When I was a kid there was no "google," or rather they didn't matter yet. Apple was the company who's products you laughed at for being awful. Well...google matters now.
Aspbergers has been taken out of the DSM-V draft as a form of autism. So very soon "OFFICIALLY" if you are "high functioning aspbergers" now you're just an asshole. And if you're low functioning you have autism. So that shouldn't offend anyone.
I don't care about being politically correct. This is the internet act accordingly, and/or go fuck yourself in your own asshole.
Jackasses.
-The Redman Cometh
More than likely a significant part of that cost was paying tool&die makers to tool up, as the poster above mentioned. Four-slide and stamping prototyping is especially expensive. Like for a stamping press die: to put out a part with just a few bends and with VERY basic sensing (thru-beam sensor to check for part-ejection, a progression sensor (hysteretical proximity sensor) and 2 prox sensors) you're looking at ~$13k minimum. Plus the cost of a cad designer (not including the cost of a solidworks+logopress seat which they will already have) and CNC programmer to plug the G code in to the PLC so it knows what to do with the sensors. Add on another grand or so for some shadow VII light curtains with a control box. Add in the cost of an electrician to wire the light curtains to the PLC, and wire the PLC/part feeds into the press console.
God forbid they don't already have a control/feed package on it! Then you need a $1500-2500 smartPAC, possibly an autosetPAC (or other high-end tonnage monitor), and possibly a wintriss solid-state clutch control (just shy of $10,000) to achieve a very high SPM (doubtful with this low volume.) Then a resolver, and a specially made sprocket with a "key+hole" cut in it, and the list just goes on.
Go browse wintriss's website sometime.
Oh and the cost of the press operators, and the cost to run the presses themselves. Electricity, whey oil, elite red grease, etc, etc.
At least that's what they'd do if they want a lot of them. If that's the case, then the per-unit cost probably isn't very high, especially as far as military hardware goes.
Oh Bartles nailed it! I saw the periods, and I'm a culturocentric bastard I guess. I actually didn't know that was a thing in other places. Bartles possibly prevented me from future foreign charges of surprising magnitudes.
Sorry the guy above me whose post is now gone had said $200. Now it seems rather obvious he meant $200k, but I thought it might have been designed as cheap and disposable...thus cheap. A lower cost version of this (I can't believe I'm about to say this) for the FBI, SWAT teams, certain PD precincts, etc would be incredible! Maybe they have some kind of cheap plastic airplane with a live-stream camera mounted that I just haven't heard about.
It makes me sad that DHS has drones and a lot of public servants who actually do positive things don't. A tiny, cheap ($12-1300) as standard issue for swat team members, or at least team leaders (I don't know anything about ranking) could save a lot of lives. Even the perp's lives if it allows for a previously-impossible non-lethal takedown.
Just saying.
Before the aspbergers show up with their negativity...
This is fucking awesome! And $200 thats it? Ive seen model airplanes that cost 2-3x+ that. Scouting with this thing, I would think, many lives will be saved. Well not the brown people's lives (the ones being shot at.)
I swear to Allah this had formatting until I hit submit:(. I don't know why it keeps taking away my paragraphs. Still that's a pretty scientifically supported post with valid sources is it not?
1) Confirmation bias, confirmation bias, confirmation bias. It is more than enough grounds to invalidate conclusions of "predictions" if they can even be called that. You notice the word pre in the word predictions? It means BEFORE. Of course the conclusions of a '08 model are going to be right for '99 they knew what was going to happen!
No matter what you say about a computer being "unbiased" a human wrote the formulas based on bias. In psychology studies a psychologist can't even administer the study to make up for confirmation bias. You can't predict things that have already happened. Period.
2) There were several debates broadcast in CBS in '75 I remember my father calling them "stupid hippies" rather vividly. The data was both heavily flawed, and heavily biased. As a 15 year old the paper in time (Idk about newsweek, we were forced to read time in class) was excessively biased.
3) You obviously aren't studying or working in a scientific field. There is no such thing as a "true" conclusion. If you can name 1 theory that hasn't radically evolved since becoming "accepted" much less since inception I'll be extremely impressed!
4) If you don't think I'm knowledgeable on the subject I encourage you to find the post in this thread written by me which talks about an increase in irradiance/luminosity in the solar maximum. It also mentions the reflectivity of algae and plant matter (in the near-infared visible light spectrum IE where the sun radiates most of it's energy) which seems important. Every aspect of our environmental impact is important in this. It is FAR more than just an emissions problem!
