"Kristy Ogilvie" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 01:33:02 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 23:52:47 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 18:21:28 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"Fred Johnson" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 04:02:00 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 22:38:42 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 03:11:20 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
"Bruce Farquhar" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 20:15:38 -0000, Rod Speed
wrote:
And that's not what caused TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima
anyway.
I thought TMI and Chernobyl were both human error/stupidity?
Only Chernobyl.
TMI and Fukushima were certainly due to human error/stupidity
at
the
design stage.
There you go then, human error can occur anywhere.
But with something as important as a nuke, the checks
should ensure that they don't get thru to the final product.
Should. But if there are enough morons, faults get overlooked.
Its isnt enough morons, it's the lack of checks. That's how
Fukushima ended up with its backup generators where they
could be taken out by a tsunami that was known to happen there.
And with TMI, no one bothered to check that the user interface
on the indications of loss of coolant water did make it easy to
see what was actually happening with the coolant level. In fact
it was so misleading they they thought it had too much coolant
when it fact it was much too little, so they pumped out even more
and eventually the consequences of that saw the venting of
radioactive material. Which was nothing like that a coal fired
power station of the same size would do routinely.
We're saying the same thing. Humans just aren't bright enough to
design
things properly.
Must be why we are still 'living' caves and
running around stark naked everywhere.
Can we cure the common cold?
That remains to be seen. Currently we have a problem with
vaccination with infectious disease that mutates too fast.
It remains to be seen if we can invent some way of doing
vaccination that works on the bits that don't change as fast.
Should have been done by now.
Easy to claim given how long it took to invent vaccination.
Look at how much we've done with mobile phones and computers.
Completely difference. They don't involved
a biological evolving every few months.
We have eliminated smallpox from the wild and
are getting there with polio, but the common
cold is much harder and isnt as important as either.
But we don't even know how our own bodies work yet.
But its vastly more complicated than any mobile
phone or computer.
Cancer?
That remains to been too.
Also should have been done by now.
Remains to be seen if its even possible.
Half of them can now be cured.
Its not as black and white as that.
My high blood pressure?
Yes, bullet in the back of the neck cures that trivially.
And contraceptives avoid you showing up in the first place.
Your means are questionable.
Nope, it's a guaranteed cure.
I would argue that you are not using the word cure correctly.
You'd be wrong. It's a complete cure.
Also works for the common cold and cancer as well.
Can we send people to other planets?
Corse we can. Only problem is that they arrive there dead currently.
That wasn't what I was asking
You have always been, and always will be, completely
and utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not claim
to have asked in spades.
Not my fault Aussies can't understand the Queen's English.
That silly little kraut woman doesn't own the language.
Just count how many stupid things on your car could have been made
better at no extra cost.
None of those in my car. A few things are missing like
cruise control, but that would obviously cost more.
Why are hazard light switches not in a common place on all cars?
Because hardly anyone wants to change the way they currently do theirs.
But I see it in different places within the models of one manufacturer.
Only with stupid frog cars.
Nope, all of them.
No point in having them all in the same place,
just make it obvious what that switch does.
For example I had a Vauxhall (GM/Opel/Holden) with the headlight switch
not even on the ****ing stalk.
That's what you get with stupid yank cars.
I've even had a Renault van with it on the ceiling!
See above.
I had to. Did you make that joke on purpose?
It wasn't a joke, Joyce.
Since it's to be used in an emergency, you'd think there would be a
legal requirement to have it easy to find.
Mine is, ****ing great orange colored switch
right in the middle of the top of the dash.
One of mine was like that, on top of the steering column. But most are
just one of the many buttons around the stereo.
Then get a decent car that does it properly.
Why do some wiper switches operate up and some down?
Because while ever there is more than one way of doing
something, someone will decide to do it both ways.
If I designed a car, I'd make my switches go the same way as the
majority,
so as not to confuse most drivers.
But with plenty of stuff there is no clear majority.
There is with wipers.
Bull****.
In spades now that so many cars only have the basics
done with switches on the steering wheel hub and
even stuff like climate control stuff done with a single
decent sized touch screen panel in the center of the dash.
Not sure what you mean. I've seldom seen a car without wipers and lights
on the stalks.
