use a Doppler shift unit attached to a receiver and a transmitter that transmitted back on the same frequency as the radar emitter in the car, thus would lock the car up in traffic and stop it, you know? Malicious hackers are going to do what they do just to -- you don't have to apply logic. They just do it.

  • 10:44:40

    GJELTENWell, Dennis, it sounds like you know what you're talking about. And do you think that this -- from what you've heard, do you think that this technology, like other computer technology, would be pretty susceptible to hacking? I guess you do, or you wouldn't have said that. We actually had an email from Grant, who raised the same question. "Is hacking a possibility when cars are operated by computers?" David.

  • 10:45:03

    SHEPARDSONAbsolutely. You have two issues here. Number one is making sure that data is heavily encrypted so that as it's being shared between vehicles and to the infrastructure that hackers can't, you know, can't get to that data. But the other more troubling question that Dennis raises is exactly right, that people, malicious people could send signals toward cars, especially as the number of driverless cars grew, you know, to essentially trick the cars into doing things they shouldn't.

  • 10:45:31

    SHEPARDSONIn fact, we had an example of a car, because of some metal in the road -- in fact, the government's investigating this -- was coming to a dead stop when the metal in the bridge basically set off a sensor in his car because of where the metal was. So we already have, you know, non-malicious examples of where something can, you know, can tell the computer, you know, give it inaccurate data. And it is something we'd have to figure out, how could you prevent hackers from doing it. So it's a very real issue down the road.

  • 10:45:59

    GJELTENAzim, is it -- would it be possible to design this technology, to build this technology in such a way as to make it less susceptible to hacking?

  • 10:46:06

    ESKANDARIANOh, absolutely. I think, just like any other computer technology, there is potential for intrusion by outsiders. But you can design the system such that it has enough encryption incorporated in the whole system that prevents that.

  • 10:46:20

    GJELTENGood. Eric is on the line with us now from St. Louis, Mo. Good morning, Eric.

  • 10:46:24

    ERICHey, good morning. Hey, I must say I am a little bit skeptical of even the -- solving these technical issues we're talking about. But I'd like to mention a larger human implication here. And if you look at the history of technology over the last 200 years, it's often a history was new technology is brought in to solve problems that previous technology created.

  • 10:46:49

    ERICAnd the -- what this is gradually leading to is a future in which humans are becoming obsolete and the docile captives of their technology, which is a complete reversal of the promise of technology, which is to give us autonomy. It's actually giving autonomy to our technology.

  • 10:47:08

    GJELTENEric, are you thinking of any things that have happened in particular that sort of fit that pattern that you're describing where, you know, some new technology has resulted in people becoming less responsible, less active, more docile? What are you thinking of in particular?

  • 10:47:21

    ERICWell, another perfect example is right in the automobile itself with the GPS. People, they turn over the -- they turn over the map reading skills to their GPS system, and, as a result, they are clueless about where they are. If you take away that GPS, they have no idea where they are.

  • 10:47:41

    GJELTENThat's actually a really good point. David.

  • 10:47:43

    SHEPARDSONEric is exactly right about what the car, over the last century, has stood for, you know, freedom, the ability to go wherever you wanted to go, get on the open road. And, you know, that's how Detroit, you know, became one of the wealthiest areas in the country, sort of, you know, giving sort of this American dream, empowering people to go where they want to go. And, you know, certainly by abdicating, you know, the ability to drive in some or all situations, you turn the car into something that it's -- that it hasn't been.

  • 10:48:11

    SHEPARDSONAnd certainly, as a society, we have to decide, do -- is it -- do we want to let people drive to enjoy the, you know, racing down the road? Or are we so concerned about deaths and injuries that we'd rather let our computers do it? And it's a question society's going to have to answer.

  • 10:48:26

    GJELTENWell, it becomes -- the car, in that case, becomes much more a utilitarian thing and not something that you can identify with personally, that you have pride in, that's got personality.

  • 10:48:35

    SHEPARDSONRight, a washing machine, basically.

  • 10:48:37

    GJELTENA washing machine. But what's going to happen to Corvettes? What's going to happen to Porsches? What's going to happen to all these cars that people love to drive and not just sit in, Azim?

  • 10:48:46

    ESKANDARIANI think a little differently because I think you could still have your freedom to drive and then enjoy the safety that the new technology provides because, as we see this -- all of these technologies that are considered active safety systems or driver assistance systems, they're really helping the driver to drive safer. So what you're trying to do is to make sure that the technology is helping the driver, not totally taking over the drivers' control.

  • 10:49:15

    GJELTENLet's go now to John, who's on the line from Lafayette, Ind. Good morning, John.

  • 10:49:19

    JOHNGood morning. Do you -- can you get the cell call here?

  • 10:49:22

    GJELTENYeah. Are you calling me from inside your car?

  • 10:49:25

    JOHNI'm in the car.

  • 10:49:28

    GJELTENAll right.

  • 10:49:28

    ESKANDARIANI hope he's hands-free.

  • 10:49:29

    GJELTENI hope it's hands-free. Is it?

