Removing the human from the loop in aircraft automation has been a source of unending problems
Commercial aviation is now safer than it ever was in the past.
Fully autonomous driving is doable IF it is only along routes that have been verified and to some extent instrumented. I predict we'll see a few Approved Routes initially, such as stretches of Interstate. Fairly soon, the approved routes will account for the majority of vehicle miles driven. Then there will be a long tail of routes and conditions that won't be automated anytime soon. Basically, just like cellphone coverage.
I think you're right, we're looking at a slow, long term roll out.
Initially it will start out as road designed as or retrofitted to specifically carry automated cars, similar to an O-Bahn except instead of being a mechanical design, it will be electronic.
The anti-government and revenue conspiracy nuts will hate it as it will mean every vehicle on this road will be tracked in real time (as automated cars will be sharing the road with human controlled cars).
People don't want to have to deal with handing over booking details to each and every different hotel they may reserve at. If the hotel is providing lower-quality rooms for customers paying through an agency, the customer definitely has a right to complain. They aren't being offered a choice of room upon booking, and have no way of expressing a preference to pay more or less for different experiences.
No, they dont.
You've written this with no idea how to run a hotel. The customers who are more valuable to you get better service. Like it or not, booking through an agency means that a hotel sees less of that money, so they're going to reserve the better rooms for people who book direct. Its the same with free upgrades, people who book direct are bumped up before people who book through agencies.
Like I said, you're someone who expects Champagne service for beer prices. You're the problem here and have no right to complain. And yes, hotels will put a note in your file saying "troublesome cunt" if you complain about it. Hotels keep notes on guests (normally it's useful stuff like Mrs Smith prefers the room to be made up around 9 AM, but troublesome customers are noted as well).
Its about doing what's right by others to get what you want. Your method is passive aggressive, if you lose, they lose. My method is assertive, if I win, they win... So naturally I'm going to win more than you.
First, you're expecting the customer to do work for management. I don't know how many hotel customers are repeat customers, but from my own experience, I don't know if I've ever gone to the same hotel twice. Once I've stayed at the hotel and had a poor experience, I don't have incentive to report it to the management. I just want to leave and get back on with my trip.
Nope, it's about being able to do something simple, to get the ball rolling on something hard.
Again you have no idea how to run a hotel (but you like to pretend you do). Managers have a million and one things to do, if you get the ball rolling on something it's a lot easier for them to keep it rolling (plus you'll earn the respect of the manager, which leads to discounts, upgrades and free shit).
At a hotel I stayed at a few years ago I noticed the WiFi was a bit slow. Rather than go down and have a big self-entitled cry to the manager, I used WiFi analyser on my tablet to determine what the problem was. Turns out there were plenty of AP's but they were all on the same channel. I went downstairs, caught the manager and explained the problem (and how to fix it) He stayed a half hour after work changing the AP channels. The next day he walks up to me and says "I've received a dozen comments that the internet is a lot faster today, thanks and I've knocked 5% off your bill". This also highlights that people who run hotels aren't experts in every and any thing.
I don't know how many hotel customers are repeat customers,
I'd focus on the first three words in that sentence.
But the answer to your question is a lot. Repeat customers are often 50%+ of a hotels business. Especially for business travel and some tourist areas get a lot of repeat business (I.E. Phuket, Thailand tends to see the same people escaping the European winter each year).
If you've never stayed in the same hotel twice, you are not an experienced traveller. I have preferred hotels in over 25 cites across the globe.
Once I've stayed at the hotel and had a poor experience, I don't have incentive to report it to the management. I just want to leave and get back on with my trip.
Again, this is passive aggressive. The problem with being passive aggressive is that you shoot yourself in the foot to shoot others in the foot.
I'm thinking of starting a class-action against Quality Street as the toffee penny is not a chocolate. Also, why do they put so many of them in and so few of the green triangles? There's the other chocolate covered toffee, so I fail to see the need for the un-covered toffee penny.
I'm sure the retirement home is right behind this action:)
I'm not so sure what that widely repeated line from the film Forrest Gump is supposed to mean. Every box of Zachary chocolates that I've seen has a map of the chocolates on the inside of the lid. I wonder if this misconception was meant as a sign of Forrest's inability to read the map due to mild low intelligence. Or are maps of chocolate samplers the result of increased food allergen awareness that didn't exist during the era when the film takes place? Or am I overanalyzing?
Even a map may be no good.
