Best call of the day....
-
@Dashrender said:
That's the problem we have in general these days. So much new information available yet unless you have a personal desire to learn it you probably don't. Doesn't matter how helpful/useful/live saving it might be, you don't know about or care about it, you definitely won't learn about it.
This conversation has been going on since the beginning of time. At some point smart cave men were saying the same things about the dumb cave men who had no interest in learning how to make fire and only wanted to heat things up on the fires built by others. It is human nature that a small percentage of the population does everything and makes it possible for the rest to survive when, on their own, they would not.
-
But understanding how traction control isn't a requirement under the law, if it was, the law would have to test you on it before you could drive that car.
They expect you to be able to read street signs, etc so they test you on that stuff... they don't expect you to know any more features of your car than the brake pedal, steering wheel, gear shifter and ignition. Oh yeah, and your seat belt. All things covered by the driving test.
-
@Dashrender said:
But understanding how traction control isn't a requirement under the law, if it was, the law would have to test you on it before you could drive that car.
Not true. If you have an "accident" because you didn't know how the car works you are liable for having driven irresponsibly. Nothing about it being the law implies that you will be tested on it. That's completely disconnected logic. Nothing else in life is like that. The law applies whether you are told, trained or tested or not. Cars are not all the same, many do not have traction control. They certainly don't test you on every possible option you might buy or enable. That is totally your responsibility as they state when you get your license, which they don't have to tell you because the law is your responsibility to know regardless.
-
@Dashrender said:
They expect you to be able to read street signs, etc so they test you on that stuff... they don't expect you to know any more features of your car than the brake pedal, steering wheel, gear shifter and ignition. Oh yeah, and your seat belt. All things covered by the driving test.
They do expect you to know those things.... and more. You know it is the law that you wear a seatbelt and you know they don't test on it. So obviously they require you to understand how to use them and yet don't test on that usage.
You've made an assumption that because there is a test on one subset of knowledge that you are not expected to know anything else. There is nothing that suggests that and it would be a crazy situation that everything you had to know had ot be tested. There are tons of things that you are not tested on that you still are expected to know about street signs alone!
-
downvote
-
I think this has derailed in a pretty hilarious manner. 10/10 would car analogy again! (sorry IRJ)
-
@MattSpeller said:
I think this has derailed in a pretty hilarious manner. 10/10 would car analogy again! (sorry IRJ)
It what way has it derailed, until discussing derailment itself which is often the true derailment. We are still discussing how in every other situation people are expected to know the basics of safe and effective operation. Very applicable to the OP. There is nothing else to really discuss since it wasn't a question. I don't see any derailment until discussing derailment.
-
@Dashrender said:
But understanding how traction control isn't a requirement under the law, if it was, the law would have to test you on it before you could drive that car.
They expect you to be able to read street signs, etc so they test you on that stuff... they don't expect you to know any more features of your car than the brake pedal, steering wheel, gear shifter and ignition. Oh yeah, and your seat belt. All things covered by the driving test.
Not knowing what something does in your $30k investment is unacceptable. You don't need to understand how it works it works mechanically, but you need to understand the concept and the pros and cons. People spend thousands of dollars in auto repairs which are completely avoidable by knowing your basic vehicle.
Soccer Mom = does not equal stupid. There is no reason she shouldn't understand her vehicle. If she refuses to do so then that is a very poor decision on her part. We aren't talking about changing a radiator or even changing oil. We are talking about basic features that you should understand either before or during the purchase of your vehicle.
-
We aren't talking about mechanics, we are talking about operational awareness here. Is it ok for a pilot or a captain not to understand how to operate their plane or vessel?
-
@Hubtech said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
Along the lines of @scottalanmiller's comment, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a certain level of computer literacy in today's day and age. People often simply refuse to learn. It's not that most are incapable, although I've met a few that are. It's that they refuse to adapt and learn. That's just foolishness on their part that shouldn't be tolerated by any serious company.
so let's say there is a respected neurosurgeon, doesn't like technology. by this "logic" a hospital shouldn't tolerate his inability to google?