  • 10:49:30

    JOHNOh, it is.

  • 10:49:31

    GJELTENOK. Good.

  • 10:49:32

    JOHNActually, it is.

  • 10:49:33

    GJELTENAll right. Good.

  • 10:49:34

    JOHNThe thing that I wanted -- I enjoyed the comment about people getting lost, letting GPS decide where they are because that's what happens to all of the passengers in the car, you know? But my comment is I have a 2011 Cadillac with active cruise control. It's a great device. You can follow a car at 300, 350 feet on the highway at highway speeds. And the only problem is, if -- you know, it will speed up, slow down, it will follow the car in front of you or the truck.

  • 10:50:07

    JOHNAnd it's a wonderful device. The only problem is if somebody falls in between you and the car that you had targeted on, then, automatically, your car brakes hard and surprises anybody that's following you at highway speeds because they can't see any reason why you would brake.

  • 10:50:25

    GJELTENHow hard? How hard? Has this happened to you, John?

  • 10:50:28

    JOHNI'm sorry?

  • 10:50:29

    GJELTENHas this happened to you?

  • 10:50:31

    JOHNWell, you're breaking up now, or I'm breaking up on your signal.

  • 10:50:34

    GJELTENAll right. Well, that's a really interesting point. And, David, what John is pointing out is that this is not all that futuristic, that, you know, this is a perfect example of computer-controlled driving already in use.

  • 10:50:50

    SHEPARDSONAbsolutely. And there are going to be plenty of situations where the computer reacts to a sensor or data that, you know, is inopportune, like the car, you know, weaving in between traffic. So, you know, we design these safety systems, and they, you know, for the vast majority of instances, they are doing exactly what we want them to do. I mean, you know, think about, you know, not having to speed up, slow down. You know, you're not paying attention in the cruise control. You know, basically, you ram into the back of the car.

  • 10:51:18

    SHEPARDSONBut none of them are foolproof. And that's why, at least for the short term -- you have to think 10 years or more -- you're still going to have a driver in the seat. You're not going to feel comfortable enough, I don't think, you know, handing over total control of the car until we've had a lot of data and a lot of tests where the driver didn't get involved but could have got involved.

  • 10:51:37

    GJELTENAzim, I have a question for you. This comes from an email from Joe. He wants to know, "What would be a likely price tag on this thing?" How costly would this technology be?

  • 10:51:47

    ESKANDARIANIt's very hard for me to predict what the price tag will be, but I'm sure it would be more expensive than the normal cars that we have. I'd like to just add one comment to the previous question...

  • 10:51:58

  • 10:51:59

    ESKANDARIAN...that, really, the -- how aggressive the car brakes or how moderate their braking is is a design issue. And also, another issue is the drivers getting used to this technology. Most people are not used to automatic braking, so when the car does that, they, you know, they feel uncomfortable about it.

  • 10:52:16

    ESKANDARIANOne of the challenges is, for example, when you're approaching a potential collision, and if you have a system that swerves around that obstacle or around that car, it has to take over the control of the steering. And people do not feel comfortable with that. It's one of the areas that we are conducting research to see the acceptance level of such systems.

  • 10:52:36

    GJELTENAzim, have you driven one of these cars?

  • 10:52:38

    ESKANDARIANI've driven the car -- not totally autonomous cars, but cars that have a lot of the driver assistance systems.

  • 10:52:43

    GJELTENVery interesting. Azim Eskandarian is director of the Center for Intelligent Systems Research. I'm Tom Gjelten of NPR, and you're listening to "The Diane Rehm Show." Let's go now to Edward, who's on the line from Chicago, Ill. Good morning, Edward.

  • 10:53:00

    EDWARDGood morning. I appreciate this discussion. It's very interesting. I understand that the technology is advancing at record-breaking speeds and everything else. And this is -- branches off of maybe a subject that the previous two callers were talking about, the one where he had the GPS in his car and he doesn't know where he's at. He just looks at the screen.

  • 10:53:20

  • 10:53:20

    EDWARDAnother one is the depends on the braking of the car, and the driver feels uncomfortable about that. I think that you're missing an entire premise that's underlying this entire thing. I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time about their research in -- do -- going forward with these kind of systems, but you are dumbing down the driver.

  • 10:53:40

  • 10:53:40

    EDWARDYou are literally dumbing down the driver. You are causing the driver to become dependent on these systems. If he knows it's there -- and maybe it slightly brakes one time -- the next time it happens, he's going to be less dependent on his own responsibilities to react and maintain control of his vehicle and maintain his driving skills up to par.

  • 10:54:00

    EDWARDAnd he's going to become more and more dependent on these electronic devices, just like the GPS and just like the other things you talked about. I think this entire thing has to be looked at from a different perspective. The driver is dumbing down themselves.

  • 10:54:14

    GJELTENAll right. You know, Edward, that's a really important point. And Jim in Florida, who is a listener, has written basically the same thing in an email. He says, "Does your panel see any danger with this technology, creating drivers who are less able to safely operate a vehicle manually after relying on automation? Driving isn't always, as the phrase goes, like riding a bike." David.

