Jalopnik

I think you just answered your own question. Google makes buckets of cash selling people's personal info and browsing habits. I'm not going to make selling mine any easier for them. I was perfectly happy to use their services before they started insisting that I trade my personal information for the ability to tailor their services to my needs.

You miss my point. First, YouTube IDs don't work without a Google ID anymore (I was forced to either delete mine or create a Google ID to associate it with over two years ago). Second, search preferences are completely reset to default every time you close your browser, unless you have and are logged in with a Google ID. It takes a crapload of clicks every browser session to A) disable Safe Search, B) set number of results per page to anything other than ten and C) set results to open in a new window (tab). Perhaps this isn't the exact issue the author of this post refers to, but it's still a very important consideration in deciding which search engine to use.

I can change my browser's default search engine with two clicks. Creating a Google ID (that I don't want) takes a lot more than that, as does changing my search preferences every time I go to Google in a new browser session (these settings are no longer persistent unless you're logged in with a Google ID).

I quit using Google when I noticed that my search preferences were reset to default every time I closed my browser (after many happy years of them being stored on a cookie). It turns out that if you want your preferences saved, you must A) create a Google ID and B) be logged in when you're using the search. Yahoo search does the same thing now, but since I already have three Yahoo IDs (and am almost always logged in on one of them), it's no big deal.

They're random. Sometimes there will be three of them among the six links on the right, sometimes none.

Wow. You give me credit for a lot of things I never said. Respect? A) You have none. B) I never disrespected you. I simply corrected something you said that was incorrect. You made up the rest in your little butthurt imagination.

Oh, yeah. Remember this "You're not gettin' it. Anything further is just wasted time."? I should have known it was a bluff, since you went on spewing your irrelevant vitriol for six more paragraphs in the same comment. See also [fishbowl.pastiche.org]

You were told wrong. The current comment system has been around since (IIRC) 2009 (when the "jerk with a bad attitude and a big mouth" brigade started rolling in). Anyof your posts in this thread would have gotten you banhammered back then. Pity it's only used on people who criticize the site these days.

"Then again if it was nothing but you asshole posting before I got here, I'm glad I missed that 'cause I probably wouldn't have hung around."

Comedy gold, right there. Especially coming from a self-professed jerk with a bad attitude and a big mouth". What cause have I given you to label me "asshole"? It couldn't be anything I said, so it must stem from the fact that I corrected you.

You are a perfect example of why I hardly ever come here anymore. You are (by your own admission) "a jerk with a bad attitude and a big mouth", you would have been banhammered in a heartbeat back in the day. Did you bother to click the second link in the post you replied to? If so, did you learn anything from it?

I was so prepared to start this comment off with a whole lot of "bro, jalopnik is free" and "chill out bro", then i realized i wasn't a douche bag and i don't use the term bro.

And I said what that this would be an appropriate reply to? I was simply pointing out that the comment history in our profiles is incomplete at best. I never said anything about the admittedly dodgy practice of hiding ad links in what look like article links. Especially dodgy since the links move around (IE the ebay link is not always hidden under the same picture).

This site goes back to 2005. Thanks for playing, though! [jalopnik.com]

If you check my profile, the comments go back to 2, but here's one from 2006 (and I remember commenting earlier than that, but can't recall the article). [jalopnik.com]

Fun fact: in 2005, when I first became a commenter, you had to be invited by one of the editorial staff. My invite came from The Postfather (Mike Spinelli) himself. After that, one had to apply for commenter status. Now, any moke with a keyboard can be a commenter and the rules that used to be pretty rigidly enforced have gone by the wayside. [jalopnik.com] This used to be required reading.

Well, since the Land Rover prototype was built on a Jeep frame, I think it's a no-brainer.

Does anybody remember "Real Men Don't Eat Quiche"? I said it then, and I'll say it now "Real Men Eat Whatever They Want". Same goes for beer. I may impugn your taste for drinking crappy generic light beer (this includes Miller Lite, for the record), but at the same time, I will respect you for drinking what you want instead of what somebody tells you you should want. Hell, somebody has to like that crap or they wouldn't sell so much of it.

Everybody dismissed Mike as "That Nutty AMC Guy" until the Pacer and Gremlin Alliance successfully took over the world. Now they call him "Mr. the Dog".

@F1_nothing_else_matters: Any asshole can make a sign absolving themselves of responsibility for circumstances within their control. These signs do not actually absolve said assholes of legal responsibility, however. (IE: Putting up a sign saying "Trespassers Will Be Shot" does not make it legal to shoot trespassers). The dealer had the man's car in custody (IE: He was not free to go in and pick it up at any time, as would be the case in the highly disingenuous examples you provided) in an allegedly controlled-access lot. The dealership (probably, IANAL) has a legal responsibility for its security, they definitely have a moral responsibility. The bad PR will cost the dealership well more than the $500 they were asked to pay, in the long run.

Congratulations, Murilee. May you and Saucy Minx® number two have a happy and productive marriage!

@tomic: I've seen that page before. It's one of the first I found when researching my own '63 American. Great little car!

@ferric oxide: Power steering? Trust me, you won't need it unless you're planning to put a smaller steering wheel in.

@TheSwagger: If you're dead set on using the 4.0, pick a later Rambler. The '63 American would require firewall surgery or removal of the forward crossbrace (not a good idea) to get it in there.

@sirbasilfawlty: A Jeep 4.0 won't fit in a '63 American without major surgery. The 196 which is a few inches shorter fore and aft is a fairly tight fit as it is.

Mike the Dog