HAHAHA. I am guessing you fall into the category of people who that think higher corporate taxes are the best way to fund government because you are not being taxed. Guess what... EVERY tax falls back on the customer. You think oil companies pay the gas tax? No, the price of gas just goes up and you pay the price of the tax even if it was levied on the company. Taxes are always shared with the customer, of course politicians love to make you think otherwise.. so they can raise taxes and make you happy about it.
Wait, you are calling those that purchase stuff online and don't report the taxes assholes? I don't condone skipping out on taxes but I think it put an unnecessary burden on the individual to a) know about this in the first place b) track purchases made and c) properly report these purchases.
I also don't see how you can argue that local governments deserve the tax revenue when the company doesn't operate in that local vicinity. They don't operate a store front so they don't need police, fire, (new)roads, etc. A shipping company brings in the product and the shipping company pays taxes related to its operation in the state. Then you go on to talk about locality.. we live in a global economy. The best way to support your local economy is keep doing your job because it is likely generating revenue from the other states just like you are sending your money to other states. The idea of a local economy is dead. Even the smallest towns participate in the global economy.
I understand that wherever you live this gets you audited and illegal or whatever, but you seem to be talking about it like everyone who doesn't pay sales tax on 3 $10 books bought off amazon is a evil bastard that should burn in hell.
It is a fact that if you are going to run a scam you should move the money the scam makes into a place other than the business/entity that you are conducting the scam with. If you don't do this you are a failure at scamming because there is not one reason to keep it there and a million reasons to move it.
People who leave money in an account labeled "scam account" are terrible scammers. Arguing this is false is like trying to argue that a bad(or terrible) basketball player is good because there is no real definition of what a good basketball player is. Sure you can argue it, and technically be "right", because there is no set definition of a bad basketball player, but you still are wrong, the player obviously is bad by the standards of any onlooker.
This is what I am talking about. Anyone with common sense is going to think to not keep money in an account directly associated with a scam. Anyone who does, is an idiot. Call it circular reasoning if you want but language is based off of definitions that are self created thus many true statements could be classified as circular reasoning because by the very nature of language it is based off of itself.
By your standards no-one can be called bad because they did something bad because that is circular reasoning. Fuck off, you are the one using games to redefine the situation and make yourself look right.
We are talking about scams , not legit businesses. Scammers are not afraid of lawyers because they offload the money to accounts not related to the business, instantly. You can't recover what isn't there. If you think this is outlandish you are ignorant to how many legit businesses use the same offloading model to protect their separate business units. They offload everything that they can so that if a lawsuit occurs they can cut losses and start over.
Strictly speaking your examples are talking about dumb-asses who didn't properly structure their businesses or scams to be successful. If you do it right you win unless the governemnt finds you, and that is only if it is an illegal operation. (I'm not condoning, just giving facts)
Why would a lawyer work a case where they get nothing because the defendant is effectively broke? They won't. Lawyers want deep pockets, with lots of real and predictable money in those pockets. Since most(all?) class action cases get paid on a % of the settlement it is impossible to get a firm/lawyer to proceed with a case if the target has no way to pay because the money is hidden or out of legal grasp.
I don't know, maybe it proves that the experience that person had is isolated, or at least I am evidence that is not always the case. All my CD's I have ever burned and have tried to use recently still work and its been at least 8 years since I started burning stuff. Some(50) of these CD's were even free cd's from a best buy black Friday sale... not expensive CD's by any means.
I guess I figured that people here are smart enough to deduce most of that from my one line, but apparently I have to spell it out word for word so that I don't get accused of trolling.
The only thing I have added since my first post is an analysis of what I think my post means and the clarification that they weren't expensive disks. I was assuming everyone has the brain power to put my post in context with the other one and think about it. Apparently not, or you are just trolling me.
So if I walk up to a random pregnant lady that is about to give birth in a hospital and jam a metal rod in the babies head I shouldn't be charged with murder?