No, because the act of Googling implies trying to learn and figure something out. I agree with @MattSpeller in that if someone WANTS to learn and really tries, I will have all the patience in the world. It's the people who refuse to try that I cannot tolerate.
-
@IRJ as advocatus diaboli - most if not all of my users know more about the software they use than I do! To tie all this back together a bit:
Imagine a company hired someone who was absolutely brilliant at doing something important to the business, but was absolutely clueless about how to use a computer. Supporting this person would come back to me, and I'd be ok with that, though I'd have some serious questions about the hiring policy. Without a doubt I'd post their hilarious tickets on here for a good laugh (and rightly so, it's 2015 damn it!). You can teach them how to use the web (or whatever else). As a bonus, at least you know that you taught them the right way to do it!
-
@MattSpeller said:
@IRJ as advocatus diaboli - most if not all of my users know more about the software they use than I do! To tie all this back together a bit:
Imagine a company hired someone who was absolutely brilliant at doing something important to the business, but was absolutely clueless about how to use a computer. Supporting this person would come back to me, and I'd be ok with that, though I'd have some serious questions about the hiring policy. Without a doubt I'd post their hilarious tickets on here for a good laugh (and rightly so, it's 2015 damn it!). You can teach them how to use the web (or whatever else). As a bonus, at least you know that you taught them the right way to do it!
Why would an IT person be involved in helping someone learn the basics of business tooling? That's like the operator of a printing press being assigned to help someone illiterate read because he "works with words."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would an IT person be involved in helping someone learn the basics of business tooling? That's like the operator of a printing press being assigned to help someone illiterate read because he "works with words."
In my example I imagined the company I work for hiring someone like this, and that would fall to me (or my equal ranked co-worker). Appropriate or not, at least they'd learn the right way the first time!
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would an IT person be involved in helping someone learn the basics of business tooling? That's like the operator of a printing press being assigned to help someone illiterate read because he "works with words."
In my example I imagined the company I work for hiring someone like this, and that would fall to me (or my equal ranked co-worker). Appropriate or not, at least they'd learn the right way the first time!
Assuming you know that stuff. If the company is hiring people unable to do their jobs in that role, why would they not make the same mistake in your role?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Assuming you know that stuff. If the company is hiring people unable to do their jobs in that role, why would they not make the same mistake in your role?
There are days here that I wonder........
-
@scottalanmiller said:
At least know what a URL is and how to put it into a browser!
But IE 11 hijacks it anyway
Example 1: www.bundystl.com will go to the webpage
Example 2: wtf.bundystl.com will go to BingWhy? because I did not preface it with http://
Seriously MS, why? It is an option to disable, but that then disables ALL searching in the URL bar.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Not true. If you have an "accident" because you didn't know how the car works you are liable for having driven irresponsibly.
I'm not sure how one would prove this. Are you saying that traction control alters the car's handling so radically in one way or another that it would cause a person to be considered irresponsible? I don't see it.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Not true. If you have an "accident" because you didn't know how the car works you are liable for having driven irresponsibly.
I'm not sure how one would prove this. Are you saying that traction control alters the car's handling so radically in one way or another that it would cause a person to be considered irresponsible? I don't see it.
Yes, traction control, when it activates, does change the way a car handles. Driving in the snow with a car without traction control, and a car with traction control is very different.
-
@JaredBusch said:
But IE 11 hijacks it anyway
Example 1: www.bundystl.com will go to the webpage
Example 2: wtf.bundystl.com will go to BingWhy? because I did not preface it with http://
Seriously MS, why? It is an option to disable, but that then disables ALL searching in the URL bar.
I HATE that
-
@JaredBusch said:
@scottalanmiller said:
At least know what a URL is and how to put it into a browser!
But IE 11 hijacks it anyway
Example 1: www.bundystl.com will go to the webpage
Example 2: wtf.bundystl.com will go to BingWhy? because I did not preface it with http://
Seriously MS, why? It is an option to disable, but that then disables ALL searching in the URL bar.
This is one thing I don't get every other browser has smart detection for urls. IE uses strictly standards based url format thinking that's better. Who even uses http:// or www. most of the time anymore?
