Does not really matter. The mechanic at the dealer who has access to all the codes will just randomly replace expensive sensors anyway.:)
Codes can often be found in the factory manuals. But you have to understand how the sensors and the engine interact to use the codes effectively. Otherwise you replace many good parts in search of the problem.
"Yes, you are probably right about the streaming tech being the future."
Not likely. On demand (a high quality form of streaming) already exists. Yet we still have discs.
Why? Streaming is low(er) quality. Streaming requires bandwidth. A disc is permanent. A disc is instant once it is in our possession. In an age of bandwidth caps and limited or non-existant high speed internet, streaming HD movies may be expensive if not impossible for many. I have "high speed" internet yet can't stream movies effectively. The situation is not likely to improve in my area in my lifetime.
"Blecch, the Phillips screwdriver is one of the most brain damaged things ever invented, much less standardized. Torx is far better..."
Depends on your perspective. I can tell what size Phillips I need at a glance. And I have that size or the size isn't that critical. On the other hand, I HATE torx because they don't have those features.
If you needed to torque something to spec, what was wrong with bolts, square head, six and 12 point drives, etc. that they needed yet another standard?
"I don't know where that line should be, but in this case I would say the engineer shouldn't be culpable."
The engineer should be culpable because he was willfully negligent. If you inject fluids into a fault zone you tend to generate earthquakes. This is undergraduate level geology knowledge.
"And if I were a salaried employee, iirc, my employer would be required to pay my salary."
ROTFLMOA
Now I'm not saying that doesn't happen. Some places do pay mimimum wage or thereabouts. Some employers do pick up salary. But most courts might pay you enough to drive and park if you are lucky. Most employers don't pay to serve on a jury. And if you have an education, why bother to even try (you will probably be disqualified), just say "economic hardship". Saves everybody time....
"The jury has to follow the judge's instructions."
No they don't.
"You cannot go outside of them."
Yes you can.
"You are not allowed to use your 'expert knowledge' of anything as a juror - anything you argue on with each other has to be based on 'common knowledge'."
Sure you are. Granted, the chance of getting on a jury if you are willing to do any of those things and and freely admit to it are low. But I'm sure it happens all the time because, as you noted
"the jury ultimately decides it."
"If you have a judge writing shitty instructions, vote his ass out."
How the hell do I know if a judge writes good instructions? And in any case, I can hardly assess the qulifications of a judge and they often have no challengers.
"It's fascinating to me that so many people readily make excuses for companies/corporations as if they weren't made up of people who individually would not get the same benefit of the doubt."
Why? Avoiding individual responsibility (or at least liability) is the whole point of a corporation.
"In reality, nothing much has changed and the military is the same size it was."
Except: Increased costs. You have to pay civilians more than soldiers to do the same job. Less accountability. No messy chain of command or rules of engagement. Easier to Use. Much easier to send 30K troops than 300K.
"Sadly, you seem to have missed the entire point."
No he didn't. Most people are happy to give up freedom for comfort.
"If you are merely satisfied with having enough calories per day and enough clean water to continue surviving, that's fine. Some of us, however, feel that more than mere physical necessities are necessary for our happiness."
And most aren't. Based on our levels of debt, one could assume that we buy happiness. You can't. Doesn't stop most from trying.
"The attitude of the common people, the faex populi, is that security can be purchased. We have been lulled into believing that the world can be made 'safe.' Life in inherently unsafe. Being 'free' means that you give up security."
Most people believe it can. And they seem to be correct. Or at least they seem to be willing to give up freedom for that security.
Most people can't be bothered to take an hour out of their day once every year or so to vote. Many (most?) who vote can't be bothered to spend the time to become informed or think critically when they vote. And yet somehow these people will be able to defend our freedoms? Give me a break.
In general, people get the government that they deserve. The problem is that I also get the government that most people deserve.
"He admits to still owning the illegal equipment, and exhibits no remorse for his illegal acts in the past."
So? The fact that the restrictions were not enforced might be an indication of the lack of a problem. Or that any interference with amateur radio is/was considered unimportant. In any case, is there any indication that he interfered with any legal communications?