In Australia there is a brand of boxed assorted, individually wrapped chocolates called Quality Street. There's about 11 varieties and 5 main colours. So the difference between getting a Strawberry Creme or Turkish delight was figuring out which was the right shade of red wrapper. Given Quality Street's reasonable price point and bright purple packaging it is favoured by elderly customers. Elderly customers who generally, dont have the best eyesight.
I'm not saying finding the Titanic wasn't important but archaeologically speaking it is far less important than the Mary Rose.
Finding the Titanic was more an engineering feat than an archaeological feat. the Titanic was in 3,800 metres of water (21 KM from it's reported 1912 position) and sonar was pretty useless (Ballard found the Titanic in the same way he found lost nuclear subs for the USN, by looking for debris on the ocean floor).
I used to drive an Acura, 1996 model, but when I had to get another car I never considered Acuras because windows are much smaller. I drove a 2012 model, it was terrible with small windows, zillion blindspots. I guess add type of person that drives Acuras but getting back to all new cars where they have airbags in the window frames which further reduces visibility.
Not sure whats up with Acura's but the Honda's they're based on have rather good blind spots for the class (SUV's just suck for blind spots so forget the CRV, I'm thinking more of an Accord Euro or Civic).
Personally I think the Jazz and Civic are the best sub-compact and compact (respectively) you can buy. Sure they're boring but they are the best boring cars you can get (and damn reliable too).
As an Australian, who's car designs are closer to Europe and Japan, I think American cars in general have blind spots that are way too big. The back pillar on the Camaro and Mustang are horrendously big even for fast backs (I used to have a Honda Integra Fastback). SUV's as I said above, terrible for blind spots as the B and C pillars are massive and windows are way too high (I drive a Nissan Silvia S15... A dodge Journey steering wheel attendant couldn't even see my car out the back window and my car is on adjustable coil overs, so its not as low as it could be).
3.the goddamn car.: Acura and Audi drivers are the worst. im not sure what future-perfect ameneties these cars have to be saddled with in order to attract millenials and mid-lifers but id give anything if they were disabled during transit. Usually its some white-collar clown button-mashing the console or prodding in a dazed stupor at the enormous screen in the vehicle. that lane-change warning technology likely compensates for some kind of brain-damage induced by corinthian leather and more brass than sense. .
Top Gear established years ago that all the cocks had moved from BMW's to Audi's.
Fortunately Acura doesn't exist outside the Americas. They're all basically rebadged Hondas (the TLX or CLS or whatever is basically a standard Euro spec Civic (not even the type R)).
Also it's a myth that people multi-task. We dont, our brains basically do time sharing (like hyperthreading on a single core CPU). So when a brain focuses on one task, it ignores the others until it task switches again. The brain also prioritise a phone call/text over driving.
the reason drivers get away with this shit is because the repercussions are limited. disabling their phones isnt going to help, you need to start docking points from their license and sending them to remedial drivers ed. texting while driving should triple your insurance rate.
This but I say it needs to go further.
Fines and higher insurance wont cut it. People will just write that down to the Revenue Raising conspiracy like speeding and running red lights. Here in WA (Western Australia) using a phone in the car is a A$300 fine and 3 demerit points and it still hasn't stopped people, the cops did a phone blitz over a weekend and got over 300 people in Perth.
What we need to do is start giving people time off the road for texting (and no whinging that you need your car for work, its a punishment, you're meant to suffer) with complete license cancellation for repeat offenders (cancellation means you need to pass a driving test after your suspension period in West Australia). 1 month suspension for using a phone in traffic + 1 additional month suspension if moving and 6 months suspension for using a phone whilst stationary at a green light.
While I hate people that drive and text, I don't see the solution proposed by the article as effective. Phones are cheap enough and portable enough that there is no way to enforce such "interlock" if the user does not want to comply.
This, beyond that phones are hackable (and I bet this plan relies on an app that is easily disabled or removed).
Those dumb enough to believe they're capable of texting and driving will continue until their cars are forcibly taken off them for it.
No, not usually. The law is typically written to specifically exempt law enforcement and emergency responders.
Law enforcement also receive better driver training than your average mouth breathing, texting, lane drifting driver who couldn't work a clutch to save their lives.
They also stand to lose their career for any accident.
This law applies specifically to consumer goods. How many consumer goods require an NDA to purchase?
Many EULAs contain something that is NDA-like.
Some consumer products even forbid you from publishing performance metrics or the results of comparative performance testing.... if I recall correctly, VMware used to be known for this, specifically.
