Or board sanely. That means getting rid of half a dozen phases of special priority boarding, and instead board from the back and sides first. If facilities and weather permit, board from the back door as well.
I was on an Emirates A380 flight in Prague when they announced they'd board in sections. Sweet I thought, stack the back rows first, working forward, creating an organised boarding process. Well some fucktard read the instructions wrong and decided to load the front sections first, then called the section immediately behind after it. The result was pure chaos and the flight got delayed by 30 minutes due to ensuing mess. I just don't understand how something so simple can be done so wrong so often.
JAL and ANA advertise more leg room and charge a little more. I always pay more to fly with them. I would guess that people's willingness to put up with small seats is inversely proportional to the length of the flight.
But how much more? I travel to Asia quite regularly and have found a couple of the budget airlines will do a premium economy seat for about $50 extra (on a 9 hour flight). This is a no brainer, but last time I checked, the branded airlines were charging about $1000 more for the same thing.
The problem isn't space. The problem is people unwilling to pay extra for extra space.
10% yes, 50% no, which is how it works here.
Legislation requiring slightly larger seats and slightly higher prices (economy+) be available on all flights is fine.
No it isn't, it's discrimination. Fair enough if you're a fat bastard who created your own problems, but tall people have no control over their height.
Legislation outlawing "smaller" seats which fit the vast majority of passengers is stupid.
So why not just stagger some rows so that some seats have 3 inches less pitch and the seat in front gets 3 inches extra? Average pitch stays the same, number of seats stays the same, prices stays the same, but taller people now have options.
So why should short people subsidize you? If you need extra room, then pay for it yourself. Many airlines already offer "economy plus", so you already have that option. Why should that option be forced on everyone?
Making every seat fit someone that is 6'6" will mean fewer people will fit on the plane, wasting fuel, and jacking up the ticket prices for everyone.
Well you can't discriminate on height
I submitted an idea years ago for a seating plan that had staggered rows. So Row A would have the same sized space. Row B would have slightly different pitch per seat (say ranging from 31 to 38inches) and Row C would be fixed again, but because Row B was staggered, Row C would also have different seat pitch per seat.
You only have to do this with one section of the plane and it will allow the few taller people the space they need, and short people and kids can fill the gaps.This would allow the same number of seats, but the extra room that small people don't need would be reallocated to taller people.
I never got any response from the airline and forgot all about it until now.
I fly Southwest almost exclusively and I always get the paper ticket. I am often on a phone call during boarding and someone who scans 1000s of tickets a day will always be faster at me at scanning the ticket.
They still scan the ticket, you merely hand them a phone instead of a piece of paper. Everything else is the same.
If you're a rude enough person that you are on the phone during this transaction you can always say "one sec, I'm just scanning my boarding pass". it literally takes 3 secs max. Crisis averted...
Have you seen how many people fumble their phones and hold up the line? It'll take 3x longer to board if everyone has to use their cell.
Paper works better.
Makes no difference how fast you board as the slowest part of the boarding procedure is passengers dicking about finding their seats, working out how to get their oversize bag in the overhead compartment, and holding up everyone else while they do this.
If anything they need to deliberately slow down the onboarding to give people more time to sort their shit out.
The military is a federal issue, those other programs are not. Look to your state.
Who's responsibility is it for the health of the military?
Imagine if every American joined the military and got health cover as a result. Republican minds would explode...
Modern war rarely has winners. It's not typical to come out ahead.
Of course it does. The winners are all of us. Modern wars are designed to keep the bad shit somewhere other than where you live. Back in the day, the war would be on your doorstep, and would affect everyone you know. Now it's somewhere you've never been fought mostly by people you'll never meet. This is a win for me.
Oh dear you aren't very good at this game are you? http://lmfgtfy.com/?q=what+doe...
To quote "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".
So based on what we both now know, that the 24 hours clock was based on some reasoning or system, then no it isn't arbitrary (see how that works now?)
And if you don't think DST is arbitrary, then you should look up the definition.
That's urgent then, isn't it? If it's not urgent you don't need it now.
Er yeah, is English your first language?
And the same in a meeting, either the meeting pauses to get an answer, or it will be given later.
