On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 21:16:48 +0000, MM wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 18:35:12 +0000, Cynic
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Mar 2008 17:18:28 +0000, MM wrote:
>>
>>>>>Not: "very little more effort", but NO extra effort, not one iota.
>>>>>Zilch extra. Just do it right first time. Airline pilots have to, else
>>>>>people die. Oh, and tell Cynic you agree with me, okay?
>>>>
>>>>Perhaps in that case you could tell me why airlines waste all that
>>>>money on checking and often double checking every important action?
>>>>It's surely easier to check that a door is closed than to check that
>>>>the price you have put on a shelf is correct. So perhaps you could
>>>>explain why *3* different people check that a commercial aircraft has
>>>>all its doors closed before it leaves the stand for departure? And
>>>>that's in addition to door switches that bring up a warning in the
>>>>cockpit should any door be unlatched. And even with those
>>>>precautions, there are occasionally (*very* occasionally) cases of
>>>>aircraft taking off with an unsecured door.
>>>
>>>Ah, you now want me to treat seriously your comparison between
>>>applying a shelf price label in a supermarket with checking the
>>>aircraft doors before take-off. Yeah, riiiiigggghhhhtttt......
>>
>>Well, it's you who appear to believe that the same care should be
>>taken for both.
>
>No, I want the level of care to be commensurate with the
>difficulty/complexity of the task. Checking over an aircraft before
>taking off is orders of magnitude more complex than applying a price
>label. But, anyway, you're just nit-picking now, aren't you!
Actually, checking that the doors are closed is orders of magnitude
*easier* than checking that all the prices on the shelves are correct.
Checking *everything* on an aircraft is certainly a good deal more
difficult, but then the people doing it get a *lot* more training, and
are selected a *lot* more rigorously than shop assistants.
>
>>>Again, you seem to believe that applying the correct label is orders
>>>of magnitude more difficult than applying the wrong label. I say that
>>>the effort is exactly the same, and therefore, why not do it right?
>>
>>The application of the label is not the issue. Ensuring that it is
>>the *correct* label is the issue. Which will *always* require some
>>form of double-checking.
>
>Don't be silly. NO double-check is needed. NONE. The price in the
>computer at the till is the price the store will charge (they said so)
>and therefore the price is available to any staff member (but not
>shoppers) to apply to the shelves.
It is *just* as available to a shopper as it is to a staff member, in
most stores. Both of them have to go to a till or a scanner to verify
the price.
>Why do you persist in making a very
>simple task appear as complex as flying an Airbus?
>
Why do you think it could possibly be, or that anybody has suggested
it might be?
>>I'll take a bet that if I went through all your posts, I'd find
>>several of them that contained typos or other mistakes. Or will you
>>claim that none of your posts contain mistakes?
>
>Away you go! Find those typos! While you're at it, here's a hair
>------ see if you can split that one, too!
He isn't splitting hairs.
You are making a very stupid claim, and he is pointing out the
absurdity of it.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It is better to be brief than boring.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom |