Braille ATMs

[Notan]

Why do drive-up ATMs have braille instruction/buttons?

Notan

[Cato]

LOL Why for blind drivers of course. I know I encounter at least one everyday on the road.

Haven't you ever noticed the bumps on the steering wheel and the the gear pattern indentions on the shifter? I hope you didn't think those were for your comfort and aesthetic appeal? ;-)

[Pablo]

I would imagine that the manufacturer only makes one set of buttons, which end up being used on walk-up ATMs as well as drive-thru ATMs.

That's always been my thought when hearing this question, anyway.

-Pablo

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news:RsU9f.3722$ [e-mail]:

Isn't that consistent across *all* passenger vehicles...?? I've never driven a panel truck or larger so I don't know about them, but it's weird IMO that anyone would really *need* to look at the knob...

Duuuuuhhh....

Ever notice that number of offspring is inversely proportional to IQ...?

[Cato]

Actually I think it is different on different models of cars. (depending on what country they're from). I have a Saab that is up to the left, and you have to pull up on a "ring" to unlock this gear. I have a six speed, so if they go down to the right they'll be in sixth gear. You "really" have got to rev it to move from that gear. ;-)

I've actually had valet guys ask me how to get it in gear, eventhough it's displayed clearly on the knob.

[Edgar]

Yup, my old bug was down and to the left, if I remember correctly, after pushing down on the knob. But it was an older car.

[Lanze]

[eds]

Blind friend of mine says the bill texture is different, but he is a great joker. He also really sails boats, skis, rides a bike, and has appeared on TV fencing. His favorite comment is "are you blind or something?" EDS

[3D Peruna]

"Kris Krieger" wrote in message news:nQ4af.4775$ [e-mail]...

Meaning?

My wife's family has 7 children, all of which are rather intelligent, including the youngest in a PhD Chem program.

Or, does that make my in-laws low in IQ?

Or, maybe, you really didn't mean what you said.

[Edgar]

Could it be, someone's been caught generalizing again...no, no way, not in this group.

[Cato]

You stories on learning how to drive a stick sound very "familar" to me. LOL

I learned on a 65 Mustang with a 3 speed my dad had. It had a super stiff clutch and took me a while to get the feel for it without stalling. Then one day, the lightbulb just went on and I had it down, and wondered why I was having so much trouble. I have mostly owned sticks my whole life, with a few exceptions, and I love them. My newest car (2004) is awesome with the new six speed. I can now downshift on the highway without the gears revving too high. Once I got this many gears, I wouldn't go back to 4 or 5.

BTW, my dad briefly had the fastest car I have ever driven. 71 GTO, which had been special ordered from the factory for track racing. My dad somehow came into possession of this beast. 500hp, hurst 4 speed, true ram air, lowered suspension and longer front end, and no ac, of course. Very dangerous car, and eventually my mom won out and made him sell it. Damn chicks. ;-)

[Kris Krieger]

"3D Peruna" wrote in news:hi6af.54181$ [e-mail]:

If you want to take it onto a personal plane, well, *I* have a pair of relatives who are dim bulbs and have something like 12 kids - some of the kids are OK, some are totally whacked out, none are all that well-off.

But that's not the point. It isn't personally or specifically about various members of our respective families. It's something that seems to me to generally be the case. OK, maybe I should have added on a lot of hedge words and disclaimers, so mea culpa for not being politically correct

- but don't try to lay a guilt trip on me by implying that I'm intentionally and personally and specifically insulting any specific person's family.

Merely that, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem to work that way most of the time. "Most" meaning, technically, anything more than 50%.

But I keep forgetting (being, as I am, PC-impaired) that these days, most of the time, people are increasingly prone to take even statistical info as personal insults, rather than looking at whether the statistic is valid and, if so, how it can be changed for the better - all of which meaning that one is not to express personal opinions that are PC or, at the least, are not in keeping with the norm/majority.

Personally, I think that competent, intelligent people *should* have larger families. So, better to instead ask (1) whether this gloomy-gus impression is reflected by actual statistics, and (2) if it is, why would that be the trend and how can it be mitigated.

At the same time, in purely statistical terms, if the average (i.e. 50% of the population) IQ is between 90 and 100 (it used to be 100 to 110 but it's dropped), and if 50%+X% of the population is under 130, then simple raw statistics indicate that there are comparatively few children of, for example, people with 160+ IQs, simply because relatively few people *have*

160+ IQs.

So, you in-laws are probably part of the minority. Given the statistics for educational levels, only a minority of people get a 4-yr degree in science, and an even smaller minority get PhDs in science. So if your in- law finishes the PhD, that's great but it wouldn't change the statistic that the vast majority of people do not get PhDs in science, and citing the statistic would not be intended as an insult to those who do.

And, last but not least - frankly, if someone can contest my gloomy impression with statistical info to the contrary, hey, that's be GREAT, I'd actually really like to know that my general cynicism is unfounded.

Additionally, if someone wants to say, well, that is not their own observation, that's OK, and if someone says they think I'm full of hot air, fine. But, sorry, the guilt trip doesn't work.

[Notan]

While there are exceptions to every rule, my observations have been similar to yours... The majority of large families, that I've seen, are *not* society's brightest bulbs.

Notan

[Kris Krieger]

"Don" wrote in news:Mw7af.3378$ [e-mail]:

I didn't add the proper disclaimers, but yup, you got that part of it.