Good or bad, most people don't care or know about your hobby. Or how they affect it. The fact you have interference problems despite governement regulation and enforcement also indicates that the government is part of that group. Don't assume that because you are entitled to use a frequency that anybody actually gives a damn whether you can.
I think the posters point is that if you wanted to change behavior or generate sympathy, your post didn't work very well. Frankly the more people like you post, the less sympathy I have for your situation. Because for every post like yours complaining about interference, I see just as many complaining about that operator causing interference because he CAN.
"Building more of them diverts resources from productive projects inevitably having a significant long term negative impact on the economy as a whole."
I find it hard to believe that spending money on weapons is more wasteful than spending money on any other shiny new trinket. Which probably isn't made in the US.
I don't deny that the outcome of using the weapons is questionable at best. But don't assume that if we didn't spend the money on weapons we would spend it on something "useful" or "better". That would be a VERY dubious assumption based on our history.
"The Iraqi scuds were a serious threat at least in 1991."
More of a political than a military threat. We hunted them down primarily to satisfy the Israelis (and prevent their intervention) not because they managed to get a lucky hit on a US base.
A scud isn't any more a threat from the sky than an artillery shell. And I get the distinct impression that artillery is much more accurate....
"The interesting question is how transparent can you make the "price decay" part before people stop being happy when they get something for the price they want, and start being resentful when they pick their price (or decided to wait)."
The transparent part is the issue. Ever notice that new DVD's go on sale, then revert to full price, then eventually fall in price? It is not very predictable. Likewise, I know that the paperback will be cheaper or that the hardcover will be discounted but not when. But if I knew that it got X cheaper per week, then the publisher is screwed. Most people will wait if they know for certain they will get a deal.
"Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box? I know this particular guy's case isn't going to a jury, but his lawyer seems to think he's screwed if he does."
Most people don't think critically most of the time. Hence stupid jury verdicts. But the verdicts mostly flow from the strict laws being enforced by well meaning law abiding citizens.
He is screwed because the law makes possession illegal and he was in possession. So to to be found not guilty he has to convince at least one person on the jury that this was accidental and not enforce the law as it is written. Jury nullification if you will. Remember that the jury, like most people, are going to assume you are guilty because you are on trial (why would the police go through all the trouble....)
So, he can plead guilty and get a few years and maybe have a life or go to trial, be found guilty and get a few decades. Plea deals are made because they are easier and most defendents are guilty. It really sucks to be an innocent defendent.
"The Nazis left Switzerland alone because it was their bank [amazon.com]."
No. They left them alone because the costs of invading outweighed the benefits. If Switzerland had decided to be a little less neutral, Germany would have decided to be a little more intrusive.
"outlines several areas where they allowed a strong liberal agenda to drive stories."
And your point is? All reporting is biased. The mere act of deciding what to cover, how to cover it, what questions to ask, who to ask, etc. introduces bias. The quest to eliminate bias is not noble-it's an attack on a strawman.
Good journalism will have accuracy, fact checking and transparency (the bias will be clear).
"People aren't whining about prescription drug prices because of the difference between the price and the cost to make."
Actually they are. Really. Visit a pharmacy blog sometime and see the madness. People on Medicare complaining that they have to pay for medication at times (despite having to pay for it all of the time a few years back), people with private insurance complaining that that $100 prescription is costing them a $5 copay, people on Medicaid whining about a $3.15 copay. Lots of people feel entitled to free stuff just because they have insurance or are old or are poor. The salaries and profits are just the rationale.
There is a lot wrong with drug companies. High profits and salaries would not be at the top of the list. Their fundamental problem is leadership. The leaders do not understand how to do effective drug research.
While high blood pressure contributes to heart disease and stroke, unfortunately those conditions mainly strike later in life. Even worse, some of those people may elect to control their blood pressure with medication.:)
Stop breaking light bulbs. Of ANY kind. Seriously.
I have never broken a light bulb. I have never seen one broken outside of abuse. I'm sure it can happen. But this strawman in a glass house is getting really old.
Handle things made of glass with care. Gently hand tighten (no breaker bars or torque wrenches needed). Lights come with protective covers, it's okay to use them. If you can remember the last time you broke a bulb then I hope you install them for a living or you are buying cheap crap or are doing something wrong.