Have you ever been in a meeting? A lot of meetings have a lot of dead time for a lot of the participants. Some times, some of the dead time can be productive because work can be done with people outside the meeting using IM. You can't do that with a phone call
Designed by God or nature? Oh, you mean made up by people. So it is one of many possible human time systems, and not a natural system. There could be 12 hours a day, or 48. So that is arbitrary, and artificial. DST is another artificial, arbitrary aspect of that human invented system. And it does not mesh well with the recipients of the system, namely humans, who's circadian clocks don't like time jumping around by an hour twice a year.
Righto so your definition of arbitrary is "made by humans". What an interesting world you must live in...
I'm replying to this because Slashdot archived the last thread and prevented any right of reply.
Your whole argument is based on the misguided assumption that if you want an equivalent quality of life then you're not wanting to do something different. That's patently false, it's possible to still want the same size house, the same salary, and same commute to work whilst indulging in a completely different culture and lifestyle outside of that.
No it isn't. I've traveled extensively, lived in four separate countries (for longer than a year), and each time there were compromises. Some things were worse, some were better, but overall each was more interesting than staying put.
You're fundamentally wrong - people don't move to do something different, they move to make their lives better.
I'm a person, I moved for more interest. I threw away a regular income, and everything I own to try something different and I know a *lot* of others that did the same. Maybe you just hang out with boring people or maybe just old, but I assure you there are millions of people out there who live for adventure, even if it means they have to get their hair wet.
People only move to change absolutely everything, when absolutely everything in their life is shit.
Or not interesting enough. And you don't have to change everything only some things. You've made it clear you'll only move if pretty much everything is the same. That's fine, but a lot of people think differently to you.
You're ironically making judgements about my travelling experiences, my acceptance of change and so forth without having any idea about me,
Based on what you've told us about yourself. "Must haves: Same sized house, same income, same commute", your words friend...
a suggestion that a move to NZ will always leave you with a bigger house,
No we've been over this already. Repeating lies won't make them any more true.
We have no instant messaging problem. We just have a robust constellation of competing systems, serving different communities. Why is that as problem?
- My teen has a Snapchat community, an Instagram community, as Facebook community, a Pinterest community she hides from me, a Twitter community she denies, an SMS constellation, and a variety of less visible communities gathered around video, music, photo, and mixed media paradigms. Some of the members overlap and are pasrt of several communities, some of these communities serve specific purposes, some are flash mobs instantiating and disappearing quickly. She manages her various communities by platform sometimes. These are 'where she is' at any given moment, sometimes in more than one place at a time. Oh, and she has email too. Several of them.
- I don't want a messaging platform mixing my Facebook and G+ communities. Leave them separate. Some overlap occurs, but I can manage that.
This!
The advantage of multiple disparate platforms is that I still have the choice of how I use them, and I can make up different personas on each to retain some level of separation. If one standard was adopted, we'd have the same stupid problem we see with Google and Facebook where they just want to connect everyone you associate with together in one big love-in.
That's what I felt when the boss at a previous job wanted us to use instant messaging when there was already a phone for urgent things and email for non-urgent matters.
What about things that aren't super urgent that you need_now! But also don't want to send an email and perhaps wait a day or more? IM serves that useful middleground for stuff that's quick and easy but isn't now, now! urgent.
IM is also useful in meetings for semi urgent questions when talking on a phone isn't practical.
Slashdot Mirror
First i fail to understand why any honest politician would not want broadband everywhere for all people to use. .
Honest politician? What's that?
The ping is not really that bad compared to a dsl connection anyway.
Probably because your ISP QoS's ICMP and bandwidth test sites to highest priority. Try running some real time apps and see how it compares.
Uh, we're you replying to me?
Or board sanely. That means getting rid of half a dozen phases of special priority boarding, and instead board from the back and sides first. If facilities and weather permit, board from the back door as well.
I was on an Emirates A380 flight in Prague when they announced they'd board in sections. Sweet I thought, stack the back rows first, working forward, creating an organised boarding process. Well some fucktard read the instructions wrong and decided to load the front sections first, then called the section immediately behind after it. The result was pure chaos and the flight got delayed by 30 minutes due to ensuing mess. I just don't understand how something so simple can be done so wrong so often.
