I would like to embed a video!
No particular reason, really.
-
Cosmic Variance is a group blog by people who, coincidentally or not, all happen to be physicists and astrophysicists:
Our day (and night) jobs notwithstanding, the blog is about whatever we find interesting — science, to be sure, but also arts, politics, culture, technology, academia, and miscellaneous trivia. We have similar outlooks on many things, widely disparate opinions about others, and will do our best to keep the discourse reasonably elevated.
Site Meter
Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.
Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us
August 31st, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Ah Sean, under that PC exterior there beats the heart of a true CO2 fiend! Yay!! There is nothing, absolutely nothing like putting your foot down and being compressed into the driver’s seat by 300 hp. Right Sean?
August 31st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
BMW: businessman’s car
Porsche: overcompensating stockbroker’s car
Aston, Ferrari, Maserati: ultra-masculine sports cars
Jaguar: ultra-feminine sports car
sorry, dude, those are just the standard brand associations there…
Jaguar has always been the one that focused on the comfy ride rather than raw power or handling, for the past 50 years. It’s fair enough. Women are half the world.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Coincidentally, I just finished watching the latest Top Gear episodes on BBC America, in which that particular Jaguar was reviled as “not cool” because it was large enough to fit a bag of golf clubs.
Now THIS is a car:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_rdJli24mvk
The car about which they said, “If you crash backwards through the Pearly Gates in a fireball, that’s a cool way to die!”
August 31st, 2007 at 11:18 pm
This video is better….
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ktU5om6sXtw
August 31st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Ah, so you did it! I saw this episode also. Enjoy!
August 31st, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I’m a newly converted fan of Jeremy’s, and TOP GEAR… just because I’m such a sucker for cheeky Brit irreverance.
September 1st, 2007 at 3:38 am
Why is there something in this article rather than nothing?
September 1st, 2007 at 9:43 am
Maybe it’s a coincidence, maybe Sean wants to tease Peter Woit, who has just commented that More and more blogs have postings that largely consist of youtube or other sources of video. The few times I’ve clicked on the things I’ve always regretted it, cursing the blog owner for not just putting in words the point they thought people would be interested in. – here is a case in point: why should I watch a video that seems to be an advertisements for cars? Is there anything special about it? Some hint may be helpful, I don’t get it…
September 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Stefan,
I’m with you. Not being a “car guy” I just don’t get it. I’m perfectly happy with my 4 cyl 1998 suzuki sidekick that can barely hit 75.
Elliot
September 1st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
I don’t get it either. With fossil fuel depletion presenting a tremendous looming challenge to our civilization over the coming decades, Cosmic Variance gives us a paean to the gratuitous waste of those fuels. For “no particular reason”.
Extremely inapproriate. In that regard (to put it in terms Sean will understand) it reminded me of this post.
If you must put in a car video, why not this one?
September 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I was equally surprised that this was now a standard future on wordpress. One of these days I’m going to make a post with a lot of LaTeX in it. Just because I can
September 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pm
… well, I only looked the first minute or so. sorry, the video quality hurts my eyes, and without any good reason why I’m not patient enough to watch all of it. In cases somebody makes it through and figures out whether maybe Sean makes an appearance in that clip let me know. Otoh, maybe the the question is not “If you must put in a car video, why not this one?” but “If you must come up with a blog post, why not put in a video?” (Okay, I know I am guilty of that as well, see the Honda ad in this post)
September 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I am sick with jealousy, Sean. Glad you got this instead of the BMW, which I’ve always thought of as sheer Yuppie porn. A Jag, however, has class. I turned up the sound just to hear it purr.
September 1st, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Jaguar 2008 XK Convertible starting from $81,500 (300 HP)
EPA fuel economy 16 city/25 highway
0-60 in 6 seconds
Curb weight 3759 lbs
12.5 lbs/HP
Jaguar 2008 XKR Convertible starting from $92,700 (420 HP)
EPA fuel economy 15 city/23 highway
0-60 in 5 seconds
Curb weight 3814 lbs
9.1 lbs/HP
September 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Our other car’s a Prius:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdBVwwRgThU
September 1st, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Im going to go with Geoff Arnold, that is the best Top Gear ever.
September 1st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Oh, now I get it: you bought one! My intention wasn’t to criticize a personal buying decision, which we all make all the time, and usually without fossil-fuel use as an important criterion. But future circumstances may change that for us whether we like it or not …
September 1st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Yes, we are now the happy owners of a 2004 XK8 convertible (not precisely the new XKR shown in the video). But also, the clip from Top Gear was intrinsically entertaining. And I can’t yet afford a Tesla.
Those who are unmoved by the car and/or the video are, as always where aesthetics are concerned, entitled to their own judgments, however misguided they may be.
September 2nd, 2007 at 3:05 am
A Prius and a Jaguar together will emit more CO2 than a Jaguar alone…
Besides, a hybrid car only reduces CO2 emission in the city. On the highway, where there is no braking and the ICE operates under optimal conditions, the electrical engine is just dead weight.
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:58 am
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Jaguar2004.shtml
2004 Jaguar XK8 convertible: 16 (city) and 24 (highway) miles per gallon.
For comparison, a random normal car:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20812.shtml
2005 Volkswagen Jetta: 28 (city) and 39 (highway) miles per gallon
About 1.6 times more efficient.
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:16 am
Its OK, it is a beautiful car, and you can cut back on heating/cooling the house or on flying to make up for the CO^2
September 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 am
Obviously Thomas Larsson has never driven on the highways in LA.
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:24 am
Sean, hate to break it to you, but once you’re blessed with a little Sean or Seanette, you’re gotta have to trade in that XK8 of yours for a more family-oriented vehicle.
September 2nd, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Cynthia,
That’s a big assumption on more than one count.
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Plenty of room in the boot for the little squealers.
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 am
I really liked the background music in the video. Does anyone know who the artist are
September 4th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Who cares about the CO2 output? It’s not the cause of Global Warming..
Depletion of fossil fuel is an issue, but as it’ll all be gone someday, what does it matter if that’s 50 or 250 years away?
September 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Wait. Sean’s having kids?
I’ll feed your cat, but I’m drawing the line at kids.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:10 am
OK, now I’ve also got it … and Top Gear is a BBC television series, I should have known …
Have fun with the Jaguar, even though it might not be a totally politically correct car
September 8th, 2007 at 10:05 am
From the point of view of Buddhist or Hindu philosophy, the danger of a possession is if it becomes part of your self-definition; i.e., if your self-image is tied in any way to the car you drive, then you are in trouble.