The selection for this year’s Kelley Blue Book’s (kbb.com) “Top Ten Best New Road Trip Vehicles” has been announced yesterday. Automotive specialists and a panel of editors from Kelley Blue Book’s kbb.com named the 2009 Ford Flex one of its “Top Ten Best New Road Trip Vehicles.”
“The functionality, cargo capacity and interior space of the Ford Flex coupled with its high feature set make it a pretty ideal cross-country commuting vehicle. It’s the kind of vehicle that you could put lots and lots of miles on in a day and then not feel fatigued in at the end,” says Micah Muzio, road test editor, Kelley Blue Book’s kbb.com.
According to Muzio, the kbb.com editors assessed all substantial and insubstantial characteristics that would improve any long drive experience such as driving satisfaction, passenger convenience, cargo room and fuel economy. These were the grounds in selecting this year’s group of “Best New Road Trip Vehicles.”
“We tried to cover the range from the highly aspirational ‘money is no object’ vehicles to the more realistic options, which may involve a family or a couple heading out for a vacation,” he said.
Whether it’s a group of people or a person traveling alone, Flex Marketing Manager Catherine Pearce says Ford’s newest crossover will provide an enjoyable trip.
“Flex offers unparalleled space, an expansive view and amenities not available anywhere else, and we’re delighted that the editors of Kelley Blue Book’s kbb.com chose to recognize Flex in their exclusive list,” she said.
The all-new 2009 Flex with its dazzling auto parts which is set to hit Ford dealerships this summer, has already earned a bunch of awareness for its distinctive box-like design with signature side grooves, all-black greenhouse and distinctive multi-panel Vista Roof™. Flex offers astonishing cargo space and comfort for up to seven passengers inside. It also provides wide, capacious seats and high-quality head room and leg room in all three rows along with several striking auto parts. According to Flex Chief Designer Richard Gresens, the Flex generates an environment on parity with the best modes of transportation.
Furthermore, one of the best features that impressed the kbb.com editors was Flex’s Vista Roof™ according to Muzio.
“Everything about the new Ford Flex renews my faith in transportation,” he said. “Flex reclaims our right as passengers to move in style and comfort.”
“The sunroof makes the vehicle seem even roomier,” he said. “Also, each of the roof panels as its own sun visor, so that if a person on the right side wants sun and a person on the left side doesn’t, that’s something that the passengers can control themselves.”
The small matter of who is going be next England manager is being discussed the length and breadth of the country so I figured I would give my 50 cents on the subject.
I have never been that much of an admirer of Sven and his actions since he has been in the job have not impressed me one bit. His talks with Chelsea were an absolute disgrace and his subsequent affairs have diverted attention away from the main failings of his term, which for me have been his tactical incompetence in crucial games.
Most notably the games against Brazil in 2002 and France and then Portugal in 2004, taking the Brazil game first. England went one nil up and looked comfortable until a lack of concentration in defence allowed Brazil to equalise just before half time, and then go ahead though a fluke goal from Ronaldinho who then got himself sent off in a rather calamitous fashion. After this England had the numerical advantage to go all out and attack a Brazilian defence that is clearly not their strongest area. Yet for some reason we did not create a single worthwhile attempt on goal after the Ronaldinho dismissal.
Eriksson has since claimed that he felt that players were fatigued after a long season, during which they did not have a break. Could it not have anything to do with Eriksson insistence on picking a clearly unfit David Beckham, which meant England were not at their attacking best? Moving onto the France and Portugal games, Eriksson tactical failings were again evident. Against France, England opened the scoring and looked a superb team who could score at any time, but then something changed and we retreated and defended deeper and deeper allowing France to take control of the game and eventually go on to win the game. Of course England did have chances to wrap up the win against France long before France could have got back into the game, the penalty miss being the obvious one. Against Portugal, though this was not the case after going one up against the host nation and seeing Wayne Rooney depart, England had no attacking ability whatsoever. Sven looked as jaded as his players and once again the excuse of fatigue was used.