Then you decided to go after my use of the term arbitrary, when in fact that was the correct word to use.
If you don't understand English then this discussion is pointless...
JAL and ANA advertise more leg room and charge a little more. I always pay more to fly with them. I would guess that people's willingness to put up with small seats is inversely proportional to the length of the flight.
But how much more? I travel to Asia quite regularly and have found a couple of the budget airlines will do a premium economy seat for about $50 extra (on a 9 hour flight). This is a no brainer, but last time I checked, the branded airlines were charging about $1000 more for the same thing.
The problem isn't space. The problem is people unwilling to pay extra for extra space.
10% yes, 50% no, which is how it works here.
Legislation requiring slightly larger seats and slightly higher prices (economy+) be available on all flights is fine.
No it isn't, it's discrimination. Fair enough if you're a fat bastard who created your own problems, but tall people have no control over their height.
Legislation outlawing "smaller" seats which fit the vast majority of passengers is stupid.
So why not just stagger some rows so that some seats have 3 inches less pitch and the seat in front gets 3 inches extra? Average pitch stays the same, number of seats stays the same, prices stays the same, but taller people now have options.
Why?
*Never seen a booked out exit row.
Do you fly much? I used to travel a little and used to pay for the upgrade whenever possible. At least half the time it was booked out.
So why should short people subsidize you? If you need extra room, then pay for it yourself. Many airlines already offer "economy plus", so you already have that option. Why should that option be forced on everyone?
Making every seat fit someone that is 6'6" will mean fewer people will fit on the plane, wasting fuel, and jacking up the ticket prices for everyone.
Well you can't discriminate on height
I submitted an idea years ago for a seating plan that had staggered rows. So Row A would have the same sized space. Row B would have slightly different pitch per seat (say ranging from 31 to 38inches) and Row C would be fixed again, but because Row B was staggered, Row C would also have different seat pitch per seat.
You only have to do this with one section of the plane and it will allow the few taller people the space they need, and short people and kids can fill the gaps.This would allow the same number of seats, but the extra room that small people don't need would be reallocated to taller people.
I never got any response from the airline and forgot all about it until now.
Somewhere in Russia, a team of hackers are licking their chops.
At what? That Southwest are now doing the same thing that every other airline in the western world has been doing for years? None of this is new...
I fly Southwest almost exclusively and I always get the paper ticket. I am often on a phone call during boarding and someone who scans 1000s of tickets a day will always be faster at me at scanning the ticket.
They still scan the ticket, you merely hand them a phone instead of a piece of paper. Everything else is the same.
If you're a rude enough person that you are on the phone during this transaction you can always say "one sec, I'm just scanning my boarding pass". it literally takes 3 secs max. Crisis averted...
I love digital tickets, but sometimes, on long journeys, i like the reassurance of having a paper ticket in case anything happens to my phone.
You still have this option, the responsibility of printing is merely shifting from them to you if you so choose.
Have you seen how many people fumble their phones and hold up the line? It'll take 3x longer to board if everyone has to use their cell.
Paper works better.
Makes no difference how fast you board as the slowest part of the boarding procedure is passengers dicking about finding their seats, working out how to get their oversize bag in the overhead compartment, and holding up everyone else while they do this.
If anything they need to deliberately slow down the onboarding to give people more time to sort their shit out.
I take your lack of response as an admission that you were wrong.
Thanks for taking the effort to share that. That really added value to the discussion...
Do you also dance like no-one is watching? This is gold.
You still have not said why there are 24 hours in a day
I sent you the links, if you don't read them I can't help you.
The military is a federal issue, those other programs are not. Look to your state.
Who's responsibility is it for the health of the military? Imagine if every American joined the military and got health cover as a result. Republican minds would explode...
Modern war rarely has winners. It's not typical to come out ahead.
Of course it does. The winners are all of us. Modern wars are designed to keep the bad shit somewhere other than where you live. Back in the day, the war would be on your doorstep, and would affect everyone you know. Now it's somewhere you've never been fought mostly by people you'll never meet. This is a win for me.
