|
The day I ripped rear end so loudly on an open flightline that it was heard over the sound of remotely piloted airplanes coming to life was one of the proudest days of my life The fact that it was so bad that guys who were with me started gagging even though we were outside was pretty sweet too
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
The contractor that was our trainer/babysitter during my first TDY to Korea was the spitting image of The Nature Boy. He was unfamiliar with professional wresting, but once we showed him a picture and explained a little bit, every morning he'd walk in to our building with a big WOOOOO
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Reaffirmed the age old truism, anything involving Marines and sex will find a way to go terribly wrong also please rename me to open dong wound
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:You're smith'ing it up here because 46 months in prison for "ew I know they are adults but but but I don't like that!" is loving retarded, right? yeah getting the vapors over Max Hardcore is pretty hilarious like the dude is a scumbag and I personally really don't understand the draw of those films...but the fact that a fair portion of everyone here seems to be okay with the government restricting the free speech rights of consenting adults because they just don't like what the adults are doing is pretty disappointing. Bear in mind that by agreeing with both of those court cases Zeris posted, you are agreeing with the Bush-era DoJ about something, specifically the DoJ under the rule of Ashcroft and Gonzales. Think about that one for a second. You're supporting the use of federal law enforcement resources to go after consenting adults because you think what they're doing is icky, good thing there wasn't anything else going on in the early to mid 2000's for federal law enforcement to be concerned with! Obscenity laws are dumb, and they're even dumber when they're vague as gently caress because  they're going to be struck down almost immediately. That law that was in question in the first case would've made Romeo and Juliet illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I'm pretty sure we had a bigger problem with him doing more with models than they consented to. EVA BRAUN BLOWJOBS posted:It's funny because James Deen got run out of the business in a loving heartbeat for consent issues, and this has to go to court. None of the court cases were about consent. First one was about a bullshit "if it looks like child porn it's child porn even if everyone is very explicitly 18" law. Second one was about a bullshit "we think doing this thing is icky so we're going to make it illegal" law.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
/\ he's referring to my comment, which actually had very little to do with the war on terror....it was just making a general observation that federal law enforcement should spend their time investigating crimes, with real victims, as opposed to serving as the morality police...which is what they were doing in both of the cases in question. They weren't investigating because someone committed rape or violated a safe word or something that could conceivably be a crime with a victim, they were investigating because consenting adults were doing things that the christian right didn't agree with, which is why under the Bush Administration obscenity prosecutions skyrocketed /\ lol okay yeah sure let's wipe away the first amendment because consenting adults are doing something that you think is icky fortunately first amendment precedent is very solidly established, and it doesn't line up with your view of it e: Just so we're clear, the obscenity cases in question had absolutely nothing to do with anything at all associated with rape or any type of coercion/force/etc. The prosecution's argument was "these completely consenting adults did things we think are icky and that we think violated obscenity laws and we should throw one of them in federal jail for it." That's all, that was the entirety of their argument. I'm not saying rape or coercion hasn't happened in these films nor am I saying that this dude isn't a scumbag, I'm just saying that these prosecutions did not give two fucks about that, it was strictly about right wing christians getting the vapors and getting the Bush Administration to serve as the (literal) morality police. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 06:51 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:
lol also that I mean the fact that a MFA student is advocating for arbitrarily restricting the first amendment has my irony meter just about pegged
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