5) What about the article recently posted here talking a bout cities affecting temperature for 1000+ miles? I didn't even talk about that and my arguments are pretty strong.
Calling me unscientific is what's known as a "claim" in debate. You're missing both the "warrant" (how am I unscientific) and the impact (why that matters) in your response. You're being dismissive, and that is almost never positive.
Age is very important when taking into account predictions. If the period of time is too small it could just be a coincidence. Sample size is important in any scientific study is it not? I'm not saying that invalidates results I'm just saying I'd feel they were more concrete over 30-100 years. Primarily since in geography and climate science the time scales are at least 100s of thousands of years if not millions. If you pulled an arbitrary 30 years out of the ice age, or the heating period after...well...you get the idea. There are several extremely long periods of cooling and warming that have taken place on the earth. I have even heard the theory (I think it's wrong) that global warming killed the dinosaurs. In my view (MY personal view) there is no way 10 years of data could reach a "concrete" conclusion. It can reach a fairly well-supported conclusion, but it's just not enough time to say entirely. Hell that's not even an entire solar cycle!
You're right the models have probably gotten better, but 10 years of data just isn't enough for even a 3 sigma standard of evidence. There ARE models from the 70s, but none of the predictions are perfect, or near-perfect. They are in the ballpark. As I said I believe (I said BELIEVE) that this is because they were trying to prove "global cooling" at the time. I remember watching the debates, and being bored to death as a child.
Of course they are incorporating those things into their models. I'm not the only one to have those thoughts. I'm sure each of those thoughts was derived of, if not entirely of something said by someone else. It's pretty rare to have a "truly original" thought in human society I believe.
I'm not saying you're wrong. However I would need to see a link to these studies before I'm convinced. That being said I can definitely be convinced.
I believe my points were scientifically supported. I did after all have fairly good sources for any of my points yes? I was just trying to point out how ridiculous the people that say there "isn't even a debate" are. That concept in *anything* is entirely contrary to the scientific method. What it really comes down to is that I don't like people being dismissive about anything. I'll listen to an "ancient astronaut" theory all day, and I won't outright dismiss it. Sure it's pretty crazy, and it's probably not true, but why not at least listen to the evidence? That was my whole point. People kept going on about how I had an agenda and was some kind of climate change denialist nutjob, so I had to keep going on and on.
Since everyone sees fit to purposely misinterpret my posts I'm going to preface this. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I ALSO BELIEVE IN GRAVITY. BUT
Our understanding of gravity is actually extremely flawed. Everyone on here knows this. Sure we know it's a thing, but there are a lot of grey areas. Dark matter and WIMPs ring a bell? And that's just scratching the surface. At a quantum level gravity is still extremely unknown.
Also with evolution there are some somewhat serious questions. The only really "interesting" question is the timescale issue. When dating something carbon-14 dating produces a result that sometimes wildly varies from uranium:thorium ratios. Apparently it can be as far off as 3500 years: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html. I think uranium's decay rate is something ridiculous, and there are a bunch of different ones to use. I don't have the patience to wade through all the fundamentalist garbage to find more valid sources and problems.
Anyways I'm just saying even things are practically scientific law have a little mystery left in them. That's the cool thing about science! You find out something is a little bit broken, you tweak it a little, check out the results, rinse, repeat. While pursuing those questions we (the human race I'm not a scientist) tend to stumble across really weird things that lead to more questions or discoveries.
Like cellphones being a result of black hole research. Even the most esoteric seemingly asinine questions can have dramatic far-reaching consequences.
1) Not an era of the globe cooling. An era where the general population was panicked about global cooling. I stated that poorly. They were trying to use their models to prove the opposite conclusion, and looked at somewhat different factors. There are several FAR better studies than Hansen's. Plotting "temperature anomalies" is simply not enough.
Also read the entirety of Hanson's study not a pundit-analysis of it from 1995-present. The people presenting his data have cherry picked some of his strongest statements. But yes the conclusions are certainly supported by his study. I can't argue with that.
2) Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes it heats things up, but we're at least trying to cut down. My point wasn't that it's not happening, as I said, it is. My point was there are a lot of factors that cannot or have not been taken into account. If we found OTHER causes that can be addressed in a more direct, cheaper, or easier method we can mitigate the climate change.