How do you explain that there are 24 hours in a day,
http://lmfgtfy.com/?q=origin+o...
Are you saying that is not arbitrary?
Oh dear you aren't very good at this game are you?
http://lmfgtfy.com/?q=what+doe...
To quote "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system".
So based on what we both now know, that the 24 hours clock was based on some reasoning or system, then no it isn't arbitrary (see how that works now?)
And if you don't think DST is arbitrary, then you should look up the definition.
I did. Now it's your turn...
it's just time to shut the fuck up and stop being wrong about something indefintely, now take the hint.
You are the gift that keeps on giving. Keep repeating yourself, this is worth the price of admission...
That's urgent then, isn't it? If it's not urgent you don't need it now.
Er yeah, is English your first language?
And the same in a meeting, either the meeting pauses to get an answer, or it will be given later.
Have you ever been in a meeting? A lot of meetings have a lot of dead time for a lot of the participants. Some times, some of the dead time can be productive because work can be done with people outside the meeting using IM. You can't do that with a phone call
Designed by God or nature? Oh, you mean made up by people. So it is one of many possible human time systems, and not a natural system. There could be 12 hours a day, or 48. So that is arbitrary, and artificial. DST is another artificial, arbitrary aspect of that human invented system. And it does not mesh well with the recipients of the system, namely humans, who's circadian clocks don't like time jumping around by an hour twice a year.
Righto so your definition of arbitrary is "made by humans". What an interesting world you must live in...
Your whole argument is based on the misguided assumption that if you want an equivalent quality of life then you're not wanting to do something different. That's patently false, it's possible to still want the same size house, the same salary, and same commute to work whilst indulging in a completely different culture and lifestyle outside of that.
No it isn't. I've traveled extensively, lived in four separate countries (for longer than a year), and each time there were compromises. Some things were worse, some were better, but overall each was more interesting than staying put.
You're fundamentally wrong - people don't move to do something different, they move to make their lives better.
I'm a person, I moved for more interest. I threw away a regular income, and everything I own to try something different and I know a *lot* of others that did the same. Maybe you just hang out with boring people or maybe just old, but I assure you there are millions of people out there who live for adventure, even if it means they have to get their hair wet.
People only move to change absolutely everything, when absolutely everything in their life is shit.
Or not interesting enough. And you don't have to change everything only some things. You've made it clear you'll only move if pretty much everything is the same. That's fine, but a lot of people think differently to you.
You're ironically making judgements about my travelling experiences, my acceptance of change and so forth without having any idea about me,
Based on what you've told us about yourself. "Must haves: Same sized house, same income, same commute", your words friend...
a suggestion that a move to NZ will always leave you with a bigger house,
No we've been over this already. Repeating lies won't make them any more true.
We have no instant messaging problem. We just have a robust constellation of competing systems, serving different communities. Why is that as problem?
- My teen has a Snapchat community, an Instagram community, as Facebook community, a Pinterest community she hides from me, a Twitter community she denies, an SMS constellation, and a variety of less visible communities gathered around video, music, photo, and mixed media paradigms. Some of the members overlap and are pasrt of several communities, some of these communities serve specific purposes, some are flash mobs instantiating and disappearing quickly. She manages her various communities by platform sometimes. These are 'where she is' at any given moment, sometimes in more than one place at a time. Oh, and she has email too. Several of them.
- I don't want a messaging platform mixing my Facebook and G+ communities. Leave them separate. Some overlap occurs, but I can manage that.
This!
The advantage of multiple disparate platforms is that I still have the choice of how I use them, and I can make up different personas on each to retain some level of separation. If one standard was adopted, we'd have the same stupid problem we see with Google and Facebook where they just want to connect everyone you associate with together in one big love-in.
That's what I felt when the boss at a previous job wanted us to use instant messaging when there was already a phone for urgent things and email for non-urgent matters.
What about things that aren't super urgent that you need_now! But also don't want to send an email and perhaps wait a day or more? IM serves that useful middleground for stuff that's quick and easy but isn't now, now! urgent.
IM is also useful in meetings for semi urgent questions when talking on a phone isn't practical.