Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
0
Comments
570
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • What I don't get is why he has any power at all. This isn't war time, tell the two sides to work it out without violence. The truck industry will be happy to take more business from them.

  • Automated signaling exists and can manage all sections at the maximum safe speed. Trains shouldn't even have anyone inside to drive normally. The job is obsolete today. (drivers might be useful in yards, or little used branches, but not the main line - in both cases the driver should live near their section and work when there is a train then go home)

    Of course automatic signaling is programmed to be safe. Thus if that section cannot be driven faster than 10mph (or whatever speed) there is no override to go faster anyway.

  • Many industries have discovered the costs of not doing safety first are higher in the long run. You have to pay more workers comp insurance, you have to train replacement workers for those who are injured, you have to scrap/replace parts destroyed, and when someone is injured it affects moral and so your people don't work well.

    Railroads are throwing money away by not putting safety first - they just don't realize it.

  • C, because I can find a compiler or interpreter for other language written in C (I may need to run a few steps to get there), and thus work around your silly and nonsense question. Seriously, I use multiple languages because there is no one true language to rule them all. I use C++ for problems where bash would be wrong, and bash where C++ would be wrong. And some python, cmake, lua mixed in for good measure. I'm looking at Rust to add (rust doesn't like the way our system designed so it is hard to figure out how to implement it)

  • @sheeEttin got it. The point is you turn on the shower.and let.it run while using the toilet.

  • There are a few choices.

    Easiest is go just use the toilet before your shower and turn on the shower before you use the toilet. If you time it right this wouldn't waste water.

  • Looks cleaner than my desk. Bet it feels good to work there

  • Like I said, o.think the risk is acceptable .

  • I put my NAS in a location where even if the house burns it is likely to survive. Not perfect, but I figure the.risk is reasonable to take.

  • Sometimes. Generally the.company doesn't order you to live where you do. If you want paid commuting time they will tell you to move next door so your time is 1 minute (that zoning doesn't allow this or someone else lives there isn't their problem ).

    If you are told to travel from one office to another though you should be paid for your time. If they transfer your office they may owe you moving expenses so your commute isn't too long '

  • Hexgears with brown switches .better than rubber domes,and doesn't disturb coworkers. I use a model m by choice, but often that isn't socially allowed .

  • I'm a right wing liberal. Libertarians often represent me best, but I vote for who I think would get the best result.

  • Iowa is already close, what is taking so long?

  • Discipline and organization yes. However guns were private property that you were expected to supply yourself. That is how the recient revolution got weapons.

  • There is a court order, but that is very different from a full investigation. Often they hearing is fast and the accused isn't even in court to defend himself. That is it is not in any way a fair or unbiased trial.

  • What about the victims of false accusations? Do they not deserve any sympathy?

  • This is on law this is often used against law abiding gun owners. Their marriage is going south and suddenly they are hit by a restraining order. Some cases there is domestic violence going on, but others the spouse is just trying to make their ex's life bad. Many gun owners have been hit with this and lot their ability to do the legal things they would do with guns even though they weren't going to harm their ex.

    That isn't to say that everyone hit by a restraining order won't harm their ex. Only that there are a number of cases where there is no evidence of harm or harm planned but someone lost their guns. (Yes I'm aware that we only get one side of this story and don't know the truth, but it happens enough that gun owners are worried it could happen to them)

  • Regulated in the 1780s regulated meant equipped not controlled. Language changes, but intent does not.

  • I'm staying neutral. Some have no intent to use their gun for murder.

  • In order for a restraining order to be useful it needs to be issued on no proof at all. It takes a lot of investigation to find enough proof issue them - time that actual abusers can use to harm their victims even more. In short they are frivolously issued by nature. Then we do a proper investigation and determine if there really is something going on.