Adverse weather conditions can come at inconvenient times, like in the middle of a long journey.
That's very interesting.
That doesn't happen in any place I've visited (including some European cities, but I accept that maybe most of Europe has that rule and these cities were exceptions).
Also, people sometimes park their car for more than 30 hours, *especially* if there are snowstorm conditions which preclude you from driving away.
That's simply impractical in much of the world. Road markings can be basically invisible for months at a time. They go to extroardinary effort to keep big roads clear, but even that takes a while and you might already be on the road when it happens.
(plus, the people clearing the roads have to drive on them).
This said, there are also alternative solutions to streetlights, like reflector posts along the side of the road. You tend to see that as you get into the *real* country roads.
I think you both might be confused.
It's very regional in the US. Business casual is very common for non-customer-facing positions in much of the US Northeast and the adjoining areas of Canada. The Pacific Coast is noticeably more relaxed.
Honestly I've never heard of "headgear indoors is bad form". I do see that rule online referenced as a dying tradition that applied mostly to men (note the hijab, niqab, and burqas mostly don't apply to men).
I've heard it's bad form when at a theater (because it can obstruct the view of people behind you -- which is a legitimate reason to ask turban-wearers to be conscientious about where they sit), and when you're eating (for some reason).
Meanwhile, not wearing any bottom-covering is unacceptable almost everywhere but your own home and a few choice exceptions.
A turban just isn't a big deal, and it's certainly not rude. I don't know why anybody gets worked up over it. Except, again, when it matters (hardhats for safety, theater-like situations when it blocks your view, etc.).
No, because component-percentages don't model all scenarios. Dress code is a pass/fail, rather than a percentage of your evaluation. To re-cast it into academic terms, you get an automatic 0% on your test if you get caught cheating. Does that mean that 100% of your test evaluation was "doesn't get caught cheating"? No. You either got caught cheating, or you didn't (presumably because you didn't cheat). If you didn't get caught cheating, then your marks are based on how you completed the test. If you did get caught cheating, your marks are 0% regardless of how you completed the test. Your overall marks in that class reflect how you did on all tests/exams/quizzes/homework assignments etc. put together in a weighted average. It's possible to cheat on all, on none, or on only parts. Still, you can reasonably state that 0% of your final mark is based on "not cheating" / "not getting caught".
Furthermore, I bet the companies you worked for didn't allow "fully nude". So you were already evaluated on dress code compliance. Just because the definition of what is compliant changes, doesn't mean it figures more or less strongly into your salary or whatever.
I don't like dress codes either, but:
1. This is not a demand for $6000 suits, it's business casual. For men at least, I am skeptical that the workers don't own at least some polo shirts and slacks (I don't claim to know women's warddrobes). I happen to dress business casual by accident frequently.
2. These are HP engineers, not minimum wage manual labourers. They don't need an allowance to buy regular person clothes. They didn't need an allowance to buy their initial clothes either.
I don't think I've ever parallel parked outside of learning to do so for the driving test, and the actual test. I've parked curbside but generally drive straight in instead of the snaking reverse-course squeeze.
With that said, I find this statement totally contrary to my experience:
only a few places have parallel parking with lots of cars (mostly downtown in big cities)
Downtown in big cities have parking lots all over the place, which usually have perpendicular parking slots (or occasionally, angled parking); meanwhile, because it would be freakishly expensive to expand a roadway by one lane and traffic is high in big city downtown cores, parking alongside the road is forbidden most of the time. It's small towns, in my experience, where you have good reason to parallel park. Alongside the main street, no less.
I think you're confusing sixth taste with sixth sense.
Today I learned that many slashdotters are categorically opposed to house-rules.
They're trying to have fun, not prep for a tournament or slavishly follow a ruleset.
It's similar to how I don't like playing chess against people who memorize chess openings, beyond maybe the first two moves anyway like the famous "pawn to king 4" -- I'd rather play either a different game, or a chess variant like Knightmare chess, because I want to have fun and memorizing data isn't fun. I'll memorize a ruleset but not data. No, a dictionary of tens of thousands of words doesn't count as a ruleset. Even some pro chess players share that opinion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I tend to think the rule should have taken effect after that round was over.
I agree that rule changes mid-stream aren't fun, unless the fact that the rules can change was explicitly part of the initial rules. But you also don't expect a bunch of regular people to keep playing "arm-wrestling" with the world body-builder champion. And I think a case can be made that the original intent of Scrabble was to use words you know, not word-lists, even if that's how competitive play is done.
Also I think that rule makes for a more interesting game, provided nobody is a complete dick when they compare the given definition to the dictionary definition. Of course, if that was instituted competitively, people would just memorize the two letter words.
The difference is that they didn't use those cellphones. In the other scenario, the employees used the additional salary.
Sometimes, yes. The world is a worse place in the long-term if nobody tries a change. Or else we'd still all be on command-line interfaces. Or graphical interfaces that don't include a mouse. Or, or, or.
But yes, it's also true that change to something familiar is, in some sense, always negative.
There is a balance to be made and some people will be unhappy no matter what.
The name of that setting is outdated. It doesn't necessarily improve performance, it makes a tradeoff that was more optimal for really old computer architectures but actually less optimal for modern architectures. What it does is change the rendering from GPU-based and using GPU memory to CPU-based and preferring software recalculation.
You might want to read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnew...
I don't think you do go to prison for claiming to have made $1200 more than you really did. At least not typically.