Despite this, I do actually believe that England have an excellent chance of winning the World Cup. We now posses a core of world class players, in Lampard, Gerrard, Owen and Rooney. Our defence however is clearly the weakest link, only Terry, Carragher and King are in any sort of form amongst the main central defenders, but Eriksson seems reluctant to play King or Carragher ahead of Ferdinand.
Moving onto who should succeed Sven Goran Eriksson, I feel, that despite my criticism of Sven, another foreign coach should not be ruled out.
Looking at the main contenders we have seen the following managers named mentioned.
Sam Allardyce is the favourite amongst the bookies, but I feel that his style of football is not attractive enough for the England job. Do we really want to see England turned into an effective yet dull team? Would Kevin Davies be drafted into the team? I hope not.
Alan Curbishley, for me, does not have the right credentials for the job. Whilst he has done a brilliant job at Charlton and established them as a Premiership team, does no else feel that the frequent blips in form that Charlton go through each season after they achieve their goal of safety suggest that Curbs not have the necessary motivational skills?
Steve Bruce is another Englishman linked with the job but surely his record of walking out on clubs in times of trouble should rule him out.
Martin O’Neill is surely the fans and pundits favourite, he has anything you could want in a manager, tactical skills, motivational skills and respect amongst the players. The fact that he is from Northern Ireland should not rule him out, the fact that he is still caring for wife who is suffering from ill health may mean that he will not take the job.
Steve McClaren once seemed to be the obvious choice for the England manager’s job. But the recent demise of Middlesboro has all but ruled him out. When boro fans ironically sing “McClaren for England” you know he is not a popular choice.
Gus Hiddink is the leading foreign coach to be linked with the job and has all the right attributes for the job, but he is also the manager of PSV. Would he give that up for England remains to be seen?
And now onto my final candidate for the England job…………………….. Stuart Pearce. ‘Psycho’ is enjoying an excellent spell in charge of Manchester City winning plaudits from fans and commentators alike. His man management is second to none; tactically Peace seems to know his stuff and he surely garners the respect of England players and fans. Some people feel that Peace is not experienced for the job, but I feel that England could follow the lead of other European nations and appoint a so called ‘novice’ to the job, Holland have Marco Van Basten and Germany Jürgen Klinsmann had no coaching experience before they took on the role of the national team managers, Both Klinnsman and Van Basten have both done solid jobs and they are among the favourites for the World Cup.
Leave a comment on this article from focus on football.
An article by Michael Cotton who writes articles for Focus on football - Football news and articles from the fans.
Things have changed quite a bit from when I started in the film & video business in 1988. Back then, many corporate programmes were still shot and edited on film. Video shooting was on "plain Jane", non-SP, analogue Betacam. Video editing was on Low Band U-Matic - a process that required copious notes to be taken and a day or two of writing all the timecode numbers down for the (linear) on-line edit. Mastering was on bulky one-inch reel to reel video, that was so sensitive to magnetic fields, it couldn't be taken on a London tube train. Distribution was either on Low Band U-Matic, Betamax (remember that?), or VHS.
Today, seventeen years later, the much heralded digital age is upon us. You can shoot on DV, edit on Avid, and burn the result onto DVD without a moment's thought or any loss of quality. The only stage of the process that has remained more or less the same is the final one: delivery of the programme to the viewer. Be it by post, Fed-Ex, or motorcycle courier, someone has to take a copy of your finished programme, transport it to where your viewer is going to see it, and then play it on specialised equipment. If your programme has to cross borders into another country, chances are you'll have to have special copies made to conform to that country's TV standard, and the customer will have to pay a hefty customs charge as well.
The Internet provides a solution to this problem and is, in my view, the perfect medium for the distribution of corporate videos, for companies large and small. Broadband/ ADSL Internet access is rapidly becoming the norm. Around 80% of the UK now has the capability to access Broadband (source: The Guardian) and the figure is higher for some other countries. Here are a few examples of ways this technology can be utilised:
Let's say you run a small or medium sized company and have made a promotional video to show to potential clients. You can easily stream this from your website. If you don't want your competition to see your video (and you cannot guarantee a DVD won't fall into the "wrong" hands), you can password protect that part of the website and make access by invitation only. You could also stream a commercial from your website for the whole world to see - not just people in your local TV area. You could even tie it in to your print advertising, so people would want to visit your site and see your commercial. That certainly beats them getting up to go to the bathroom when your commercial is showing on TV, or fast forwarding it if they've videoed the programme its being shown in! There's so much video content of this nature being shown on the web now, Yahoo! has devoted a large area of their search engine to it. Visit Yahoo!, click on the "video" tab and type in "commercial" to see what I mean.
