The proper comparison isn't to changing corporate policies; it's to dealing with *different businesses*. Which is easier. Much, MUCH easier than changing any given law.
Still can't tell the difference between the effects of dumb government vs dumb business? Meh, figures.
Really? You can't distinguish how it takes a revolution and a long time to opt out of one, while it's trivially easy to dissociate yourself from the other?
Okay, now, it would be *pretty* low to try to fob off the whole disaster on a record company. They might be unpopular these days, but even this is pushing it.
I'm not the GP, but maybe I can explain. It's not the warning per se that is aggravating, but the lack of common sense permitted in the regulations. As I said in my comment here, it's ridiculous to make the warning go off the moment the ignition is turned, when few people would already have their seatbelts on. Why not delay it a few seconds? Or at least delay the seatbelt warning until your car is, I don't know, out of park? (i.e., the park gear setting on an automatic, not "the park" or "the parking lot")
Can you see any reason why the safety feature loses its functionality with that minor change?
I agree completely. While I'm not against a warning for the seat belt, I REALLY hate how it beeps for the seatbelt the MOMENT the ignition is turned. Who buckles up all the way before turning the ignition? No -- like you, I turn it on, then while it's starting, buckle up. The only effect of this regulation is to require me to be irritated or go out of my way *every time* I turn the car on.
Why the hell can't they allow car makers to delay the warning for five freaking seconds after ignition? Or until the car starts moving? Or until it exceeds 5 mph?
And on the verbal warnings, what ergonomics genius over-ruled the wording, "A door is open"? Is that somehow more confusing to people than "ajar"? To low-class? Seriously, wtf.
The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."
The Mexican said, "But senor, I can already do all that right now!"
The American said, "Maybe I'm not making myself clear. When you have that much money, everyone pretty much wants to do your bidding. You can get special favors from the government. Most importantly, you can go up to the hottest women in the world and bed them that very night. Not just your steadily-depreciating 'Maria'."
The Mexican paused for a second and said, "So how do these IPOs work, again?"
Being "really into" aviation is different from being gay. You can change the one, you can't change the other.
Assumes facts not in evidence (on the aviation side!), but let's forget that for a second. Having an unchangeable disposition *makes* you a better or worse candidate in some cases. If you are innately blind, you are a worse taxicab driver. If you innately want to violate a critical part of the church's value system, you can very reasonably be deemed a worse church worker.
How is that a "more outrageous exception"? Groups formed to promote value system X will prefer people who also like X. An aerospace company will prefer people who are "really into" aviation over people who see it as "just another job". Where's the pity party for people turned down in these cases?
Even accepting that this group should be legally barred from discrimination, what makes it a "more outrageous" case? Oh no -- they're allowed to not hire you where... um, everyone will hate you anyway. Next, Mosques will be allowed to prohibit Christians from leading services!
Hell, had he been black he would never have been able to accomplish what he did and may well have been found at a young age hanging from a tree just for wanting to.
Where is the link? Forget the a href? Or did you mean the link in the summary? No, that's a link to a forum discussion with everything about the problem labeled as spoilers.
This story shouldn't have been posted, at least not without a (non spoiler) restatement of the problem.
I was (failing at) being sarcastic: no matter how complex the fuel efficiency optimization system is, it's pretty simple to have a killswitch, and so the complexity of the electronics is no excuse; by design, there should be an emergency engine shutoff. Cars typically permit this through simply turning off the ignition.
Toyota, brilliant designers they, decided that "hold the on button for three seconds" is a good enough emergency killswitch. What a fucking joke.
While the tone could have been nicer, the AC was correct at least here:
if you have enough time to call 911 you have enough time to stop the car
Yes you probably might forget "the trick" they taught you in driver's ed when you're panicking. I probably would.
Yes people are being tremendously callous when they scoff that "Duh, why didn't you just put it in neutral lolz"
Still, if you really can't come up with SOMETHING to avert plowing into an intersection at 135 mph in the 60+ seconds they had, and you seriously expect someone miles away to get to you in two seconds, well, you were probably living on borrowed time anyway.
Okay, now you've got me curious: how the fuck did she get to be a Comp Sci TA in the first place? Or accepted as a CS grad student? Or a fucking Bachelor's?
Slashdot Mirror
The proper comparison isn't to changing corporate policies; it's to dealing with *different businesses*. Which is easier. Much, MUCH easier than changing any given law.
Still can't tell the difference between the effects of dumb government vs dumb business? Meh, figures.
Yeah, that's what I thought, bitch. No answer. Best you had to offer.
Really? You can't distinguish how it takes a revolution and a long time to opt out of one, while it's trivially easy to dissociate yourself from the other?
Okay, now, it would be *pretty* low to try to fob off the whole disaster on a record company. They might be unpopular these days, but even this is pushing it.
Bravo! Wish I had mod points. Don't apologize -- you're absolutely correct.
