That's all good reason for boarding them last - so they don't slow down those who can board quickly.
I promise the plane won't take off without you. What, are you in a hurry to cram yourself into an airline seat instead of enjoying the comfort of the airport lounge for another 10 minutes or so? Entitled much?
Yaz
What are you smoking? Have you never been late for a connecting flight?
That's all good reason for boarding them last - so they don't slow down those who can board quickly.
Any parent with kids knows that you develop the ability to do everything twice as fast as a normal person. You need to do this to survive.
There are two main issues that I see slowing down the boarding process on SWA: 1. People who cannot put their bags in the overhead bins efficiently. They either can't lift their bag rapidly (or at all) or the bag will not fit. 2. People who run out of overhead bin space and want to put their bag further down the aisle than where they will sit.
When you are in a command position or publicly declaring your opinion (online posting), you will make decisions/comments that other people disagree with.
The disrespectful ones will attempt to cut you down by making crude comments intended to hurt you as much as possible, especially if they can do it anonymously. Often, they will pursue what sets you apart from the average population because bullies innately know that most people are self-consciousness about standing out.
If you are a minority, they will come after your race. If you are a woman, they will come after your gender. If you are gay, they will come after your sexuality. If you have a family, they will threaten your children. If you are handicapped, they will come after your disability. If you are attractive, they will insult your beauty. If you are ugly, they will insult your beauty. If you are obese, they will insult your weight. If you are thin, they will insult your weight. If you are a man, they will insult your genitalia. If you are a woman, they will insult your genitalia.
This is the way that the world works. No amount of whining online will change it; it just lets them know that they have hit home. It is not fair. Life is not fair. However, effective individuals accept this harassment as the cost of being a manager or public figure. They learn to absorb it, ignore it or thrive on it. Then they continue to move forward towards their goals.
If you cannot learn to deal with the harassment associated with leadership or public positions, consider less visible paths forward in life.
As a legal person, the corporation could be sued, rather than filing 100 law suits against each of the individual investors, none of which could pay the judgement.
It's gone too far. I am sick of seeing "investors" hide behind the corporation shield.
I want to go back to being able to sue each investor to the point of bankruptcy.
I don't think that it will stifle innovation, because greedy people always want to make money. But I do think that it will make them think twice about legal ramifications that they normally would flaunt under a corporation.
Yes, the terror is in the minds of many beach goers, but not in reality. By putting this in place they're validating that fear. Of course this doesn't surprise me as Australia is currently in the middle of a shark cull. Sometimes I forget that the US doesn't have a monopoly on acting on unsubstantiated (and often dis-proven) fears; it's part of the human condition.
That was typed like someone who has never been sliding off the side of their surfboard and noticed a shark directly on the other side of it. Or who has never had their surfboard "bumped" as the shark decides if it is worthy of eating.
Shark attacks are infrequent, but they leave lifelong crippling injuries. If we can get a buoy to give us a heads up, I would be all for it.
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”
...when they want to steal my car. Or just kidnap me and take me with them.
Really fantastic idea.
I wish they would just focus their technological efforts on hurrying up and getting me an inexpensive car that can drive itself. Then it won't run into things, no matter who is driving it.
I agree, but they're not as shameless as I thought. My first reaction was: they are not going to have a pilot's license much longer. But when I took a look at the aeronautical charts for that area, I was surprised to find out that it's not a prohibited area to fly over.
In my humble opinion, this means that apparently the Government doesn't think this datacenter is such a big deal, otherwise it would have been a no-fly zone (like the plant a couple of miles to the left of the lake).
Another way to think about it is that: 1. They want it to remain obscure. 2. They think that the facility is impenetrable from all directions.
... the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice! It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.
Oh really?
You've clearly never had to sit next to someone who is morbidly obese on an airplane!
I have been scarred for life. The armrest only protects a portion of your body!