  • 10:54:37

    SHEPARDSONThere's two issues. Number one, a big concern of the government and researchers has been, will people use these technologies to do more unsafe behavior like text or make calls or do other things they shouldn't be 'cause, hey, the car is going to, you know, going to save me anyway? But I think the bigger issue is we're already a society of pretty bad drivers. I mean, you know, there's 90 percent of the 5.5 million accidents a year are the result of human error.

  • 10:55:00

    SHEPARDSONI mean, everybody who drives down the road sees inattentive drivers, people doing things they shouldn't be doing, you know? And are you more comfortable having the computer do it, or are you more comfortable with the people around you who are not always the best drivers?

  • 10:55:15

    GJELTENAzim, how important is government? We talked at the very beginning of the program about the role that DARPA, the Pentagon's research agency, played in this at the front end. How important from here on is government investment, government support, government patronage?

  • 10:55:28

    ESKANDARIANI think government plays a very, very important role, especially in terms of technology, that the role could be a standardization of the technology because you don't want different manufacturers producing technology that is totally different. And the drivers will not be used to this technology from one manufacturer to another. So standards plays a major role, and promotion of safety, of course, the safety habits is another role -- major role that the government can play.

  • 10:55:55

    GJELTENAnd, David, very quickly, what would you say right now is the prevailing attitude in Detroit towards this technology, positive or negative?

  • 10:56:02

    SHEPARDSONOh, I think it's positive. That's why you see them rolling out all these technologies, like the Cadillac, all these other ones. No, they're positive long term. It's a big question mark about, will the driver, you know, be able to get out of the driver seat.

  • 10:56:13

    GJELTENThank you very much. You know, I want to end with this thought that -- again, a kind of a caveat, a warning to our listeners not to get too carried away with this. I read this in one of these articles about self-driving cars, "Tomorrow's car owners can settle back in the comfort of their ride to get a start on work emails, browse the news headlines or catch up on a favorite TV show all without worrying about getting lost or switching lanes on the highway."

  • 10:56:38

    GJELTENI think on the basis of what you guys have said to us today and what we've heard from listeners, we shouldn't think that that moment is just around the corner.

  • 10:56:46

    SHEPARDSONDon't sell your current car just yet.

  • 10:56:48

    GJELTENDavid Shepardson is Washington bureau chief, Detroit News. Azim Eskandarian is director for the Center for Intelligent Systems Research. He's also professor of engineering and applied science at George Washington University. I'm Tom Gjelten, sitting in for Diane Rehm. Thanks for listening.

  • 10:57:05

    ANNOUNCER"The Diane Rehm Show" is produced by Sandra Pinkard, Nancy Robertson, Denise Couture, Susan Nabors, Rebecca Kaufman, Lisa Dunn and Megan Merritt. The engineer is Toby Schreiner. Natalie Yuravlivker answers the phones. Visit for audio archives, transcripts, podcasts and CD sales. Call 202-885-1200 for more information. Our email address is, and we're on Facebook and Twitter. This program is a production of WAMU 88.5 from American University in Washington, D.C. This is NPR.

Topics + Tags

comments powered by Disqus
Most Recent Shows

Priorities For President Obama’s Remaining Time In Office

Monday, Jul 27 2015A lame duck, with diminished power to get anything done: This is how many had expected to describe President Barack Obama in his final two years in office. But Obama has had a string of recent victories, and now, he’s setting his sights on other issues. We look at the president's evolution and his political priorities for the remainder of his term.


text:
Orlando’s MLS Dream

Orlando City Soccer looks to be on the fast track to joining the MLS. The league and local officials have actually been meeting for months looking for ways to make it happen. One major obstacle stands in the way, a stadium. The current stadium was designed to host American Football, although it did host some World Cup Soccer games in the past.

Orlando lacks an MLB or NFL franchise but does have a moderately successful NBA team. Situated as it is in the middle of the state a good MLS team could draw from from as far away as Tampa and certainly would draw from Polk and Osceola County.

Modern day MLS Stadiums are built with certain amenities in mind. VIP Suites are typically close to the field and there are usually individual seats for fans instead of bench seating. A large MLS stadium would hold about 30,000 fans, but as Orlando is a mid-sized market, the might be looking more in the 15,000 to 20,000 range.

Orlando City Soccer current draws an average of 5,000 fans a night, so there’s not that big a gap to close when they go full pro.

So the question is where to place the stadium? I would like to see it somewhere south of downtown Orlando. There is property near the Orange County Convention Center that was once considered for a new sports arena. That might work. But I think the MLS should look even further south.

A soccer stadium at ESPN’s Wide World of Sports Complex would draw from Orlando, Kissimmee, and Lakeland or further. Like the baseball spring training stadium, it would get use beyond even the regular soccer season.

As you can see from the aerial photo on Google Maps there is definitely room for a pro-stadium and more parking. There’s probably even access to the 192/530 or I4 for faster exiting from the complex.

