
Why airplane bathrooms have ashtrays - MPSimmons
http://www.standalone-sysadmin.com/blog/2012/05/engineeringinfrastructures/
======
snowwrestler
The illustration of the door handle is a great example of piss-poor
affordance. A slight ridge is not going to clearly communicate push vs. pull.
Especially since our fingers, when gripping, actually like a ridge to fill in
the open angle behind the first knuckles.

If you want someone to push, give them a big fat flat metal plate or bar to
push on. If they _can't_ pull, they are guaranteed to get it right every time.
I bet pretty much every restaurant kitchen and high school gym door in the
U.S. gets this right.

~~~
jasonkester
The door handle could actually be described as an anti-affordance. I looked at
the photo and thought to myself what a great idea it was that it gave you a
comfortable ridge for your knuckles while pulling and a nice rounded bit
(instead of a sharp-edged flat surface) to push on.

That is, it signalled to me the exact opposite of the designer's intended use.
I would have been doubly surprised if pulling on that clearly "pull-only"
handle didn't open the door.

~~~
astrodust
Why not have a handle that's either concave or convex, bowing in or out, to
indicate the desired direction? If it's shaped like a hook, you'll pull on it,
or more like a dish, push on it.

------
mikeash
This is an important lesson. Programmers are _constantly_ blaming users for
this and that. Yes, it can make sense for stuff that's rare, but building your
apps around the idea that users are rational human beings who read error
messages and instructions makes no more sense than building your apps around
the idea that computers have unlimited processing power and storage space.

99% of the time, "that was the user's fault" just doesn't cut it. You need to
be design around the user's flaws just as you need to design around the
computer's flaws, the network's flaws, the OS's flaws....

------
brc
That's interesting news to me. I did wonder why smoking paraphernalia
continued to appear in planes that were covered in anti-smoking insignia. I
always assumed that the bathrooms, seat etc were made in large quantities, and
that there are a lot of countries in the world where you can still light up in
a flight, not to mention privately owned planes.

I once flew on a Japan Air Lines flight back in the '90s. At that stage they
still had the back 6 rows or something as smoking seats. The girl who assigned
my seat at check in didn't realise this and allocated me there. I just sat
there and took it for 8 hours - nowadays I would have loudly demanded an
upgrade out of there - but I was somewhat meek in accepting my fate. The lady
next to me had just been to bury a relative in a car crash and was on the way
back home. She must have drank half a bottle of whisky and smoked two packets
of cigarettes. When I arrived I smelt like a tobacco spitoon and felt as
though I had sand rubbed in my eyes.

Allowing smoking on planes was and is a terrible idea. The fire risk alone
should immediately discount it.

~~~
Turing_Machine
"The fire risk alone should immediately discount it."

A quick Google turns up only two airline accidents _possibly_ attributed to
cigarettes (a 1982 Illyshin IL-18 crash in Guangzhou, China and a 1973 crash
in France). Pretty minimal, given that smoking was allowed on millions of
flights for close to 90 years.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
We fly a lot more now than before deregulation, while many countries are just
emerging with people who commonly commute via planes. I wouldn't be surprised
if passenger miles from 1990 to 2010 were larger than 1900 to 1990. Flying
used to be a high-class affair, now anyone can fly; not allowing smoking is
probably a good thing in that context.

At least, here in China, people are not careful in the way they smoke, and I
wouldn't get on a plane that allowed smoking. Ever see a Starbucks trashcan go
up in smoke after someone was told they couldn't smoke there? Its quite funny
the first couple of times, but it gets old after that.

------
phamilton
This reminds me of a presentation by Twitter at a conference where they
discussed MTBR (Mean Time Before Recovery) instead of MTBF (Mean Time Before
Failure). Instead of trying to prevent all possible failures, they focused on
acceptable failure and speedy recovery. If a server takes twice as long to
response to a request, mark it offline and let the automated recovery process
diagnose the problem and if it's just an anomaly mark it back online.

It was pretty interesting and we took a good look at our architecture and
found ways to better cater to acceptable failures.

~~~
WalterBright
Airliners are designed to withstand failure, not to not have any failures.
It's a change in perspective, and is very effective.