I really don't understand how Bloomberg thought that such a plan would actually make it through it courts in America though. It seems like it would have been more sensible to tax the hell out of any sugary drink larger than 16 oz, like they do on alcohol and cigarettes. There is precedent AND social acceptance of such an approach. But then again, I am not a rich, controlling prick that likes to forcefeed everyone my personal agenda...
The primary distinguisher of the Ivy League schools isn't that they're rich or that they're exceptionally high quality (though generally they are.) They're a group of colleges that a century or so ago made an agreement with each other not to have athletic scholarships, so the students could play amateur sports against each other instead of having to compete with semi-professionals. Yes, occasionally a student at the Ivies is good enough to get into the NFL or NHL, but they've got to spend time being a student as well.
Having gone to an Ivy League school, I can tell you that they still give athletic scholarships to skilled student athletes (with skilled modifying latter noun!). They just call them "academic" scholarships.
If a species was capable of interstellar travel: 1. Why would they stop and visit us? We can barely get into low earth orbit reliably. 2. Why would they even bother to colonize other planets? I'll bet with unlimited energy, their spaceships are pretty comfortable.
I learned a long time ago that if you go on a date with a woman and she says "I'm crazy", BELIEVE HER. She IS crazy. Even if she's hot, she's probably telling the truth when she says she's crazy. I think the same principle may apply here.
Suddenly I am less interested in my privacy and more interested in your anecdotal story!
You sure you didn't cancel your membership to the AARP?
This was posted in the proceedings of the Geological Society of America, Not the American Academy for the Advance of Science (AAAS).
* For those of you fine Slashdotters not of the American persuasion, the AARP used to be called the American Association of Retired Persons, likely to differentiate itself from the AAA, the American Automobile Association. Now it appears to be just called AARP.
Spend more time fact checking and less time trying to prove people wrong:
The first link in the article blurb above is to a headline on the AAAS website, which publishes the journal Science.
If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no. The US presence there might keep them away, but otherwise Canada isn't winning any wars.
That's not really the point. Having advanced weaponry also allows Canada to have the ability project their force and affect peacekeeping missions or global security.
If they were worried about Russia invading, they would develop nuclear weapons. Fortunately, Canada is under the nuclear umbrella of the US and does not need to do this. Much like North Korea is under the nuclear umbrella of China.
Seriously? I stopped reading the article when I got to the following text:
If something is receding from us right now at more than 299,792.458 km/s—faster than light speed—and it’s accelerating too, how could anything reach it? Even a photon, moving at the speed of light, wouldn’t be able to reach such a galaxy. Instead, anything beyond that point will do something that cosmologists call red out, which means they’re sufficiently redshifted that anything we do today could never, ever reach them, and only the light they emitted in the past will ever reach us. We are already causally disconnected from them.
This author obviously lacks the knowledge ladled out daily by the SyFy channel and internet on faster-than-light (FTL) drives and wormhole technology!
Next up, the new diet craze for lazy people. Blackout blinds.
I get you don't think this is useful, but why do you have to make stupid remarks? Obviously obesity rates have been rising significantly in the past few decades. There are a number of fairly obvious likely causes for this trend, but there may be many minor ones that have changed in recent decades that could be contributing -- like, for example, the amount of "light pollution" these days, which probably contributes to ambient light in bedrooms (along with decreased numbers of people in rural areas where light pollution is scarce), coupled with increased tendencies to leave various electronic devices on all the time.
Who cares if it's the "#1 reason why people don't exercise and eat right"? If it's in the top 20, it can probably be helpful to know it, and for some people, it could actually be leading to other health problems, including obesity.
I know there's this common assumption that diet and exercise is only about willpower, but the reality of life is that there are all sorts of psychological and physical factors which can make it easier or harder to pursue healthy habits. And being exhausted a lot of the time is not generally conducive to such habits. Obviously for many people blackout blinds are not the magic ticket to a thin body -- but combined with some other things, better rest could make it easier for some people to live in a more healthy manner.
You and the moderators are being too hard on the GP. It's disappointing to see posts marked as flamebait just because they are not written daintily enough.
