SVX Network Forums Live Chat! SVX or Subaru Links Old Lockers Photo Post How-To Documents Message Archive SVX Shop Search |
IRC users: |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Intresting info, but as you stated, Duyera failed to exsist as a viable manufactorer and produced a mere 13 cars. The Autocar was a nice history, but the White-Autocar group absorbed a company that started out making passenger cars before turning to large commercial trucks. I could give you a hint, but it would be to easy. Keep trying. I know you are close.
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Granted that men don't watch as much soap opera on TV, but they often make up for it by watching sports related shows. Of course, when speaking of statistics and generalities, there are always exceptions. A girl in my highschool didn't have any TV in her house at all. I was actually just talking about North Americans in general. Male or female, people in North America watch quite a bit of TV, be it soap operas or sports related shows, or even documentaries. Is it time wasted? Only if you consider time spent on entertainment a waste. Is it productive? Depends on whether you learn something that you can apply in some area of your life afterwards. I've spent some extremely productive time at parties with a glass of wine in my hand, resulting in either new paying projects or new people networks that have come in handy afterwards. For others, these sorts of get-togethers are a boring waste of time. It all depends on your perspective. For my mother right now, those soap operas are a blessing. She's lying in bed in a rehab centre with little to do so they keep her occupied and give her something to discuss with her neighbours. She's also watching Dr. Phil and Oprah almost daily, and I don't see it as a waste of time. I'm not a big fan of Romance Novels, but I enjoy good sci-fi/fantasy which isn't really all that different. Reading for pleasure could also be considered a waste of time. In that case I'm guilty as charged. Hmm.... we should start a poll, asking folks here about their general occupation. We could use your categories as the choices, and see what results |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Perhaps you'd like to rephrase your question? |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
There is debate to who was first but the company I'm thinking off went on to become at one point the #3 auto label in the country behind Chevrolet and ford. Here is a hint. Not the easier one. It started licened production in 1897.
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
First American Auto company. Name the man, and the second car line he started that eventually turned to heavy trucks before being bought up by White-Autocar? Started licensed production in 1897. Third behind Chevrolet and Ford. Not the easier one. You’ll note that in my earlier assumptions, I specified gasoline powered vehicles. If I were to expand to steam powered and electric, then there are earlier companies than Duryea. The first man who comes to my mind is Ransom E. Olds. I discounted him immediately the last time, because he doesn’t actually fit your specified requirements. It was his third company, REO, which was sold in 1954 to the Bohn Aluminum and Brass Company of Detroit, which later in 1957 became a part of White Motor Company. Olds’ first company, the Olds Motor Works, was created in 1891. It actually sold and exported a four-wheeled steam-powered vehicle to India in 1893. His second company was the well-known Olds Motor Vehicle Company, formed in 1897, and later bought in 1908 by General Motors. He didn’t stay long, but left the company and created REO in August, 1904. Oldsmobile was actually ranked for a short time not in third, but in first spot as the top seller of American cars. REO never made it higher than 4th spot. So…. It can’t be Ransom Olds… what other possible answers are there? We can instead work backwards from your clue of the White Autocar. The White Motor Company first started as a department of White Sewing Machine company. The sons of the founder began producing bicycles and steam powered cars and later split off in 1906 and formed a new separate auto company.. In 1910 they switched from steam to gasoline cars. They were briefly merged with Studebaker but that that came apart quickly. They acquired the The Indiana Truck Corp. of Marion, Indiana from Brockway Motor Truck Company in 1932. After WWII, White decided to concentrate on heavy trucks, and bought up several smaller companies: Sterling (bought in 1951), Autocar (also 1951), Reo (1957), and Diamond T (1958). Well, we already know it can’t be REO. It also can't be the Pittsburgh Motor Vehicle Company (later renamed Autocar). So that leaves Indiana, Sterling and Diamond T. Indiana Truck has its roots in the Marion Iron and Brass Bed Company which was started in 1898 by partners George C. Harwood and Charles G. Barley. They started producing trucks in 1910. That obviously doesn’t fit the bill. Sterling Motor Trust Co was originally formed in 1907 by William Sternberg as the Sternberg Motor Truck Co. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. He changed the name in 1916 due to fear of anti-German feelings We can strike that off the list as not being around in 1897. Diamond T Motor Car Co started up officially in 1919. Cars were actually produced from 1905 onwards by Charles A. Tilt in his father’s shoe factory. In 1911 he started producing trucks. Again, this can’t be what we’re looking for. Okay then. I must be missing something. You’ve stumped me. Last edited by Bipa; 04-14-2006 at 07:52 PM. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Bipa, I'm not gonna challenge you but you're so good at making full use of Internet on searching for information and research. What was your major? Do you learn the trick on searching info by yourself?