"At the end of the day the only way that "computers" save a business money is if they allow for staffing levels to be cut."
I think we have a winner. Unless computers/tech increase the amount of patients you can process (which is part of the problem in primary care and just not an issue in hospitals) or reduce costs (less errors, waste, etc) they must lead to increased cost. If they make it easier to bill for more unneeded crap (automated or easy billing codes) they almost certainly will massively increase cost. Talk about unintended consequences.
"The ER doctor looked at the X-rays, then called the fracture specialist at home, who looked at the X-rays on his home computer, and passed on his advice to the ER doctor.
Let's see them do that without computers."
You do realize that they successfully treated wrist fractures all the time before computers? My brother was one of them. Of course, in the "olden days" doctors didn't need an expensive online consult to do their job. I don't recall my brother needing an ER doctor and a fracture specialist for a routine fracture. Perhaps they should spend less on tech and more on good doctors....
"IMHO, it's mostly their fault for letting him gamble with money he didn't have."
No it isn't. The step-father CHOSE to gamble with money that he didn't have. People with addictions manage to overcome them if they CHOOSE to. I see no such effort here. Hence, the step-father is at fault. Heck, if anything, the "buddies" stopped enabling him. I'm sure it wasn't out of the goodness of their own hearts but the effect was the same.
"Notice Dawkins doesn't seem willing to apply the same test to his views, despite the reality that he is asking us to *believe* him?"
Sorry, you lose. Dawkins provides EVIDENCE, he does not require belief. True skeptics will discard a belief when presented with better evidence. Most people who call themselves skeptics aren't-they search for information that fits with their beliefs. In short, skepticism requires rational, logical and reasonable thought.
Slashdot Mirror
Does not really matter. The mechanic at the dealer who has access to all the codes will just randomly replace expensive sensors anyway. :)
Codes can often be found in the factory manuals. But you have to understand how the sensors and the engine interact to use the codes effectively. Otherwise you replace many good parts in search of the problem.
"Yes, you are probably right about the streaming tech being the future."
Not likely. On demand (a high quality form of streaming) already exists. Yet we still have discs.
Why? Streaming is low(er) quality. Streaming requires bandwidth. A disc is permanent. A disc is instant once it is in our possession. In an age of bandwidth caps and limited or non-existant high speed internet, streaming HD movies may be expensive if not impossible for many. I have "high speed" internet yet can't stream movies effectively. The situation is not likely to improve in my area in my lifetime.
"Blecch, the Phillips screwdriver is one of the most brain damaged things ever invented, much less standardized. Torx is far better..."
Depends on your perspective. I can tell what size Phillips I need at a glance. And I have that size or the size isn't that critical. On the other hand, I HATE torx because they don't have those features.
If you needed to torque something to spec, what was wrong with bolts, square head, six and 12 point drives, etc. that they needed yet another standard?
"I don't know where that line should be, but in this case I would say the engineer shouldn't be culpable."
The engineer should be culpable because he was willfully negligent. If you inject fluids into a fault zone you tend to generate earthquakes. This is undergraduate level geology knowledge.
"I know they pay... minimum wage."
LMAO
"And if I were a salaried employee, iirc, my employer would be required to pay my salary."
ROTFLMOA
Now I'm not saying that doesn't happen. Some places do pay mimimum wage or thereabouts. Some employers do pick up salary. But most courts might pay you enough to drive and park if you are lucky. Most employers don't pay to serve on a jury. And if you have an education, why bother to even try (you will probably be disqualified), just say "economic hardship". Saves everybody time....
"The jury has to follow the judge's instructions."
No they don't.
"You cannot go outside of them."
Yes you can.
"You are not allowed to use your 'expert knowledge' of anything as a juror - anything you argue on with each other has to be based on 'common knowledge'."
Sure you are. Granted, the chance of getting on a jury if you are willing to do any of those things and and freely admit to it are low. But I'm sure it happens all the time because, as you noted
"the jury ultimately decides it."
"If you have a judge writing shitty instructions, vote his ass out."