The GP is saying that we need to stop looking for weak feel-good correlations and start dealing with the major factors! If you eat 2500 calories a day and only burn 1500 then you are eventually going to be obese.
It's commonly accepted that the cheap availability of high-calorie, empty-calorie diets is the major contributor to the obesity epidemic. I mean, come on, you can buy a 44oz drink that contains 1/3 of your recommended calorie intake for for under $2.
Couple that with lower exertion rate due to the loss of manual labor jobs (from the UK) to other countries and the time wasted noodling around on electronic media and it isn't hard to see why people are getting fat.
Maybe fat people just like a brighter bedroom since they are generally less nimble and don't want to trip on things when they get up to go the bathroom.
I'd guess that cynical or distrustful people end up with lesser social connections to other people, a factor which has already been linked to dementia.
I'd guess that the cynicism is an early manifestation of dementia in the people who manifest dementia!
How do we tell who is right in proper peer-reviewed fashion?
But it is already expensive enough that it doesn't make a lot of sense to buy if you want to buy one to save money on gas. The price difference is $15350. If we assume $4/gal for gas, then that's 3837.5 gallons. Fiat 500 gas version gets 31mpg city, 40mpg highway. If we average that, then we get 136,231.25 miles before the price difference pays for itself. And that's assuming we paid cash for the car. If you finance it, then add interest on top of that.
Now, if you want to get the electric version because it's cool and/or you want to support the technology, cool, but realize it's not really saving you money on gas.
But really, if they have to make at least X cars, and they're not making one more, why is he telling people not buy them? They're still making the exact same number. If some people listen to him and don't buy them, doesn't that just mean they'll sit on the lot longer and sold for even less? If it does help them somehow, could they make the electric version is really horrible colors?
But do you really want to by a $32K object that the company's CEO has told you he hates?
He is basically telling you that he spent as little money as possible on that design.
Fiat Chrysler is a dinosaur, and is going to be killed off by evolution unless it makes a real effort.
Someone said that about Marlboro 20 years ago too.
These companies are in it for profit, not to save the world. They will only switch to electric if it is more profitable to do so.
They have identified their target audience and they are targeting them only. They consider these "compliance taxes" the cost of doing business... much like when they donate to congress members' election campaigns.
That's all. Sharing demographic and other personal data is something they've been staunchly against since their founding. The government, being entirely unbiased toward people with enough money to buy it off, has appreciated Zuckerberg's principled stance.
I know it is PC to rant on Facebook privacy on Slashdot, but I've never understood why. It is a service that you voluntarily sign up for and every time you share something you actively choose to share that info, who to share it with. And all the people here who think (or pretend to) that Facebook privacy controls are difficult, really?? Hand in your geek card, they are and have always been quite easy, straight forward settings. If you can't handle that, you perhaps should reconsider having an internet connected PC.
Much of the hate is due to the impression that it is not explicitly made clear to non-tech savvy people exactly how much information is being collected and sold about them.
In similar fashion, many in the US were horrified when they found that the NSA was spying on them: Just because you "signed up" for a cell phone plan or internet access doesn't mean that you agreed to share all of your personal conversations and data with the US government.
Slashdot Mirror
That's all good reason for boarding them last - so they don't slow down those who can board quickly.
I promise the plane won't take off without you. What, are you in a hurry to cram yourself into an airline seat instead of enjoying the comfort of the airport lounge for another 10 minutes or so? Entitled much?
Yaz
What are you smoking? Have you never been late for a connecting flight?
The plane actually WILL take of without you.
That's all good reason for boarding them last - so they don't slow down those who can board quickly.
Any parent with kids knows that you develop the ability to do everything twice as fast as a normal person. You need to do this to survive.
There are two main issues that I see slowing down the boarding process on SWA:
1. People who cannot put their bags in the overhead bins efficiently. They either can't lift their bag rapidly (or at all) or the bag will not fit.
2. People who run out of overhead bin space and want to put their bag further down the aisle than where they will sit.
Brianna,
Not all people in the world are respectful.