The First Amendment pretty much solely exists for the purpose of protecting unpopular speech from government action....by definition popular speech doesn't need protection from a democratic government. So yeah, protecting consenting adults from being prosecuted by the government because a majority of the population disagrees with their (again, consenting adults) speech is literally the bedrock of what the first amendment is supposed to be founded upon. I think I've said like 3 or 4 times now that I think Max Harcore is a scumbag....scumbags often (but far from always) are the ones who are driving the train It comes back to that whole unpopular thing. Protecting the right of Nazis to march in a predominantly Jewish town (where a sizable chunk of the population was Holocaust survivors) is the basis for one of the key pieces of First Amendment jurisprudence...so yeah, the government should protect your right to "run down Martin Luther King Blvd screaming 'friend of the family'" if that's what you so desire, as long as you do so in a fashion that doesn't constitute "fighting words" or constitute an incitement to imminent lawless action, both of which are very narrowly tailored limitations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 08:02
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Too bad he has a hard time with the "consenting" part. Then prosecute him for that. That's not what the issue is here. Don't use "I don't like this guy and he's probably a rapist scumbag" as justification for supporting an assault on the First Amendment by evangelical Christians. Because that's what you all are doing here. I mean the argument we're talking about here basically comes down to the ends justify the means because he's a scumbag and he does gross poo poo so who cares if we rip up the First Amendment in the process
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:Shouting "friend of the family!" in the face of a bunch of black people isn't protected by the 1st amendment. See also: FIRE, BOMB, ASSASSINATE, etc.. Actually doing it in the face of a bunch of black people in a public place more than likely would be protected speech, as long as it was done in a fashion that could be found to be in relation to "a public issue."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Soulex posted:There are still things that could circumvent it though yeah? Disturbing the peace, causing civil unrest, etc? I am not pretending to know a lot or much about the subject, but it seems to me that if there is one thing our government is good at, it's creating loopholes. Not if you're doing it in a fashion that would be considered protected speech, which is a pretty broad spectrum as the exceptions to that (fighting words in this instance, also potentially imminent lawless action) are pretty narrowly tailored. Like I said, simply shouting niggers at some black people would potentially be protected speech as long as it was done in a fashion to somehow be related to "a public issue." Now in reality if you do that, someone is probably going to start swinging, a fight is going to break out, the cops are going to get called, and everyone's going downtown...but that's dealing with the aftermath of a separate action that was unrelated to the speech. If the cops prohibited you from saying it at all on the basis that "a fight's going to break out" then that would likely be a constitutional violation of exercising prior restraint on protected speech. If they rolled in as soon as you said it before any other illegal action took place, they'd be illegally suppressing protected speech. e: Of course I'm being a little obtuse here because literally just yelling the word "niggers" at a bunch of black people is skirting the edge of fighting words, and honestly if you were arrested based on just that it's probably a coin flip whether it stands or is found to be protected speech depending on the jurisdiction (as well as the specific statute and how broad or narrowly tailored the language in the statute is) because there's still some gray area on just how narrowly tailored the fighting words exception is. However it would be very easy to find a way to make the speech protected..."All niggers must die," "Niggers need to leave," and "I hate niggers" would all most likely be solidly within the realm of protected speech. The first is making a statement that does not meet the imminent lawless action standard for incitement and would most likely not be found to meet the fighting words standard, and the second and third could be seen as to be addressing a public issue (and would therefore be outside the scope of fighting words.) Bear in mind that “White son of a bitch, I’ll kill you” and “You son of a bitch, I’ll choke you to death” were held by the Supreme Court to be protected speech (granted that was a case involving directing that language towards a police officer performing his duties, which muddies the water a little bit, but the point still stands that "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you" is considered protected speech in this country.) iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Mar 18, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Idiot thread material: I witnessed an 18 wheeler almost rear end a convoy of humvees last night I was driving down 95 on my way back from my home away from home near Indian Springs late at night when I saw an 18 wheeler abruptly swerve from the outside lane to the inside lane....turns out he was avoiding a convoy of 4 humvees. They were traveling down a divided four-lane (not controlled access but still) rural highway, at night, in a traffic lane (i.e. not on the shoulder), going about 15 mph, at night, without any sort of additional reflective or flashing anything. They were just trucking along with the rear vehicle only having its normal (half burnt out) tail lights displayed....at night.....going 15 mph on a four lane rural divided highway where most traffic is cruising at 80+ mph. I'm honestly surprised I didn't see a story in the local news about "military convoy suffered tragic traffic accident" from their idiocy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:I bet we're neighbors Not for much longer, I'm PCSing and escaping this clown show of an enterprise! yeah assuming you live in NW Vegas we're neighbors