How the hell do I know if a judge writes good instructions? And in any case, I can hardly assess the qulifications of a judge and they often have no challengers.
"Until the Supreme Court rules something unconstitutional. Then no one can do ANYTHING."
WRONG. See Andrew Jackson and the Cherokee Indians.
Nothing stops you from ignoring Supreme Court rulings if people are willing to support your actions.
"It's fascinating to me that so many people readily make excuses for companies/corporations as if they weren't made up of people who individually would not get the same benefit of the doubt."
Why? Avoiding individual responsibility (or at least liability) is the whole point of a corporation.
"In reality, nothing much has changed and the military is the same size it was."
Except:
Increased costs. You have to pay civilians more than soldiers to do the same job.
Less accountability. No messy chain of command or rules of engagement.
Easier to Use. Much easier to send 30K troops than 300K.
"Sadly, you seem to have missed the entire point."
No he didn't. Most people are happy to give up freedom for comfort.
"If you are merely satisfied with having enough calories per day and enough clean water to continue surviving, that's fine. Some of us, however, feel that more than mere physical necessities are necessary for our happiness."
And most aren't. Based on our levels of debt, one could assume that we buy happiness. You can't. Doesn't stop most from trying.
"The attitude of the common people, the faex populi, is that security can be purchased. We have been lulled into believing that the world can be made 'safe.' Life in inherently unsafe. Being 'free' means that you give up security."
Most people believe it can. And they seem to be correct. Or at least they seem to be willing to give up freedom for that security.
Most people can't be bothered to take an hour out of their day once every year or so to vote. Many (most?) who vote can't be bothered to spend the time to become informed or think critically when they vote. And yet somehow these people will be able to defend our freedoms? Give me a break.
In general, people get the government that they deserve. The problem is that I also get the government that most people deserve.
"He admits to still owning the illegal equipment, and exhibits no remorse for his illegal acts in the past."
So? The fact that the restrictions were not enforced might be an indication of the lack of a problem. Or that any interference with amateur radio is/was considered unimportant. In any case, is there any indication that he interfered with any legal communications?
Good or bad, most people don't care or know about your hobby. Or how they affect it. The fact you have interference problems despite governement regulation and enforcement also indicates that the government is part of that group. Don't assume that because you are entitled to use a frequency that anybody actually gives a damn whether you can.
I think the posters point is that if you wanted to change behavior or generate sympathy, your post didn't work very well. Frankly the more people like you post, the less sympathy I have for your situation. Because for every post like yours complaining about interference, I see just as many complaining about that operator causing interference because he CAN.
"Those weapons don't create anything."
Aside from well paying jobs. In the US.
"Building more of them diverts resources from productive projects inevitably having a significant long term negative impact on the economy as a whole."
I find it hard to believe that spending money on weapons is more wasteful than spending money on any other shiny new trinket. Which probably isn't made in the US.
I don't deny that the outcome of using the weapons is questionable at best. But don't assume that if we didn't spend the money on weapons we would spend it on something "useful" or "better". That would be a VERY dubious assumption based on our history.
"The Iraqi scuds were a serious threat at least in 1991."
More of a political than a military threat. We hunted them down primarily to satisfy the Israelis (and prevent their intervention) not because they managed to get a lucky hit on a US base.
A scud isn't any more a threat from the sky than an artillery shell. And I get the distinct impression that artillery is much more accurate....
"The interesting question is how transparent can you make the "price decay" part before people stop being happy when they get something for the price they want, and start being resentful when they pick their price (or decided to wait)."
The transparent part is the issue. Ever notice that new DVD's go on sale, then revert to full price, then eventually fall in price? It is not very predictable. Likewise, I know that the paperback will be cheaper or that the hardcover will be discounted but not when. But if I knew that it got X cheaper per week, then the publisher is screwed. Most people will wait if they know for certain they will get a deal.
"Where does the government keep finding 12 morons to vote guilty in the jury box? I know this particular guy's case isn't going to a jury, but his lawyer seems to think he's screwed if he does."
Most people don't think critically most of the time. Hence stupid jury verdicts. But the verdicts mostly flow from the strict laws being enforced by well meaning law abiding citizens.
