Posts by Kiwi

Re: Naming

ooh, ooh, what about a naming competition?

Perhaps something that plays a bit of Springsteen? Only needs a couple of seconds of "Born to Run" - the words "Suicide machines" looped over and over when the thing is engaged.

Few seconds of that looping and they'd be paying Tesla for it to crash and burn. Oh wait, what am I saying? They already paid through the nose with a high chance of that happening!

Maybe take my earlier "suicide hotline" statement and combine it with an old kids toy - "Suicide Hotwheels"? Certainly after the batteries go up the wheels will soon be rather toasty..

(Reminds me of the 'capacitance gel' scene in "Demolition Man")

Then surely the passengers of a plane wouldn't have problems with pilot and co-pilot leaving the cockpit and getting drunk partying with the flight attendants while the AP is doing it's thing....

There have been quite a lot of movies showing just this sort of thing. Doesn't matter that it's not real, it's what the public see. As they are generally not privy to (and seldom interested in) what happens in the cockpit, they have no indicator to show otherwise.

Hence the common belief that aside from take off and landing (the two most dangerous bits of flight after all) there really is nothing for the crew to do other than a cursory glance at things - or responding to an alarm/radio message should something come up.

I do know that you can cause a plane to turn by setting the AP on and then adjusting a tiny little knob smaller than the volume control on most stereos to set the bearing. If the plane can follow that, then surely it's only a small jump in software to make it be able to follow a number of waypoints? I mean the exceptionally realistic (according to the marketing blurb) "Janes WWII Fighers" showed that 1940s fighter planes could do just that - follow a course of waypoints without the pilot having to do anything. If they could do it back then, why not now? (No, I know that's not realistic - at least I'm pretty sure it's not - the point is the game is supposed to be realistic, I know real planes can be turned by a small knob and a bit of computer power, I also know real planes were having a problem with too much automation (according to other commentards), so really I have no reason to believe (other than other commentards posts) that planes cannot fully fly themselves - as I said earlier I've even sat in the cockpit with the crew chatting with me and seeming to not be paying any attention to the controls or instruments)

Re: Because most Tesla drivers are not pilots.

and needing to check certain things and do things in a certain order and be mere centimetres away from the other person while doing it, the consequences of which can cause death or serious injury very easily.

Years back, as part of the training work I'd do, I'd take a new-coming driver out on my bike with me (with intercom).

I'd pick an oncoming car, ask the student what was wrong with it, and get a little closer to the centre line. Eventually they'd twig that a) they couldn't tell if there was something wrong with the car or not and b) they were very close, the only thing separating us being a little strip of paint and the skill of each driver.

I was very selective in the cars I picked for this, and I often shift to the opposite side of the lane when I don't like the looks of certain cars, or weave in an "anti SMIDSY manner"[*] when I see ones intending to cross my path who may not have noticed me.

[*] SMIDSY - "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". The weaving makes a motorcyclist a lot more noticeable, both by helping the other driver judge distance and speed as well as introducing a little "WTF????" factor that tends to make them hesitant to cross paths with the approaching loon.

Re: Did he get a ticket?

And he really must not have paying attention as usually firetrucks with emergency lights on are quite visible from a distance which means he didn't notice other cars moving over to the other lane that is if there were other cars in that lane. I smell a porkie.

Not defending the tesla dolt.

I've been in a couple of crashes (mostly NOT as driver, just FTR), and known others who've been through them. Accurate recollection of events is rather difficult even for the best people. People go through quite a shock - physical and emotional - in accidents, and recalling what you were doing or what was where at the moment things became a serious problem really is very hard.

Especially when you plough into a parked vehicle while looking for that bit of pie you just dropped (nope, never done this, but you should be able to find footage on YT of someone doing just that)

Re: The plant was supposed to be protected by the levees that failed,

The Kaikoura quake caused uplift of up to 10m, apparently the noise was horrendous. How do you plan for infrastructure which won't break when the land is uplifted 10m under it?

I remember the Kaikoura quake well, later the civil defence sirens going off during the wee hours of the morning, the carloads of people heading away from the low lying areas and parking on my lawn (by invite to make as much room on the street). Hearing civil decense sirens used 'in anger' is not something I wish to repeat!

I missed the earthquake light (being in a brightly lit house at the time), but there's great footage of it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ4JJSrQXqI_2vs done by a local scientist. I was living on the hills in the background of this footage, and we lost power for a good 12 hours or more.

No buildings fell, but a lot were badly damaged and cleanup/replacement still continues. Oddly, the many old state houses the National government were giving away to their property developer mates for lack of use had taken out of circulation due to being sub-code and "quake risk" seemed to come through unscathed, while many much newer "up to/exceeding code" buildings got a date with the wrecking ball - we're still a bit nervous after the 2nd Christchurch quake and the losses that caused :(

How do you plan for infrastructure which won't break when the land is uplifted 10m under it?

If you look at https://www.chchquake.co.nz/ you'll see a photo of a rather kinky bit of railway track (IIRC Edgecumbe but ICBW) - imagine how few buildings could survive that sort of an event to their foundations? (that's actually by a railway bridge - lucky no passenger trains were approaching that during the night!)

There's footage on YT of the Kaikoura quake that shows a rift running along some hills - somehow a small dam survived (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3H8wlzXGYE - see also the linked "farm track" video near the end of that one!)

(I grew up in South Taranaki, sorta between Hawera and Patea - the impending eruption of Mt Egmont was the stuff of nightmares for some of us, but so far hasn't happened in my lifetime - but getting shaken by quakes, one less than 100m below the surface near the Kapuni refinery [shudder].... We build stuff in convenient yet stupid places sometimes!)

Re: The biodiesel had 'gone-off' ...

No idea why you got a downvote for such a question!

As AP Veening said, most tanks have some level of ventilation. I know many Californian vehicles have filter systems on the vents so no fuel vapour can escape while still letting the tank breathe when the temperature changes. I don't know how good these filters are at stopping water vapour though.

As a tank heats the pressure rises, and some vapour is forced out. As it cools, air is drawn back in (otherwise the tank would collapse) and the air contains water vapour which hydrocarbon seems very efficient at trapping. The moisture is locked in so doesn't escape during the next heating/cooling cycle, and seems to replace the fuel as it goes.

Re: The biodiesel had 'gone-off' ...

Correct me if I'm wrong... But both Petrol & Diesel can go sour if left in a tank long enough. I've have small petrol motors have issues with the petrol evaporating out of the carbs and "glazing" the venturi

Correct. I've seen cars and bikes sit with petrol for 5 or 6 years and run a little rough but start OK. I've seen some left with a 1/2 tank of gas over winter and require considerable work to clean them out and get them running. Best is to drain all the fuel, but the more you have in the tank when you park up the worse the problem can be :)

Re: DVLA doesn't agree

https://vehicleenquiry.service.gov.uk/ Suggests you might be full of it.

Post evidence or retract.

I too would love to see that :)

However, looking at the 'talk' page on the Wikipedia article on 'Paki', I found the following quote :

"...Pakistan" means "Land of the Pure", so when you call someone a Paki, you are calling them pure..."

Further down, it's mentioned that in the US and elsewhere it's not considered offensive, but that it simply means "a person of Pakistani origins/heritage".

Below that we see "I live in a city in England where the ethnic (and perceived) Pakistani community (actually the majority are from pakistani-controlled Jammu and Kashmir which is not an integral part of Pakistan and is in fact de jure an occupied part of India!) where we'd say I'm off to the paki shop (corner shop, convenience store) and this was not said in a derogatory way but in a matter of fact (I'm off to the pakistani-owned shop) kind of way."

So, at least some people in the UK do not consider it to be offensive. Of course, they're closer to you so you may wish to introduce them to some of that "prolonged violence" you were wishing on me.

Also see the comment "The liberal PC brigade is destroying the UK. You'd think calling a Pakistani a Paki was the worst crime in the world." Nah, not seeing that with your posts at all... :)

According to the BBC, " some young British Pakistanis are now trying to reclaim the word as a badge they are proud of."