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What's your next shitshow going to be? Back to Ammo but it'll be AFMC, managing the global distribution/allocation of explodey things. I'm allegedly going to the APF side of things but we'll see if that actually happens. To say I'm looking forward to it is an understatement. AFMC Bankers' hours, being one of the infamous "they" who never returns emails or answers phone calls (instead of being on the opposite end of that like I am now)...it's going to be great.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
chemosh6969 posted:Did they publicly hang the guy due to his weakness of having integrity and give an award to the General for catching the guy? That's the Air Force I'm familiar with. lol yeah ol' zipper suit may have been proud of his crew chief for doing the right thing but guaranteed that crew chief had an extremely stretched out rear end in a top hat from the loving he endured from mx leadership afterwards fake edit: missed the fact that he was FL ANG...so forget everything I said, what happened afterwards was at the weekly unit bbq the Chief told Jim Bob not to ever do that again, now hold my beer and watch this
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 09:16
|
|
|
ded posted:Why the gently caress would you come to attention for a loving enlisted? It's AETC bullshit, some schoolhouses basically treat the senior instructor cadre (so SNCO types) like officers, when they come to visit you call the room/come to attention/etc Same AETC bullshit that had them calling the building for any officer that walked in. Same building contained an initial skills training schoolhouse for officers, so at any given time there were 25-30 butter bars running around said building. It was retarded. or joat mon posted:It's an old courtesy for headmasters/deans who visit a class. (Not that it isn't disruptive, duplicative and dumb) basically this
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Godholio posted:As an officer trainee (not even a Lt yet) I was saluted by a Lt Col. Oh, doctors joining the military lol this exact thing happened to met at field training (at Maxwell)...we ran into a Lt Col and Maj who were clearly going through COT, one of them saluted us while the other one kind of half-heartedly returned our salute but was clearly confused about the whole thing
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:Guys please don't make fun of Marines. They are delicate little flowers. lol
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
not caring here posted:The marines suffered their single greatest air asset loss against an enemy that doesn't even have planes. Largest amphibious assault in history was carried out by the Army
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Also the Navy took more casualties at Guadalcanal Real-talk every single naval engagement that took place in Ironbottom Sound was nuts Like when you have not one but two USN admirals get capped in one engagement due mostly to incompetence poo poo's gotten real willus posted:they could have just put sandbags in the osprey while they were testing it instead is it bad when not caring here posted that I actually had to think for a second and go "is he talking about the Osprey crash(es) or the Harrier raid at Bastion"
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Hillary Clintons Thong posted:lets talk about those dumb asses going to jail / retiring with full benefits after dealing with FAT LEONARD if we're talking about people retiring with full benefits, let's not forget the married USAF three-star who will be retiring with full benefits (as a three star) after having admitted to all but loving the wife of a subordinate ever since he was a one-star Malachite_Dragon posted:The F-35 is a dumpster fire It wouldn't even be a bad plane without the V/STOL bullshit, it'd be a not too shabby not retardedly overpriced/behind schedule strike fighter. It'd still have some programmatic challenges, but a lot of those are due to the whole SWAT weight reduction effort...which was solely due to the V/STOL requirement. Casimir Radon posted:I liked it when the USMC said so one else was allowed to use MARPAT. It figures the first time they manage to procure something that actually works they decide no one else can use it because of stupid service rivalry bullshit. EAGLE GLOBE ANCHOR BRAH
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