Publishing is a different kettle of fish. Publishing means a syndicated or corporate distribution. It is also used to prevent competitors from publishing fake reviews (I.E. I'm pretty certain this is what Uber was doing to Lyft).
However message boards (and sites like Yelp are just that) are not covered as publications.
However in my country, shrink wrap EULA's and NDA's are completely unenforceable. We have strong laws against deformation and slander (but the truth or at least reasonable doubt is a watertight defence) but you cannot stop a customer from making a negative review. Hell, you cant stop a professional reporter (or troll) from doing it unless you can prove they are flat out lying (and I mean flat out, exaggerations dont count).
If you have an NDA, that is an explicit contract between you and another party that you have agreed to and signed so you will be held to it. You cannot be held to a contract you haven't signed (or even been given the opportunity to read, like so many EULAs).
I don't care how many 1-star reviews a place get. You know what matters? How they respond to them.
I'd rather go to a place that replies politely to every negative review than one that ignores them entirely. And if they are genuinely fake, things such as "We have no record of your stay, but we're sorry that you had trouble" speak a thousand times more to what's actually happening then any amount of ignorance.
Everywhere gets bad reviews. You cannot have perfection. What matters is how you deal with when you fuck up.
This x 1000.
Fuck ups happen, I'd rather stay with someone who understands how to deal with them than someone who pretends they dont happen.
I know quite a few hoteliers (protip: if you want a good room, book direct and not through an agency) and the problem isn't just bad reviews, the problem is that people are too meek (read: gutless) to bring a problem to a owner/managers attention. So the live with the problem for their entire stay and then make a "scathing" review on Yelp or trip advisor. So often a guest can do something about their problem with a short conversation with the owner or manager (or front desk if its a big hotel) but wont. Often the hotel management doesn't know about the problem (previous guests hide or ignore them because they're scared of being charged for it) and managers cant count on housekeepers working for minimum wage (or less in some countries) who have dozens of rooms to do, to do a thorough inspection when a guest leaves.
There is an art form to complaining and getting what you want. First you must be clear about the resolution you would like, but also friendly (this is why I prefer to do it in person rather than over the phone, even if I have to wait in a line). God and hotel managers help those who help themselves, going a little way to fixing an issue is enough to make someone else go a long way. Appreciation is always appreciated, just a thanks. To a hotelier it makes them feel good about themselves and you (this often leads to discounts, free upgrades and drinks, especially for repeat customers). For staff it earns them brownie points, promotions or sometimes bonuses (so if a front desk staffer, concierge or housekeeper helps you, leave a compliment and make sure to mention those who helped you by name).
Beyond this you have the outliers, guests who are just difficult to deal with. I'm sure we all know the kind, people who want to pay bottom dollar but expect champagne service and nothing is ever good enough for these people. Fortunately these people are as rare as they are arrogant and blusterous.
Of course there are always crap hotels. But a bigger issue is that a lot of people who have a bad time have a bad time because they did nothing to fix it. Why wait until after leaving to make your issue known and make a big song and dance on an anonymous message board when 99 times out of 100 they'll fix it for you because being hospitable is what the hospitality industry is all about.
Knowing a bit about how guests behave from the other side of the desk means I explicitly dont trust sites like Trip Advisor or Yelp because they're too easily manipulated by the passive aggressive. Also, they can be manipulated by the other side (especially Trip Advisor) to have genuine negative reviews quashed or edited (remember with these sites, you aren't paying for them so that makes you the product, not the client).
I'm not so sure what that widely repeated line from the film Forrest Gump is supposed to mean. Every box of Zachary chocolates that I've seen has a map of the chocolates on the inside of the lid.
Have you ever seen a normal person try to read a map?
Dear god man, you ask them to find Los Angeles and I'd be surprised if you didn't end up near Vladivostock.
I stopped buying watches when my phone was small enough to carry in a pocket at all times. Motorola StarTac I believe was the clincher.
For me in modern times, watches are more about looking the part at a meeting or conference (I.E. when I absolutely had to wear a suit).
Before being gifted a Seiko Kinietic watch a year ago, I had a near decade old battery powered Citizen that the battery had died in years ago. It was only there for looks.
Don't get me wrong, some of these smart watches rate as "neat", but not for several hundred dollars.
The bigger problem with smart watches is battery life. Manufacturers have a nasty habit of advertising battery life times far in excess of real life times. Apple is one of the worst offenders here.
I have a normal watch that doesn't need charging, in fact it doesn't need a battery change at all, it's charged via movement (kinetic charger built in). Where most people wear a watch these days, a smart watch would stick out.