I agree that research should be allowed on this stuff but some of the opposition isn't crazy Christians. People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human". This has nothing to do with souls and more to do with defining important things like what constitutes murder. When is the magic point where some living thing goes from being thrown away as abortion waste to being something so valuable that society could potentially put someone to death for killing it.
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons. Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I think this scientific research is way more important than a national health care plan, yet I still think boundaries should be respected if a valid reason is brought up. I know we now know how to obtain special cells easily without harm to anything, but in the past that wasn't exactly the case and I think that set off the panic that got the research criticized so much.
Yes. I didn't meant to leave this out but I did because I had seen it posted in other comments but looking back it does seem to be a missing piece from my comment. Thanks for highlighting the need for communication and not just a one way reporting.
Asking what the executive wants is important but just is important is coming up with what you think is important. Sometimes an executive may not know what you are capable of telling them so they may not ask for those things. Or they could ask for things that don't really mean much. The key of course is a two way conversation where you are explaining why things are important or unimportant and the executive is giving you the same feedback.
You and your parent will go far in life. I can't wait till someone finds you out if you are doing this because executives DO care. You are a fool if you think an executive doesn't care about things like system up-times.. I know from personal experience how seriously pissed executives can get with IT persons for reporting false information about the IT capabilities of the organization. When an executive hires a person they trust that person to report factual information. Just because they don't call you out on mistakes doesn't mean they don't care. It means they are busy as fuck, probably working way more hours than you assume, and don't have time to look up "quasitron" to ensure their employees are fucking with them. They will take the report at face value if you say everything is great.
To chopsuei3:
The best things to report are things that affect clients or are otherwise extremely important. Since you mentioned you are providing services to devices that I can only assume you are a type of "command and control center" for I would think the most vital thing to report is the up time of that system and any other pertinent information about that system. If it had gone down, why? and on a related note, what is being done to protect the system's up time. If there are no issues with this aspect and you think nothing will happen before the next report you may glance over it quickly, but still make sure critical systems are the first thing you report on. It will demonstrate you understand what is most important.
After that I would report on the status of any ongoing projects, not with numbers or charts but with words. This could come before critical systems if the project is critical but that should be obvious.
Finally I would report on the status of less-critical functions like the internal IT stuff you do. This can be as simple as saying "I dedicated 20 hours this month to desktop support, this has been the average for the past several months." with maybe a little analysis if you want to work that number down.
I think the preferred format for an executive would be more written or bullet points rather than charts and figures. Help them to understand what is going on so they can better help you accomplish your goals. A chart that has up-times on it is worthless to an executive unless you thoroughly explain it so you might as well do the analysis and then explain what it means rather than presenting the charts as eye candy. An executive wants a "what does this mean" perspective not a load of information that they have to derive the "what does this mean" from. There may be times when raw charts and figures are important so don't completely scratch them, just make sure you aren't just throwing information out there just for the sake of having stuff to present.
Delivering concise, well thought out, and informative reports are way more effective than a "data dump" just to prove you do something every day you come in. The executives are busy, they don't want to waste their time reading a huge report on unimportant shit.
Yes it is true that there are many ways to mitigate the effects but you can't eliminate them. The biggest issue I see with the mitigation tactics is not in the technical feasibility of them but is in actually implementing solutions that are economically feasible. Currently this whole "upgrade path" is orders of magnitude more expensive than the current energy solutions. All the mitigation techniques you mentioned double up the number of idle facilities, i.e. if power isn't being produced then nothing is being produced.
Most companies try as hard as they can to maximizing the efficiency of their machines, meaning they try and run them as close to 24/7/365 as they can while making room for required down time. By randomly inserting stops society will in general need to have more facilities and equipment to produce the same number of goods. If you are shifting servers to areas that are windy then you will need to have more servers, more data center space, more internet backbone capacity so that when that location is lit up it is just as effective.
Redundancy on this sort of level is so costly it is mind boggling. The effects will trickle into nearly every aspect of the economy if this sort of thing were implemented. Producing the power in this way is the easiest step, trying to implement the mitigation techniques you mentioned is a whole different beast.
I think that is well known. The issue is how many different renewable sources need to be put in place to achieve one joule of energy consistently with no possible variation. What you have is an issue of no meaningful relation between the different renewable sources creating situations where many many different sources of energy could all be producing zero, and other situations where many sources will be producing more than enough. Unfortunately this sort of solution doesn't work because humans demand consistent energy not just a total or average.
Solar: Needs significant light Wind: Needs significant and consistent air movement Tidal: Has peaks and troughs of output
Essentially you could implement a capacity of "3X" and still end up with points of nearly 0 production while other times you end up with 3X the power you need.
These facilities are not cheap to build to begin with and then building multiple times the capacity you need compounds the problem.
"What I said is "Microsoft" probably didn't know about, authorize or condone the use of (GPL)open source code. That does not mean it is OK that it did happen."
Yeah, that sounds like I clearly think MS should be in the clear. By me saying MS is a victim it implies I think they are still liable for what happened. You are also continuing to prove my point by throwing around the "their actions." statement. Microsoft employs almost 100,000 people, mistakes or slip ups by small number or individuals does not equate to corporate sponsorship or policy which. Corporate policies or attitudes can be refereed to as 'their'. You don't say McDonalds is a dick company that promotes being dicks because one time you had a dick drive through operator.
Surely if a open source developer slipped MS code in a project that *individual* would be the one to blame, not the project or the whole open source community? Correct?
You are displaying irrational MS hating behaviors. This is a situation where Microsoft could clearly be legally liable but that doesn't mean the corporation meant to do what they did nor does it mean they are evil. It means a few people didn't do their jobs and will likely lose their jobs IF it even turns out they copied anything.
They are the victim of buying bad code how hard is that to understand? Yes there are things they could have done to prevent it but that is the same thing as saying its a rape victims fault for getting raped because they didn't carry a gun.
I stand by my statement that the "company" is a victim of a very small few individuals actions.
That is not what I said. What I said is "Microsoft" probably didn't know about, authorize or condone the use of (GPL)open source code. That does not mean it is OK that it did happen. It does mean people need to stop generalizing from incidents like this to the idea that the Microsoft corporation is evil when it is individual actors at a low level that make this happen. Of course it is hard for everyone HERE to admit because that would imply, you guessed it, developers are the ones that actually are to blame. I find this ironic because of anyplace you would think Slashdot would be the place that would understand that higher ups never look at the code and only care that it works. So please re-read what I said in my OP and try and understand it, obviously you didn't understand it the first time because I never said MS has the right to use the code.
Ever think that if this code was stolen it was done by a lower level employee and not an executive. It is way more likely that a small group of employees couldn't hit a deadline or something and so they borrowed code form other places to get it done. I know executives and have heard many executives speak... they don't like legal exposure, they don't want to do things wrong because it is their neck on the line. It is way more likely that it was the average slashdot user who did this than it was a "Microsoft Corporation" decision.
I also don't know the validity of these claims but I read some posts saying that this stuff was outsourced. aka Microsoft didn't even claim to code it, they just bought botched code. Good going with your theory... it appears even more that the "evil" people in this situation are lowlife developers and not the "Corporate Suits" that your agenda is pushing.
Microsoft as a corporation is the victim here TBH.
I would agree that if you threw me in an automatic right now, and put me in a crazy situation I would probably be worse off than if I was in a manual. (I will never buy an automatic car btw. I can't stand the lack of control.)
But if I had been driving that automatic for a decent amount of time I think I could handle the situation close to as well. I don't think putting a car into neutral can ever hurt the transmission unless something crazy I don't know about happens in some automatics. I did some quick research and nothing came up saying anything wrong with doing it.
You never really told me if you have had experience with a manual transmission but when you drive a manual you can 'feel' the car. The inputs you give mean a lot more because you need to do more than just press 'go' or 'stop'. Most manual drivers I have been around don't use their gauges after they are used to the car, they literally feel the car needs to shift up or down. This sort of connection would instantly tip me off if something was going wrong and I needed to correct. I can 'feel' the revs of my car to probably within 100 rpm without looking at the gauge, if it is in the range that I usually drive in, so I would almost instantly know something was wrong without even looking at my speed.