Zeris posted:Anyway, it's all worth it because the comments (all 996 of them) are all from angry USMC vets posting the dumbest poo poo imaginable, in response. lol yup but it is worth mentioning that the Army guys at Chosin really did get a raw deal for many decades, due pretty much solely due to accounts of the battle from Marine leadership (as well as that Navy Chaplain who really did write the article that the FWD: FWD: RE: FWD: post makes reference to) describing them as cowards who threw down their guns, didn't fight, etc. It wasn't until the mid to late '90s when some historians dug deeper using, among other things, Chinese archival documents, that the record was righted and it was recognized that without RCT-31/TF Faith holding out for four days on the east side of the reservoir (in the process taking horrendous casualties) the entire Marine force would've likely been wiped out because the Chinese would've captured Hagaru-ri at the south end of the reservoir before the Marines had a chance to reinforce it. O.P. Smith didn't recommend RCT-31 for inclusion with the PUC that was awarded to the units that fought at Chosin...it took until 1999 for them to be awarded the PUC for their role in the battle.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:How true is the stuff about the Marines needlessly poking Al Sadr? I could easily believe it. yeah it pretty much happened exactly as gramps laid out in his blog post: quote:Senior officers in Baghdad, as well White House officials who discussed the battle in Washington, say the latest fighting began when a Marine patrol drove directly past one of Mr. Sadr's houses in Najaf -- violating an informal agreement that American units would stay away from Mr. Sadr's strongholds, treating them as part of an ''exclusion zone'' that was at the heart of the cease-fire in the city. something something violence of action something enemy on the horns of a dilemma something something
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Mike-o posted:we did join the military after all Chowdown bless us, every one
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Except in today's military the first is a Nepalese TCN, the second is an elderly Asian-American woman, and the third is a faceless unaccountable bureaucracy with an Indianapolis zip code
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:And remember, you want to keep the compressions at the proper rate of 100-120 BPM, which can easily be maintained by humming Another One Bites The Dust. Wingnut Ninja posted:Or "Stayin' Alive". At our morning meeting with the O-6 a couple of weeks back there was this rather obnoxiously loud "BOOMP-BOOMP-BOOMP-BOOMP" going on from one of the rooms next door. We all made jokes about someone having a dance party, turns out it was a BLS/CPR/whatever course and that was the beat from the video
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
hey Unfunny Poster, if you're seriously looking at USAF PAO....don't. My wife is 12 years prior enlisted PA. I could write a dissertation on why you don't want to go that route, but here's the cliff notes: - you will do absolutely nothing that you have said you want to do. USAF PAO's don't do any of the actual hands on stuff, they just supervise enlisted who do the actual work as far as photography, shooting video, writing, etc. PAOs spend all of their time getting inane taskers from senior leadership at their wing and being blamed for stupid poo poo that the same senior leadership does (also blamed for public reaction to something, like PAOs are somehow these puppet masters who can control public opinion.) - career field is woefully undermanned (which is saying something given the entire USAF officer corps is woefully undermanned). Ops tempo is high, everyone is filling a billet at least one billet up (Lts are in Capt slots, Capts are filling Major billets, and so on). As a brand new Lt you'll likely be running a wing PA shop. In this position you will have absolutely no power, your WG/CC will ignore everything you say, and whatever stupid bullshit happens because the WG/CC went off half-cocked after ignoring everything you said will be your fault (and you will hear about it immediately because you'll be working directly for the WG/CC). -- as one data point on the manning situation, I know of a wing where the last two PAOs have gotten out after the assignment. First one because her career field told her to gently caress off when she asked for a join spouse assignment to actually be in the same state as her husband, second one because she's just fed up (also the join spouse thing would have been a factor except for the fact that she already got divorced in part due to geographical separation.) - chances of going on a bullshit Army JET deployment are high, chances of going on a bullshit USAF deployment are high My wife just laughed in their face when they asked her informally if she'd consider cross-training into PAO (and then laughed again when her current career field manager said there was no way in hell they'd release her anyway) e: to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying don't join. There's plenty of jobs out there that don't suck (or at least suck considerably less), on both the E and O sides, and some of them might interest you. I'm just saying based on what you have said, USAF PAO seems not what you should be looking at. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Jun 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:That was my reaction as well. wait you were being serious with that comment? Like those numbers were actually published on a no-poo poo official slide-deck from AFPC? I thought you were making a joke... 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