Both the Fukishima plant and the Deep Water Horizon rig were unable to
withstand single failures.

~~~
GoodIntentions
>> Fukishima plant

Actually it sounds like the plant failed due to some poor - in retrospect -
design assumptions. The generators required to keep cooling systems running
safely were buggered by the same disaster.

"fail-over" - they got it half right.

~~~
WalterBright
The problem is when the backup system is not independent of the primary, so
one failure takes out the other. When I read about the step-by-step domino
sequence of failures in the plant, the design was clearly deficient.

The erroneous thinking was "the tsunami wall cannot fail". The correct
thinking is "what happens when the tsunami wall is breached? what happens to
the plant? how can the plant withstand that?"

For example, the most obvious thing is to harden the backup diesel generators
against flooding. This would not have been difficult nor expensive. Another
solution would have been to have those generators located at some distance
from the plant, so they could be repaired without irradiating the workers, and
so a disaster at one would be less likely to affect the other.

Another obviously poor design was to have the emergency hydrogen venting go
into an enclosed space, where it can build up and explode, rather than venting
it outside.

~~~
abduhl
I don't know what your background is but, based on your post, I am assuming it
is not in civil or mechanical engineering. Please excuse me if I'm wrong.

The design of this power plant probably went like most designs in civil
engineering where extreme design loadings were defined (500-year quake,
100-year flood, etc.) and the plant was designed to meet the loads that would
be imposed by the most critical event. For a critical piece of infrastructure
these loading conditions are quite stringent. While these loadings drive the
design at one end, budget drives the design at the other. Most civil projects
tend to be just safe enough and not more. This leads to the realm of
acceptable risk/failure. The tsunami wall failing under a 1000-year quake is
an acceptable failure. The backup systems were most likely designed for
progressively lower degrees of acceptable failure. At some point though it
becomes too costly to over-design.

Was hardening the backup generators against flooding "not difficult nor
expensive"? I can't tell you that, I didn't design it. Based on the fact that
they weren't hardened, I would say that it probably was difficult or
expensive.

Would placing the backup generators off site be a better idea than having them
on site? Possibly. Possibly not. Every meter you move the generators away from
the plant is another meter's worth of risk. How many redundant transmission
lines do you need for a generator a mile away? How many redundant generators
do you need now that you have the added risk of possibly losing a generator's
transmission lines?

Contrary to common belief, public works projects do not have an infinite
budget. On top of this, working with municipalities generally results in
ridiculous amounts of regulations regarding pricing, reviews, and permitting.
While this maintains a minimum standard for designs, it also drives all
designs down to that minimum standard. It is simply too costly to continually
design for more and more unlikely events.

Users of this site should be well familiar with this based on the number of
Internet Explorer compatability comments I've read lately.

~~~
WalterBright
My background is I am an ME and I worked on designing flight critical systems
on airliners. I had the philosophy of designing to survive failure hammered
into me, and when I see the Fukishima plants, all the red flags go up in my
head.

For example, let's assume the wing spar fails. Junior engineer says "but the
spar can't fail! We designed it to handle any predicted load!". Senior
engineer says "Wrong answer. Anything can fail. How will you design the
airplane to survive a wing spar failure?" (The solution usually is to have
dual wing spars.)

This question is repeated for every single system and part in the airplane.
Failure scenarios are also played out to ensure that failure of one part or
system will not have a "zipper" effect of breaking other critical systems.

With Fukishima, I clearly see "the sea wall cannot fail, so we won't even
bother to investigate if we can make failure of the wall survivable."

As it turned out, it would have been survivable if only the backup generators
hadn't failed due to flooding. Hardening those generators (one way) is to
simply put them in a concrete box. It's hard to believe that would have been
that expensive. Videos of the tsunami showed a lot of masonry structures
withstanding it.

> How many redundant transmission lines do you need for a generator a mile
> away?

Good question. The general rule is to have an independent backup system for
every critical system. That has made flying around the world in an airliner
safer than driving yourself to the post office.

------
calinet6
This was always awesome to me. I knew it perfectly from the moment I saw the
ashtrays that it was a conscious and genius decision for the human-centered
system of an airplane.