Not having this connection with a automatic car would hinder the ability to use it to your advantage, I agree. I hope that clarifies why I think the way I do.
I never said expert drivers or even better drivers are produced by manual transmissions. In fact I specifically said in my last sentence that I don't think that they make the driver better(way to read). I do think it makes them more capable of handling an emergency situation because of the relationship manual drivers have with their cars.
It comes down to having the knowledge vs using it. Manual drivers have more knowledge and are more aware of what is going on with their cars. Most of the time they don't use this knowledge to their benefit because nothing is going on and they are humans.. they let their mind wander just like an auto driver. But when an emergency does arise, all of the extra stuff that manual drivers know can be used by the brain to make the correct decision where the automatic driver is more likely to panic.
Driving tactics are not what you learn by driving a manual. You learn about the car works. You learn that there is a way to disengage the engine from the wheels by putting it in neutral. You do this on a regular basis.
By know how a car worked I only meant the basics. Not every detail. You can't drive a manual without knowing about gears, neutral, etc. You can get away with knowing almost nothing when driving an automatic.
Also, going through a training course (what one or two days? at most a week) does not equate to the same experience a lifetime of daily driving give you.
I agree, kind of. It is worthless to those that know. I think the car companies don't tell you on purpose so that you aren't supposed to know.
The main difference is that since a car company would be liable in many situations where errors occur with these gauges setting them in a way to minimize manufacturer liability is in their best interest. Clock companies are not liable if you get somewhere at the wrong time but imagine the lawsuits if cars started running out of gas early or were going 5 mph faster resulting in speeding tickets.
Slashdot Mirror
HAHAHA. I am guessing you fall into the category of people who that think higher corporate taxes are the best way to fund government because you are not being taxed. Guess what... EVERY tax falls back on the customer. You think oil companies pay the gas tax? No, the price of gas just goes up and you pay the price of the tax even if it was levied on the company. Taxes are always shared with the customer, of course politicians love to make you think otherwise.. so they can raise taxes and make you happy about it.
Way to kill the joke.
Wait, you are calling those that purchase stuff online and don't report the taxes assholes? I don't condone skipping out on taxes but I think it put an unnecessary burden on the individual to a) know about this in the first place b) track purchases made and c) properly report these purchases.
I also don't see how you can argue that local governments deserve the tax revenue when the company doesn't operate in that local vicinity. They don't operate a store front so they don't need police, fire, (new)roads, etc. A shipping company brings in the product and the shipping company pays taxes related to its operation in the state. Then you go on to talk about locality.. we live in a global economy. The best way to support your local economy is keep doing your job because it is likely generating revenue from the other states just like you are sending your money to other states. The idea of a local economy is dead. Even the smallest towns participate in the global economy.
I understand that wherever you live this gets you audited and illegal or whatever, but you seem to be talking about it like everyone who doesn't pay sales tax on 3 $10 books bought off amazon is a evil bastard that should burn in hell.
It is a fact that if you are going to run a scam you should move the money the scam makes into a place other than the business/entity that you are conducting the scam with. If you don't do this you are a failure at scamming because there is not one reason to keep it there and a million reasons to move it.
People who leave money in an account labeled "scam account" are terrible scammers. Arguing this is false is like trying to argue that a bad(or terrible) basketball player is good because there is no real definition of what a good basketball player is. Sure you can argue it, and technically be "right", because there is no set definition of a bad basketball player, but you still are wrong, the player obviously is bad by the standards of any onlooker.
This is what I am talking about. Anyone with common sense is going to think to not keep money in an account directly associated with a scam. Anyone who does, is an idiot. Call it circular reasoning if you want but language is based off of definitions that are self created thus many true statements could be classified as circular reasoning because by the very nature of language it is based off of itself.
By your standards no-one can be called bad because they did something bad because that is circular reasoning. Fuck off, you are the one using games to redefine the situation and make yourself look right.
