Deliberate misinterpretation, ARGH!

Image via Wikipedia

Why do some people choose to interpret stuff their way, instead of the normally accepted definitions?

One job recently called for a "15-seater".

A 15-seater van, as most people are aware of, has 15 seats (including the driver's position). Last row has 4, then 3 rows of 3, then two up front, for a total of 15. That's TOTAL capacity of 15, thus, 15-seater.

The person who ordered it actually did ask me, upon seeing the invoice (on which I wrote "15-seater charter") how many people is that, I replied "that's including the driver, so 14 additional people".

On the day of the ship, she argued and basically forced the driver to take one additional people, claiming that 15-seater means 15-passengers. The driver refused, as that would mean a ticket for him if he was ever stopped by police, for "overloading", no seat belt, and other offenses. They had a big argument. You don't need to know the result, suffice to say it got escalated to me, and I was exasperated to hear such lack of reasoning, esp. when I *did* tell her that it means 14-seats for passengers, no more!

When we say "it's a sporty two-seater", it mean two people in the car, including the driver, right? We don't call it a one-seater.

So how can anyone then expect a 15-seater to seat 16? (15 passengers, plus driver)

There *are* exceptions in the charter business. For example, when you go ABOVE van, to minibuses and motorcoaches, then the seating capacity no longer includes the driver, mainly because the driver sits in a DIFFERENT area, nominally SEPARATE from the passenger cabin. For example, in one of my old minibuses, the driver is separated from the cabin by a small partition. Even though it's based on a heavy-duty E450 step/van body, there is no passenger seat next to him, unlike some models. So, seating capacity is 25 (5 rows of 4 seats, plus a final back row of 5). I call that a 25-seater, seats 25-passengers. I don't call it a 26-seater. In a different vehicle of the same class (different maker) there IS a passenger seat (and a passenger door, in fact), but there's still a separate cabin. Those are technically 24-seats (6 rows of 4-seats each) with an extra seat for the tour guide / escort. It is "sold" as a 24-seater, not a 25-seater. In fact, some remove the seat and put in storage bins.

In larger vehicles, such as motorcoaches and buses, driver is NOT counted in the 'seating capacity'. It's just convention. When driver is separated from the cabin, they are NOT counted in the seating capacity. When they are NOT, then they are counted.

But there are no partitions in a van. So a 15-seater van seats 15, including driver. Enough said.

(Later we found that that every person she squeezed onto the van means more money in her pocket, which is why she wants that extra person in there. I don't want to mention any names, but this person works for a non-profit, the charter was for an excursion by a bunch of elders, and she solicited me for kickback on this job. Yes, I said KICKBACKS.)

Guess what CA wanted to regulate about your car?

Image via Wikipedia

Guess what regulation California wants to pass regarding your car?

A regulation concerning PAINT.

That's right, a proposed legislation will regulate what kind of paint / color you can get in California.

WHY?!?! You ask.

Well, black or dark color car gets hotter in the sun, right? So if you require cars to have lighter colors, you'll use the AC less, and thus, improve mileage, and reduce global warming, right? It sounds like someone from the Sierra Club or Union of Concerned Scienetists would propose: it sounds good, but it's unscientific.

So is the color black doomed as a car paint choice? Not quite.

Now you're going to say, but that made sense to me! But wait!

The problem is... Most of the heat in the cabin came through the glass, not the skin of the car covered by paint. Just think about it. The glass area is right at the cabin, while the area with paint is over the area mostly UNrelated to the cabin.

So how much gas can this idea save? About 10 gallons per car PER YEAR, and this would add over $50 to cost of the car, by most estimates. Not to mention this will severely limit your car's paint choice (black is out, closest is a very dark brown).

It took a study from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) to prove that this idea is a non-starter and that California Air Resources Board (CARB) should axe the idea, and CARB did.

Now CARB is back with another idea: requring glass that reflects a LOT MORE light than the current safety glass, which reflects a mere 6%. According to the proposal, the new windshield must reflect 30% of light (which matches current law of 70% light pass-thru). Side, rear, and sunroofs require even MORE reflectivity.

Please note that the regulations say REFLECT, not absorb. Which means tint is NOT acceptable.

In fact, the reflectivity requirement will jump to 45% by 2014, though in all honesty, it's for new cars only.

The problem is so far, only one company had came up with a new glass formulation that meets the 30% reflectivity... and it's EXPENSIVE, as it involves a nanolayer of silver between current safety glass, among other things. It does not affect visibility.

And what's more, the layer of silver blocks radio signals due to the Faraday effect (any one know what a Faraday cage is?) Thus, radar detectors and internal GPS receivers and anything else that receive radio signals inside the cabin will have problems (yes, even your cellphones, though that can be fixed by special antennas). Oh, and those toll transponders (Fastrak in Northern CA) that used to go inside your car... Now they have to go OUTSIDE.

As you can guess, this will severely affect the cost of a car, adding a few hundred, due to the exclusivity of this glass formula, and the added cost of the glass. In other words, CARB will grant monopoly to this glass maker, if this proposal passes. Yet the gain in energy savings is still debatable.

