Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Free market (Score 4, Insightful) 257

by twotacocombo (#47732957) Attached to: When Customer Dissatisfaction Is a Tech Business Model

Good customer service is expensive.

Good customer service is less expensive than bad customer service. A smaller call center staffed with decently trained and compensated CSRs is far more cost effective than watching the headcount continuously grow and churn to deal with the increased call volume due to poorly trained staff dumping calls, permaholds, supervisor escalations, previous callers figuring out they've been lied to, etc. At some point, your call center will outgrow its allotted space, and then you'll have to deal with a costly move or additional locations. Both companies I worked for experienced this, one of them had to move TWICE in 4 years, and the cost was mindblowing. Then, as you lose a lot of your customers, there's the cost of downsizing.. all of which could have been avoided by just properly hiring, training, and compensating a solid, core group of people to take care of your customers and make sure they didn't become unhappy with the thought of giving you their money.

Comment: Re:Can you blaim them? (Score 1) 126

put about $100 worth of batteries in their blackbox so it would ping for more than a few weeks.

When was the last time we lost a large commercial jetliner for so long that the batteries ran out before we picked up the ping? When was the last time we had one fly so far off its planned flight path, intentionally evading radar, and probably crashed half way around the globe from its intended destination? This case is so out of the ordinary, it wouldn't have made sense to plan for it (up until now). Sure, lets throw another $100 worth of batteries into it. But what if that wasn't enough? Lets throw another $100 in to be sure. But is that really enough? Let's keep piling batteries onto the thing until it barely gets off the ground, because you never know when some asshole is going to pull another stunt like this. While we're at it, lets make them all fly around with gigantic inflatable bumpers attached to the front, in case one tries to fly into a skyscraper again...

Comment: Re:Hackers (Score 0) 89

by twotacocombo (#46828845) Attached to: The Hackers Who Recovered NASA's Lost Lunar Photos

"Hacker" can't have two meanings... stealing other people's shit.

"Shit" can't have two meanings and the efforts to muddy the definition is a transparent attempt to lessen the stigma attached to excrement. So, obviously, you mean to say that "hackers" are hellbent on stealing the feces of strangers, to which I am not in a position to either prove nor disprove, but wrinkle my nose to it just the same.

Comment: Re:Does everything need to be smart? (Score 2) 128

Yes. That's why fire sprinklers are so successful. There's nothing between the water and the fire except a low-melting-point component in the sprinkler head.

The fire sprinklers with the visible glass tubes are activated when heat causes the liquid inside to expand, shattering the glass and opening the valve. No melting occurs.

Comment: Re:Dude, what? (Score 1) 101

by twotacocombo (#46633995) Attached to: How a 'Seismic Cloak' Could Slow Down an Earthquake
None of them of any appreciable size in the greater Los Angeles area since Northridge. None of the larger ones since Hector Mine were widely felt in LA, and the majority of them were off shore or way out in the sticks. Look at the fault map for LA.. there's tons of them, yet none of them produced anything newsworthy in 20 years. The period between Whittier Narrows and Hector Mine was the most active, with many quakes that didn't make it on that list but I still remember to this day. 1992 was a a crazy year for quakes. The fact that nothing larger than a 5.4 has hit LA since 1999 is unusual compared to the 20 years that preceded it.

Comment: Dude, what? (Score 1) 101

by twotacocombo (#46633435) Attached to: How a 'Seismic Cloak' Could Slow Down an Earthquake
"Significant tremors in the west"? The recent earthquakes used to be business as usual back in the 80's-90's. We'd have them at least once or twice a year, if not more, and it never really raised an alarm. We've just had such a dry spell since 1999 (or '94, if you want to keep it in the LA basin), that these light/moderate earthquakes seem like big news. The bigger story should have been "Where the hell are all the earthquakes??" for the past 20 years.

Comment: Re:Ummm.... (Score 1) 330

So yes, your 40 mpg motorcycle (horrible mileage by the way, a crotch-rocket by any chance? Geo Metros do better than that) .

Kawasaki Versys 650, actually. Can do upwards of 50+ MPG in the right conditions, but people fail to realize that the real world takes a heavy toll on actual stats compared to paper. My commute is 50/50 freeway and street, and there is a ~1000ft mountain pass in between my house and work. Plus, I don't ride it like I'm driving a Prius. Some people are too hung up on fuel economy that they miss out on the fun things in life. PS: Some 'crotch rockets' can get 60+ MPG. Check out the Ninja 250/300 line :)

Comment: Re:Ummm.... (Score 5, Informative) 330

So the only real way to reduce CO2 emissions per mile is get more miles per gallon of fuel.

No. My ~40mpg motorcycle pollutes far more than my ~27mpg car. It's all about how well the engine burns the fuel and handles the emissions before they leave the pipe, not necessarily just the volume of it.

Comment: Re:purchase time (Score 4, Informative) 405

by twotacocombo (#46510755) Attached to: Paris Bans Half of All Cars On the Road

Are they also going to ban all those bloody scooters in paris. Those things are cheap to drive and the exhaust is filthy.

Those things are serious polluters, both chemical and noise. There's nothing that ruins a nice stroll down the Seine like the grating buzz of a 2-stroke with CVT. And the way they just pile them on the sidewalks everywhere.. ugh.

Comment: Re:How DARE you propose NOT to allow this? (Score 1) 146

by twotacocombo (#46363677) Attached to: UK Government Proposes Rules To Allow 'Three-Parent Embryos'

You're advocating the idea that those less affluent can only have genetically disease free kids if they themselves are free of genetic disease.

No, I'm advocating that everyone take a step back and ask "does the world really need another mouth to feed?", regardless of genetic suitability. Deciding not to have a child because it may be afflicted by a genetically inherited condition, in my opinion, is a noble choice. Spending $$$ on a method to circumvent this natural limitation just so you can have a brand new little copy of yourself seems a bit selfish. The more diseases we cure, the more babies we have, the longer we extend natural lifespans, the closer we get to resource scarcity. Take a look at places in the third world with rampant disease and famine. It's not because god hates them or they're unlucky, it's in part because they're producing more mouths than the land can feed. We will some day reach that point as well, but we shouldn't just go running full speed towards it because we all feel some biological need to reproduce. That's what sets us apart from the animals, right? The ability to reason and think about the consequences of our actions, and plan accordingly?

Evolution is a million line computer program falling into place by accident.

Working...