I wasn't talking about the lights and wipers there.
Why is there no standard for headlight brightness?
Same reason there is no standard for room light brightness.
But we used to have one, 55W dipped, 65W full.
No we did not.
Yes we did.
No we did not.
Why do you think that before all these ultra bright bloody things
appeared, all headlight bulbs were 55/65W?
They werent.
Then LEDs came out and there was no new standard made.
There was never a previous standard.
Some legal **** took it as 55W of power usage, not brightness,
The 55/65 was power usage, not brightness.
My point exactly.
You never had a point except the on on your pointy little head.
It doesn't account for more efficient light emitters than filaments. When
those were invented, the law should have used common sense and made it
"55W equivalent".
Nope, made more sense to do much better when we
could with the same load on the electrical system.
And we didn't go from incandescents to LEDs either.
I don't recall CFLs in cars.
There aint just 3 technologys, stupid.
And before you say halogen, those are just fancy incandescents.
Wrong with the lumens per watt and there aint just 4 technologys either.
so we have BMWs that prevent people coming the other way from being able
to see.
I can see fine.
Then you have unusual eyes.
Nope. You have. Because you wanked yourself completely blind.
Does it annoy you if someone drives towards you with full beam on?
Only at night.
It annoys most folk. Yet we seem to accept DRLs of the same or even
higher brightness.
That's another pig ignorant lie.
Why do some cars have **** all legroom?
Because that's cheaper than having lots of legroom.
No it isn't.
Corse it is.
MY friend's Ford Mondeo is large inside, except for the centre console
being ****ing massive, so your legs and the passenger's legs haver to be
perfectly straight.
Bull****.
https://cdn1.carbuyer.co.uk/sites/ca...-dashboard.jpg
Says nothing about legroom.
What the hell is all that **** in the middle of the car?
What makes it more convenient to use.
And even your morbidly obese porker legs
will still fit fine under the steering wheel.
Gear levers used to just come out of the floor,
And then the world moved on and when you only move it
when stopped now, makes more sense to do it differently.
the driver's left knee could move over to the left.
Mine still can and so can the driver of that mondeo.
With the car in the image above, you're crammed in like you're in some
kind of tiny jet fighter plane.
Even sillier than you usually manage and
a mate of mine has just bought one.
There's nothing in the centre console which requires this lump, just the
usual gearstick, stereo, heater controls, etc.
Yep, ****ed by design, like your frog car.
Trouble is a lot of modern cars are like that.
If you don't like it, don't buy one like that, stupid.
If you look at an older car, they're far more roomy inside.
And have **** all in the way of conveniently accessible
controls like the 8" touch screen for controlling all the
fancy stuff and showing you all the useful stuff like what
was on the street signs that you passed a while ago etc.
I know they make the doors thicker for side impact protection, but you
really don't need a big centre console, you can't have someone crashing
into the middle of your car.
It isnt there for crash protection, stupid.
Same with aircraft seats.
Why do half of cars still use a rubber band for the timing chain?
Because that's much cheaper than a metal chain.
Compared to the price of the car it's negligible.
Still saves a lot over millions of those engines.
As a percentage, that's a ****ing stupid thing to say.
The percentage is irrelevant.
Saving £5
It saves much more than that.
on a £2000 device
The car costs a lot more than that.
is always miniscule, no matter how many you make.
Wrong, as always.
And people would be more likely to buy a car that doesn't destroy the
engine because a piece of rubber snaps.
They clearly don't.
There's no accounting for stupidity.
Yep, you're actually stupid enough to buy a frog car.
Anyone who buys a new car is an idiot in the first place.
We arent all completely unemployable povs/chavs.
Simon Mason's Alfa Romeo just stretched the chain if I remember
correctly,
You don't, the chain tensioner is what failed.
no damage to the engine.
Yes, those do fail gracefully.
But the others don't fail often enough to matter
and are normally covered by the warranty now
anyway with the new much longer warrantys.
I've never seen over a 7 year warranty.
Then you need to get out more. The Honda Civic does.
And it aint alone.
I had a timing chain break at 70K miles. It was scheduled for it's 1st
change on the service at 72K!
Yes you actually are stupid enough to get stuck with
such a steaming turd with wheels.