However the Iwatch has one huge advantage, it'll help identify douchebags before they speak (so I can avoid them more easily).
or asking all the people in the area to pay attention to the little light, if they're bothered by the idea of being recorded?
Well, you better get used to the "idea of being recorded" because you are almost constantly being recorded when out and about: by surveillance cameras, smartphones, and wearables of all sorts. Your objections to Google Glass logically have nothing to do with being recorded, you just have a stick up your ass about Google Glass in particular. And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded; your only option is to leave and hide somewhere.
Further more,
People intent on recording you for malicious reasons will not be doing so with something as obvious as Google Glass. There are already glasses with small video cameras installed in them that record to a micro SD card or internal storage that are incognito. You will pass dozens, if not hundreds of private security cameras on your daily travels. If being recorded was such a big issue, why haven't Japanese Tourists with their handy cams or tweenage girls recording everything on their iWhatsits been the subject of similar ire.
Nope, it seems to be centred around Google Glass because it's new and different. Seems the real Glassholes aren't the ones wearing them.
Beyond this, a lot of people need to realise their vapid lives aren't worth recording (if you're thinking of applying for a reality TV show, this is especially directed at you). The fact is, people aren't following you and recording you because you're common and boring so stop being paranoid, I dont go to the track to watch a bunch of diesel Astras.
Roundabouts completely fail if there's lots of traffic. If one entrance has lots of traffic entering then it's likely that the entrance after it will be unable to flow into the circle at all. I've seen this in action, or should I say inaction.
Operative words: heavy traffic.
Traffic lights will also cause huge tailbacks if there is enough traffic to stall a roundabout. Here you need to have a limited access road with no traffic obstructions (so basically a highway). Often, roundabouts are faster than traffic lights because they allow all four entrances and exits to be used at once. Sure you may have to slow down a little, but you dont normally need to stop compared to a traffic light where you have a 50% chance of a red light.
Or Paris, or London, roundabouts with more than 2 lanes are a nightmare because humans aren't made to handle that many inputs in real time.
Thats why both of these countries have a much lower road toll than the US.
Per 100,000 pop, France = 4.9, UK = 3.5 and USA = 11.2
France has higher speed limits as well (130 KPH or 80 of your archaic miles per hour). The difference is that most people in France and the UK are taught to drive properly, road rules are enforced and there's a higher proportion of manual drivers.
Roundabouts are simple, even multi lane roundabouts.
TFA implies is has nothing to do with bike lanes. The benefit comes from the improved intersection, which can happen with or without bike lanes.
The TFA not withstanding, the theory is sound.
I live in Perth, Western Australia and roads with cycle lanes do travel faster than roads without them, even in peak hour. Not only is it faster for both motorist and cyclist, it's safer for both motorist and cyclist. Unfortunately a lot of old roads that are frequented by cyclists dont have cycle lanes. These roads are noticeably faster in the winter than the summer because the cyclists are in their cars. That's right, more cars and the traffic moves faster. There is 10 minutes difference between my summer and winter commute times solely from the last 5 KM towards the CBD.
Cyclists along roads like Loftus/Thomas St and Alexander Dr do slow down traffic a lot by limiting top speed to around 15 KPH (confirmed by the GPS speed readout on my dash cam). During peak hour these roads are congested so overtaking is not an option.
Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything.
30 MPH is near enough to 50 KPH (48.3 from memory). Cyclists never move this fast, not even down hill and especially in traffic. As verified by the GPS based speedometer on my dash cam, getting stuck behind a cyclist tends to peak at 20 KPH (less than 15 KPH). This is why traffic in my city moves faster in the Winter when more people are in cars instead of on their bike
If you're a cyclist who doesn't hold up traffic we'd love to hear from you, please send a letter to:
I'm a liar
Top Gear
BBC Television
117 Woods Lane, London
W12 7TS
Slashdot Mirror
Commercial aviation is now safer than it ever was in the past.
Fully autonomous driving is doable IF it is only along routes that have been verified and to some extent instrumented. I predict we'll see a few Approved Routes initially, such as stretches of Interstate. Fairly soon, the approved routes will account for the majority of vehicle miles driven. Then there will be a long tail of routes and conditions that won't be automated anytime soon. Basically, just like cellphone coverage.
I think you're right, we're looking at a slow, long term roll out. Initially it will start out as road designed as or retrofitted to specifically carry automated cars, similar to an O-Bahn except instead of being a mechanical design, it will be electronic.