For example deforestation causing issues with the carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles. If we find out this is a factor we can pass EPA regulations (I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative so...a moderate? I'm liberal on anything green (the environment, pot laws) but the PC stuff is getting on my nerves...this was ineveitably gonna come up) to plant certain species of trees that perform best in the specific role we need. We can create provisions for protected areas (areas with certain soil/water profiles) and the like.
My plankton argument is actually in favor of global warming. Due to chlorophyll phytoplankton the reflect near-infared visible light very well (like plants.) You might recognize this as the wavelength area the sun radiates most of it's energy on. A lot of plants have markings to reflect UV light. I don't know it's relevance here, but it might be important.
What I KNOW is important is that plankton process more CO2 than classical plant matter. This makes sense due to the surface area of the ocean, and the small size of plankton enabling massive surface area. Ocean pollution kills them which weakens the Earth's ability to process CO2.
I've spent too much time on this post already, I don't feel like grabbing sources. I don't think I've heard that disputed before though?
3) I don't think you understand how the sun works. Every 11 years it flips it's poles in what's known as the "solar maximum." This is a period in which extremely large CMEs and solar flares are most likely. We have had several X class solar flares hit us in 2012. True there seems to be less sunspot activity right now, but they seem to be FAR more energetic. Then there is a consistent increase in X-class solar flares which is consistent with the solar maximum.
" The most recent solar minimum occurred in 2008, and the sun began to ramp up in January 2010, with an M-class flare (a flare that is 10 times less powerful than the largest flares, labeled X-class). The sun has continued to get more active, with the next solar maximum predicted for 2013."
From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarmin-max.html.
The people saying "this is the weakest solar cycle" have been misled by a single piece of data. It IS the weakest cycle since 1903 if you look at solar flare/sunspot/cme activity. Unfortunately solar flares aren't even remotely (well maybe remotely) important in this debate. In fact the more sunspots there are the lower the average temperature is. What IS important is that the suns irradiance increases.1+% during the solar maximum..1% of that kind of energy seems like it could have an impact! There is probably some effect on the solar wind as well.
Also obligatory wikipedia quote:
"Correlations are now known to exist with decreases in luminosity caused by sunspots (generally - 0.3%)"
In other words you're supporting my argument. Less sunspot activity = higher luminosity and higher irradiance. Irradiance is important because the "braids" of mag
Agreed! But I also think it's ridiculous that people say they have proof either way. The models arent old enough yet to have realized concrete predictions. The models old enough are from the "global cooling" era. I think it's obvious climate change is occurring. The question is how much of it is a result of geological processes? Deforestation messing up the water cycle, nitrogen cycle, and carbon cycle? Plants reflect infared light like a mirror could that be a factor? Ocean pollution killing off plankton and algae could have an impact! We're ALSO at the 11 yr peak of the solar cycle which seems as if it could have an effect. I dont think think I need to give evidence for the other side. I believe most of us are intimately familiar with it. Isnt that enough to at least say its a debate?
I work in a small metal shop in Garland Texas. We are a stamping shop that specializes in extremely tiny parts. We use punch and die systems in punch&die presses. The sensor and automation techs (the guys who maintain the smartPAC and smartPAC2, load analyzers, shadow VI light curtains, clutch control packages, etc) are all recruited from the press room. Working in the press room is easily one of the most menial jobs on the face of the earth.
Further, our tool and die makers are recruited straight out of the press room. It is EXTREMELY common to recruit tool and die makers off the press room/assembly room floor in heavy industry. Sensor and automation isn't quite as common, because it's a job that involves avoidance of $50k+ problems, and major safety issues.
How does that make him a "randwanker," and wtf is a randwanker. His comment didnt seem biased at all. Your just reaching for something to get your pannies in a bunch. People like you make me nauseas.
Also doesnt sales tax apply to bottled water already?
Slashdot Mirror
When I was a kid there was no "google," or rather they didn't matter yet. Apple was the company who's products you laughed at for being awful. Well...google matters now.
I would have modded you funny, but then I couldn't reply and say this is hilarious.