When you are in a command position or publicly declaring your opinion (online posting), you will make decisions/comments that other people disagree with.
The disrespectful ones will attempt to cut you down by making crude comments intended to hurt you as much as possible, especially if they can do it anonymously. Often, they will pursue what sets you apart from the average population because bullies innately know that most people are self-consciousness about standing out.
If you are a minority, they will come after your race. If you are a woman, they will come after your gender. If you are gay, they will come after your sexuality. If you have a family, they will threaten your children. If you are handicapped, they will come after your disability. If you are attractive, they will insult your beauty. If you are ugly, they will insult your beauty. If you are obese, they will insult your weight. If you are thin, they will insult your weight. If you are a man, they will insult your genitalia. If you are a woman, they will insult your genitalia.
This is the way that the world works. No amount of whining online will change it; it just lets them know that they have hit home. It is not fair. Life is not fair. However, effective individuals accept this harassment as the cost of being a manager or public figure. They learn to absorb it, ignore it or thrive on it. Then they continue to move forward towards their goals.
If you cannot learn to deal with the harassment associated with leadership or public positions, consider less visible paths forward in life.
Sincerely,
cyn1c77
As a legal person, the corporation could be sued, rather than filing 100 law suits against each of the individual investors, none of which could pay the judgement.
It's gone too far. I am sick of seeing "investors" hide behind the corporation shield.
I want to go back to being able to sue each investor to the point of bankruptcy.
I don't think that it will stifle innovation, because greedy people always want to make money. But I do think that it will make them think twice about legal ramifications that they normally would flaunt under a corporation.
Yes, the terror is in the minds of many beach goers, but not in reality. By putting this in place they're validating that fear. Of course this doesn't surprise me as Australia is currently in the middle of a shark cull. Sometimes I forget that the US doesn't have a monopoly on acting on unsubstantiated (and often dis-proven) fears; it's part of the human condition.
That was typed like someone who has never been sliding off the side of their surfboard and noticed a shark directly on the other side of it. Or who has never had their surfboard "bumped" as the shark decides if it is worthy of eating.
Shark attacks are infrequent, but they leave lifelong crippling injuries. If we can get a buoy to give us a heads up, I would be all for it.
"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”
...when they want to steal my car. Or just kidnap me and take me with them.
Really fantastic idea.
I wish they would just focus their technological efforts on hurrying up and getting me an inexpensive car that can drive itself. Then it won't run into things, no matter who is driving it.
Are in reality a bunch of shameless cowards.
I agree, but they're not as shameless as I thought. My first reaction was: they are not going to have a pilot's license much longer. But when I took a look at the aeronautical charts for that area, I was surprised to find out that it's not a prohibited area to fly over.
In my humble opinion, this means that apparently the Government doesn't think this datacenter is such a big deal, otherwise it would have been a no-fly zone (like the plant a couple of miles to the left of the lake).
Another way to think about it is that:
1. They want it to remain obscure.
2. They think that the facility is impenetrable from all directions.
... the solution is to provide adequate education and if they still ignore that advice that is their choice! It isn't harming anybody else. I'm glad this sort of nanny-state rubbish has been defeated.
Oh really?
You've clearly never had to sit next to someone who is morbidly obese on an airplane!
I have been scarred for life. The armrest only protects a portion of your body!
I really don't understand how Bloomberg thought that such a plan would actually make it through it courts in America though. It seems like it would have been more sensible to tax the hell out of any sugary drink larger than 16 oz, like they do on alcohol and cigarettes. There is precedent AND social acceptance of such an approach. But then again, I am not a rich, controlling prick that likes to forcefeed everyone my personal agenda...
The primary distinguisher of the Ivy League schools isn't that they're rich or that they're exceptionally high quality (though generally they are.) They're a group of colleges that a century or so ago made an agreement with each other not to have athletic scholarships, so the students could play amateur sports against each other instead of having to compete with semi-professionals. Yes, occasionally a student at the Ivies is good enough to get into the NFL or NHL, but they've got to spend time being a student as well.
