Dumbest Inventions EVER

# Item - Why
1 The Spork - Lets take a spoon, replace the smooth end that you can scoop out gravy, mashed potatoes etc... with and replace it with tiny tines too short and weak to actually stab and pick up anything with. Not a spoon or a fork and not good at either.

Same as an SUV. You take a well engineered hatchback, pump up the body, raise the centre of gravity, and make it heavier; but you don't give it a dual range gearbox, or 4WD, or off road tyres. End result is a slower and thirstier vehicle that you can't take off road.

MAD-4A wrote:# Item - Why
1 The Spork - Lets take a spoon, replace the smooth end that you can scoop out gravy, mashed potatoes etc... with and replace it with tiny tines too short and weak to actually stab and pick up anything with. Not a spoon or a fork and not good at either.

Daryl wrote:Same as an SUV. You take a well engineered hatchback, pump up the body, raise the centre of gravity, and make it heavier; but you don't give it a dual range gearbox, or 4WD, or off road tyres. End result is a slower and thirstier vehicle that you can't take off road.

MAD-4A wrote:# Item - Why
1 The Spork - Lets take a spoon, replace the smooth end that you can scoop out gravy, mashed potatoes etc... with and replace it with tiny tines too short and weak to actually stab and pick up anything with. Not a spoon or a fork and not good at either.

I had the same impressions of the SUV Daryl. But just like you I was wrong. Apparently you and I both leered at the SUV thru "male only" eyes. The SUV is a predominantly popular vehicle for females. And rightly so.

Think about it. The female is the one in the family unit that shuttles the kids back and forth to school, soccer, band, football, ballet, gymnastics, etc. Not to mention that she is also the one who renders the exact same services to the neighbor's kids — while carpooling and taking turns.

The SUV turns out to be a perfectly practical vehicle for women to accomplish this very common task. It isn't too large or too small. It can handle all of the (sport) equipment—the tubas, violins, cellos, drums, helmets, shoulder pads, shoes, footballs, basketballs, the ballet clothing and accessories, skateboards, skates, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. ... and the kids, the groceries, the occasional pet and goldfish and yet still be manageable for the average woman—to handle with confidence while rushed, flustered, frustrated, annoyed, and while juggling many things at twice. Many things that also include running errands for her lazy husband like picking up the dry-cleaning, all the while in the midst of many hyperactive kids not paying attention to the world around them outside of their own onion, neither of which she wishes to inadvertently (or advertently while she's in a fit of emotional weakness or rage) run over. And it is a vehicle she can parallel park easily, again - w/o running over an innocent kid or even worse, God forbid, damage his or her equipment.

The SUV is a practical woman's vehicle. Which is fine by me, unless you and I will want to be the one doing the ferrying. Offroading isn't necessary to get your son and daughter and her friends to soccer and ballet. All of these truths pretty much hold true here in the US that is.

Oh, by the way, this rant was directed at me from the women in my neighborhood who asked my wife and I to assist with the local kids. I offered to donate two vehicles. They insisted on SUVs. Apparently, for women, the "sport" in "Sport Utility Vehicle" means an entirely different ball of wax.

"The SUV is like my parents' old station wagon, but better and even my 16-yr-old can drive it safely," says one parent.

In my neighborhood of 23 kids going off in various directions involved in various activities, there was a Denali, a BMW 5 series and a GMC truck doing all of the work. The woman in the BMW refused to participate after just a month. Too much damage to her car. The woman driving the Denali had too many close calls with kids and she totally destroyed an expensive violin and two football helmets (which she thought was a kid underneath - the crunch). It just isn't a practical vehicle for this task. The woman in the GMC truck never complained, yet she was pretty much all alone. At a community meeting the men's help was solicited. I don't have any kids, so why should I... "Yes dear."

So I offered to donate the two vehicles instead. Now that the neighborhood has two brand new SUVs, the women have more help than they need. Women call to volunteer now! And the men are still thanking me.

We owe our getting out of jury duty to the good ole' SUV.

All in all, with the advent of the SUV, the women can have their sanity. The kids can have their life and lives. And we men can have our peace, and not have to sleep on the sofa.

I'd say the SUV is neither male nor female centric, but rather a unisex best friend.

.

Daryl wrote:Same as an SUV. You take a well engineered hatchback, pump up the body, raise the centre of gravity, and make it heavier; but you don't give it a dual range gearbox, or 4WD, or off road tyres. End result is a slower and thirstier vehicle that you can't take off road.