The only thing that would have made this better is if Florida’s Governor hadn’t canceled the high speed train. It would have had a stop right next to ESPN WWOS. That said, there are currently plans to build another rail line from the airport area to the Walt Disney World area. A stop near ESPN WWOS would make a lot more sense as an entry way to the resort if there was an MLS Stadium there as well.

The question is, would Disney get behind this? With the right mix of corporate sponsorship and team ownership, they could get most of built. Heck Disney might want to consider ownership themselves as many fans of soccer in the US fill one of the demographic buckets Disney is trying to reach. Plus there is the sportscation to consider when the fans of visiting teams fill Disney’s hotel rooms and perhaps stay for more nights to include a theme park or two. That’s a win-win.

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

2 thoughts on “Orlando’s MLS Dream

  1. mark hickson

    During the “Disney Decade” the company branched out into professional sports by buying the Angels baseball team and starting “The Mighty Ducks” hockey franchise. They were hoping the teams and Disneyland could share some “synergy”. Unfortunately running a professional sports team takes a different type of corporate culture. After a dozen years Disney sold the franchises due to lower than expected revenues and the large cash outlay in player development and minor league teams (the Angels had 4). Also Baseball fans are different than park guests. Rowdy, swearing, drunken behavior abound. Disney had to initiate a “Family” section in the outfield bleachers to segregate the Park patrons from the regular baseball fans. Because of that experience I feel Disney will not want to get into an ownership role again.

    It’s ironic that both teams won championships after Disney sold them!

  2. Ken Storey

    I laid out a plan for the Citrus Bowl that I think would be better for an MLS team. While WWOS would be nice, I think the isolation of the stadium would actually be a downfall. To draw a crowd I think that a stadium in downtown surrounded by an entertainment complex would be better. I would like to see the Wide World of Sports have ESPN move their main offices here and have SportsCenter hosted live from the complex each night, extend the sports complex all the way across World Drive to All Star resorts, have the long forgotten light rail line finally link WWOS to DTD and the resorts, add some sports retail and restaurants, move the ESPNZone over to it. Instead of having a specific team hold the complex together why not bring the world’s most recognized sports brand on property?

Comments are closed.


text:
To Top

U.S. Cellular launching Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 tomorrow

Galaxy Mega 6.3U.S. Cellular will launch the Samsung Galaxy Mega 6.3 through its online store beginning from tomorrow, with store availability slated to begin from September 19. The carrier is charging $149.99 for the smartphone on contract with an instant rebate. U.S. Cellular will only sell the black variant for the time being with no mention of the White variant yet. Samsung announced a new purple variant of the smartphone earlier today.

The Galaxy Mega 6.3 is not your conventional smartphone, so make sure you do your research before thinking of buying the product. Featuring a mammoth 6.3 inch 720p display, the Galaxy Mega 6.3 is a true phablet. We’ve seen the Sony Xperia Z Ultra which also comes in a similar size, but with relatively better internals. The Galaxy Mega 6.3 is a true midrange smartphone with a dual core 1.7 GHz Snapdragon 400 chip, an 8MP camera on the back, Android 4.2.2 Jelly Bean and a 3,200 mAh battery. The smartphone hit AT&T in late August for $149.99, making U.S. Cellular the second carrier to launch the smartphone, with Sprint slated to get it soon.

Via: Android Police

More in Android


text:
View Full Version : Armed Robbery Scenario

December 24, 2007, 10:12 PM
Say you are approached by a fellow who then points a pistol at you and demands all your money. Since he's the guy with the gun, you happily hand over your wallet and anything he asks for.

However, he then moves to give your pockets a quick check to make sure they are empty and somehow then notices (by sight or feel or both) that you may be carrying. At this point, what would you do? He already has his gun out.

What other option do you have other than to hope you have a fast draw? How else can you resolve this situation? What if a complicating factor were to be added (you were walking with your wife for example).

Your feedback is well appreciated.

December 24, 2007, 10:25 PM
I'm not i expert but I would think that I woudnt allow him to get your gun. Therefore you would have to be versed in some sort of close combat defensive techniques to avoid getting shot and retrieve your own weapon quickly.

December 25, 2007, 01:01 AM
This is why anyone interested in being proficient in self defense needs to be competent in hand to hand combat. If that unfortunate scenario comes up where you need to fight tooth and nail, you'd better be ready to do it with and without your firearm.

In the scenario you've described, use that moment of surprise to put the focus onto his gun. Attempt to disarm him with a wrist lock and/or attempt to pry the weapon out of his hand. There are various moves you can do to put yourself between him and his firearm, thus keeping the barrel from pointing at you and keeping yourself in the fight.

IMO, if someone has the drop on you with a firearm at close range, your piece is automatically out of play. By the time you move to grab, make a presentation to target, and fire, the perp has already had PLENTY of time to open up on you. The only true option for me in a scenario where BG has his hands in my pants is to go for his weapon.

December 25, 2007, 01:23 AM

December 25, 2007, 02:42 AM
It is difficult to say. There are many things one can do, but the first thing to consider is are you in enough danger to risk your life further. I have studied various types of martial arts for the past 18 years and have most recently learned the survival rate against a gun. It only takes a fraction of a second to pull a trigger. The only time you should ever try to disarm a gunman is if you have no other alternative. Only if you are sure he is going to kill you.