__________________
-SSSVX 92 LS-L TEAL since Aug '01 92 LS-L YELLOW since Mar '05 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
To be honest, I started learning the trick of searching for information way back in Grade 3. The school librarian would set up these "scavenger hunts" and we'd try to find whatever was on the list. The list was made up usually of questions and we had to document how we used the card catalogue to lead us to our info. Even if we got the answer wrong, partial points were awarded for the actual search itself. Uhh.... this was in the age of B.C. (before computers) when you had to actually search for stuff in drawers full of little cardboard cards, a bit like recipe cards. If anything, it honed our cross-referencing skills and taught us the basics of how to search. Ever since, I've merely been refining those old first lessons. Whether an actual paper card catalogue, microfiche or computer-based search engine like , the technique is the same. You start with a few key words which then keep leading you onwards, hopefully towards your goal and not to a dead-end. It also helps if you already have a passing acquaintance with the subject matter. The trick on the internet is first of all to try and stick with reputable sources. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Some of it is as a result of honest mistakes, but others want to mislead by giving out only partial info, or else taking something out of context and twisting it totally out of perspective so that the meaning is completely changed. That's one of the main reasons why I usually try to find several sources for a fact before I feel confident enough that I have correct data. And if three different web sites have duplicates of the same article then it only counts as one! If you're interested, I did once post a rough example of how I search for information. You'll find it here. Here's something interesting for people to look up if they want to practice their search skills. Everyone knows (or should! ) that there are still ongoing territorial disputes between Canada and the USA. Recently a dispute between Canada and another country broke out into public awareness. Name the country (not USA) and the area being claimed by both Canada and this other. I'll even give you a hint. It isn't France, which still has possession of several islands off the coast of Canada just south of Newfoundland. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
INDEPTH: IT'S A FINE LINE Disputing boundaries CBC News Online | Oct. 11, 2005 As far as border disputes go, this one’s pretty lame. No green line separating antagonists, no Demilitarized Zones and no patriots dashing past guard posts to plant flags in a desperate attempt to reclaim land seized by invading armies. Yet, every once in a while, someone will stop by a frozen hunk of rock about 1,100 kilometres south of the North Pole between Greenland and Ellesmere Island and leave either a Canadian or Danish flag and bury either a bottle of rye or a bottle of brandy – and claim the 1.3-square-kilometre Hans Island for either Canada or Denmark. In mid-July 2005, Defence Minister Bill Graham stopped by Hans Island to keep the ritual going. "Our view is that it's part of Canada and we continue to be there, to go there, the Danes go there as well and we are making sure that the Danes know that this is part of the Canadian territory," Graham said after he had safely returned from his excursion. He had taken a few hours out of his visit to a Canadian military base on the northern tip of Ellesmere Island to bring Hans Island back into the Canadian fold. “It’s a part of Canada. I’m really glad I went there,” Graham told CBC News. The Danes were not amused and let Canada’s officials in Copenhagen know about it. But there will be no Viking invasion. Peter Taksoe-Jensen, speaking for Denmark's Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Copenhagen, says for years Canada and Denmark have agreed to disagree over the island and he sees it as a friendly dispute. "Basically we have reacted because we want to keep the status quo ... if we didn't react to a situation we would risk to have a worse negotiating position." The dispute dates back to 1973. Canada and Denmark agreed to create a border through Nares Strait, halfway between Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory, and Canada's Ellesmere Island. But they couldn’t agree which country would control the real estate on Hans Island and various other Arctic islands in the area. They decided to deal with that issue later. Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister, Pierre Pettigrew, and his Danish counterpart, Per Stig Moller met in New York on Sept. 19, 2005 and agreed on a process to resolve the dispute. After the meeting, Pettigrew reiterated that Canada has sovereignty over Hans Island. Canadian Forces troops raise the Maple Leaf on Hans Island on July 13, 2005. (CP Photo/DND/Cpl David McCord) Considering the length of Canada’s international borders, there are very few disputes keeping diplomats busy these days. Dan Last edited by intelisevil; 04-15-2006 at 03:23 AM. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Sheesh.... and here I was about to write that to the best of my knowledge there is no dispute between Russia and Canada
yeah.... you got it! (nice edit there ) |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Actually, I had found an article about a dispute over the line of demarcation between the Alaska and Canada border that had been caused by some old Russian maps (Seward's Folly). After I reread the article I decided it wasn't what you were looking for, not recent enough.
Dan |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
It was Olds. Nice work. The highest ranking I found for Olds was #3. Chevrolet has the most years in #1 since it's inception in 1919 or 1920. Here's an easy one, Pontiac was actually the companion car to what GM make? Cadillac had LaSalle, Olds had Viking, and this company had Pontiac.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Many people are surprised when they first hear that there are still five areas where the border isn't totally clear between Canada and the USA. Mostly we've just agreed to disagree for the time being and left any resolution for some unspecified future date. I am now having some serious territorial disputes with flies. Ugghh! The warmer weather is bringing them all out and I haven't washed my windows and put up fly screens yet. Gotta move that up to the top of my list or I'll go crazy. At least I've found my fly swatter |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
I remember from High School, 54'40 or fight. I think that was the settlement of the nice straight line over Montana, North Dakota, Idaho, and Washington.
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
425 produced in 1901 when it was introduced. Depending on sources, between 2,100 and 2,500 were produced in 1902 The 1903 Model R curved dash was the number one selling car in the United States with 4,000 produced. 5,000 were built in 1904. "The Pontiac brand was introduced by General Motors in 1926 as the 'companion' marque to GM's Oakland Motor Car line." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontiac |
|
|