The anti-government and revenue conspiracy nuts will hate it as it will mean every vehicle on this road will be tracked in real time (as automated cars will be sharing the road with human controlled cars).
I have a couple of of issues:
And this is why you get crap service.
People don't want to have to deal with handing over booking details to each and every different hotel they may reserve at. If the hotel is providing lower-quality rooms for customers paying through an agency, the customer definitely has a right to complain. They aren't being offered a choice of room upon booking, and have no way of expressing a preference to pay more or less for different experiences.
No, they dont.
You've written this with no idea how to run a hotel. The customers who are more valuable to you get better service. Like it or not, booking through an agency means that a hotel sees less of that money, so they're going to reserve the better rooms for people who book direct. Its the same with free upgrades, people who book direct are bumped up before people who book through agencies.
Like I said, you're someone who expects Champagne service for beer prices. You're the problem here and have no right to complain. And yes, hotels will put a note in your file saying "troublesome cunt" if you complain about it. Hotels keep notes on guests (normally it's useful stuff like Mrs Smith prefers the room to be made up around 9 AM, but troublesome customers are noted as well).
Its about doing what's right by others to get what you want. Your method is passive aggressive, if you lose, they lose. My method is assertive, if I win, they win... So naturally I'm going to win more than you.
First, you're expecting the customer to do work for management. I don't know how many hotel customers are repeat customers, but from my own experience, I don't know if I've ever gone to the same hotel twice. Once I've stayed at the hotel and had a poor experience, I don't have incentive to report it to the management. I just want to leave and get back on with my trip.
Nope, it's about being able to do something simple, to get the ball rolling on something hard.
Again you have no idea how to run a hotel (but you like to pretend you do). Managers have a million and one things to do, if you get the ball rolling on something it's a lot easier for them to keep it rolling (plus you'll earn the respect of the manager, which leads to discounts, upgrades and free shit).
At a hotel I stayed at a few years ago I noticed the WiFi was a bit slow. Rather than go down and have a big self-entitled cry to the manager, I used WiFi analyser on my tablet to determine what the problem was. Turns out there were plenty of AP's but they were all on the same channel. I went downstairs, caught the manager and explained the problem (and how to fix it) He stayed a half hour after work changing the AP channels. The next day he walks up to me and says "I've received a dozen comments that the internet is a lot faster today, thanks and I've knocked 5% off your bill". This also highlights that people who run hotels aren't experts in every and any thing.
I don't know how many hotel customers are repeat customers,
I'd focus on the first three words in that sentence.
But the answer to your question is a lot. Repeat customers are often 50%+ of a hotels business. Especially for business travel and some tourist areas get a lot of repeat business (I.E. Phuket, Thailand tends to see the same people escaping the European winter each year).
If you've never stayed in the same hotel twice, you are not an experienced traveller. I have preferred hotels in over 25 cites across the globe.
Once I've stayed at the hotel and had a poor experience, I don't have incentive to report it to the management. I just want to leave and get back on with my trip.
Again, this is passive aggressive. The problem with being passive aggressive is that you shoot yourself in the foot to shoot others in the foot.
I'm thinking of starting a class-action against Quality Street as the toffee penny is not a chocolate. Also, why do they put so many of them in and so few of the green triangles? There's the other chocolate covered toffee, so I fail to see the need for the un-covered toffee penny.
I'm sure the retirement home is right behind this action :)
We can create a new social network called Shitter, instead of tweets we can have flushes.
Oh look, I'm getting a new flush about Chocolate Starfish.
I'm not so sure what that widely repeated line from the film Forrest Gump is supposed to mean. Every box of Zachary chocolates that I've seen has a map of the chocolates on the inside of the lid. I wonder if this misconception was meant as a sign of Forrest's inability to read the map due to mild low intelligence. Or are maps of chocolate samplers the result of increased food allergen awareness that didn't exist during the era when the film takes place? Or am I overanalyzing?
Even a map may be no good.
In Australia there is a brand of boxed assorted, individually wrapped chocolates called Quality Street. There's about 11 varieties and 5 main colours. So the difference between getting a Strawberry Creme or Turkish delight was figuring out which was the right shade of red wrapper. Given Quality Street's reasonable price point and bright purple packaging it is favoured by elderly customers. Elderly customers who generally, dont have the best eyesight.
I'm not saying finding the Titanic wasn't important but archaeologically speaking it is far less important than the Mary Rose.
Finding the Titanic was more an engineering feat than an archaeological feat. the Titanic was in 3,800 metres of water (21 KM from it's reported 1912 position) and sonar was pretty useless (Ballard found the Titanic in the same way he found lost nuclear subs for the USN, by looking for debris on the ocean floor).