If he only wants my money or the gun in my pocket, then he can have them. I can always buy a new one. You only have a 50% chance of surviving this scenario.

December 25, 2007, 05:38 AM
Time to preach to the choir! Even the best choir is off key sometimes!
I don't care if anyone or everyone carries a concealed weapon. I don't care if anyone or everyone gets robbed...
That is out of the way, Right? if you get robbed at gun point... YOU LET DOWN YOUR GUARD.
I had a close friend who got held up out side a "gentleman's club", he was telling me the story of how fast it all went down and ended with a "if I had my pistol..." I stopped him right there and said "If you woulda had your pistol you woulda lost it to the thug!"
Yes I agree we could be off guard and lose our piece... But it needs to be a rare occurrence. Either armed with a gun or just our own wits we need to see these things coming. Armed or unarmed (metal weapon) I am not going to be a willing participant in my being robbed... If I am armed I have a duty to society to keep my gun from ending up in the hands of a criminal. I also have made the decision to carry and I put a high level of responsibility on that decision. Awareness is all I have to PREVENT a mugging or strong arm robbery targeted at me from being successful!

December 25, 2007, 05:52 AM
the answer is to throw the wallet in one direction and run away in the other to open the distance between you abd the mugger. If you want to draw once you're behind cover and try to recover your wallet, go for it, but unless you've got something worth risking your life for, leave it to him and break contact with a description. That would also give you the chance to call 911. If he shoots. pursues, or threatens then you can shoot him.

December 25, 2007, 10:08 AM
There are a lot of "if's" involved in every possible response, but I'd likely look for an opening to use my fists because there's little chance I'll draw before he can pull the trigger.

December 25, 2007, 11:13 AM
You are hosed. He clearly has the drop on you! you have no choice at this point. Also if you have handed over every thing you have why would he go through your pockets?? If if if is a big word if you can spell it.

December 25, 2007, 01:26 PM
+1 to ISC

May God bless,

The Tourist
December 25, 2007, 01:48 PM
You are hosed. He clearly has the drop on you!

I agree. No matter if you were, or weren't, in condition white, you are now facing a very serious condition.

To be fair, you don't even know if he was going to silence you as a witness from the git-go.

To paraphrase Jerry Vancook, a bad chance is better than no chance at all. And you are within grappling distance since he's patting you down.

I'd cut him bad, deep and continuously. And I don't mean tweezing a hang-nail. I mean every artery and sinew of his throat, every tendon in his wrist and a few exploratory pokes in his thigh looking for his femoral artery.

No Bruce Lee stuff, either. Go fast, be quick. Every second the fight continues is another moment that exposes you to unknown peril. Hey, if he drops the gun and runs away, terrific. If he struggles, keep cutting until you find the off-switch by dumb luck.

What's that you say? You forgot your knife, too? Man, you really are boned...

December 25, 2007, 02:25 PM
the answer is to throw the wallet in one direction and run away in the other
This is a commonly accepted technique, and fairly good advice, I guess, from my admittedly limited training. However, the crooks have come up to speed on it & I have heard (no direct proof) that there has been an instance where the theif got either nervous or P.O.'d & shot the victim. I've heard it suggested that it's better to fumble with it and drop it as far away as you can, like you swatted to catch it. It gives you less time, but it puts Mr BG out of focus just as well. That is what I've heard, but to put it frankly:
You are hosed.
I earned a black belt in Tae Kwan Do in the early 90's, Now I'm Tae Kwan Slow. Hand to hand is absolute last resort - somewhere after "Look - It's Batman", & giving him a wedgie after he turns to look.

Hard Ball
December 25, 2007, 03:18 PM
"This is why anyone interested in being proficient in self defense needs to be competent in hand to hand combat."

+10 hand to hand skills are the solution to this problem

December 25, 2007, 03:58 PM
As has been said, the BG has the drop on ya. Takes very little time or effort to pull the trigger. It then really comes down to this... and this is hard because you are dealing with unknowns... do you think you will be shot no matter your level of cooperation? Do you think you will be shot if you attempt to run away (after throwing your wallet or not)? Do you think that your skill, strength whatever is awesome enough to beat his simple task of trigger pull while pointing at you? The best move depends on knowing th BG intent, and we really don't know that. You CANNOT go by what they say. Some will threaten to shoot you if you run but would not, others would say they will not shoot if you hand everything over like they ask but intend to shoot you anyway to eliminate you as a witness (or because it makes them feel good about themselves).

If you think that cooperation will buy your safety, then that is the play you should make. If you think you might be dusted no matter what... try to disarm him. It's the best chance you have cuz' he'd shoot you in the back if you ran. But then, maybe if you ran and made a lot of noise he might just want to get away ASAP. So hard to tell.

December 26, 2007, 11:32 AM
I did a bit of training towards disarming a perp with a gun. The pivots, parries, blocks, pressure points, strikes & all that. The techniques were always with the perp less than 5' away. If he has the smarts to stand 8' away, well.... I hope there's a few techniques that include rubber arms.

