Tell on me (1) Dec 19, 2007
Yesterday, I received an email at work that looked like this: 
Subject:  URGENT Safety Alert
To:  Everyone
Attachments:  Safety.doc

Please read, post and execute immediately. 
Thank you.
Like I've said before, if you don't take the time to write a good email, I won't take the time to read it.  If you tell me to read an attachment for some "urgent" or "important" information, I'll ignore it simply because it's in an attachment. 

Just for fun, I looked at the attachment.  It was about ice on the sidewalks and how we should be careful to not break our skulls open so nobody gets sued.  Appropriate, yet stupid.  The contents of the message could have been easily summarized in one line:  "Watch out for ice on the sidewalks."  Done.  Again just for fun, I replied to the email and said this: 
Subject:  RE: URGENT Safety Alert
To:  Original Sender

If it's that urgent, why put it in an attachment?  People are less likely to read an attachment than the actual body of an email message.
I phrased it in such a way as to come across as a semi-criticism while not sounding too mean (since I don't even know this person).  I also only replied to the original sender because it wasn't appropriate for a reply-all.  I sat back in my chair and snickered. 

About an hour later, I got a response: 
Subject:  RE: URGENT Safety Alert
To:  Me
Cc:  My boss; my boss's boss; her boss; her boss's boss

The reason for sending an attachment is that [some group] in [some department] wanted to accentuate the urgency of the matter with descriptive lettering.  Also, our e-mail system does not allow us to use anything other than Rich Text format. 

Since you have taken the time to ask the question, I've taken the time to answer it.
My heart stopped when I read the Cc line.  She told on me.  She replied to not only my boss, but to my boss's boss, a person I haven't even met because he's too important.  People lose their jobs for less than this.  I was a bit scared to say the least. 

But then I thought about it.  I hoped to get a reply from my boss's boss saying something like, "Yo lady, what's your problem?  You're telling on this guy for some petty little bullcrap?  Grow up."  I didn't get a response from anybody (yet).  Feeling proactive, I went to tell my boss to expect the email in his mail box, but he had already read it.  And he was laughing.  He said to not worry about it and proceeded to tell me a story about a guy who sent an angry email to the biggest boss in the place, and even he didn't lose his job.  I was relieved.  I said, "If I knew I was dealing with a child, I wouldn't have sent that email." 

In conclusion, a great way to get me to hate you is to tell on me. #technology
Stupid speedometer (1) Dec 19, 2007
I drive a 2004 Toyota Camry.  It has an incredibly stupid speedometer.  I drew a picture to illustrate my point. 
[Image: speedometer.png]
Each interval of 10 mph is divided into 4 parts.  The problem with that is that 10 divided by 4 doesn't equal a whole number.  It equals 2.5, which means I can only be sure of my speed in multiples of 2.5, e.g. 40, 42.5, 45, 47.5, 50, etc.  Most speedometers are divided into whole number intervals such as 1 or 2, which makes sense since cops don't care if you were going "around 67.5". 

I really can't figure out why Toyota's speedometer designer decided to do this.  One argument may be that it's a Japanese car, so maybe it has something to do with the Japanese numbering system and/or converting between kph and mph.  Wrong.  The kph scale is divided into the same intervals, and both Japan and the U.S. use a base-10 numbering system, which means that 10 divided by 4 will always equal 2.5 (as opposed to something like base-8, where intervals of 2.5 would be intervals of 2). 

Another argument could be that Toyota has no experience designing cars and/or speedometers.  That's obviously not true since Toyota's been around for about 50 years and makes several of the best-selling cars on the planet.  They've obviously designed a few speedometers in their day. 

The only argument for designing it this way is that pretty much all speed limits are multiples of 5 (except in places like Virginia, which has speed limits like 8 and 16 in places), so at least you'd always know the exact point on your speedometer that refers to the speed limit.  But if that's the case, why put two more dividers at 2.5 and 7.5?  That just doesn't make sense. 

The thing that gets me is that this speedometer was actually designed.  Somebody was in charge of this.  A decision was made to make it this way.  This wasn't a mistake.  "It's not a bug, it's a feature."  I'd like to have a word with this person. #travel