Iraq had been _openly_ supporting terrorists for decades.
Iraq was supporting terrorists for decades before we invaded? Let's see, by 'decades', you mean '20 years or more'.
Let's see, the Iraq war was 2003, let's try to figure out who Iraq was supporting just 15 years earlier.
Oh, look, in 1988 and before, they were supporting the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a group could be considered 'terrorist', although they were really more a militia, which were attempting to topple Iran's government...
...oh, fuck, wait. That was during the Iraq/Iran war, wasn't it. Right, we're all supposed to pretend that war didn't happen and the US, in no war, supported Iraq during it. (Wait. Weren't we trying to topple Iran's government during that war, also? Again?)
Hey, wait, if we were supporting Iraq until 15 years before the invasion, how on earth were they supporting terrorists...decades...ago...goddammit, I can never remember how the 'Iraq has always been evil' game and 'The US is always been good' game is supposed to interact.
Hezbollah and the PLA are PLENTY good enough reasons.
Bwhahaha. Wow. That's...astonishing. Hezbollah in Iraq was an anti-Saddam movement, you fucktard. (Because, of course, Hezbollah is pro-Iran.)
And giving money to the PLA suicide-bomber widows was a PR move, you idiot, and rather demonstrates that Saddam had no actually connection to that organization at all. (Because giving random amounts of cash at the end to the only public identifiable people rather indicates a lack of any sort of insider status.)
Also Saddam was stupid enough to mouth off just after 9/11. Someone was going to be made an example of and he volunteered his people and himself.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was a troll. Please continue.
Finally consider that Machiavellian moves again the Saudis would not be openly discussed on CNN. The Saudis were known to financially support Iraq.
In much the same way that Iraq supported Hezbollah, I suppose. Or the same way that England supported France in the hundred year war.
And, of course, with both the Iraq and Afghanistan war, simply threatening war would have been enough.
Saddam, when he realized that the US wasn't interested in the fact he didn't have WMDs, had started negotiating some sort of surrender, trying to get immunity and sanctuary in some other Arab country for himself and his family, and in return handing Iraq over to whoever the hell the Americans wants.
The only reason he fought, in fact, was that he was (quite rightly) convinced that he'd be executed. So the real question is: Was it worth hundreds of thousands of lives to bring one person to trial?
We, of course, completely ignored any such negotiations, which were stopped by the actual invasion.
And the Taliban were, and are, cowards. And, hell, they didn't like bin Laden either, the only reason they let him live there was poor control of their country, and some bribes.
If we had simply said "Look, off the record, we're coming in to get bin Laden, regardless...we can either do this 'with your permission' leaving your authority intact, or we can just walk right in, leaving you in the uncomfortable position of having another country violate your sovereignty with a military force and you essentially forced to respond..."
They would have, of course, said 'Uh, sure, we don't like bin Laden either! Now, uh, we will join the Americans in removing this person who have seized control of part of our country! Here's a dozen guys with guns to help, because this is a 'joint' operation, after all. Also can we maybe have less trade sanctions...no? Just checking.'
We, of course, didn't bother with trying to do that, either. we said 'Turn him over', they said 'No', and we...gave up trying to negotiate and invaded. (And then we didn't even bother to get bin Laden, either.)
I'm not saying that America should go around threatening other countries. But frankly, we're a 800-pound gorilla, and if we're going to actually invade, the least we can do is threaten these incredibly weak countries a little bit more until they surrender, which at least doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of people dead.
But, of course, the neo-cons don't want to just push the US's weight around, which the US already does anyway. No, they think things are better with 'war', and apparently we've all forgotten that 'war' means 'Trying to kill people while they try to kill you'.
Yeah, I made the same mistake when reading. I was worried at first because I love my Nook STR and plan to keep buying them.
I especially love the fact I rooted mine so I can send books to it over the air, which was almost trivial.
1) Get Dropbox, install on desktop, and tell Calibre to open a directory in your dropbox as a 'device' so you can send books to it (You can make this happen at Calibre startup under advanced config)
2) Install DropSync or some other real Dropbox sync on the Nook, instead of the stupid non-syncing client you get when you root it. Tell what you pick to sync the directory in #2 to the Nook's book directory, either on the device or on the SD card. Tell it to sync on wifi, so you can just turn on wifi, wait ten minutes, turn it off.