This has business implications more than UI implications, I think. We don't
question airlines when it comes to safety regulations, pilot time off, good
amounts of rest, all that. We regulate everything liberally. Air travel is a
system designed like clockwork for every single variable and every single
complex input. And it works nearly flawlessly.

Yet, in business—even in the best businesses—we expect far more of individual
people than they are capable of, instead of improving the systems they're in.
You have to control for both, and design for the realities of business and
work; even the human ones. Don't believe in myths, don't depend on rockstars,
and prepare for anything. Improve your systems as if it was as important as
air travel. Your employees are great, but put ashtrays in the bathrooms so
they don't set the plane on fire. So to speak.

For those interested in systems thinking and especially how it relates to
people and business, look up W. Edwards Deming and read at least his 14
points. Read "Out of the Crisis" for more. Personally I think systems thinking
needs to be more prevalent in business today, but we're still a very
individualist society so it's very difficult to make the leap. Something to
consider as well.

------
nicholaides
I was thinking about this same idea earlier today: Buses in Philadelphia have
a bunch of "No Eating and Drinking" signs and consequently no trash cans. The
result is that the back of the bus is covered in trash. If they had just 1 or
two trash cans it would be a much more pleasant ride.

~~~
Drbble
I have never seen a city bus with a trash can.

~~~
there
Chicago's CTA busses have garbage cans in front of the rear exit doors. But
then again we also have alleys so we don't have to put our garbage out on the
sidewalks.

------
asmithmd1
If an errant cigarette is enough to bring down a plane why does the TSA strip
search me looking for a bomb?

I bet you could get a pretty roaring fire going using the 120v outlet and all
the paper goods provided in the bathroom.

~~~
mikeash
Because, although it could bring down a plane, it's very likely not to. The
fire will be detected quickly and then put out.

Your question is sort of like asking, if an airliner can fly on one engine,
why do they bother putting on two? The answer, quite simply, is robustness.

~~~
asmithmd1
My point is that it is very unlikely anyone will try. There is exactly nothing
stopping anyone from packing an airplane bathroom with alcohol soaked paper
towels and lighting it on fire; and yet it has not ever happened. The TSA is a
colossal waste of time and money - the more ways that it can be pointed out
the better.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
I don't like the TSA's approach either, but this isn't a very good argument.
They stopped disallowing lighters on flights for this reason; they don't want
to care about the small threats and focus on finding...you know...terrorists.
The change hasn't soaked in completely yet, but their is hope they'll do the
right thing eventually.

It would be fairly easy to put your fire out with a fire extinguisher. But I'd
rather not fly with you anyways :)

~~~
raldi
Aren't matches still allowed?

~~~
dalke
Yes, they are. "One book of safety (non-strike anywhere) matches are permitted
as carry-on items, but all matches are prohibited in checked baggage."

Even better - matches aren't easily picked up by the X-ray machines.

------
stevenwei

      Then the bleeding-heart liberals attacked in 1988,
      complaining about their “filthy air” and their “lung cancer”.
    
      This was, of course, the thin end of the wedge. 
      In 2000, the FAA banned smoking on commercial 
      planes altogether. Talk about a bunch of buzz-kills. 
    

Really? Does anyone actually think this was a bad idea? Forget the "filthy
air" or "lung cancer", exposure to smoke can seriously aggravate asthmatics
and other folks with respiratory conditions, not to mention _cause_
respiratory conditions in children. Surely smokers can abstain for a few hours
instead of exposing everyone in a confined space to their cigarette smoke. I'm
at a loss as to why anyone would complain about this.

~~~
derleth
And Poe's Law strikes again.

On the other hand, yeah, there _are_ people who honestly think that those
regulations are a bad idea that bring us farther down the Road to Serfdom and
the ultimate death of Western Culture.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I _always_ forget the name of Poe's Law, thank you.

------
Symmetry
You can see the same principle in a lot of places. This makes me think of a
passage I recently read about the legal system in Germany:

 _…Unlike many developing countries, German legal doctrine and practice avoid
this result. German regulatory violations seldom void contracts, and German
prosecutors seldom act on regulatory violations revealed in a civil trial.
Thus a gardener in the German gray market who does not pay taxes can sue an
employer for unpaid wages without fear of triggering regulatory prosecution.
And a customer who buys a restaurant meal at an hour when law requires the
closing of restaurants still has to pay his credit card bill. The same applies
for a construction contract that violates zoning regulations, or a credit
contract that violates banking regulations. Although seldom discussed in
constitutional law, separating the civil courts from the regulators and police
is an important part of the separation of powers, especially in countries with
a large gray market._

[http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/05/sol...](http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/05/solomons-
knot-and-gray-markets.html)

~~~
rprasad
That's generally true of most first world countries, including the US and the
UK.