The Tourist
December 26, 2007, 12:22 PM
If he has the smarts to stand 8' away, well.... I hope there's a few techniques that include rubber arms.

And perhaps we should warn folks a bit more on the various elements of your positions.

For example, a strong young turk with highly defined fighting skills fresh off the boat from Iraq will probably have no trouble with the 21 foot rule.

Then again, I'm 57 years old. And let's be honest here, no Rambo stuff. I'm probably better at, well, cheating. The nice thing about being older is that you have seen every dirty trick in the book. If you're looking for a guy who delivers a poke in the eye and a knife in the groin, I'm your man.

The scenario here depicts "contact distance." This element of the debate always bothers me. Let me explain.

If you fear something, you back up. Have you ever been armed with the latest and greatest pistol, but then surprised by a barking dog.

My guess is that you instinctively crouched and backed up.

To my way of thinking, I guy who makes contact with you does not intrinsically fear you--and that bothers me. I do not intrinsically fear dandelions, so I jerk them out of the ground whenever I see them.

And so it is here. If the aggressor doesn't fear you, then the only threat you are is as a witness. If you're dead...

This is why I refer to Jerry Vancook. I believe scenarios are fluid. If two robbers keep saying, "Take the money and let's go," then they fear being caught worse than you. You might survive by doing nothing.

If I get that hinkie "you're a witness" feeling, then I have nothing to lose by inflicting as much damage as I can.

And like I always say, if there's a working cowboy in your group of victims, hide behind him!

December 26, 2007, 05:52 PM
Don't underestimate the power of a good sucker punch. I use to be very much into aikido type grappeling, joint locks and pressure point strike martial arts. I have also never been in a fight in my entire life but what gives me the most confidence is a pretty simple move that involves feigning fear and a HUGE desire not to get hurt and then throwing a much practiced and very fast punch to either the nose or adams apple and a solid knuckle or elbow hit to the temple will always put the lights out with a quickness. When you appear to be very afraid and unwilling to fight when confronted, the bg will almost always let his guard down. If your in pretty good shape and a decent actor, with some practice you'll find you can go from quivering coward to fist in his face in about the same time it takes to pull the trigger. Learn how to throw a VERY hard punch, much like sd shooting, the power behind it has more to do with speed and placement than power. Of course all things being equal, bigger fists tend to work better.:D

The acting thing can go pretty far in a lot of situations. I had my truck die once in the foulest of neighborhoods. I pulled over in front of your sterotypical crack house and called for help. About two miniuts later two guys came out of the house and knocked on my window. They asked me what I was doing there and made some comment about not liking "crackers" in their "hood". I opened the door, stepped out and said " If you knew why I was here, you wouldn't be talking to me. In fact, in about 20 miniuts, your gonna be hoping that nobody saw you talking to me." Then I looked over to a run down vacant house and knodded. They left without a word.

There is more to it than that, of course. With a gun in your face you have to constantly be acessing the situation. You'd be suprised how many thugs will point a gun at you which is unloaded, unchambered or has the safety on. You can tell at a glance if most modern handguns are ready to fire. Is the loaded chamber indicator out? Safety off? I remember when I was 16 and worked at subway, a guy walked in and pointed a big revolver at the night manager. He new a little about guns and opened the register, pulled out the alarm dollar and proceded to jump over the counter and knock several of the guys teeth out with his own gun. He had seen the empty chamber right to the left of the barrel and then the thug pulled the hammer back and he saw a hollowpoint come out from behind the barrel. Apparently the bg only put one round in the gun, right behind the barrel and didn't realize that the cylinder rotates when you pull the hammer. The hammer was dropped on the empty cylinder when the cops arrived. If a crook pulls out an XD and that giant chamber indicator is down, it's time to draw and savor that split second when he pulls the trigger and nothing happens.

If that gun looks ready to go, you still have the advantage of superior intelect since you haven't chosen a life of crime. If you get the chance to grab for the gun when it moves away from you, wrap your hand around the slide to keep it from cycling. That way his first shot goes into the ground and he'll be clearing a jam while your drawing and firing. With a revolver you have to get the web of your hand on the hammer and don't let go until he's dead or running. Then there's the old trick of a derringer in your wallet with a finger hole for the trigger. Of course most muggers just want the money and if they were going to kill you for being a witness, it would be easiest to shoot you without a word and then take your money.

December 26, 2007, 06:44 PM
Throwing a sucker punch while in the boxing gym or dojo is one thing. Throwing the same punch with death on the line is totally different. Same for shooting under life and death pressure. The answer is to not get caught off guard. If caught comply. If caught and believe you are about to get shot anyway either attack with extreme prejudice (if in contact range) or move as fast as possible (laterally if possible) while accessing your shootin iron.

December 26, 2007, 09:24 PM
I suggested the sucker punch as a last resort if you believe you would be shot anyway, not as an all purpose soloution to someone getting the drop on you. Of course the immediate next step would be to continue to apply said fast and hard punches and/or get out your gun.