Aspbergers has been taken out of the DSM-V draft as a form of autism. So very soon "OFFICIALLY" if you are "high functioning aspbergers" now you're just an asshole. And if you're low functioning you have autism. So that shouldn't offend anyone. I don't care about being politically correct. This is the internet act accordingly, and/or go fuck yourself in your own asshole. Jackasses. -The Redman Cometh
More than likely a significant part of that cost was paying tool&die makers to tool up, as the poster above mentioned. Four-slide and stamping prototyping is especially expensive. Like for a stamping press die: to put out a part with just a few bends and with VERY basic sensing (thru-beam sensor to check for part-ejection, a progression sensor (hysteretical proximity sensor) and 2 prox sensors) you're looking at ~$13k minimum. Plus the cost of a cad designer (not including the cost of a solidworks+logopress seat which they will already have) and CNC programmer to plug the G code in to the PLC so it knows what to do with the sensors. Add on another grand or so for some shadow VII light curtains with a control box. Add in the cost of an electrician to wire the light curtains to the PLC, and wire the PLC/part feeds into the press console. God forbid they don't already have a control/feed package on it! Then you need a $1500-2500 smartPAC, possibly an autosetPAC (or other high-end tonnage monitor), and possibly a wintriss solid-state clutch control (just shy of $10,000) to achieve a very high SPM (doubtful with this low volume.) Then a resolver, and a specially made sprocket with a "key+hole" cut in it, and the list just goes on. Go browse wintriss's website sometime. Oh and the cost of the press operators, and the cost to run the presses themselves. Electricity, whey oil, elite red grease, etc, etc. At least that's what they'd do if they want a lot of them. If that's the case, then the per-unit cost probably isn't very high, especially as far as military hardware goes.
Oh Bartles nailed it! I saw the periods, and I'm a culturocentric bastard I guess. I actually didn't know that was a thing in other places. Bartles possibly prevented me from future foreign charges of surprising magnitudes.
Sorry the guy above me whose post is now gone had said $200. Now it seems rather obvious he meant $200k, but I thought it might have been designed as cheap and disposable...thus cheap. A lower cost version of this (I can't believe I'm about to say this) for the FBI, SWAT teams, certain PD precincts, etc would be incredible! Maybe they have some kind of cheap plastic airplane with a live-stream camera mounted that I just haven't heard about. It makes me sad that DHS has drones and a lot of public servants who actually do positive things don't. A tiny, cheap ($12-1300) as standard issue for swat team members, or at least team leaders (I don't know anything about ranking) could save a lot of lives. Even the perp's lives if it allows for a previously-impossible non-lethal takedown. Just saying.
I'm a libertarian myself (though not radical...I even have liberal views on quite a few social issues) but this hits the nail on the head!
Wow looked through the comments to see if it had been pointed out...missed the comment right above mine.
Not that it makes it any less awful but this article is from 2008...
Heh. Xkcd.
Before the aspbergers show up with their negativity... This is fucking awesome! And $200 thats it? Ive seen model airplanes that cost 2-3x+ that. Scouting with this thing, I would think, many lives will be saved. Well not the brown people's lives (the ones being shot at.)
I stopped reading at "the supreme court has emphatically said otherwise"...we are talkung about the US supreme court right?
This hurt my brain.
Oh and the post I was referring to is here: slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3411745&cid=42709147
I swear to Allah this had formatting until I hit submit :(. I don't know why it keeps taking away my paragraphs. Still that's a pretty scientifically supported post with valid sources is it not?
1) Confirmation bias, confirmation bias, confirmation bias. It is more than enough grounds to invalidate conclusions of "predictions" if they can even be called that. You notice the word pre in the word predictions? It means BEFORE. Of course the conclusions of a '08 model are going to be right for '99 they knew what was going to happen! No matter what you say about a computer being "unbiased" a human wrote the formulas based on bias. In psychology studies a psychologist can't even administer the study to make up for confirmation bias. You can't predict things that have already happened. Period. 2) There were several debates broadcast in CBS in '75 I remember my father calling them "stupid hippies" rather vividly. The data was both heavily flawed, and heavily biased. As a 15 year old the paper in time (Idk about newsweek, we were forced to read time in class) was excessively biased. 3) You obviously aren't studying or working in a scientific field. There is no such thing as a "true" conclusion. If you can name 1 theory that hasn't radically evolved since becoming "accepted" much less since inception I'll be extremely impressed! 4) If you don't think I'm knowledgeable on the subject I encourage you to find the post in this thread written by me which talks about an increase in irradiance/luminosity in the solar maximum. It also mentions the reflectivity of algae and plant matter (in the near-infared visible light spectrum IE where the sun radiates most of it's energy) which seems important. Every aspect of our environmental impact is important in this. It is FAR more than just an emissions problem! 5) What about the article recently posted here talking a bout cities affecting temperature for 1000+ miles? I didn't even talk about that and my arguments are pretty strong. Calling me unscientific is what's known as a "claim" in debate. You're missing both the "warrant" (how am I unscientific) and the impact (why that matters) in your response. You're being dismissive, and that is almost never positive.
