The Water Cooler

in your place (and knowing your preferences) I'd be hard pressed not to spend £35k on a decent '10 plate GT-R and keep a £5k chunk aside for borkage and then just save the rest

Twyxz

I'm close to achieving my dream car in terms of money but I'm not going to get it ofc until I get properly afford it and not miss the money

GTR is going to be quite a competitor to the R8 tho, looking for something slightly below that scale

Snow

Air cooled 911.

motosubatsu

8:55 AM

2014-16 M4? 425bhp and better looking (IMO) than the M3?

all for the low-low price of about 27k

Snow

You can't get badder-asser than a LR Defender.

motosubatsu

@Snow I refute that statement with a Bowler Wildcat

Snow

@motosubatsu This would be true if the bowler didn't look like an Evoque.

motosubatsu

@Snow pfft.. the Evoque is like someone took a Wildcat and My Little Ponied it

Snow

Or an Evoque that learned to say "By the power of Greyskull!!"

motosubatsu

9:10 AM

@Snow lol

Twyxz

10:05 AM

I like the sound of a 911 tbh

I hear they're probably the best drive

So for a future daily it could be a nice pick

M4 is too raw for my liking, the power is just it's main show piece I feel

Snow

Mine was a daily drive for a few months.

motosubatsu

10:34 AM

@Twyxz really? it's just an M3 with two less doors

Twyxz

11:03 AM

But the only reason I wanted the M3 was for the sound and the bodykit, hence why I'm reluctant to buy it @motosubatsu

@Snow How was it, except for not being dog friendly

Snow

12:06 PM

@Twyxz It's an excellent driving machine for sure. There's just something very special and direct about it.

motosubatsu

I really must get around to ticking a 911 off the list at some point

Twyxz

12:25 PM

But then in competition was a Cayman GT4

for the R8

So would having a 911 turbo ruin that experience a bit/

motosubatsu

if the R8 is the goal why not just.. buy an R8?

you could get a R8 V10 for less than you were thinking of paying for the M3

Snow

Could go for a Gallardo. But then the worst part about Gallardo ownership is pronouncing the name in public.

motosubatsu

@Snow true.. but it has to be said it's hard to justify the extra cost of the Gallardo over the R8

Snow

Old one, private plates. No one will know the difference.

motosubatsu

what would put me off the Gallardo is that you've paying basically another £30k for an older car that has the same chassis and engine as the first gen R8

the lambo is infinitely cooler mind

(so long as you don't have to pronounce the name in public)

Twyxz

12:38 PM

It looks so ugly IMo

For what it is (it's still nice ofc)

Snow

The Huracan is beautiful.

Twyxz

Absolutely agreed

It's currently unrealistic, but if I do achieve the dream car and get the mrs a G-wagon then I'd be most certainly open to a 458 or a Aventador

Snow

James May had a 458. Don't follow him.

Twyxz

I'll just save up a "few" years and get a La Ferrari

motosubatsu

As much as I understand that Ferraris are wonderful cars etc I just don't find myself really hankering after one

Snow

12:40 PM

Indicators on the steering wheel, and flappy paddles mounted on the steering column. Madness.

Twyxz

Lambos have always been more appealing that Ferrari's to me. I don't know why

Snow

I'd totally go for a FF. Or a 250 GTO, not fussy really.

Twyxz

I like the sound of having an Agera but again with the pronunciation of everything

Snow

Huayra then?

Twyxz

^^

The brand of the car is hard enough

then they make names like that

Snow

12:44 PM

People who afford these cars have people to pronounce the names for them.

Twyxz

True, it's like Lamborghini once replied to "Why don't you advertise on television?". Our target market aren't people who sit around and watch television I guess

Their target market isn't to target people who can't afford translators to follow them in a massive bullet proof van as they drive

Along with their full entourage

Snow

Ferrari had Magnum and Miami Vice.

motosubatsu

The sheer number of "one-off" versions of the Zonda tells you all you need to know about the target market. If you can't afford to have a supercar manufacturer bespoke build you one you aren't their target market

Snow

Lamborghini had posters of Countachs and young lady tennis players scratcing their bums.

Twyxz

Rich perverts

Like the stereotypical ones on films

IDrinkandIKnowThings

1:20 PM

TGIF!!!\

Snow

No, it's Thursday. You're a day ahead of yourself.

IDrinkandIKnowThings

@Snow Thats not even funny :p

Snow

Made you look...

motosubatsu

@Snow ugh.. don't even joke about it, today already seems to have been going on for an eternity

Twyxz

This week has flown by for me. Got my first software project again, it was only small but finished it now. Was much more enjoyable than Drupal

Snow

1:53 PM

Drupal. Is that a laxative?

motosubatsu

2:06 PM

@Snow well it's sh#t if that counts?

Snow

2:25 PM

Well, you can tell it's Friday afternoon on the stack, can't you?

We may as well call it "Fiction Friday"...

motosubatsu

2:40 PM

@Snow I dunno.. sounds like you just made that up

Snow

My office has now enforced strict badge in/out logging on the entry/exits of the building. So now the people who tailgate someone else out won't be allowed back in the building. Lots of people are getting caught out and have to report to security to get their sessions unlocked.

motosubatsu

@Snow oof.. that's going to be a fun few weeks while people adjust

Snow

Yeah. We regularly get officewide emails about bad parking (sometimes with photos) that are usually pretty fun to read. Shame we don't get the badge-bandit emails as well.

motosubatsu

@Snow yeah we get parking-shaming e-mails here as well

Snow

Excellent. Unless you're the one at fault.

motosubatsu

2:58 PM

@Snow so far, so good on that front!

it helps that I typically park at the far end away from others and their swinging car doors :)

Snow

I'm usually first into the car park, so I get the best space.

Christopher

4:08 PM

Hi is a @moderator here?

IDrinkandIKnowThings

@Christopher Not at the moment is there something I can help with?

Christopher

Maybe, this question workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/139128 is protected, so in sufficient rep to post an answer, so had to post as comments to the question, just wondering if protection could be removed for litlle while?

sorry thats insufficient

IDrinkandIKnowThings

@Christopher OK i unprotected it

Christopher

Really? Thank you!

IDrinkandIKnowThings

@Christopher Please delete your comments after you post the answer

Christopher

4:19 PM

Its now posted, will delete comments and probable format answer, again thank you very much.

motosubatsu

@Christopher FWIW I think you're wrong regarding the requirement to log all people on site for fire purposes in the UK - it's a good idea certainly but it's not a legal requirement

(speaking as an owner of a UK business here so I have some experience in that area)

Christopher

@motosubatsu, Hi, I think you are correct; but...big but, you do have to know who is onsite

motosubatsu

that doesn't invalidate your answer though - if the company were to establish a site register for purposes of fire evacuation procedures (and appropriately fill out the Fire Safety Risk Assessment detailing this procedure) then employees would be legally required to comply under the Fire Safety Order

Christopher

Which is what I'm saying in my answer

motosubatsu

@Christopher oh I'm with you 100% - I was merely pointing out that the direct legislation to enforce that isn't there

Christopher

4:29 PM

and how do you know who is onsite offsite? Popped for doctors? Holiday?

I completely understand your point and agree with you, but how do you know who is onsite and who is off site?

motosubatsu

@Christopher oh exactly.. again I'm not disagreeing with your arguments, merely that it could be an obstacle to claim direct legal backing where it doesn't exist

swipe-in/swipe-out systems are so quick, easy to use and cheap these days that there's really no reason not to have one

Christopher

But if you are legally responsible for the safety of all employees, visitors etc you would need to account for them surely?

motosubatsu

I think you're answer provides as cracking way to approach the OP's problem - while giving all the other associated benefits of knowing who is on site or not it's only the legal nitpick