December 27, 2007, 06:41 PM
pfch1977--- Read Sticky #5 before you post stuff that is not likely to happen.

IMO, if you are going to post a scenario, it should be from an actual documented event.

Then perhaps we could all learn something

December 27, 2007, 07:21 PM
I agree, hypoyheticals and imaginary scenarios do little to promote anything useful for most of us! I prefer real life experiences to learn from, as opposed to someones dreamland Scenario!!!

Glenn E. Meyer
December 27, 2007, 07:59 PM
ISC strategy - been there done that when I was a kid of 14. Gave the guy money and ran right past him.

December 27, 2007, 10:01 PM
Personally, I also carry a few Poisoned Darts in my mouth, so that if I am ever confronted and can't get to my pistola...
Okay, just kidding, but seriously, hypothetical scenarios go right along with "The Bestest and Most Dangerous Gun/Caliber is...". It really is a matter of personal opinion and circumstance. No real correct answer...although there can me multiple dangerous and perhaps outright wrong answers. Just my bit.

The Tourist
December 27, 2007, 10:40 PM
multiple dangerous and perhaps outright wrong answers

For some aspects of this, I disagree. The scenario wants me to investigate two problem areas of being attacked.

Number one, it appears that condition yellow was not being used, or the good guy failed to heed or recognize warning signs while in yellow.

Number two, we all have lapses. The good part of this scenario would be to discuss options once the attack has begun and you are taken by surprise.

So, now what? Surrender or fight? How do we make the choice? We will be limited to stuff in our pockets and found objects on the ground. Which styles of MA disciplines would be the best for being surprised?

I don't think scenarios are bad. I do think they work the best when we--as a group--take the elements apart and try to figure out how we would save each other.

December 27, 2007, 10:57 PM
Maybe the "what if" scenarios wouldn't be so bad as to have their own warning sticky if people would discuss them if they sounded interesting and stayed away if they felt the need to give the old :rolleyes: and start complaining about their unlikelyness. I see plenty of subjects on TFL that don't intrest me in the least so I stay out of the discussion instead of jumping in and nitpicking. It's not like pfch asked what to do when mugged by a vampire zombie in a post TEOTWAWKI wasteland. If this topic seems to absurd for you then a very mature political discussion can be found in that direction.^

December 28, 2007, 01:08 AM
punching a guy with a gun pointed at you is silly. I am 6'3" 260 and spent my time in the Marines and i would not punch him. if you had to fight a guy with a gun throwing a punch will get you killed!

December 28, 2007, 01:50 AM
If you're a 6'3" Marine and you felt that you were about to be shot by a guy standing right by you, I imagine you would cave his face in at the first oppertunity. If not then perhaps that would be a job for the SEALs.:D

December 29, 2007, 12:02 AM
When you are alone you MIGHT do something. I'm not alone all that often. My wife is with me most of the time. A knee replacement and 50 plus years will not let her run far or fast. I'm not sure what I'll do but it will be over fast...'cause I'm not leaving her side.

The Tourist
December 29, 2007, 03:39 AM
I'm not sure what I'll do

This is why I like to read scenario threads. I don't think the responses you get are directives chiseled in stone. It's advice, food for thought, a different perspective with a fresh pair of eyes.

Everyone has a view and an agenda. I know I have two slants to my agenda.

The first applies here. My belief is that if you quit learning you become a dinosaur. You will turn 'old' in the negative sense of the word. I'm looking forward to the new Gander store they are building right now because that facility will sell handguns. There are many firearms I read about here that I have never seen or handled.

The second aspect of my agenda is to correct your (the editorial "your") views on motorcycles and edged implements. For example, when I tell some citizen I ride customized Harleys, the common response is, "Oh yeah, I saw the movie 'Easy Rider' once..."

The same with knives. Not one person is one hundred knows squat about either choosing a knife or sharpening it. Even fewer know how to take care of one. Even the "knowledge" that is out there comes out of monthly magazines.

And since much of this is the stuff of fairy tales, so is the realistic discussion of knives as it applies to scenarios here in TFL. If you don't know 'jack' about a subject, how can you advise someone on vital information he might need to save his life?

And what if you tell him something that gets him killed?

And that is the real value of scenario forums. I know a little about knives, a gunsmith member knows info on the mechanics of firearms, a war veteran can give us details on how we react to stress, an MA sensei provides training in hand-to-hand fighting and TSR smacks me around in a debate.

With this info, we apply the concepts to safety and security issues in our private lives.


text:
View Single Post
Old September 20, 2008, 08:32 PM   #85
Danny Creasy
Senior Member
Join Date: October 2, 2007
Location: Northwest Alabama
Posts: 230

I want to say something about that 39A. It has a fine Williams receiver sight on it and it is super reliable.

My little 110 pound daughter took a shine to it a few years ago in her early teens and she chose it to compete with in a match we played at that time.

It was called Rapid Fire Rimfire and it consisted of speed shooting strings of animal silhouettes at 25 yards against a stop watch. Of course, the goal was to achive the lowest aggregate time. Semi-autos, pumps, lever actions, and bolt guns all shot against each other and we had worked out a marvelously accurate handicapping procedure for putting the slower actions on a par with the faster actions and we used a similar procedure to equalize scoped and iron sighted rifles.