Not to mention this idea is pointless in the northern states. In the sunbelt, absolutely. But northern states? Nah.

Yet you know everybody follows CA when it comes to emission and energy stuff.

But there are HUGE implications when it comes to completely changing the formula of autoglass that is in use for the past several decades. I am sure it'll pass visibility and crashability, but what about replacement cost, widespread availability of such glass at places OTHER than the dealer, not to mention effects on interior electronics, effect on other drivers (increased reflectivity will affect other driver's visibility THROUGH your vehicle, say into the traffic beyond), and so on?

Then there are additional problems. If an owner is forced to replace these uber-glass with regular glass, maybe due to breakage, lack of parts, and so on, is the car still "legal"? Can it be registered next year like smog test? Will CA charge a "mitigation fee" to register out-of-state vehicles like it current does with cars that doesn't meet CA emissions? Do owners of such vehicles get refund for electronics that no longer work inside, or get a stipend to install conduit antennas to keep these electronics working?

While the intent is good, there are always unintended consequences. I am just not too certain if the consequences of this proposal has been fully realized yet.

Rant about notebook gaming

Image by jauhari via Flickr

What is it about notebooks that makes it so... business?

Yet when you try to find games that will run on it, you will find that unless you pick a specific that has the latest and greatest video stuff (and even then, you'll often to be told that laptop chispets are NOT supported by the game box) you won't be able to run anything at all.

While it is understandable that laptops may not have the best and the brightest of chipsets (after all, power savings is a must), it shouldn't be so anemic that one is reduced to puzzle games.

Yet, I can tell you that 3 out of 4 games I find at local stores won't run on laptops nowadyas, namely mine.

And I don't have a very exotic laptop either. What I got is a Sony VAIO VGN-NR420E, Pentium M Dual Core inside, Windows Vista Home Premium pre-loaded, ready to be a entertainment machine right off the bat... DVD player, Firewire (i-link in Sony terms), 4 USB ports, built-in Wifi (A,B, and G), not a powerhouse but not a wimp either... Except the graphics: Intel 965 Express. The problem with Intel is they don't believe in "hardware rendering", which has been on NVIDIA video chips since year 2001 (GeForce 256). Thus, Intel chips have always been considered "weaklings" compared to the two juggernauts of video: NVIDIA, and ATI. The only reason Intel is still in the video business is because Intel can sell the video along with their CPUs and chipsets at a discount, making it too irresistable for the system makers to pass up who are under pressure to build a machine CHEAP, cheap, cheap, never mind the video is useless for anything that demands even a modicum of true video processing power.

And what does this do? It will do Aero for Windows Vista, and that's about it.

Yet, SOME games do run on these chipsets, interestingly, namely, OLDER games based on certain video engines. LucasGames' Republic Commando runs fine though you have to reduce the resolution and graphics details to keep the frame rate up. And also Elite Soldiers: Vietnam will run on this chipset, and produces some of the best jungle yet seen in a PC game.

The problem is nothing produced in the last few years will likely run on this laptop, and that cause a LOT of support problems overall.

Too bad the hardware and software makers can't designate hardware and software levels, like "level 1", "level 2", etc. All level 2 hardware will run all level 2 software games, and below, you get the idea.

Q: "Is it true ,that using"cruise control" in wet and slippery conditions will cause control loss of your car?"

Image via Wikipedia (see original discussion)

Well, is it true? Let's think about that, and analyze the question properly. Diagram the assertion shows:

"using cruise control in wet and slippery conditions" --cause--> "control loss"

YES OR NO?

The problem here is a little tricky. Does the control loss come immediately? Some time after? Never, or only in certain circumstances?

The answer logically is "only in certain circumstances". Thus, logically, the answer to the original answer is FALSE. A certain SECONDARY condition must be met (such as one wheel spins and the other does not). You may just get lucky and never hit a bad patch and lose control. It's not a "given". Cruise control <> spin out.

Now let's analyze the actual situation itself.

Let's say you are driving in the rain, no cruise control, going straight, and one of your wheel is spinning empty (hydroplanes) while the other one has traction.

The following should happen:
* the side with traction PUSHES the car toward the side without traction
* driver hits the brakes and turns toward side with traction (opposite turn)
* the side-to-side weight transfer is balanced and neutralized
* due to braking, more weight went forward, reestablishing traction to both wheels
* driver regains control of vehicle

Let's revisit the scenario, but with cruise control this time

* side with traction pushes car toward side without traction
* driver hits the brakes (which disengages cruise control) and turns toward side with traction
* the side-to-side... hey, it's exactly the same thing!

See the problem?

I can hear you say now... But it's the TIMING! It takes TIME to lift the foot from the floor to the pedal! And the driver on cruise control is less likely to be alert! By the time brakes are applied he's already spun out!

But you just admitted what the problem really was... "Driver's lack of attention." It wasn't cruise control at all.

I rest my case.

P.S. At least one supposed mechanic ("I don't need to reference a website to know how cruise control works") claims that you will speed up uncontrollably if your wheel loses traction. Hah!