Not compared with the Daring, the Audacity and the Suicidal Insanity.
/ please correct these?
No worse than the HMS Terrible.
Acura and Audi drivers are the worst.
I used to drive an Acura, 1996 model, but when I had to get another car I never considered Acuras because windows are much smaller. I drove a 2012 model, it was terrible with small windows, zillion blindspots. I guess add type of person that drives Acuras but getting back to all new cars where they have airbags in the window frames which further reduces visibility.
Not sure whats up with Acura's but the Honda's they're based on have rather good blind spots for the class (SUV's just suck for blind spots so forget the CRV, I'm thinking more of an Accord Euro or Civic).
Personally I think the Jazz and Civic are the best sub-compact and compact (respectively) you can buy. Sure they're boring but they are the best boring cars you can get (and damn reliable too).
As an Australian, who's car designs are closer to Europe and Japan, I think American cars in general have blind spots that are way too big. The back pillar on the Camaro and Mustang are horrendously big even for fast backs (I used to have a Honda Integra Fastback). SUV's as I said above, terrible for blind spots as the B and C pillars are massive and windows are way too high (I drive a Nissan Silvia S15... A dodge Journey steering wheel attendant couldn't even see my car out the back window and my car is on adjustable coil overs, so its not as low as it could be).
3.the goddamn car.: Acura and Audi drivers are the worst. im not sure what future-perfect ameneties these cars have to be saddled with in order to attract millenials and mid-lifers but id give anything if they were disabled during transit. Usually its some white-collar clown button-mashing the console or prodding in a dazed stupor at the enormous screen in the vehicle. that lane-change warning technology likely compensates for some kind of brain-damage induced by corinthian leather and more brass than sense.
.
Top Gear established years ago that all the cocks had moved from BMW's to Audi's.
Fortunately Acura doesn't exist outside the Americas. They're all basically rebadged Hondas (the TLX or CLS or whatever is basically a standard Euro spec Civic (not even the type R)).
Also it's a myth that people multi-task. We dont, our brains basically do time sharing (like hyperthreading on a single core CPU). So when a brain focuses on one task, it ignores the others until it task switches again. The brain also prioritise a phone call/text over driving.
the reason drivers get away with this shit is because the repercussions are limited. disabling their phones isnt going to help, you need to start docking points from their license and sending them to remedial drivers ed. texting while driving should triple your insurance rate.
This but I say it needs to go further.
Fines and higher insurance wont cut it. People will just write that down to the Revenue Raising conspiracy like speeding and running red lights. Here in WA (Western Australia) using a phone in the car is a A$300 fine and 3 demerit points and it still hasn't stopped people, the cops did a phone blitz over a weekend and got over 300 people in Perth.
What we need to do is start giving people time off the road for texting (and no whinging that you need your car for work, its a punishment, you're meant to suffer) with complete license cancellation for repeat offenders (cancellation means you need to pass a driving test after your suspension period in West Australia). 1 month suspension for using a phone in traffic + 1 additional month suspension if moving and 6 months suspension for using a phone whilst stationary at a green light.
While I hate people that drive and text, I don't see the solution proposed by the article as effective. Phones are cheap enough and portable enough that there is no way to enforce such "interlock" if the user does not want to comply.
This, beyond that phones are hackable (and I bet this plan relies on an app that is easily disabled or removed).
Those dumb enough to believe they're capable of texting and driving will continue until their cars are forcibly taken off them for it.
No, not usually. The law is typically written to specifically exempt law enforcement and emergency responders.
Law enforcement also receive better driver training than your average mouth breathing, texting, lane drifting driver who couldn't work a clutch to save their lives.
They also stand to lose their career for any accident.
Meh, make them drive a Yugo or Trebant, or stick them on 50cc scooters for life.
Cruel and unusual, but effective.
Cruel would be making them drive a PT Cruiser cabrio with the top down.
50CC scooters can be quite fun when you get ones that you can rev the tits off (high revving is what motorbikes do best).
This law applies specifically to consumer goods. How many consumer goods require an NDA to purchase?
Many EULAs contain something that is NDA-like.
Some consumer products even forbid you from publishing performance metrics or the results of comparative performance testing.... if I recall correctly, VMware used to be known for this, specifically.
Publishing is a different kettle of fish. Publishing means a syndicated or corporate distribution. It is also used to prevent competitors from publishing fake reviews (I.E. I'm pretty certain this is what Uber was doing to Lyft).