She cleaned many a seasoned shooters clock with that Marlin 39A. I think some were glad when she went off to college.

Tack driving bench guns? No.

Great handling hunting and plinking rifles? Yes.

Danny Creasy is offline
Page generated in 0.05030 seconds with 7 queries


text:
View Single Post
Old February 12, 2009, 06:24 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 437
martini enfield issues...

well,m i kinda got screwed... i bought a 1919 martini enfield for $200 and thought i got a steal...

the man called later and said it was a "fourage gun" or its the .402 british... he also said about 18" of the bore was smooth.

any ideas?
kwells6 is offline
Page generated in 0.05528 seconds with 7 queries


text:
View Single Post
Old September 24, 2012, 12:12 PM   #10
Wild Bill Bucks
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2005
Location: Southeastern Oklahoma, Next door to Sasquatch
Posts: 1,266
I'm not a user of pellets either, but I have been told that the difference in price is because of the extra steps needed to pressurize the powder into a pellet.
The pellets are equal to 50 grains each by volume, not by weight, so weighing them will never work. It would be the same thing as measuring 100 grains in your powder scoop and weighing it, then loading it again and tapping on the side to pack the powder, then filling it back to the 100 grain line, then weighing. The two measures would weigh different.

I don't like them because I can't fine tune my loads, and my groups suffer between a 2" and 4" group at 100 yards. At the 50 yard line, there seems to be very little difference in my groups, but I loose that at 100 yards.

They are a lot easier to load in a hurry, and if your range is not to far, I guess they would be alright if your pocket book can afford them, but they just aren't for me. In some rifles that I have seen at the range, they seem to shoot very tight groups in some rifles, but I just don't happen to own one of them.
Wild Bill Bucks is offline
Page generated in 0.05091 seconds with 7 queries


text:
View Single Post
Old October 28, 2012, 07:46 PM   #77
Join Date: December 7, 2004
Posts: 69
I haven't worked as a cop in a long time. When I did I carried a S&W 19, but if I had the choice today, I would pick the Glock 23. Moderate size & weight, plus can use mags from other 23s or mod 22s.

But I'm a doc now, so what would I know?
A ship in the harbor is safe but that is not what ships are for.
EastKY_DO is offline
Page generated in 0.04462 seconds with 7 queries


text:
View Single Post
Old December 30, 2012, 06:47 PM   #3
Lost Sheep
Senior Member
Join Date: January 24, 2009
Location: Anchorage Alaska
Posts: 3,218
Tell us more

Thanks for asking our advice.

Tell us more about yourself. What do you shoot? What kind of quantities? What are your goals (long distance accuracy? hunting? casual plinking? Cowboy Action Shooting? Silhouette Shooting? Bowling pin? Bullseye shooting? IDPA?)

The more we know about your hopes for handloading, the better targeted our answers will be.

Lost Sheep
Lost Sheep is offline
Page generated in 0.04505 seconds with 7 queries


text:
The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > The Harley Nolden Memorial Institute for Firearms Research

Thread Tools
Old March 18, 2012, 06:57 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2012
Posts: 115
BBL. modification on 1st Generation Colt SAA

A friend of mine has a Colt SAA 1st Gen. (3 digit serial number). Original 7 1/2"
bbl. was shortened by gunsmith to 5 1/2" back in 1942 when he bought it in North Dakota. Blueing, case coloring & wear would grade at 98% -for a modern firearm. Original stag grips that do show slight shrinkage. Front sight was replaced and you do recognize it as such. Any ideas how much this modification damaged the price? Any idea as to value at present? Authenticity is not in question.
wizrd is offline
Old March 18, 2012, 08:27 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: September 8, 2007
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 12,087
Stag grips are not original. That and the chopped barrel will most likely cut two thirds of the value off of it.
Hawg is offline
Old March 18, 2012, 09:51 PM   #3
James K
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 21,468
Most of the early guns went to the Army contract. Check to see if that gun is marked "U.S." on the left side. If it is, it is possible that the barrel was chopped, not by a gunsmith but by Colt under a contract for the Army; those guns, called "Artillery Models" are highly collectible. We need more information and if possible pictures.

Jim K
James K is offline
Old March 19, 2012, 09:37 AM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2012
Posts: 115
Owner of this gun had the bbl. shortened himself by the gunsmith. He purchased it for $ 150.00 in early 1940's. It must have one time went back to the factory for the grips. Will check on markings & try to get some pictures. Thanks for the input guys.
wizrd is offline

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07453 seconds with 9 queries


text:
The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The North Corral > Competition Shooting

Thread Tools
Old May 2, 2012, 01:17 PM   #1
Senior Member
Join Date: April 9, 2008
Posts: 972
Gopher Rifle and Revolver Club, Harris, MN

Would like to become a member but need a sponser. Anyone care to sponser a guy?
mnhntr is offline

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2015 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.04218 seconds with 9 queries