I'm going to paraphrase a quote in that article, "As I was growing up in Bradford and Leeds[New Zealand] I'd be walking around and people would be going 'get that Pak[gay]' and there was Paki[gay] bashing. They were insulting, there is no other way of looking at this word."

Like the aforementioned young Paki's are doing in the UK with their term, gays have adopted a term that was used as abusive against us and [sometimes proudly] use it as a descriptive label for us. But I guess they're not allowed to re-claim a formerly OK term and make it OK again because in your view that would be wrong, and those UK Paki's should not be reclaiming such a word without your permission. Should those UK Pakistani's who wish to reclaim the term "Paki" also be subjected to 'prolonged violence" because you don't like the term?

BTW, "Paki" is also a Maori word meaning 'fine weather', so when I am calling a person "Paki" I am saying that they're from Pakistan, but I could also be saying that they're "pure" or "bright and sunny" (or "warm and sunny" or... You'd wish for 'prolonged violence' on someone who calls people "Pure" or "Bright"?

"Paki" is a respectable name over in these parts (although Korotangi Paki, the son of the Maori King, seems to be intent on changing that). Perhaps you need to do some research on what happens in the rest of the world before claiming someone is deserving of "prolonged violence" among other things. If you were worth it, I could be offended at the slurs against my own culture by your insistence that "Paki" (the sort of weather we had today - absolutely GORGEOUS Spring weather!) is racist. But your kind is not worth taking offence at. I hope you can grow up some and learn that what happens where you are isn't the same for the rest of us, but I won't hold out much hope.

Now I need some chocolate. Off to see the Paki's at their Paki shop.

Not least of which the requirement to include "lbq" thought processes from a minority group on the rest of society as a whole.

I'M DEEPLY OFFENDED! HOW DARE YOU NOT USE THE FULL TERM!

Don't you know it's now "LBGTQICJDONACJODMCMPAEGRPEVOPIEANVOADJCIEANOEURIONVACJZRIECVIUFHGITUPWWAWSGZRUVBZCVNBFWAIOATKS"??

I agree - make software that is functional software. If I like it, I'll use it. If I don't like it, I don't use it (unless I have no other choice). If you didn't write it in a gay way - I won't care. I won't know, it won't make a difference to me. Forcing it to somehow "be gay friendly" may actually make the project worse than it could be, making it fit restrictions that it shouldn't need to fit. And what the author thinks might fit '"lbq" thought processes' will probably actually be something others of us find condescending, demeaning or in some other way offensive. There are a great many different styles of taste and thought in this world, what suits one annoys another.

Just write the damned software to the best of your abilities, and leave the '"lbq" thought processes' to those who have them!

(Making stuff accessible for those with a physical disability is another matter of course - where it is reasonable to do so - abseiling clubs probably don't really need wheelchair ramps)

Re: Ignorance?

That's fine for them but their ignorance (again, no aspersions!) doesn't change a thing.

The truly ignorant are those who choose to be offended on another's behalf, especially when it's over a colloquialism that has a different meaning in the context used, or where no offence was intended.

If I intend to offend you, your family or your friends (or culture), you yourself may be offended. If I do not intend to offend you, you have no right nor reason to be offended - even if it seems I intended to offend someone else. I get so sick of ignorant arrogant scum who think they have a right to be offended on other's behalf. Keep your self-righteous mitts OFF and get your nose out of my life. (not aimed at decoherence unless you fit the description :) )

Re: Eh?

"so free speech MUST always means allowing anyone to risk being offensive."

The operative word there being "risk". But what RacerX said was "Free speech means I can insult anyone and any group I choose" which is a very different interpretation on what free speech is or is not.

Yes, we should be free to insult whoever we choose.

The problem I find most annoying is when people take insult/offence when it's not intended. When someone is making a well-reasoned argument/speech in support of a group, but some SJW or other PC-scumtype grabs all the attention (thus detracting from the intended speech and wasting the helpful resource) by getting offended that the speaker isn't up with this minute's trend.