However message boards (and sites like Yelp are just that) are not covered as publications.
However in my country, shrink wrap EULA's and NDA's are completely unenforceable. We have strong laws against deformation and slander (but the truth or at least reasonable doubt is a watertight defence) but you cannot stop a customer from making a negative review. Hell, you cant stop a professional reporter (or troll) from doing it unless you can prove they are flat out lying (and I mean flat out, exaggerations dont count).
If you have an NDA, that is an explicit contract between you and another party that you have agreed to and signed so you will be held to it. You cannot be held to a contract you haven't signed (or even been given the opportunity to read, like so many EULAs).
I don't care how many 1-star reviews a place get. You know what matters? How they respond to them.
I'd rather go to a place that replies politely to every negative review than one that ignores them entirely. And if they are genuinely fake, things such as "We have no record of your stay, but we're sorry that you had trouble" speak a thousand times more to what's actually happening then any amount of ignorance.
Everywhere gets bad reviews. You cannot have perfection. What matters is how you deal with when you fuck up.
This x 1000.
Fuck ups happen, I'd rather stay with someone who understands how to deal with them than someone who pretends they dont happen.
I know quite a few hoteliers (protip: if you want a good room, book direct and not through an agency) and the problem isn't just bad reviews, the problem is that people are too meek (read: gutless) to bring a problem to a owner/managers attention. So the live with the problem for their entire stay and then make a "scathing" review on Yelp or trip advisor. So often a guest can do something about their problem with a short conversation with the owner or manager (or front desk if its a big hotel) but wont. Often the hotel management doesn't know about the problem (previous guests hide or ignore them because they're scared of being charged for it) and managers cant count on housekeepers working for minimum wage (or less in some countries) who have dozens of rooms to do, to do a thorough inspection when a guest leaves.
There is an art form to complaining and getting what you want. First you must be clear about the resolution you would like, but also friendly (this is why I prefer to do it in person rather than over the phone, even if I have to wait in a line). God and hotel managers help those who help themselves, going a little way to fixing an issue is enough to make someone else go a long way. Appreciation is always appreciated, just a thanks. To a hotelier it makes them feel good about themselves and you (this often leads to discounts, free upgrades and drinks, especially for repeat customers). For staff it earns them brownie points, promotions or sometimes bonuses (so if a front desk staffer, concierge or housekeeper helps you, leave a compliment and make sure to mention those who helped you by name).
Beyond this you have the outliers, guests who are just difficult to deal with. I'm sure we all know the kind, people who want to pay bottom dollar but expect champagne service and nothing is ever good enough for these people. Fortunately these people are as rare as they are arrogant and blusterous.
Of course there are always crap hotels. But a bigger issue is that a lot of people who have a bad time have a bad time because they did nothing to fix it. Why wait until after leaving to make your issue known and make a big song and dance on an anonymous message board when 99 times out of 100 they'll fix it for you because being hospitable is what the hospitality industry is all about.
Knowing a bit about how guests behave from the other side of the desk means I explicitly dont trust sites like Trip Advisor or Yelp because they're too easily manipulated by the passive aggressive. Also, they can be manipulated by the other side (especially Trip Advisor) to have genuine negative reviews quashed or edited (remember with these sites, you aren't paying for them so that makes you the product, not the client).
I'm not so sure what that widely repeated line from the film Forrest Gump is supposed to mean. Every box of Zachary chocolates that I've seen has a map of the chocolates on the inside of the lid.
Have you ever seen a normal person try to read a map?
Dear god man, you ask them to find Los Angeles and I'd be surprised if you didn't end up near Vladivostock.
I stopped buying watches when my phone was small enough to carry in a pocket at all times. Motorola StarTac I believe was the clincher.
For me in modern times, watches are more about looking the part at a meeting or conference (I.E. when I absolutely had to wear a suit).
Before being gifted a Seiko Kinietic watch a year ago, I had a near decade old battery powered Citizen that the battery had died in years ago. It was only there for looks.
"Apple watch looks too much like a gadget"
That certainly wasn't my reaction. I thought it was as beautiful as a really high end watch. I'll be getting one.
You should have gone to Spec Savers.
Don't get me wrong, some of these smart watches rate as "neat", but not for several hundred dollars.
The bigger problem with smart watches is battery life. Manufacturers have a nasty habit of advertising battery life times far in excess of real life times. Apple is one of the worst offenders here.