We are talking about scams , not legit businesses. Scammers are not afraid of lawyers because they offload the money to accounts not related to the business, instantly. You can't recover what isn't there. If you think this is outlandish you are ignorant to how many legit businesses use the same offloading model to protect their separate business units. They offload everything that they can so that if a lawsuit occurs they can cut losses and start over.
Strictly speaking your examples are talking about dumb-asses who didn't properly structure their businesses or scams to be successful. If you do it right you win unless the governemnt finds you, and that is only if it is an illegal operation. (I'm not condoning, just giving facts)
Why would a lawyer work a case where they get nothing because the defendant is effectively broke? They won't. Lawyers want deep pockets, with lots of real and predictable money in those pockets. Since most(all?) class action cases get paid on a % of the settlement it is impossible to get a firm/lawyer to proceed with a case if the target has no way to pay because the money is hidden or out of legal grasp.
I don't know, maybe it proves that the experience that person had is isolated, or at least I am evidence that is not always the case. All my CD's I have ever burned and have tried to use recently still work and its been at least 8 years since I started burning stuff. Some(50) of these CD's were even free cd's from a best buy black Friday sale... not expensive CD's by any means.
I guess I figured that people here are smart enough to deduce most of that from my one line, but apparently I have to spell it out word for word so that I don't get accused of trolling.
The only thing I have added since my first post is an analysis of what I think my post means and the clarification that they weren't expensive disks. I was assuming everyone has the brain power to put my post in context with the other one and think about it. Apparently not, or you are just trolling me.
Fourth: I presented a fact that debunks this statement: "I have yet to find one that lasts longer than 5"
I would say that comment contributes something useful.
*Currently playing an 8 year old burned CD with no issues*
So if I walk up to a random pregnant lady that is about to give birth in a hospital and jam a metal rod in the babies head I shouldn't be charged with murder?
Religion constantly attempts to answer how. Ever read a page from the bible? It is full of "hows".
This inherently brings forth conflict.
I agree that research should be allowed on this stuff but some of the opposition isn't crazy Christians. People like me are concerned about at what specific point does a person turn from a pile of cells to a "human". This has nothing to do with souls and more to do with defining important things like what constitutes murder. When is the magic point where some living thing goes from being thrown away as abortion waste to being something so valuable that society could potentially put someone to death for killing it.
I know that wasn't the exact point you were trying to make but I just wanted to voice that not everyone is opposed to something because of religious reasons. Some people have moral questions, separate from religious beliefs, that question how we treat living things.
I think this scientific research is way more important than a national health care plan, yet I still think boundaries should be respected if a valid reason is brought up. I know we now know how to obtain special cells easily without harm to anything, but in the past that wasn't exactly the case and I think that set off the panic that got the research criticized so much.
Yes. I didn't meant to leave this out but I did because I had seen it posted in other comments but looking back it does seem to be a missing piece from my comment. Thanks for highlighting the need for communication and not just a one way reporting.
Asking what the executive wants is important but just is important is coming up with what you think is important. Sometimes an executive may not know what you are capable of telling them so they may not ask for those things. Or they could ask for things that don't really mean much. The key of course is a two way conversation where you are explaining why things are important or unimportant and the executive is giving you the same feedback.
You and your parent will go far in life. I can't wait till someone finds you out if you are doing this because executives DO care. You are a fool if you think an executive doesn't care about things like system up-times.. I know from personal experience how seriously pissed executives can get with IT persons for reporting false information about the IT capabilities of the organization. When an executive hires a person they trust that person to report factual information. Just because they don't call you out on mistakes doesn't mean they don't care. It means they are busy as fuck, probably working way more hours than you assume, and don't have time to look up "quasitron" to ensure their employees are fucking with them. They will take the report at face value if you say everything is great.
To chopsuei3:
The best things to report are things that affect clients or are otherwise extremely important. Since you mentioned you are providing services to devices that I can only assume you are a type of "command and control center" for I would think the most vital thing to report is the up time of that system and any other pertinent information about that system. If it had gone down, why? and on a related note, what is being done to protect the system's up time. If there are no issues with this aspect and you think nothing will happen before the next report you may glance over it quickly, but still make sure critical systems are the first thing you report on. It will demonstrate you understand what is most important.