^{"I think the community centre needs better access so disabled people can enjoy this resource. I have a plan I believe the community can get behind that will achieve this within a few months"}

'HOW DARE THIS OFFENSIVE PERSON REFER TO PEOPLE AS "DISABLED"? DOESN'T HE KNOW THAT IS A BAD WORD! I NEED TO TAKE UP 3 WHOLE PAGES TO SHOW THE LEVEL OF HIS OFFENCE EVEN THOUGH THE OFFENCE APPLIES NEITHER TO ME NOT ANYONE ELSE I KNOW! HE NEEDS TO BE LOCKED UP AND WE MUST IGNORE EVERYTHING HE SAYS _{(no matter how otherwise good it is)} AND PUT HIM AWAY WHERE HE CANNOT CAUSE ANY MORE HARM! RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT RANT!"

Hence my earlier comment that this PC crap does far more harm than good. I'm yet to be convinced that free-speech rights also give people the right to deliberately mis-interpret statements and then take offence at what they try to imagine was said, rather than the actual intent of the words. (Interestingly, Split Enz's "What's the matter with you" is playing as I write this :) )

Re: Euphemism treadmill

It is only right that we should be nice to each other, and not use abusive/derogatory language, but, unfortunately, what started off as a perfectly reasonable and decent idea gradually turned into a cottage industry for the "professionally offended".

I largely agree - but the problem really does come down to intention vs possible meanings. Take for example the posts between myself and "Sed Gawk" (apols if I got the spelling/name wrong) - one sees a term as a serious racist slur, the other sees it as a normal part of conversation - the experience of one is that it is an insult against those people, the experience of the other is those people use it as a term to identify themselves. (please don't anyone take my using "those people" as a racist thing in itself, it is not).

I could say to my partner "You could lose a little weight". It could be an insult or attempt to shame him, or it could be a serious bit of advice spoken from love and concern for his wellbeing. But I can gaurantee if someone else heard it, there's a high chance that someone else would choose to take offence on his behalf while he sees it for the caring comment it is intended to be.

I grew up with a friend who had a serious physical deformity in one of his legs. Then we all referred to him as "crippled", and he still does today. He knows none of us intend any offence, and it's the proper term for his basic condition - he was crippled and required crutches to walk at all. I also have known people who meet the definition of "retarded" who use the term correctly and expect others to do the same. If he does something he knows is bad and says "sometimes I'm such a retard" he doesn't expet people to be offended, the term is being used in it's correct form.

If I refer to someone (inc myself) as "black", "fag", "lame", "crippled", "suffering depression", "bonkers" etc I am intending an accurate description NOT an insult (at least most of the time). If I call someone a "stupid yank" then I am probably intending some form of insult or offence, if I call someone a "stupid idiot" then I am expressing my frustration at their actions/words and intending to show them how I believe they are portraying themselves.

I have dealt with a lot of stuff over my life from my own physical limitations (not as obvious as a limp or other physical disability, although I used to "run like a spastic" as I did have problems smoothly controlling my limbs at speed though I could still win 100m sprints) and through my sexuality, but above all this one of the things most offensive is when some complete stranger has a go at my partner because he called me a "fag" or something else they find offensive. We've accepted the language, we use it for each other in fun, who the hell are you to tell me how I should feel when someone I love uses a term I happily accept? (not directed at the posting AC!)

I agree - there are many terms that aren't intended to be offensive and are quite accurate. Constantly changing terms not only leads to much confusion, but can lead to a great deal of upset as well. Someone comes up to me and asks about someone I know, and I say "Paul? Yeah, he's gay", and someone else wants to physically assault me because "gay" is no longer an acceptable term, but I haven't yet learned that how I describe myself is no longer PC.

Anything can be used as an insult if it's intended to be an insult. Anything that is NOT intended to be an insult should never be taken as such, even if the current stupidity considers that it should be.