I have a normal watch that doesn't need charging, in fact it doesn't need a battery change at all, it's charged via movement (kinetic charger built in). Where most people wear a watch these days, a smart watch would stick out.
However the Iwatch has one huge advantage, it'll help identify douchebags before they speak (so I can avoid them more easily).
I mean if I get up and go outside for a quick drag once an hour, that's a five minute walk right there.
Not quite sure how the drag helps, but getting changed back into your work clothes afterwards would probably count as exercise.
Well, you better get used to the "idea of being recorded" because you are almost constantly being recorded when out and about: by surveillance cameras, smartphones, and wearables of all sorts. Your objections to Google Glass logically have nothing to do with being recorded, you just have a stick up your ass about Google Glass in particular. And you better get over it, because you don't have a legal leg to stand on if you don't like being recorded; your only option is to leave and hide somewhere.
Further more,
People intent on recording you for malicious reasons will not be doing so with something as obvious as Google Glass. There are already glasses with small video cameras installed in them that record to a micro SD card or internal storage that are incognito. You will pass dozens, if not hundreds of private security cameras on your daily travels. If being recorded was such a big issue, why haven't Japanese Tourists with their handy cams or tweenage girls recording everything on their iWhatsits been the subject of similar ire.
Nope, it seems to be centred around Google Glass because it's new and different. Seems the real Glassholes aren't the ones wearing them.
Beyond this, a lot of people need to realise their vapid lives aren't worth recording (if you're thinking of applying for a reality TV show, this is especially directed at you). The fact is, people aren't following you and recording you because you're common and boring so stop being paranoid, I dont go to the track to watch a bunch of diesel Astras.
Roundabouts completely fail if there's lots of traffic. If one entrance has lots of traffic entering then it's likely that the entrance after it will be unable to flow into the circle at all. I've seen this in action, or should I say inaction.
Operative words: heavy traffic.
Traffic lights will also cause huge tailbacks if there is enough traffic to stall a roundabout. Here you need to have a limited access road with no traffic obstructions (so basically a highway). Often, roundabouts are faster than traffic lights because they allow all four entrances and exits to be used at once. Sure you may have to slow down a little, but you dont normally need to stop compared to a traffic light where you have a 50% chance of a red light.
Or Paris, or London, roundabouts with more than 2 lanes are a nightmare because humans aren't made to handle that many inputs in real time.
Thats why both of these countries have a much lower road toll than the US.
Per 100,000 pop, France = 4.9, UK = 3.5 and USA = 11.2
France has higher speed limits as well (130 KPH or 80 of your archaic miles per hour). The difference is that most people in France and the UK are taught to drive properly, road rules are enforced and there's a higher proportion of manual drivers.
Roundabouts are simple, even multi lane roundabouts.
Not fluid flow. Semiconductors. Bikes are dopents. They leave openings in traffic behind them.
Not quite. To continue the electrical analogy, bikes are resistors. They slow it down, limit current.
In traffic, there is never an opening behind a cyclist, there's normally a large line of cars trying to get around them.
TFA implies is has nothing to do with bike lanes. The benefit comes from the improved intersection, which can happen with or without bike lanes.
The TFA not withstanding, the theory is sound.
I live in Perth, Western Australia and roads with cycle lanes do travel faster than roads without them, even in peak hour. Not only is it faster for both motorist and cyclist, it's safer for both motorist and cyclist. Unfortunately a lot of old roads that are frequented by cyclists dont have cycle lanes. These roads are noticeably faster in the winter than the summer because the cyclists are in their cars. That's right, more cars and the traffic moves faster. There is 10 minutes difference between my summer and winter commute times solely from the last 5 KM towards the CBD.
Cyclists along roads like Loftus/Thomas St and Alexander Dr do slow down traffic a lot by limiting top speed to around 15 KPH (confirmed by the GPS speed readout on my dash cam). During peak hour these roads are congested so overtaking is not an option.
Why are so many people delusional about cycling speeds? Nobody does 30mph on a bicycle in a city, most certainly not weaving between anything.
30 MPH is near enough to 50 KPH (48.3 from memory). Cyclists never move this fast, not even down hill and especially in traffic. As verified by the GPS based speedometer on my dash cam, getting stuck behind a cyclist tends to peak at 20 KPH (less than 15 KPH). This is why traffic in my city moves faster in the Winter when more people are in cars instead of on their bike
If you're a cyclist who doesn't hold up traffic we'd love to hear from you, please send a letter to:
I'm a liar
Top Gear
BBC Television
117 Woods Lane, London
W12 7TS