A Bad Poster posted:That has to be the Arctic Chill. The game center still has a bunch of 360s in it, but nobody goes there because they haven't bought any games in months. lol I was acquaintances with an AF cop officer when I was up there (which was right when joint basing was happening), I guess they started doing joint patrols on the Fort Rich with the Army MPs. She had some hilarious stories of people doing stupid poo poo (like "pulling knives on cops" levels of stupid poo poo) at the Arctic Chill.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Wild T posted:It was at Elmo, so he was probably just following in his leaderships' footprints. lol goddamn
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Godholio posted:^Never stop telling these stories. and there's also the problem that too many officers and SNCOs give a poo poo about saluting, but that's probably a lost cause Internet Wizard posted:Does the law that exempts military doctors from malpractice suits apply to this moron's level as well? Because holy crap, coming from a family of various medical professionals, those stories are horrifying. Feres Doctrine applies across the board, it's not specific to military doctors or even military medicine. Any member (or their family on their behalf if deceased) is prohibited from collecting any sort of damages or filing a wrongful death suit if the incident was caused by another member of the armed forces. Period. So yes. Time for your annual reminder that the following things have been held by the courts to be protected by sovereign immunity under Feres: - Known defective boiler explodes and burns down barracks, killing servicemember - Army surgeon leaves an 18"x30" towel in servicemember's stomach, towel is marked "Medical Department, U.S. Army" - Servicemember dies on operating table due to negligent actions by Army surgeons - Servicemember forcibly ejected from on-base club directly into mass of gang members, who proceed to beat him to the point of severe brain injury - Servicemember dies in plane crash while flying space-A; plane crash was due to negligence of civilian FAA air traffic controller - Servicemember drowns during MWR rafting trip due to negligent actions on part of civilian MWR employee - Servicemember seriously injured while canoeing (using a canoe rented from MWR) after being hit by another servicemember operating a motorboat rented from MWR -Army allows servicemember with one murder conviction in the States and another manslaughter conviction in Germany to remain freely on active duty. Servicemember subsequently kidnaps and murders another servicemember (who is off-duty at the time of the kidnapping and murder). Murdered servicemember's family is prohibited from filing suit against the Army - Servicemember suffers reaction to a contrasting agent; hospital staff send him home instead of admitting him,when his wife calls the doctor a week later he does not return her call so she takes her husband to the ER. ER staff misdiagnoses the issue and on the direction of the doctor member is placed in regular care as opposed to ICU. Member dies hours later after being transferred to a civilian hospital. - Servicemember is injured in a car accident caused by faulty servicing performed by a civilian NEX employee - During appendectomy anesthetist snakes oxygen tube down esophagus instead of trachea and then incorrectly uses a pediatric device to try and recover the (fully adult) servicemember, member goes into vegitative state and dies three months later Basically if you are a military member (Feres now applies to both Reserves and ANG as well) and you suffer an injury or fatality that can in any way be tied back to the US government, your/your survivors's chances of recovering damages are basically zero.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Munin posted:How the heck did this: "There have been exceptions to the Feres doctrine where active duty members have been allowed to sue for injuries when the court found that civilians could have been harmed in the same manner under the same circumstances in which the service member's injuries occurred." not apply to any of these? That wording in the wiki article is simplistic/misleading. The case they're referring to involved a Marine who crashed off a cliff on Pendleton after going through the guardrail which was damaged from a previous incident and hadn't yet been repaired. The basis of the court's decision is that since at the time Pendleton was somewhat open to the public (anyone could gain access to base during daytime hours as long as they signed in) and since at the time the Marine in question was off-duty, riding in a personal vehicle, and was attending to personal non-duty related business, the manner and type of his injury was such that it could have conceivably happened to any random member of the public. Therefore he should be allowed to sue for damages. The case was only in the 9th Circuit, so it is only applicable there, and it happened in 2007 so it's still relatively recent. Also in many of the other cases I laid out below the manner of the injury in some fashion tied directly back to the individual's status as a servicemember and as such the thought process in Schoenfeld wouldn't have applied regardless. For