If you run a large company or have staff in more than one place, then video streaming becomes a real boon. In addition to the options available to small businesses, you can use it for corporate communications. You can show the same video to employees in different locations, cities, time zones, or even countries. Apart from converting your video into the correct format (more on that subject later), and having your webmaster upload it to your webspace, the actual costs are practically nothing - and there's definitely nothing for the tax man to get his teeth into! Your video can cross boarders without having to incur customs charges, and standards conversion becomes a thing of the past.
Getting your training message across also becomes much easier. Employees can watch the video from their computer screens. Add some "interactivity" to the mix, and you can build a training session tailored for each employee. If you're on a network, you can do this via your company intranet as well as over the web.
With live streaming, one trainer can train several people at the same time, even if they are in different parts of the world. This is particularly useful for medical training. A surgeon can demonstrate a particular technique from a sterile environment, without the operating theatre having to be filled with students. The entire process can also be recorded on video for viewing later.
There are many formats available for digital video, and careful research is necessary to select the most appropriate one. The most popular formats are:
Macromedia Flash (swf)
Microsoft Video (avi)
Motion Picture Experts Group (mpeg)
Quick Time (mov)
Real Media (rm)
Windows Media (wmv)
Streaming video does not quite compare to what viewers are used to seeing on broadcast TV or DVD. The most obvious difference being the optimum screen size is much smaller. Under ideal conditions, streaming video can be clear and continuous, but the latest technology must be used to create, send and receive the video or the results can be unsatisfactory; however, that said, the sort of picture one would see when seated directly in front of the computer monitor is not dissimilar from that seen on a 14" portable TV viewed from 10 feet or so away.
Because of the smaller screen size, it's best to avoid any complicated graphics or DVE moves in a streamed video, although still frame graphics can always be shown on the website alongside the video.
There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about streaming video. Some of the most common questions I get asked are:
"Don't I need a special website for streaming video?" No, you don't. Because the files are large, most free sites won't host them, but ordinary sites will. I have over five hours of streaming video on my LearnPhotoshopFast website, and it's just an ordinary one. Some web hosting companies do charge you extra if you have live streaming video on a continuous basis, but this is usually to cover the extra bandwidth.
"Ah, bandwidth. I'll bet it uses a lot. Won't that cost a fortune?" This is sort of true. Video files are large, but they are just binary files. Downloading large files - be they video or software - does use up a lot of bandwidth. However, video streaming formats are especially designed to keep file sizes as small as possible. Bandwidth isn't all that expensive these days anyway, and many web hosting packages come with a monthly allocation of 50 - 100 gigabytes, which is more than adequate for most applications.
"Some people who want to see my videos have Windows PCs, while others have Macs. Won't that be a problem?" No. Most streaming formats are compatible with multiple operating systems, and even specific manufacturer's formats like Microsoft's Windows Media, and Apple's Quick Time, have versions that can be used by "the competition".
"Is streaming video any good on a dial-up connection?" It's true that streaming video works best via Broadband. The best option is to offer the alternative of downloading the video file as well as streaming it; that way, someone on a dial-up can download the file and watch it from his/her hard drive.
Video streaming can add a whole new dimension to your corporate video, be it for training, communications, or marketing. It's just like having your own cable-TV channel - only considerably cheaper.
Shaun Pearce is a writer and video maker. Read his bio. at http://www.shaunpearce.co.uk?=art00 His latest production, Photoshop Master, is a series of training videos for Adobe Photoshop and can be viewed via Internet video streaming from http://www.learnphotoshopfast.com/info.html?=art00
Article Source: ezinearticles.com|
|