Age is very important when taking into account predictions. If the period of time is too small it could just be a coincidence. Sample size is important in any scientific study is it not? I'm not saying that invalidates results I'm just saying I'd feel they were more concrete over 30-100 years. Primarily since in geography and climate science the time scales are at least 100s of thousands of years if not millions. If you pulled an arbitrary 30 years out of the ice age, or the heating period after...well...you get the idea. There are several extremely long periods of cooling and warming that have taken place on the earth. I have even heard the theory (I think it's wrong) that global warming killed the dinosaurs. In my view (MY personal view) there is no way 10 years of data could reach a "concrete" conclusion. It can reach a fairly well-supported conclusion, but it's just not enough time to say entirely. Hell that's not even an entire solar cycle! You're right the models have probably gotten better, but 10 years of data just isn't enough for even a 3 sigma standard of evidence. There ARE models from the 70s, but none of the predictions are perfect, or near-perfect. They are in the ballpark. As I said I believe (I said BELIEVE) that this is because they were trying to prove "global cooling" at the time. I remember watching the debates, and being bored to death as a child. Of course they are incorporating those things into their models. I'm not the only one to have those thoughts. I'm sure each of those thoughts was derived of, if not entirely of something said by someone else. It's pretty rare to have a "truly original" thought in human society I believe. I'm not saying you're wrong. However I would need to see a link to these studies before I'm convinced. That being said I can definitely be convinced. I believe my points were scientifically supported. I did after all have fairly good sources for any of my points yes? I was just trying to point out how ridiculous the people that say there "isn't even a debate" are. That concept in *anything* is entirely contrary to the scientific method. What it really comes down to is that I don't like people being dismissive about anything. I'll listen to an "ancient astronaut" theory all day, and I won't outright dismiss it. Sure it's pretty crazy, and it's probably not true, but why not at least listen to the evidence? That was my whole point. People kept going on about how I had an agenda and was some kind of climate change denialist nutjob, so I had to keep going on and on.
There is always debate welcome to science.
Since everyone sees fit to purposely misinterpret my posts I'm going to preface this. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I ALSO BELIEVE IN GRAVITY. BUT Our understanding of gravity is actually extremely flawed. Everyone on here knows this. Sure we know it's a thing, but there are a lot of grey areas. Dark matter and WIMPs ring a bell? And that's just scratching the surface. At a quantum level gravity is still extremely unknown. Also with evolution there are some somewhat serious questions. The only really "interesting" question is the timescale issue. When dating something carbon-14 dating produces a result that sometimes wildly varies from uranium:thorium ratios. Apparently it can be as far off as 3500 years: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html. I think uranium's decay rate is something ridiculous, and there are a bunch of different ones to use. I don't have the patience to wade through all the fundamentalist garbage to find more valid sources and problems. Anyways I'm just saying even things are practically scientific law have a little mystery left in them. That's the cool thing about science! You find out something is a little bit broken, you tweak it a little, check out the results, rinse, repeat. While pursuing those questions we (the human race I'm not a scientist) tend to stumble across really weird things that lead to more questions or discoveries. Like cellphones being a result of black hole research. Even the most esoteric seemingly asinine questions can have dramatic far-reaching consequences.
And? Even a broken clock is right twice a day (right to ask the questions not deny climate change.)