Contracts _can_ be broken if they would require an illegal act (i.e., a
"crime"), but regulatory infractions generally are not sufficient.

------
mjg59
<http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic> is a similar example.
It's important to cater for what people are going to do rather than what you
think they should do.

------
kgermino
It seems to be down now.

Here's the text if it continues to not work:

I’ve been lucky enough to have the chance to fly a lot over the past year or
so. Working with Stephen Foskett and the rest of the Tech Field Day crew means
that I’ve been to California almost every month. That’s a lot of flying.

One of the things that I’ve noticed on my flights is that they don’t want you
to smoke. You actually used to be able to smoke on planes, which seems weird
now that you can’t even smoke outide.

I’m not a smoker, so it doesn’t bother me. (As an adorable aside, when I was
five years old, I literally glued hand-made no-smoking signs to the walls of
my grandparents’ house. They were less than amused.) But the occasional legacy
arm-rest with an ashtray harkens back to days of yore when every Joe Cool
enjoyed the wonders of aviation while kicking back with a flights as smooth as
a Laramie cigarette. He probably got a full meal as part of his ticket, too,
the jerk.

Then the bleeding-heart liberals attacked in 1988, complaining of their
“filthy air” and their “lung cancer”. The FAA banned smoking on flights less
than 2 hours, presumably because the pilots were getting nic-fits after longer
than that.

This was, of course, the thin end of the wedge. In 2000, the FAA banned
smoking on commercial planes altogether. Talk about a bunch of buzz-kills.

So now we’re flying without cigarettes, and they are not kidding around about
this whole “no smoking” thing…all you have to do is open your eyes to see that
they don’t want you smoking:

That light is never turned off. I have actually seen a few planes which were
new enough that instead of a no-smoking sign say “Please turn off electronic
devices”, under the assumption that everyone is already well-trained enough to
not smoke, but those are comparatively rare. Nope, it’s mostly the “no smoking
signs”. But in case you didn’t look up, here’s the safety information sheet on
the airplane. See if you can count the number of “No Smoking” warnings:

And on top of this, there’s a smoke detector in the bathroom (along with a
heavy fine for disabling the smoke detector, too!)

No, planes are pretty much set up for not-smoking. Heck, there’s even a “No
Smoking” sign on the ashtray in the bathroom:

Wait, what? Yes, you read me right. You’ve probably even seen them yourself.
In airplane bathrooms, there is an ashtray (complete with No Smoking sticker)
for the people who smoke in the bathroom, even though they shouldn’t.

When I first started bringing this up to people, I encountered the same
reaction again and again. People would say, “oh, it just costs too much to
replace the door or take out the ashtray”. This is absolutely not the reason,
though.

Allow me to quote from the Code of Federal Regulations for airworthiness:

Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane,
lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously
on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may
serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the
cabin side of each lavatory served.

The plane can not leave the terminal if the bathrooms don’t have ashtrays.
They’re non-optional.

That’s an awfully strange stance to take for a vehicle with such a stringent
“no smoking” policy, but it really does make a lot of sense. Back in 1973, a
flight crashed and killed 123 people, and the reason for the crash was
attributed to a cigarette that was improperly disposed of.

The FAA has decided that some people (despite the policies against smoking,
the warning placards, the smoke detector, and the flight attendants) will
smoke anyway, and when they do, there had better be a good place to put that
cigarette butt.

There’s a lot of wisdom in a decision like that. I think that it’s a lesson
that we can put to use in a lot of the things that we do. There’s a really
interesting book on a similar topic, called Nudge.. The idea behind Nudge is
that every design decision that you make, as an engineer, affects the way that
people behave toward your creation, so you should tend toward design decisions
that encourage positive behavior in users.