My 2nd choice, for different reasons... it's like they thought; let see, what's the most top-heavy 4 wheel vehicle made? the 4x4 pickup! and what's the second? The van. why don't we cross bread them and see what happens? HUH!!! WHAT??? it can't stay upright!?!?!? how come? (Duh)

cthia wrote:.... And rightly so.

Think about it. The female is the one in the family unit that shuttles the kids back and forth to school, soccer, band, football, ballet, gymnastics, etc. Not to mention that she is also the one who renders the exact same services to the neighbor's kids — while carpooling and taking turns.

The SUV turns out to be a perfectly practical vehicle for women to accomplish this very common task...

No it isn't, that was the station wagon, that's what they were invented for. In-fact they got the reputation/stigma for being the "mom" car. My first car was a Malibu station wagon. They aren't gas guzzlers, have all the rear room of an SUV with better accel and decel, don't block the car behind them from seeing the situation ahead, and they aren't top heavy. The SUV is much less practical than the station wagon, and infinitely more of a safety menace on the road.

MAD-4A wrote:

Daryl wrote:Same as an SUV. You take a well engineered hatchback, pump up the body, raise the centre of gravity, and make it heavier; but you don't give it a dual range gearbox, or 4WD, or off road tyres. End result is a slower and thirstier vehicle that you can't take off road.

My 2nd choice, for different reasons... it's like they thought; let see, what's the most top-heavy 4 wheel vehicle made? the 4x4 pickup! and what's the second? The van. why don't we cross bread them and see what happens? HUH!!! WHAT??? it can't stay upright!?!?!? how come? (Duh)

cthia wrote:.... And rightly so.

Think about it. The female is the one in the family unit that shuttles the kids back and forth to school, soccer, band, football, ballet, gymnastics, etc. Not to mention that she is also the one who renders the exact same services to the neighbor's kids — while carpooling and taking turns.

The SUV turns out to be a perfectly practical vehicle for women to accomplish this very common task...

No it isn't, that was the station wagon, that's what they were invented for. In-fact they got the reputation/stigma for being the "mom" car. My first car was a Malibu station wagon. They aren't gas guzzlers, have all the rear room of an SUV with better accel and decel, don't block the car behind them from seeing the situation ahead, and they aren't top heavy. The SUV is much less practical than the station wagon, and infinitely more of a safety menace on the road.

I was editing as you were posting. See the statement above that a woman told me herself regarding station wagons. The one big prob with the wagons, was that it couldn't be driven safely by the average teenager. (And it wasn't exactly safe, kids not being buckled in the extreme rear.)

But it doesn't matter to me which car makes a woman happy. Who are we to say? If the women in my neighborhood are happy with the SUVs, then I am too.

MAD-4A wrote:

Daryl wrote:Same as an SUV. You take a well engineered hatchback, pump up the body, raise the centre of gravity, and make it heavier; but you don't give it a dual range gearbox, or 4WD, or off road tyres. End result is a slower and thirstier vehicle that you can't take off road.

My 2nd choice, for different reasons... it's like they thought; let see, what's the most top-heavy 4 wheel vehicle made? the 4x4 pickup! and what's the second? The van. why don't we cross bread them and see what happens? HUH!!! WHAT??? it can't stay upright!?!?!? how come? (Duh)

cthia wrote:.... And rightly so.

Think about it. The female is the one in the family unit that shuttles the kids back and forth to school, soccer, band, football, ballet, gymnastics, etc. Not to mention that she is also the one who renders the exact same services to the neighbor's kids — while carpooling and taking turns.

The SUV turns out to be a perfectly practical vehicle for women to accomplish this very common task...

No it isn't, that was the station wagon, that's what they were invented for. In-fact they got the reputation/stigma for being the "mom" car. My first car was a Malibu station wagon. They aren't gas guzzlers, have all the rear room of an SUV with better accel and decel, don't block the car behind them from seeing the situation ahead, and they aren't top heavy. The SUV is much less practical than the station wagon, and infinitely more of a safety menace on the road.

You are barking up the wrong tree. I liked the station wagon too. It was loads of fun. But women have the right to drive what they may. I would imagine parallel parking a long station wagon wasn't exactly on a woman's fun list. And station wagons today would not be popular because they are not safe the way they were used. You must be buckled inside of a car. The extreme rear was where kids rode. You. Me. And everyone else. There are no buckles back there. And they were antisocial vehicles inasmuch as they drew a line between parent and passengers, being so far apart. And a parent trying to keep her eyes on the road and interact with little Suzie and Johnny fighting in the extreme rear isn't at all safe either.