3) [Optional] Install wifi automatic so your wifi starts when you plug the device in, and never have to worry about syncing again. Just plug it into the charger
4) [Optional] Install fbreader and use that instead of the stupid Nook reader. Doing this will also let you use NookTouchTools to remap the side buttons to volume control, so they work to page in other apps.
More or less, it just assumes you aren't flying anymore since as far as the system can tell, there is no longer wind over the wing
And the computer was fine with them being that far up in the air while they were parked?
There should be a computer warning added: WARNING: PLANE IS MYSTERIOUSLY PARKED IN MIDAIR. START FLYING THE PLANE BEFORE GRAVITY SHOWS UP AND THE PLANE HITS THE GROUND.
For instance, if the stall warning turned off because you're going so slow the airplane believes the sensors must be wrong, the computer should tell you that instead of just turning the stall warning off and leading the crew to think that things are getting better.
Yeah, that's completely idiotic design.
If the computer is getting inconsistent data, than it should be telling the pilots that. On top of the other warnings. 'STALL WARNING...AIRSPEED SENSOR IMPOSSIBILITY...STALL WARNING...AIRSPEED SENSOR IMPOSSIBILITY...YOUR DOOR IS AJAR...'
It is not the job of the computer to decide something is bogus and just shut up about it. It is the job of the pilot to say 'I have checked out this problem, everything is fine, and that sensor is clearly screwed up.' and push a button to turn off warnings coming from that sensor.
Seriously, we've now reached the automation level where the computer overrides the computer. The computer knows something is wrong, but the computer has decided that the computer can't be right about that, so no need to tell anyone. We really need to step back and say 'Wait a second here...perhaps we should not be having computers withhold their own information from the pilots!".
Likewise, the autopilot should be a big light in the middle of the console. Or, rather, the various levels of autopilot should all have lights. It should instantly be clear what level of automation is going on. And when a level that is turned on fails, it should be a big flashing light.
Specifically, the stall warning system on the A330 sounded for 50 consecutive seconds before ceasing. This was apparently due to the computer system automatically turning off the warning once the plane had dropped below 70 miles per hour, since that speed was supposed to be far outside the operating parameters of the plane.
The stall warning cut off because the airplane was going too slow to operate?
Apparently, the plane's designer didn't actually understand what a 'stall' is. I don't know anything about flying, and even I know how that going too slow causes a stall. Although you can get them other ways, too. It's something to do with the angle of the wings vs. the air going over them. Regardless, going far enough under the minimum airspeed causes a stall.
I have no idea why anyone would put a bottom-limit on a stall warning. What, did the airplane think it was on the ground or something? (Presumably it's smart enough to know if it was on the ground, it would be level, and, more importantly, the landing gear would be down.)
I like the idea of alarms that cut off when you're so far outside the operating limit of the airplane. That the airplane will just shrug and say, 'Yeah, you're fucked, I'll stop bothering you with warnings, and let you get some peace. Call me if you actually decide to fix this insanity.'.
I mean, while cars do not have dual controls, they do have a computer that can be set to control the throttle, called the 'cruise control'. And every cruise control I've ever seen operates by moving the pedal, even though it would probably be easier and cheaper to pull the cable or open a valve somewhere else, leaving the pedal position alone. Pulling a cable, even the one the pedal is hooked to, does not automatically mean the pedal moves. Having the cable move the pedal in addition to the pedal move the cable was a deliberate design choice, they could have done something else.
But if they had, then the driver would not be immediately aware the car was accelerating, at least not on purpose. So the cruise controls moves the pedal.
As a general principle, any sort of influence on the control of a vehicle that the operator has not caused must be reflected in the operator's controls, so the operator knows what the hell is going on.
Now, it used to be this was difficult. In a vehicle with mechanical switches to do something, if the computer decides to do it, it's rather expensive to make a dozen switch that can be flipped remotely. For example, my grandmother's car, from the mid-90s, has automatic headlights, but doesn't move the headlight switch when it turns them on.