This is similar to the design consideration called affordance. If you’ve ever
walked up to a door and pushed, then realized that the door was supposed to be
pulled, even though it looked like it should have been pushed, then you’ve
come up against someone who didn’t understand affordance.

Here’s a good image of handles which afford pushing or pulling by Yanko
Design:

It’s a cross between form and function. We have “grippy” hands that open flat.
We instinctively know how to use things like this because of how we are
formed.

You don’t engineer your systems with the belief that none of your computers
will ever break. That’s insane; you KNOW they’re going to break. So don’t
assume that your users will never break the rules. Build in graceful failure
as often as possible, whether you’re designing a user interface or a security
policy.

Likewise, when you are designing your infrastructure (or security policies),
keep in mind the idea of affordance, and nudge people into making the “right”
decision each time. The cynical Hanlon’s Razor says

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be ascribed to stupidity

Instead of stupidity, maybe people are trying to push on the door that’s
supposed to be pulled.

~~~
mdda
The airlines actually save money by preventing smoking : The air in the cabins
needs to be recycled less often. The flip side, though, is that air-bourne
diseases are more prevalent on flights now, since the air is rebreathed more
often before filtering. Source : Qi series 1 (BBC UK).

~~~
ars
How exactly do they save money by not recycling air?

You don't have to pay for air during flight - it comes from the outside air
and is free, it's not canisters or something.

~~~
cameldrv
You do have to pay for air if you care what pressure it is at. Non-Sherpas
will demand a refund of their ticket price if provided air at ambient pressure
at 35000 ft.

~~~
ars
Lets do the math then:
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=785+millibars+*+876+cub...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=785+millibars+*+876+cubic+meters+*+ln%28239+millibars%2F785+millibars%29)

Result: Each air change costs around .62 of a gallon of gas (assuming perfect
efficiency). Or around $2.50 - let's call it $10 to account for inefficiency.
In contrast it costs around $10,000 per hour (not including salary) to fly a
large plane.

Saying they don't circulate air to save money is ridiculous.

~~~
megablast
Some airlines make just over $100 per flight. Not per person per flight, PER
FLIGHT. They are looking for every saving they can get.

You can work this out my looking at an an airlines profits, and how many
flights they did a year.

~~~
encoderer
Life is complicated. So are airlines.

In this case, airlines are a business designed not to have runaway profit. The
unions are very powerful. They know how much money the airline is making a
demand large percentages of it. They leave a nominal profit for key investors
but shareholders as a whole are regularly left out. In fact, if you look at
the entire history of commercial flight, the industry is break-even.

That's not a fluke. If costs were higher, unions would get a smaller cut. If
costs were lower, unions would take more.

Philip Greenspun has some great writing on this, as well as the old,
shortlived but fantastic Enplaned blog.

~~~
tb
You are referring, of course, to this excellent (and somewhat frightening)
article: <http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/unions-and-airlines>

------
vinodkd
nice message with the real reason for the ashtrays.

one thing that bothered me however, was that push vs pull handle design. if
you're really trying to provide affordance, why have a handle at all on a door
that needs to be pushed? isnt it our natural tendency to pull on a door handle
when provided with one?

all we'd need was a "Push" sign and we'd be done. The shape of the handle
hinting how to use it seems subtler than providing the whole door surface as
actionable; and if you had to unlock to open, we have well established
pushable door designs already.

~~~
vacri
People frequently don't read signs, which is the point of the affordance
design (plus caters to folks who can't read the given language). Also, hands
make stuff dirty - you do want something there that's easy to clean, though
that can just be a metal plate that can't be pulled.

~~~
vinodkd
but you could take the sign away and imo people would still open the door -
simply because that seems to be the _only thing they could do_. plus with the
whole door surface being available, why would you use just your hands? use
your shoulder or even back (if you happen to be carrying stuff in both hands)!

seems to me like that would be more affordance.

------
joshuaheard
I think the author gives the federal government too much credit. Which is more
likely: the government out-witted people by thinking ahead and foreseeing
people would break the law, so they write a law to counter it; or, they left
the law on the books from when smoking was legal and never amended it? I think
the latter.