Having gone to an Ivy League school, I can tell you that they still give athletic scholarships to skilled student athletes (with skilled modifying latter noun!). They just call them "academic" scholarships.
Wink, wink.
Sports are big money, even for the Ivy Leagues.
I read TFA.
Height? Check!
Thickness? Check!
Length? FAIL!
This is why engineers generally build things and physicists don't. They forget those simple little details that end up being the most expensive issue!
If a species was capable of interstellar travel:
1. Why would they stop and visit us? We can barely get into low earth orbit reliably.
2. Why would they even bother to colonize other planets? I'll bet with unlimited energy, their spaceships are pretty comfortable.
I learned a long time ago that if you go on a date with a woman and she says "I'm crazy", BELIEVE HER. She IS crazy. Even if she's hot, she's probably telling the truth when she says she's crazy. I think the same principle may apply here.
Suddenly I am less interested in my privacy and more interested in your anecdotal story!
I'm not sure which emotions would go through my mind as the boa constrictor tightened its grip, but I'd imagine regret would be among them.
Gods, it's awesome being on the top of the food chain....
I hate to break it to you, but you're not at the top.
Go camping without a firearm in Africa, a South American jungle, or the Arctic to experience regret.
As long as a reasonable person in the same situation would not feel their safety was threatened by your filming, then you're good to go.
oh, and IANAL.
In my experience, you are never "good to go" if you do not immediately do what a cop tells you to do.
You may be within your rights ignoring them, but the cop is going to make you pay for it either way.
It can take a long time to get to see that judge and there is no guarantee that he will not side with the cop.
You sure you didn't cancel your membership to the AARP?
This was posted in the proceedings of the Geological Society of America, Not the American Academy for the Advance of Science (AAAS).
* For those of you fine Slashdotters not of the American persuasion, the AARP used to be called the American Association of Retired Persons, likely to differentiate itself from the AAA, the American Automobile Association. Now it appears to be just called AARP.
Spend more time fact checking and less time trying to prove people wrong:
The first link in the article blurb above is to a headline on the AAAS website, which publishes the journal Science.
If Russia wants a piece of northern Canada, they're taking it, 65 jets or no. The US presence there might keep them away, but otherwise Canada isn't winning any wars.
That's not really the point. Having advanced weaponry also allows Canada to have the ability project their force and affect peacekeeping missions or global security.
If they were worried about Russia invading, they would develop nuclear weapons. Fortunately, Canada is under the nuclear umbrella of the US and does not need to do this. Much like North Korea is under the nuclear umbrella of China.
Seriously? I stopped reading the article when I got to the following text:
If something is receding from us right now at more than 299,792.458 km/s—faster than light speed—and it’s accelerating too, how could anything reach it? Even a photon, moving at the speed of light, wouldn’t be able to reach such a galaxy. Instead, anything beyond that point will do something that cosmologists call red out, which means they’re sufficiently redshifted that anything we do today could never, ever reach them, and only the light they emitted in the past will ever reach us. We are already causally disconnected from them.
This author obviously lacks the knowledge ladled out daily by the SyFy channel and internet on faster-than-light (FTL) drives and wormhole technology!
What do you do when the idiot thinks that he is on par with the higher performing team members and rejects the menial jobs?
(I have this problem!)
Next up, the new diet craze for lazy people. Blackout blinds.
I get you don't think this is useful, but why do you have to make stupid remarks? Obviously obesity rates have been rising significantly in the past few decades. There are a number of fairly obvious likely causes for this trend, but there may be many minor ones that have changed in recent decades that could be contributing -- like, for example, the amount of "light pollution" these days, which probably contributes to ambient light in bedrooms (along with decreased numbers of people in rural areas where light pollution is scarce), coupled with increased tendencies to leave various electronic devices on all the time.
Who cares if it's the "#1 reason why people don't exercise and eat right"? If it's in the top 20, it can probably be helpful to know it, and for some people, it could actually be leading to other health problems, including obesity.