He is screwed because the law makes possession illegal and he was in possession. So to to be found not guilty he has to convince at least one person on the jury that this was accidental and not enforce the law as it is written. Jury nullification if you will. Remember that the jury, like most people, are going to assume you are guilty because you are on trial (why would the police go through all the trouble....)
So, he can plead guilty and get a few years and maybe have a life or go to trial, be found guilty and get a few decades. Plea deals are made because they are easier and most defendents are guilty. It really sucks to be an innocent defendent.
"The Nazis left Switzerland alone because it was their bank [amazon.com]."
No. They left them alone because the costs of invading outweighed the benefits. If Switzerland had decided to be a little less neutral, Germany would have decided to be a little more intrusive.
"outlines several areas where they allowed a strong liberal agenda to drive stories."
And your point is? All reporting is biased. The mere act of deciding what to cover, how to cover it, what questions to ask, who to ask, etc. introduces bias. The quest to eliminate bias is not noble-it's an attack on a strawman.
Good journalism will have accuracy, fact checking and transparency (the bias will be clear).
"People aren't whining about prescription drug prices because of the difference between the price and the cost to make."
Actually they are. Really. Visit a pharmacy blog sometime and see the madness. People on Medicare complaining that they have to pay for medication at times (despite having to pay for it all of the time a few years back), people with private insurance complaining that that $100 prescription is costing them a $5 copay, people on Medicaid whining about a $3.15 copay. Lots of people feel entitled to free stuff just because they have insurance or are old or are poor. The salaries and profits are just the rationale.
There is a lot wrong with drug companies. High profits and salaries would not be at the top of the list. Their fundamental problem is leadership. The leaders do not understand how to do effective drug research.
While high blood pressure contributes to heart disease and stroke, unfortunately those conditions mainly strike later in life. Even worse, some of those people may elect to control their blood pressure with medication. :)
Stop breaking light bulbs. Of ANY kind. Seriously.
I have never broken a light bulb. I have never seen one broken outside of abuse. I'm sure it can happen. But this strawman in a glass house is getting really old.
Handle things made of glass with care. Gently hand tighten (no breaker bars or torque wrenches needed). Lights come with protective covers, it's okay to use them. If you can remember the last time you broke a bulb then I hope you install them for a living or you are buying cheap crap or are doing something wrong.
"At the end of the day the only way that "computers" save a business money is if they allow for staffing levels to be cut."
I think we have a winner. Unless computers/tech increase the amount of patients you can process (which is part of the problem in primary care and just not an issue in hospitals) or reduce costs (less errors, waste, etc) they must lead to increased cost. If they make it easier to bill for more unneeded crap (automated or easy billing codes) they almost certainly will massively increase cost. Talk about unintended consequences.
"The ER doctor looked at the X-rays, then called the fracture specialist at home, who looked at the X-rays on his home computer, and passed on his advice to the ER doctor.
Let's see them do that without computers."
You do realize that they successfully treated wrist fractures all the time before computers? My brother was one of them. Of course, in the "olden days" doctors didn't need an expensive online consult to do their job. I don't recall my brother needing an ER doctor and a fracture specialist for a routine fracture. Perhaps they should spend less on tech and more on good doctors....
"IMHO, it's mostly their fault for letting him gamble with money he didn't have."
No it isn't. The step-father CHOSE to gamble with money that he didn't have. People with addictions manage to overcome them if they CHOOSE to. I see no such effort here. Hence, the step-father is at fault. Heck, if anything, the "buddies" stopped enabling him. I'm sure it wasn't out of the goodness of their own hearts but the effect was the same.
"Notice Dawkins doesn't seem willing to apply the same test to his views, despite the reality that he is asking us to *believe* him?"
Sorry, you lose. Dawkins provides EVIDENCE, he does not require belief. True skeptics will discard a belief when presented with better evidence. Most people who call themselves skeptics aren't-they search for information that fits with their beliefs. In short, skepticism requires rational, logical and reasonable thought.
"The logical follow up question is why K12 public education isn't managed like everyone elses "real job""
You just described a real world job at many employers. Might I suggest sharpening the knife. :)