~~~
Mvandenbergh
The "federal government" as in the the FAA knows quite a bit about regulating
airline safety. The probability that the FAA left a regulation in there
because they just forgot to change it is pretty much 0.

~~~
falcolas
I think you give them too much credit. When I was training to be a pilot some
10 years ago, I remember asking why a lot of regs were in the books. The
answer was usually a shrug, or some anecdote about a corner case from the
pioneer days of flying.

------
ojbyrne
Perhaps also because there are still airlines in the world (almost entirely in
the Middle East and Africa) that still allow smoking.

~~~
ComputerGuru
I don't know about the Middle East. I've flown on just about all the Middle
Eastern airlines over the past 7 years, I don't think I've seen a single one
that permitted smoking.

------
noonespecial
Any time you find what you think is an irrational rule in aviation, you can
usually trace it back to someone dying.

------
sparknlaunch12
Not really surprised by smokers not being deterred by multiple warnings not to
smoke on planes. Airlines rightly install ash trays to avoid smokers throwing
cigarettes into the wrong place creating a real fire hazard.

Remember being on a long haul flight and passenger next to me would disappear
to the lavatory clearly sneaking a smoke. He also snuck off to sleep in first
class. We have rules in place for the minority of society who lack common
sense.

------
ww520
Very good observation. I've never paid attention to the ashtray in the
airplane bathrooms and thought they were relic from the plane design in the
old days.

~~~
bediger4000
I thought they were a relic not of plane design, but from "flight
certification" of the lavatories or the doors.

The FAA and the major US plane companies (of which only Boeing is left) made a
huge process of flight certifying every little trinket and gewgaw. Once
certified, the technology on a plane was essentially frozen, as it was too
expensive to certify anything else. I give you the seatbelts and their
pressed-steel 50s-style buckles as another example. They look like something
Dr Benton Quest developed just after he graduated from college on the GI Bill.

------
dantiberian
Here's a link to the book site and Amazon page:

<http://nudges.org/> [http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-
Happi...](http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-
Happiness/dp/0300122233)

------
thereason
I thought "and their "lung cancer"" was the best part.

The fact that some on HN cannot detect the sense of humor is a little scary.

------
dzhiurgis
So in that case, we should put ashtrays in libraries, gas stations and
everywhere, so we prevent fire?

~~~
stephen_g
Fires on planes are a little more serious. If not stopped quickly, they can
spread through the space between the fuselage and the cabin, filling it with
smoke. At altitude, they don't have enough oxygen to burn that well, but if
it's spread far enough, as soon as you're on the ground the inrush of oxygen
will turn it into an inferno in about two minutes (this is why manufacturers
have to be able to show that the plane can be entirely evacuated on something
like 90 seconds with half the exits blocked.)

------
CoffeeAndCoffee
I can't imagine being stuck in a floating smoke pit. The airlines would have
to pay me to fly.

------
alexro
First of all: why airplane toilets called bathrooms?

~~~
afterburner
It's not the airplane; those facilities are simply called by different names
in different parts of the English speaking world. Toilet, restroom, bathroom,
WC, etc.

------
fabjan
And Sweden.

------
georgieporgie
Alternative idea: allow the flight attendants to hand out nicotine patches.
:-)

~~~
cjrp
Ryanair sell "e-cigarettes" on their flights.

~~~
nicholassmith
I've heard of flights saying they're not allowed for various reasons,
encouraging people without them to have a normal cigarette being the most
unsurprising.

------
adviceonly
Site is down. A conspiracy by the TSA to bring down those that would thwart
security, no doubt. ;)

------
darksim905
Nice writeup :D

~~~
_kst_
I'm sure it was, but now it says

"This website is offline. No cached version is available"

~~~
mrud
Try the google cache version:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&outpu...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-
ab&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.standalone-
sysadmin.com%2Fblog%2F2012%2F05%2Fengineeringinfrastructures%2F&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=777765211aff8a58&biw=1596&bih=789&ion=1)

~~~
calinet6
Or this gist I made while I had the page up:

<https://gist.github.com/2766143>