The other part is that there are more people focused on procreation, yet forgetting about the care issue that you mentioned in your other post. Also, people living on gov.t support tend to receive an increase in that support every time they have another kid. OTOH, people working for a bank, a graphics shop, a computer company, a corporation, or, like you, as an independent small-business person, do NOT automatically receive an income increase if they have another kid.

((Note that I am not equating wealth with intelligence, because the two do not seem to correlate.))

And still another part is that, although some people *are* able to really care for *all* the kids, it's generally the case that at least well- educated people do tend to have fewer children, but invest more resources (time, care, attention, money) in each child. That's not something I just made up, it's a statistic. At the same time, people who are less educated are more prone to accepting the idea that, in terms of procreation, quantity is important. That's not something I made up.

And on top of all of that, poverty levels aren't exactly DEcreasing in the US. The average (or is it median - I get the 2 confused) income is, last I read, around $44K/yr, but the poverty level for a family of 4 is now at about $35K per year. More poverty usually means not only fewer opportunities for good education, but more significantly, poor nutrition, which has a direct influence upon brain development. Simultaneously, parents near or below the poverty level, working is low-paying jobs, which often tend to be less secure, would be under more stress due to financial pressures, and probably also work longer hours, leaving less time for taking care of kids. If that *is* combined with a greater tendency to beleive that quantity of children is important, well I'll just say that the scenario is not good. And if the kids also end up in the same lifestyle, and themselves have a lot of kids, the number of people in that position increases geometrically.

[Lanze]

Only if you take a hammer to them Don.......................one of these days lol..

[Kris Krieger]

Notan wrote in news: [e-mail]:

It's sort of like the fact that most of the kids with whom I went to school

*did* end up working in places like the GM plant and the Exxon refinery. Which is what, as I've prob. mentioned at some point (can't recall), my HS "guicance councellor" told me I would end up doing as a "dumb pollak" and that I therefore shouldn't even think about going to a 2-yr college, never mind Rutgers, and as a science major to boot. The point being that, yup, there *are* norms that exist.

The other point, tho', is that on eought to question the extent to which they exist merely as a function of, so to speak, "brainwashing". IOW, your kid goes to public school - well, if it's a low-quality school in an industrial or poor area, the chances are that most of the teachers are either burned out, or couldn't get better positions, so it's therefore also likely that the children will receive a less vigorous education, a lower quality education, and be more subject to the expectation that they will never leave that industrial or poor environment.

What would happen if, all other things (ethnicity, class, economics) being equal, the kids instead had, right from the start, an energetic, high- quality education and expectations of, or at least encouragement to, achieve, develop their abilities to the fullest? Even more radical, what if they also received a quality, nourishing breakfast before class? And I don't mean the junk that gets passed off as school food.

The whole point is that statistics do not have to be static. If they do remain static, much of that is because most people prefer stability to the uncertainties of change, even if the situation is bad or untenable. It seems to be that most of the time, people in situation X are mostly interested in (1) blaming someone because the situation is X (rather than taking responsibility for trying to change X, since that takes effort), and (2) having their kids follow in their footsteps because if the kids achieved more, it'd make the parents look bad. Sometimes, "tradition" ends up being just another word for "stagnation". I've seen families and neighborhoods like that, where the kids are DIS-couraged from "fantasizing" about being scientists, or architects, or whatever, by families and peers and the public 'school' as well. And usually, from what I've seen, having as many kids as possible seems to go along with the rest of the brainwashing that occurs. It's a vicious cycle.

[3D Peruna]

"Kris Krieger" wrote in message news:Jb8af.4912$ [e-mail]...

It's not about being PC... I've seen examples like yours...12 kids and not particuarly bright parents (almost as if they didn't realize there was a connection to sex and pregnancy). I also have some relatives who've adopted many kids (too many, if you ask me), and they're screwed up, too--and it's obviously not genetic, but environmental.

I suppose my point is that perceived anectodal experiences do not make for a statistical analysis (this is the kind of crap that gets thrown around to "prove" human caused global warming -- and if you want an eye opener into how bad that field is screwed up, spend some time on

- start with "McKitrick: What is the Hockey Stick debate about?)

Observations can be useful -- and stereotypes exist for a reason, too. But in this case, I'm not sure there's enough to hang your hat on. It didn't offend me, either. Personally, I think the current social life in this country promotes stupidity. I've worked with enough kids to see that in the general population "being smart" is not cool. Some of them go out of their way to be stupid...and this is true regardless of family size.

[P Fritz]

Yes, but in those days when you opened the hood, you could see the engine......not 3000 hoses.

[Cato]

I do hear you. I remember the old days when I could work on my old 65 mustang and "actually" reach around inside the front hood. My current car completely confounds me when I open the hood. Not one inch of unused space. Old cars are fun to drive around, my wife and I have a

80 Mercedes 380 SL convertible that we tool around in when the weather's nice, but when I want performance though, I will take my new car anyday. It can actually corner and break without locking up.(gasp!) It's actually faster than a lot of the old muscle cars. I had this kid pull up to me the other day in an old cutlass and gave me the "look". Wasn't even close, as I waved to him in my rear window. Gotta love a turbo on the highway. I don't need no stickin 8 cylinders. LOL

[P Fritz]

Those are piss poor stats when you start to analize them and look at the agenda behind them.