After that I would report on the status of any ongoing projects, not with numbers or charts but with words. This could come before critical systems if the project is critical but that should be obvious.
Finally I would report on the status of less-critical functions like the internal IT stuff you do. This can be as simple as saying "I dedicated 20 hours this month to desktop support, this has been the average for the past several months." with maybe a little analysis if you want to work that number down.
I think the preferred format for an executive would be more written or bullet points rather than charts and figures. Help them to understand what is going on so they can better help you accomplish your goals. A chart that has up-times on it is worthless to an executive unless you thoroughly explain it so you might as well do the analysis and then explain what it means rather than presenting the charts as eye candy. An executive wants a "what does this mean" perspective not a load of information that they have to derive the "what does this mean" from. There may be times when raw charts and figures are important so don't completely scratch them, just make sure you aren't just throwing information out there just for the sake of having stuff to present.
Delivering concise, well thought out, and informative reports are way more effective than a "data dump" just to prove you do something every day you come in. The executives are busy, they don't want to waste their time reading a huge report on unimportant shit.
Yes it is true that there are many ways to mitigate the effects but you can't eliminate them. The biggest issue I see with the mitigation tactics is not in the technical feasibility of them but is in actually implementing solutions that are economically feasible. Currently this whole "upgrade path" is orders of magnitude more expensive than the current energy solutions. All the mitigation techniques you mentioned double up the number of idle facilities, i.e. if power isn't being produced then nothing is being produced.
Most companies try as hard as they can to maximizing the efficiency of their machines, meaning they try and run them as close to 24/7/365 as they can while making room for required down time. By randomly inserting stops society will in general need to have more facilities and equipment to produce the same number of goods. If you are shifting servers to areas that are windy then you will need to have more servers, more data center space, more internet backbone capacity so that when that location is lit up it is just as effective.
Redundancy on this sort of level is so costly it is mind boggling. The effects will trickle into nearly every aspect of the economy if this sort of thing were implemented. Producing the power in this way is the easiest step, trying to implement the mitigation techniques you mentioned is a whole different beast.
I think that is well known. The issue is how many different renewable sources need to be put in place to achieve one joule of energy consistently with no possible variation. What you have is an issue of no meaningful relation between the different renewable sources creating situations where many many different sources of energy could all be producing zero, and other situations where many sources will be producing more than enough. Unfortunately this sort of solution doesn't work because humans demand consistent energy not just a total or average.
Solar: Needs significant light
Wind: Needs significant and consistent air movement
Tidal: Has peaks and troughs of output
Essentially you could implement a capacity of "3X" and still end up with points of nearly 0 production while other times you end up with 3X the power you need.
These facilities are not cheap to build to begin with and then building multiple times the capacity you need compounds the problem.
You are clearly an idiot. Quote from me:
"What I said is "Microsoft" probably didn't know about, authorize or condone the use of (GPL)open source code. That does not mean it is OK that it did happen."
Yeah, that sounds like I clearly think MS should be in the clear. By me saying MS is a victim it implies I think they are still liable for what happened. You are also continuing to prove my point by throwing around the "their actions." statement. Microsoft employs almost 100,000 people, mistakes or slip ups by small number or individuals does not equate to corporate sponsorship or policy which. Corporate policies or attitudes can be refereed to as 'their'. You don't say McDonalds is a dick company that promotes being dicks because one time you had a dick drive through operator.
Surely if a open source developer slipped MS code in a project that *individual* would be the one to blame, not the project or the whole open source community? Correct?
You are displaying irrational MS hating behaviors. This is a situation where Microsoft could clearly be legally liable but that doesn't mean the corporation meant to do what they did nor does it mean they are evil. It means a few people didn't do their jobs and will likely lose their jobs IF it even turns out they copied anything.
They are the victim of buying bad code how hard is that to understand? Yes there are things they could have done to prevent it but that is the same thing as saying its a rape victims fault for getting raped because they didn't carry a gun.
I stand by my statement that the "company" is a victim of a very small few individuals actions.
That is not what I said. What I said is "Microsoft" probably didn't know about, authorize or condone the use of (GPL)open source code. That does not mean it is OK that it did happen. It does mean people need to stop generalizing from incidents like this to the idea that the Microsoft corporation is evil when it is individual actors at a low level that make this happen. Of course it is hard for everyone HERE to admit because that would imply, you guessed it, developers are the ones that actually are to blame. I find this ironic because of anyplace you would think Slashdot would be the place that would understand that higher ups never look at the code and only care that it works. So please re-read what I said in my OP and try and understand it, obviously you didn't understand it the first time because I never said MS has the right to use the code.
Ever think that if this code was stolen it was done by a lower level employee and not an executive. It is way more likely that a small group of employees couldn't hit a deadline or something and so they borrowed code form other places to get it done. I know executives and have heard many executives speak... they don't like legal exposure, they don't want to do things wrong because it is their neck on the line. It is way more likely that it was the average slashdot user who did this than it was a "Microsoft Corporation" decision.
I also don't know the validity of these claims but I read some posts saying that this stuff was outsourced. aka Microsoft didn't even claim to code it, they just bought botched code. Good going with your theory... it appears even more that the "evil" people in this situation are lowlife developers and not the "Corporate Suits" that your agenda is pushing.
Microsoft as a corporation is the victim here TBH.
I'm too dumb.
I would agree that if you threw me in an automatic right now, and put me in a crazy situation I would probably be worse off than if I was in a manual. (I will never buy an automatic car btw. I can't stand the lack of control.)
But if I had been driving that automatic for a decent amount of time I think I could handle the situation close to as well. I don't think putting a car into neutral can ever hurt the transmission unless something crazy I don't know about happens in some automatics. I did some quick research and nothing came up saying anything wrong with doing it.
You never really told me if you have had experience with a manual transmission but when you drive a manual you can 'feel' the car. The inputs you give mean a lot more because you need to do more than just press 'go' or 'stop'. Most manual drivers I have been around don't use their gauges after they are used to the car, they literally feel the car needs to shift up or down. This sort of connection would instantly tip me off if something was going wrong and I needed to correct. I can 'feel' the revs of my car to probably within 100 rpm without looking at the gauge, if it is in the range that I usually drive in, so I would almost instantly know something was wrong without even looking at my speed.
Not having this connection with a automatic car would hinder the ability to use it to your advantage, I agree. I hope that clarifies why I think the way I do.
Great analogies, I think these three comments should be used to explain IQ in Wikipedia. Someone edit it.
I never said expert drivers or even better drivers are produced by manual transmissions. In fact I specifically said in my last sentence that I don't think that they make the driver better(way to read). I do think it makes them more capable of handling an emergency situation because of the relationship manual drivers have with their cars.
It comes down to having the knowledge vs using it. Manual drivers have more knowledge and are more aware of what is going on with their cars. Most of the time they don't use this knowledge to their benefit because nothing is going on and they are humans.. they let their mind wander just like an auto driver. But when an emergency does arise, all of the extra stuff that manual drivers know can be used by the brain to make the correct decision where the automatic driver is more likely to panic.
Driving tactics are not what you learn by driving a manual. You learn about the car works. You learn that there is a way to disengage the engine from the wheels by putting it in neutral. You do this on a regular basis.
By know how a car worked I only meant the basics. Not every detail. You can't drive a manual without knowing about gears, neutral, etc. You can get away with knowing almost nothing when driving an automatic.
Also, going through a training course (what one or two days? at most a week) does not equate to the same experience a lifetime of daily driving give you.
I agree, kind of. It is worthless to those that know. I think the car companies don't tell you on purpose so that you aren't supposed to know.
The main difference is that since a car company would be liable in many situations where errors occur with these gauges setting them in a way to minimize manufacturer liability is in their best interest. Clock companies are not liable if you get somewhere at the wrong time but imagine the lawsuits if cars started running out of gas early or were going 5 mph faster resulting in speeding tickets.