1) Not an era of the globe cooling. An era where the general population was panicked about global cooling. I stated that poorly. They were trying to use their models to prove the opposite conclusion, and looked at somewhat different factors. There are several FAR better studies than Hansen's. Plotting "temperature anomalies" is simply not enough. Also read the entirety of Hanson's study not a pundit-analysis of it from 1995-present. The people presenting his data have cherry picked some of his strongest statements. But yes the conclusions are certainly supported by his study. I can't argue with that. 2) Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes it heats things up, but we're at least trying to cut down. My point wasn't that it's not happening, as I said, it is. My point was there are a lot of factors that cannot or have not been taken into account. If we found OTHER causes that can be addressed in a more direct, cheaper, or easier method we can mitigate the climate change. For example deforestation causing issues with the carbon, nitrogen, and water cycles. If we find out this is a factor we can pass EPA regulations (I'm a social liberal/fiscal conservative so...a moderate? I'm liberal on anything green (the environment, pot laws) but the PC stuff is getting on my nerves...this was ineveitably gonna come up) to plant certain species of trees that perform best in the specific role we need. We can create provisions for protected areas (areas with certain soil/water profiles) and the like. My plankton argument is actually in favor of global warming. Due to chlorophyll phytoplankton the reflect near-infared visible light very well (like plants.) You might recognize this as the wavelength area the sun radiates most of it's energy on. A lot of plants have markings to reflect UV light. I don't know it's relevance here, but it might be important. What I KNOW is important is that plankton process more CO2 than classical plant matter. This makes sense due to the surface area of the ocean, and the small size of plankton enabling massive surface area. Ocean pollution kills them which weakens the Earth's ability to process CO2. I've spent too much time on this post already, I don't feel like grabbing sources. I don't think I've heard that disputed before though? 3) I don't think you understand how the sun works. Every 11 years it flips it's poles in what's known as the "solar maximum." This is a period in which extremely large CMEs and solar flares are most likely. We have had several X class solar flares hit us in 2012. True there seems to be less sunspot activity right now, but they seem to be FAR more energetic. Then there is a consistent increase in X-class solar flares which is consistent with the solar maximum. " The most recent solar minimum occurred in 2008, and the sun began to ramp up in January 2010, with an M-class flare (a flare that is 10 times less powerful than the largest flares, labeled X-class). The sun has continued to get more active, with the next solar maximum predicted for 2013." From http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/solarmin-max.html. The people saying "this is the weakest solar cycle" have been misled by a single piece of data. It IS the weakest cycle since 1903 if you look at solar flare/sunspot/cme activity. Unfortunately solar flares aren't even remotely (well maybe remotely) important in this debate. In fact the more sunspots there are the lower the average temperature is. What IS important is that the suns irradiance increases .1+% during the solar maximum. .1% of that kind of energy seems like it could have an impact! There is probably some effect on the solar wind as well.
Also obligatory wikipedia quote:
"Correlations are now known to exist with decreases in luminosity caused by sunspots (generally - 0.3%)"
In other words you're supporting my argument. Less sunspot activity = higher luminosity and higher irradiance. Irradiance is important because the "braids" of mag
Agreed! But I also think it's ridiculous that people say they have proof either way. The models arent old enough yet to have realized concrete predictions. The models old enough are from the "global cooling" era. I think it's obvious climate change is occurring. The question is how much of it is a result of geological processes? Deforestation messing up the water cycle, nitrogen cycle, and carbon cycle? Plants reflect infared light like a mirror could that be a factor? Ocean pollution killing off plankton and algae could have an impact! We're ALSO at the 11 yr peak of the solar cycle which seems as if it could have an effect. I dont think think I need to give evidence for the other side. I believe most of us are intimately familiar with it. Isnt that enough to at least say its a debate?
I work in a small metal shop in Garland Texas. We are a stamping shop that specializes in extremely tiny parts. We use punch and die systems in punch&die presses. The sensor and automation techs (the guys who maintain the smartPAC and smartPAC2, load analyzers, shadow VI light curtains, clutch control packages, etc) are all recruited from the press room. Working in the press room is easily one of the most menial jobs on the face of the earth. Further, our tool and die makers are recruited straight out of the press room. It is EXTREMELY common to recruit tool and die makers off the press room/assembly room floor in heavy industry. Sensor and automation isn't quite as common, because it's a job that involves avoidance of $50k+ problems, and major safety issues.
And I'm totally better than you at being an ignorant jackass, but I have "no use" for the resultant hilarity and admiration. Oh wait.
How does that make him a "randwanker," and wtf is a randwanker. His comment didnt seem biased at all. Your just reaching for something to get your pannies in a bunch. People like you make me nauseas. Also doesnt sales tax apply to bottled water already?