Nor is it any longer considered safe to allow kids to ride on the open rode in the back of a pickup. Which we all did in the hey day of station wagons. There are new laws. We must roll with the punches. And women are throwing many of the punches now in today's "sexes equal" society.

I don't like sleeping on the sofa. Long live the SUV.

By the way, a woman, parallel parking, and a station wagon didn't mix. Some men couldn't parallel park the beasts. Today's SUVs have rear cameras to assist in parking. But you still have to have some skills to work with.

As far as the average woman is concerned, rear cameras on a wagon would be a waste of time and cause even more accidents because she'd attempt to use it. In the old days with the wagons, a woman just refused to attempt to parallel park.

The reason SUVs win out over station wagons, if any, is probably to do with carrying small children.

Parents with non-SUVs have to bend down or over to strap their child into the rear seats. With SUVs, they don't - the seats are at waist height. Easier to pop the little ones in, especially if also carrying a bag or two.

Of course, there's nothing like an elevated driving position to give one a sense of unwarranted superiority. You are after all, literally sitting above other people. Peeking down into other, perhaps less worthy, cars.

As for the worst invention ever - I can't decide today whether it's the US electoral college or that fancy dish where puréed peas are reconstituted into small green spheres.

The dumbest invention ever is the smart phone. The phone is billed as smart, even though it pocket dials without your phucking permission and lets the person dialed listen in to everything going on for hours without your knowledge or prior permission. The elderly can't seem to use the darn things because they don't know how and it gets them frustrated. Not all of the not so elderly can navigate its features either. Kids, friends and spouses have become antisocial because of them. And they are causing more accidents than a retarded drunk. And they are so phucking annoying, that I'd vote for any potential president who promises to ban the damn things and bring back switchboards, party lines and an operator! Heck, I'd vote for the backwoods country bumpkin who wants to go back to tin cans and string if he'd outlaw these high-tech abortions!

And many of them cost more than a couple of nice TVs! And need replacing every couple of years it seems from failure and/or battery/charging system problems. And you have to purchase, that's right buy the sound that sounds like the old familiar telephone "brrrrrring." That I prefer, ONLY!

And some of the darn things even explode setting your living room ablaze!

In addition to your child being dead, or car wrecked and an innocent bystander maimed or killed, your marriage is now on the rocks from a pocket dial, your grandmother is frustrated, your other kids are unknown to you and they don't recognize you because you aren't an app on their phone. And let's not forget, you are searching for a new home. The Galaxy Note 7 didn't like its current home. But they seem to adore the fire trucks.

And your airline doesn't like your new phone either. Or your new phone it.

I'd like to find the inventor. Bend him over. Pull down his pretty pink panties. Grease the phone up real good. Turn it sideways. And shove it up his candy ass! The one with the biggest damn screen too!

This is one piece of tech that we stole from the Roswell crash aliens whose laughter we can hear light-years away. If I didn't know any better (and I don't), I'd think the aliens came to the same conclusion I have and one of them suggested to fake a crash on Earth and allow the humans the tech and laugh for eons to come!

Dumb.

Dumb dumb de dumb dumb. Dumb. Dumb!

cthia wrote:I was editing as you were posting. See the statement above that a woman told me herself regarding station wagons. The one big prob with the wagons, was that it couldn't be driven safely by the average teenager...

My first car & I was fine with it, well driving wise, till a rod shot through the engine block, oops.

cthia wrote:...(And it wasn't exactly safe, kids not being buckled in the extreme rear.)...being so far apart....

length, rear seat belt, rear camera, auto parallel parking etc... are all individual design features and equipment which could be incorporated into the Station wagon, but just haven't been. They don't have to be any longer than an SUV for the same volume. The old long ones were designed that way for a reason.

munroburton wrote:...there's nothing like an elevated driving position to give one a sense of unwarranted superiority. You are after all, literally sitting above other people. Peeking down into other, perhaps less worthy, cars...

which makes them all the more dangerous, as mentioned, yea you can see over me. But I can't see past you!!!

cthia wrote:But it doesn't matter to me which car makes a woman happy. Who are we to say? If the women in my neighborhood are happy with the SUVs, then I am too.

Not me, not when I have some idiot riding their SUV breaks in my face at 15 MPH below the speed limit and I can't see around them to see if I can get past the road-hog-jerk.