I know there's this common assumption that diet and exercise is only about willpower, but the reality of life is that there are all sorts of psychological and physical factors which can make it easier or harder to pursue healthy habits. And being exhausted a lot of the time is not generally conducive to such habits. Obviously for many people blackout blinds are not the magic ticket to a thin body -- but combined with some other things, better rest could make it easier for some people to live in a more healthy manner.
You and the moderators are being too hard on the GP. It's disappointing to see posts marked as flamebait just because they are not written daintily enough.
The GP is saying that we need to stop looking for weak feel-good correlations and start dealing with the major factors! If you eat 2500 calories a day and only burn 1500 then you are eventually going to be obese.
It's commonly accepted that the cheap availability of high-calorie, empty-calorie diets is the major contributor to the obesity epidemic. I mean, come on, you can buy a 44oz drink that contains 1/3 of your recommended calorie intake for for under $2.
Couple that with lower exertion rate due to the loss of manual labor jobs (from the UK) to other countries and the time wasted noodling around on electronic media and it isn't hard to see why people are getting fat.
Maybe fat people just like a brighter bedroom since they are generally less nimble and don't want to trip on things when they get up to go the bathroom.
I would like a curved computer monitor please.
A 2.5-3.0 foot radius covering a 120-180 degree arc would be perfect.
They are making a mistake going for TV's first. The gamers would snap these things up based on the cool factor alone.
I'm not a gamer; it would just be great to tune out all the visual background distractions (like my wife) while gaining more screen coverage!
I'd guess that cynical or distrustful people end up with lesser social connections to other people, a factor which has already been linked to dementia.
I'd guess that the cynicism is an early manifestation of dementia in the people who manifest dementia!
How do we tell who is right in proper peer-reviewed fashion?
Who would have thought that it would be THAT hard to get rid of something composed of 95% Uranium?
But it is already expensive enough that it doesn't make a lot of sense to buy if you want to buy one to save money on gas. The price difference is $15350. If we assume $4/gal for gas, then that's 3837.5 gallons. Fiat 500 gas version gets 31mpg city, 40mpg highway. If we average that, then we get 136,231.25 miles before the price difference pays for itself. And that's assuming we paid cash for the car. If you finance it, then add interest on top of that.
Now, if you want to get the electric version because it's cool and/or you want to support the technology, cool, but realize it's not really saving you money on gas.
But really, if they have to make at least X cars, and they're not making one more, why is he telling people not buy them? They're still making the exact same number. If some people listen to him and don't buy them, doesn't that just mean they'll sit on the lot longer and sold for even less? If it does help them somehow, could they make the electric version is really horrible colors?
But do you really want to by a $32K object that the company's CEO has told you he hates?
He is basically telling you that he spent as little money as possible on that design.
Will it even make it to $100K miles?
Fiat Chrysler is a dinosaur, and is going to be killed off by evolution unless it makes a real effort.
Someone said that about Marlboro 20 years ago too.
These companies are in it for profit, not to save the world. They will only switch to electric if it is more profitable to do so.
They have identified their target audience and they are targeting them only. They consider these "compliance taxes" the cost of doing business... much like when they donate to congress members' election campaigns.
That's all. Sharing demographic and other personal data is something they've been staunchly against since their founding. The government, being entirely unbiased toward people with enough money to buy it off, has appreciated Zuckerberg's principled stance.
I know it is PC to rant on Facebook privacy on Slashdot, but I've never understood why. It is a service that you voluntarily sign up for and every time you share something you actively choose to share that info, who to share it with. And all the people here who think (or pretend to) that Facebook privacy controls are difficult, really?? Hand in your geek card, they are and have always been quite easy, straight forward settings. If you can't handle that, you perhaps should reconsider having an internet connected PC.
Much of the hate is due to the impression that it is not explicitly made clear to non-tech savvy people exactly how much information is being collected and sold about them.
In similar fashion, many in the US were horrified when they found that the NSA was spying on them: Just because you "signed up" for a cell phone plan or internet access doesn't mean that you agreed to share all of your personal conversations and data with the US government.