Funny stories about different transactions. Bill_h, I'm glad to read that in the Motor City, it's somewhat of a free-for-all. It just seems appropriate, being the home of the U.S. auto industry. One thing that can work well for selling a car -- if you're replacing it with a new or used car from a dealer -- is what dealers around here call a "courtesy trade." You and the buyer of your car agree on a price as usual, then you and your buyer go together to the dealer where you're buying your new car. The dealer shows your old car on the sales documents as a trade, with the value being the price the buyer is going to pay for it. This saves you on sales tax in many states. The buyer then purchases the car from the dealer for that price. I know of many dealers who will do this for free, as a service to the person buying the car from them. A few charge the buyer a standard "paperwork" fee. They're willing to do it even though they make no money on the sale of the trade because it can help you buy the new car, since the buyer is presumably giving you more for it than the dealer would have.

The liability might not automatically cover the rental car because somebody else could be using your car while you are gone, meaning you'd be insuring two cars for the price of one. It depends on the laws of your state. If your agent says that liability DOES extend to the rented vehicle, ask them to point it out in your policy. When it comes to insurance, if it's not in writing it isn't true. Credit card coverage is usually very good, but again be sure to read all the fine print. There are likely to be "exceptions" and "exclusions." Plus, it usually covers damage to the rental only. Keep in mind that even though credit card coverage would pay for repairs, the rental company will still want to collect the daily rate from you while the vehicle is out of service. Typically, the insurance will NOT cover that.

Oh, what a day in the computer world. United Airlines had a computer problem and some 35 hundred flights were grounded. The NYSE had a computer problem and some people were not able to trade, Among all of this, the pundits were saying that Google were trying to push their driver-less cars and who would trust their computer cars? I like the idea of driver-less cars, but I'm not willing to give up all my control to a computer. Although this may not be a topic for the "Garden Party", I'm keeping my eye out.

I saw this the other day, and my first thought was, what a silly, ill-thought design. I don't think it will be very effective. You turn the ignition off, it makes a noise. That's it? So every time you go somewhere, you can count on hearing a very annoying noise as soon as you turn the car off (to go with all the other annoying noises), because you can't possibly make it to the car seat to undo the baby before the noise starts. In behaviour sciences / learning theory, it's clear that alert sounds and alarms can only modify behaviour if there is a correct action to take to prevent it, in this case there is not. Not to mention, over time the possibility of becoming desensitized to the "going to happen anyway" sound. It all seems very frustrating. I think it especially won't be effective because people will return the seats / throw them in the garbage. The parents who care enough to buy this kind of seat are the ones who are most unlikely to forget their child. For the person who has similarly somehow forgotten the sound (perhaps gotten out of the car to get something out of the trunk first), this new seat doesn't do anything more for that child. If I were designing a car seat with built-in protection, I would put a pressure sensor under the seat, a high tech thermometer sensing the air temperature, both connected to a transmitter with gps location. If a child is sitting in the seat and the car is over, say, something like 90 - 100 degrees or so, it puts out an immediate signal to police so they can come save the baby.