@Christopher nope.. there's no requirement to that. You are legally obligated to carry out the risk assessment, ensure that they have appropriate egress routes and equipment and training

but you are not legally required to account for them all individually

Christopher

I'm fairly sure you would be prosecuted for either of the following:- 1. 125 employees, but only 124 accounted for, fire brigade risking there own lives enters burning building to look for missing employee, 30 mins later 'missing' employee returns from doctors appointment 2. Even worse, you state all 125 employees are present, meanwhile your hearing impaired employee is in the loo, doesn't hear the alarm and dies

Whether it implicitly states it or not, you would be responsible - legally

motosubatsu

You could potentially face some legal action in the second scenario, but it's unlikely

the second one you would likely face action because the hearing impaired employee should have been identified as being at particular risk during the aforementioned risk assessment

Christopher

4:42 PM

Either way, (even ignoring the ethical concerns)as an employer would you take that risk?

motosubatsu

@Christopher speaking as an employer I wouldn't take that risk because of the ethical concerns. I'm not really a "do the bare legal minimum" type of employer :)

Christopher

firesafe.org.uk/… states:- Places of assembly and roll call

I know you are not, but I'm struggling that nowhere in UK regs states that personnel have to be accounted for...I'm searching.. one link above, will continue

motosubatsu

@Christopher it does... but that is guidance not a legal requirement

Christopher

Sorry, but I am incredulous... all company appointed H&S off man. I've ever worked with have always stated that all personnel need to be accounted for... you may well be correct

H&S managers

ok...https://www.gov.uk/workplace-fire-safety-your-responsibilities?step-by-step-nav=dc77c606-cc6b-49ac-9f40-b96959d02539 clearly states:- Who's responsible
You’re responsible for fire safety in business or other non-domestic premises if you’re:

an employer
the owner
the landlord
an occupier
anyone else with control of the premises, for example a facilities manager, building manager, managing agent or risk assessor
You’re known as the ‘responsible person’. If there’s more than one responsible person, you have to work together to meet your responsibilities.

motosubatsu

yep The Fire Safety Order (or more formally The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005) is what covers it

that's where the risk assessment requirement comes from - complete with having to take particular care of those deemed especially at risk in a fire (such as your hypothetical hearing impaired person)

Christopher

4:55 PM

There is a legal term for this, but cannot remember it! Its where the law is so broad you can 'if somebody puts there mind to it' be prosecuted for pretty much anything.

motosubatsu

@Christopher it's the legal concept of "reasonably practicable"

Christopher

@mo

@motosubatsu so in theory it's a legal requirement then?

motosubatsu

@Christopher no - because it is explicitly not

Christopher

@motosubatsu Then how is it 'explicitly' not?

motosubatsu

because there is no explicit requirement to do so

Christopher

5:04 PM

But you do have an explicit requirement of responsibility to your employees

motosubatsu

yes - but what that responsibility entails is set out in the legislation

you have a responsibility to them not for them

Christopher

'put in place, and maintain, appropriate fire safety measures'

and one of those would need to be account for all personnel in the event of an evacuation

motosubatsu

@Christopher legally speaking that is not considered to be a required "appropriate fire safety measure"

whether it should be is an entirely different question, but the fact remains that as of current legislation it isn't

Christopher

But legally if injury/death occurred as a result of you not being able to account for all employees you would be prosecuted...yes?

IDrinkandIKnowThings

5:41 PM

@Christopher It still requires more that just negligence usually to procecute

Christopher

@motosubatsu ok. But as an employer you would want to reduce any risk. Anyway, thank you for this discussion, I have learnt something and will compose an edit to my answer

Christopher

6:17 PM

@motosubatsu Answer now edited to make it more 'universal'

Pointy Haired Boss

7:10 PM

0

Q: Do we have guidelines for commercial research-oriented questions?

A user recently posted a question that asks, "How do you do X?" In the user's profile, there is a link to a software company that makes a paid-subscription product for doing X. The user isn't explicitly shilling (or even mentioning) their product in the question, but it seems that they're only a...

discussion

Transcript for