example, in both the canoeing incident and the rafting incident since they were through MWR the canoes/rafting were only available for military members and/or their guests and dependents. The 9th Circuit has crafted four factors to consider (from its ruling in Johnson back in the '70s): - Place where the negligent act occurred - Duty status of servicemember when negligent act occurred - Benefits accruing to servicemember because of their status as a servicemember - Nature of servicemember's activities at the time the negligent act occurred So in this case it basically boils down to: - On-base, but more or less immaterial due to subsequent factors - Member was off-duty, military status irrelevant - Member received disability benefits, but based on previous decisions this doesn't necessarily bar him from pursuing damages. More significantly, since the road was open to any civilian traffic during the time period he was traveling on it, traveling on that road was not a "benefit" of military service and as such weighs against applying Feres. - Member was off-duty out for a Saturday drive running errands around time; the activities do not significantly impact military discipline or second-guessing the "close military judgement call" that was (allegedly) the original purpose of instituting the Feres bar. Since there was nothing distinctly military about the accident (reference the fourth point) and since the accident occurred in a place/fashion that could have involved a random member of the public (reference the third point) the court made the decision not to institute a Feres bar. e: Of note, the only place this four factor test applies is in the 9th Circuit. Outside of that the precedent on Feres is still tied to that of the original case and the Brooks case the previous year...basically the only way you can sue for damages is if what you were doing is in no way shape or form tied to your status as a military member (Brooks was a case where a couple of brothers on leave, off-base, in a POV were sideswiped by an Army truck driven by an Army employee.) So if you're going to get hosed by the government, better do it in the West...and even then, good luck, because chances are they'll find a way to tie the incident somehow, however tenuously, to your status as a military member in which case good luck recovering damages. Good news though, when the VA inevitably fucks up treatment of the injuries you sustained from the accident you suffered on AD that you were unable to collect damages for, you'll be able to sue the VA! iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Jun 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:There was also that poor kid in AF basic who went in for gall bladder surgery and came out minus both of his legs. the guy in the one I posted about getting the oxygen down the wrong pipe was an AF SSgt at Travis
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Munin posted:Nice, so narrow as gently caress and only in one circuit. That wiki article really should be retouched. yup pretty much. It's better than the SCOTUS precedent of "you're in the military and doing something remotely tied to your military status? lol get hosed" but not by much also iyaayas01 posted:the guy in the one I posted about getting the oxygen down the wrong pipe was an AF SSgt at Travis AkrisD posted:He wasn't in basic. He was from my unit at Beale and had his surgery at Travis. I think we've identified the problem
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
WAR CRIME SYNDICAT posted:What? Link? Check out the dad chat thread. He was idly thinking (not seriously) about going back in into an ANG unit because he missed flying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Since Pokémon are Japanese, the State Department would have cognizance over them, so access to classified shouldn't be a problem. heyo
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
that shift lever design is loving stupid. There's a reason that physical distinction is a thing in any sound HMI design process. The best part is that I don't think that design even does anything better than a "normal" shifter, it's a textbook case of solution in search of a problem/we change it because it's ttttthhhheeeeee fuuuuuuuutttuuuuurrreeee
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
not caring here posted:Is that the same one as in the charger? It looks like it. It takes you all of one go to say "oh, hey, that's a bit different, maybe I should keep that in mind". Alternatively "something mildly different is completely dangerous to someone like me, so I should probably not buy this particular vehicle after taking it for a test drive". all valid points...but it doesn't change the fact that the new lovely design doesn't actually do anything better or more effectively than a normal shifter, it's literally "we're going to do things different because it's ~the future~"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 13:58 |
|
|
Here's the original https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf8ZlwLtSQM That said the soundtrack on this one is pretty :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMQwYYr-F2U it took me a minute to recognize it but when I did I died laughing
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 03:22
|
|