Not when Bloomberg gets wind of this.

 

Riding dirt-bikes causes obesity and heart disease?

 

On the plus side, it seems like they're still relying upon notices given by copyright holders, rather than performing stateful inspection on customer traffic.

Take the usual steps to protect yourself. PeerBlock is a good start.

 

An Open Letter to Companies Which Sell Auto Parts, and Have Websites With a Search Function:

Dear companies which sell auto parts, and have websites with a search function. I recognize that there is a tendency among American automakers to price-gouge their customers and complicate aftermarket parts support by offering a dazzlingly large array of engine choices for any given model. By comparison, Japanese and European automakers have long rejected this concept, offering only a single, standard engine for any given car model.

While your commitment to supporting the purchasers of American cars is charitable, the manner in which you have implemented such support causes minor but persistent annoyance to those of us who own automobiles not designed principally to confuse and confound their owners. I speak specifically to the database front-end which you have created which allows us to search specifically for parts which are applicable to our make, model and year of car.

When I am searching for a part for my 1990 Mazda Miata, it is not necessary for me to specify which engine the car is fitted with. 1990 Mazda Miatas were offered with only one engine, the 1.6 liter B6-ZE. The same holds true for all Mazda Miatas from 1990 through 2004, as well as myriad other cars.

You have the capability within your reach to add a check to the database which determines whether the number of available engine choices for any given year / make / model selection is greater than one, and to skip past that selection field, auto-setting the only available value if it is not.

Please, as a service to the betterment of all humanity, implement this function.

 

All Mazda Miatas from 1990 through 2004 were offered with only one engine, the 1.6 liter B6-ZE?

 

 

rofl.

 

All Mazda Miatas in the US from 1990-2004 were offered with only one engine per year/make/model.

Smartass.

 

Wait, what?

This could only be kind of true if you consider, for example, a 528i and a 540i to be unique car models, and not the same car model offered with more than one engine.



EDIT: It's worth noting, that not only do plenty of Japanese and European automakers offer more than one engine choice for a given car model, they offer even more engine choices in many (to us) foreign markets.

EDIT 2: I'm having a hard time believing that Joe uttered that statement in all seriousness. Consider even the most ubiquitous Japanese cars: the Accord and the Camry. Both have been offered with at least 2 different engines every year for the last 20+ years. Likewise the Altima from 2002 on. The Civic was offered with at least 2 or 3 engine options for decades. The Sentra had 2 engine options for most of the 1990's and 2000's. Examples abound.

 

Mark - You are cruising for an infraction!

 

The 528i and the 540i appear as separate vehicles at step 3 (model) of the four-step vehicle selector, and having made that selection, only one engine option appears for either car at Step 4:




Furthermore, for years in which the xDrive (AWD) system was available, that, too, shows as a unique model separate from the RWD car in step 3, as do the "GT" submodels of each. So not only are the 528 and 535 different models, there are four different models of the 535 in the 2012 model year:




So, yes. For the specific purpose of discussing the database front-end of an auto parts vendor, the 528i and the 540i are unique models.




Again, in the context of an auto-parts database front-end, this is not true.

Honda and Toyota employ a similar naming convention to that of BMW in the aforementioned, typically using a one to three letter suffix which becomes part of the model name proper. Words are occasionally used as well (Hybrid, Type R, Platinum, etc.)

So within the database, there is not one single Camry with three different engine options, but rather there are six different Camrys (Camry L, Camry LE, Camry SE, Camry XLE, Camry Hybrid LE, and Camry Hybrid XLE), each of which has only one engine option at Step 4. The same holds true for the Accord, which exists as seven different unique models which have only one engine option each, and for the Civic, which encompasses eight different models with one engine option each:






The Americans are getting somewhat better at this, but are still not totally off the hook. Take, for instance, the 2013 Ford Focus. It exists as four separate sub-models (S, SE, ST and Titanium), with the turbo engine appearing only under the ST model. Within each sub-model, however, there are still separate engine choices for flex-fuel vs. non-flex-fuel. Thus, the Focii would be examples of car models for which the fourth selection is still required, and should not be auto-populated.


This is about database structure, not semantics.

 

Thanks for the suggestion.

I think I'm going to try for a record: most number of infractions issued on a single page of a thread.

 

You're right that the context matters, but not in the way you just argued. You didn't merely state that autoparts websites consider the Camry XE and the Camry LE to be different models. Originally, you suggested that, in terms of an automotive culture, the Japanese and European automakers "rejected" the strategy of offering more than one engine in a given car model.

If you want the argument to be about database structure and not semantics, then please restrict all truth claims to database structure.

 

Infraction issued for being the guy in the tall building who said "You're in a helicopter."

 

What's the record for the most number of infractions issued on a single page of a thread to a single poster who is making stunningly incisive arguments despite (or perhaps because of) a knock to the head?

Because that's the record you're about to set.

 

 

This has nothing to do about database structure, and everything to do with lazy web developers that don't add a simple check after a SQL query.

P.S. I share your annoyance. That little item being left out of every major autoparts store website I've visited irritates the **** out of me.

 

When do we call in the folks from Guinness to verify everything?

 

Infraction given.


It's an old programmer joke:

That's true, I suppose. I keep forgetting about all this new-fangled abstraction that folks today like to layer on top of what ought to be relatively simple structures. To be fair, I think that this counts as a "database front-end."

True story:

Yesterday, I was at Harbor Freight picking up a fuel pressure tester and a set of cheap star-drive sockets. I paid for this purchase with my debit card, using a terminal that had both a touchscreen (with captive stylus) and a physical keypad. To complete the transaction, I first had to use the stylus to press an icon for debit, then switch the stylus to my other hand so that I could press some keys on the keypad, then put the stylus back into my writing hand to press an icon indicating that I did not want cash back, and then hand over the stylus once again so that I could press a physical button indicating that I accepted the transaction.

By the end of this twenty second interaction, I was damn near shaking with rage at the idiots who designed this product with no regard whatsoever for optimizing the interface to reduce the number of times I was required to alternate between two input modes which were mutually exclusive in terms of the utilization of my hand.

 

Push the buttons with the stylus. Or sharpen your fingernails into points that work on terminal touchscreens. Jeez.