I'm not the GP, but maybe I can explain. It's not the warning per se that is aggravating, but the lack of common sense permitted in the regulations. As I said in my comment here, it's ridiculous to make the warning go off the moment the ignition is turned, when few people would already have their seatbelts on. Why not delay it a few seconds? Or at least delay the seatbelt warning until your car is, I don't know, out of park? (i.e., the park gear setting on an automatic, not "the park" or "the parking lot")
Can you see any reason why the safety feature loses its functionality with that minor change?
I agree completely. While I'm not against a warning for the seat belt, I REALLY hate how it beeps for the seatbelt the MOMENT the ignition is turned. Who buckles up all the way before turning the ignition? No -- like you, I turn it on, then while it's starting, buckle up. The only effect of this regulation is to require me to be irritated or go out of my way *every time* I turn the car on.
Why the hell can't they allow car makers to delay the warning for five freaking seconds after ignition? Or until the car starts moving? Or until it exceeds 5 mph?
And on the verbal warnings, what ergonomics genius over-ruled the wording, "A door is open"? Is that somehow more confusing to people than "ajar"? To low-class? Seriously, wtf.
Um, you forgot to include the rest of the story:
The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siesta with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."
The Mexican said, "But senor, I can already do all that right now!"
The American said, "Maybe I'm not making myself clear. When you have that much money, everyone pretty much wants to do your bidding. You can get special favors from the government. Most importantly, you can go up to the hottest women in the world and bed them that very night. Not just your steadily-depreciating 'Maria'."
The Mexican paused for a second and said, "So how do these IPOs work, again?"
*sigh* Dude, the correct answer is, "No, no! Let him have it! Please! Just don't destroy it! I love it too much!" Shame on India and Bengaladesh!
Everyone knows that by now!
Yes, but you can reduce (thought not eliminate) this risk by making sure you pull out and climax on her tits.
The gay networks.
Yeah, sorry, not what you were hoping for, I guess.
(Slashdot makes me fill the lines with not-repetitive stuff.)
And may I be the first to say: Mission Accomplished!
Google isn't the internet.
Yeah, exactly. The blue "e" thing on my desktop is the internet. (or at least, *one* of the internets)
Yes, that's all true. But that doesn't mean it's all bullshit,
Um, yes, yes it does. When the quality of wine depends 100% on what you expect its quality to be, that means its bullshit.
Being "really into" aviation is different from being gay. You can change the one, you can't change the other.
Assumes facts not in evidence (on the aviation side!), but let's forget that for a second. Having an unchangeable disposition *makes* you a better or worse candidate in some cases. If you are innately blind, you are a worse taxicab driver. If you innately want to violate a critical part of the church's value system, you can very reasonably be deemed a worse church worker.
How is that a "more outrageous exception"? Groups formed to promote value system X will prefer people who also like X. An aerospace company will prefer people who are "really into" aviation over people who see it as "just another job". Where's the pity party for people turned down in these cases?
Even accepting that this group should be legally barred from discrimination, what makes it a "more outrageous" case? Oh no -- they're allowed to not hire you where ... um, everyone will hate you anyway. Next, Mosques will be allowed to prohibit Christians from leading services!
Have you even seen what octopuses have done to Japanese schoolgirls?
Yeah. 'Nuff said.
Hell, had he been black he would never have been able to accomplish what he did and may well have been found at a young age hanging from a tree just for wanting to.
Yeah, good point, England never would have allowed in a brilliant non-white mathematician from a poor country back then.
Inside a commercial airliner, it's 14.7 psi, or below that enough to make your ears pop.
They're not the first ones to be checking out a nice-lookin' bird and then see from another angle that "she" is really a man.
Here is a link to the relevant information.
Where is the link? Forget the a href? Or did you mean the link in the summary? No, that's a link to a forum discussion with everything about the problem labeled as spoilers.
This story shouldn't have been posted, at least not without a (non spoiler) restatement of the problem.
I was (failing at) being sarcastic: no matter how complex the fuel efficiency optimization system is, it's pretty simple to have a killswitch, and so the complexity of the electronics is no excuse; by design, there should be an emergency engine shutoff. Cars typically permit this through simply turning off the ignition.
Toyota, brilliant designers they, decided that "hold the on button for three seconds" is a good enough emergency killswitch. What a fucking joke.
While the tone could have been nicer, the AC was correct at least here:
if you have enough time to call 911 you have enough time to stop the car
Yes you probably might forget "the trick" they taught you in driver's ed when you're panicking. I probably would.
Yes people are being tremendously callous when they scoff that "Duh, why didn't you just put it in neutral lolz"
Still, if you really can't come up with SOMETHING to avert plowing into an intersection at 135 mph in the 60+ seconds they had, and you seriously expect someone miles away to get to you in two seconds, well, you were probably living on borrowed time anyway.
Making an intenal combustion engine work at peak efficiency is NOT simple.
Giving it a killswitch isn't.
Okay, now you've got me curious: how the fuck did she get to be a Comp Sci TA in the first place? Or accepted as a CS grad student? Or a fucking Bachelor's?