(One site I read last night even said that my nephew, who learned ASL because he knew kids with hearing issues, cannot be referred to someone who "knows ASL" as that is an insult against deaf people rather than accurately saying he is multilingual, much as the rest of my family (all of us have learned other languages though I could no longer hold a conversation in any of them through lack of use)

Re: Eh?

Please visit the U.K., take a stroll around Liverpool, Manchester, Brum, London.

So.. Your standard is based on a tiny area of your country. You'll use violence to impose your view of how Paki's should identify themselves? And you're stupid enough to think you're NOT being racist?

If a local shopkeeper or a good friend wants me to refer to them, their family and their heritage as "Paki" then I'll take their word over that of some violent racist thug on the other side of the world. ok? They are, after all, the ones who are from Pakistan, and they are the ones who wish that term to be used. Your racist view doesn't count.

Re: Eh?

You using the phrase "Most Paki's" is polite company should earn you opprobrium.

In not so polite company, physical chastisement is the very least of what you should expect.

You've been told twice now, so you've no excuse, but, carry on with the butter wouldn't melt routine.

Interesting.. I'll take the word of the many Paki's I know over yours any day. There's a lot of them living here, the family who own the corner store down the road for a start will quickly say "We're Paki's, not Punjab's" (they do intend the latter as a racist comment).

Clearly, it's not only NZ Pakistani's who use "Paki" to ID themselves.

"Paki" means "Someone from Pakistan" all over the world. Just like "Kiwi" and "New Zealander" mean "someone from NZ" etc. To claim it is "racist" is quite wrong, especially when the people themselves use it as a term to identify their heritage.

You have, however, repeatedly threatened violence against me for using a term people I know wish to have used to identify their heritage. Not only are you yourself actually being quite racist (doubly so as 1) you credit them with being unable to speak up for themselves or unable to make their own choices about identity terms and 2) you have no idea about my culture and wish to impose your will on it), but you are also committing what is in many countries a criminal act. One could even claim you're inciting terrorist activities by saying it should be "prolonged violence" or "physical chastisement is the very least of what you should expect".

What do you think you would face if you were in NZ and saying these things? Under our current climate, to seen to be promoting racial terrorism (even if that wasn't your intent) and worse to be doing it based on a term those you claim it is against actually use themselves very happily?

Carry on with your own routine, but that won't make you any more right.

Re: Eh?

There are posters at my kid's school that say "Before you speak, THINK" and that acronym means you shouldn't say something unless it's "True, Helpful, Inspiring, Necessary, and Kind". I really wish more adults would consider this before they open their mouths.

IIRC that dates back to Scorates or Plato - "is it true, is it necessary, does it improve upon the silence" or something along those lines. Something I like and tend to try to live by (my posts here obviously speaking otherwise :) ).

But....

Just because you CAN say something, and even if it's true ("you're really fat") doesn't mean you should.

If more people spoke up to those with eating disorders, teaching them what true "self love" is, and how to make changes without making sacrifices, we wouldn't have these sorts of problems. But people remain silent, lest they offend the poor kid who is overweight and facing a heart attack and diabetes long before they finish school.

Some years back I was diagnosed with high cholesterol as well as being somewhat overweight. I made some minor changes to my diet (one of which was to switch from margarine-like gunk to actual butter, but limit the use, another was to introduce more fresh foods rather than pre-processed) and take up walking/cycling on a more regular basis (eventually swapping some of this for gardening). Both problems beaten by simply eating tastier and more enjoyable food, and getting off my arse and away from the screens - giving my brain a break, my eyes a break, and finding stuff much more enjoyable to do.

But no, we're supposed to believe that a 11yo at 170kg is just a kid "showing extreme self-love" and we should worship their morbid obesity, and praise the parents for being so kind as to send the kid into an early grave through a few years of suffering let the kid make their own stupidmodern-wise diet choices.

If you can change someone's life in a way that improves it, speak up!. Don't be cowed into silence by the SJW/PC scum. Speak in love, don't remain silent in fear.

Re: Can't we all agree "Gimp" is just a terrible name?

Can't we all agree "Gimp" is just a terrible name?

Nothing wrong with the name at all. It's an acronym that describes something decorative.