But now we're moving everything to computer and instead of hard-wired switches, we just have momentary contact buttons with lights behind them. And we have by-wire designs that require no force to operate, so cheap-ass motors can be installed for force feedback. It is trivial to make the controls' states _always_ reflect what the vehicle thinks is going on.
In fact, you don't even need force feedback to fix the problem here. All you need is to physically lock one joystick in place when the other is in use. Just clamp the joystick down, put a button on top. When you're holding the button, you can move your joystick, and the other joystick can't be unlocked. (Unlike fighting with a computer, which is reasonable in a few circumstances, you really shouldn't be fighting with your copilot. You don't need to 'know' what he's doing with the joystick, because if he's doing something with his, you really shouldn't be touching yours at all.)
I shall pretend to be from 1900, and I will tell you exactly what I think of each of your inventions:
a microwave oven
This appears to be an oven. It's right there in the name. It seems to cook much faster than a gas oven, so it's good you're improving those. But it's not that astonishing.
The buttons on the front where you can set the time and stuff so you don't have to watch it, now, that is astonishing...and that's 'information technology', which we all agree has indeed made advancements. You can't strap a computer to an oven and claim the oven is revolutionary.
(Also, how are you showing me a household microwave in 1960 when they did not really exist until 1967? Is this one of those 'house of the future' demonstrations?)
a boeing aeroplane
Hey, cool, you got heavier-than-air crafts to work. Finally. We had to use lighter-than-air.
Of course, commercial air travel is still a decade and a half away.
a hydrogen bomb
Wow, a bomb. Never heard of things blowing up before.
and a radar installation.
maybe also a military submarine and an aircraft carrier.
At some point I'm going to mention that all this 'revolutionary' stuff you keep showing me seems to have nothing to do with 'improving life', which was the original premise of this, and seems to merely a better way to wage war.
besides television, you could show her instant global television transmission via satellite.
And, again, you missed the original premise of this, in that everyone agrees information technology has improved.
Are you asserting that the reason that carjackings happen is that criminals who have their hands in your car can turn it off?
Because there's nothing else they could reach, like someone's neck, that could enforce compliance with their demands? I would have to suggest a better protection would be not having criminals' body parts inside your car. Of course, in the real word, they threaten with a gun.
And all this is ignoring that carjackers do not want the goddamn car turned off. They want the driver out and the car still running. Disabling a car is pretty stupid.
Wow, people are willing to come up with all sorts of bullshit reasons that cars should be hard to turn off, aren't they? And the only reason anyone can think of is 'What if it's someone besides the driver?'.
The simple fact is if someone who can reach the steering column wants to fucking interfere with a car, they can, because they can also reach the driver and the steering wheel and often the gear shift. This is so astonishingly obviously I cannot even comprehend how the concept of 'protecting' the ignition from malicious people who can reach the driver would even exists inside people's head. Turning off the car is the least malicious thing people can do.
So, you said that between 1900 and 1960 we had a lot of revolutionary inventions...I point out that there's been no actual revolutionary inventions since 1900, and you point out gas stoves, something that was...invented in 1820, commercialized by 1880, and everyone had them by 1900?
And if you're trying to demonstrate the lack of revolutionary tech since 1960, you probably shouldn't throw in microwave ovens, which were indeed invented in 1955, but no one had until they were finally fit into a countertop version in 1967. (Not that microwaves are actually revolutionary.)
I wouldn't call atomic weapons, modern antibiotics, heavier than air flight incremental.
But you would, apparently, call unmanned drones, gene therapy, and highways 'incremental', which makes me think you've picked a rather random definition of 'incremental'.
And speaking of higways, the idea that ' We've even stopped getting places any faster' is completely and utterly wrong. Apparently, you have no idea how shitty the early roads were, and how completely impossible it was to actually get from place to place. Cities connected to cities, often via poorly paved roads or just dirt. No one actually bothered to make roads that people could drive long distances on, or that went anywhere but one town over. Hence, for example, the US interstate highway system, started in 1956, although before you get too happy about that date I will point out that almost none of it was finished by 1960. This eventually cut travel time by half or more over long distances. (And, of course, airplanes have gotten faster, too.)
Of course, in my universe, doing things 'faster' is by definition an incremental improvement, but whatever.
If you met a time traveller from 1960, and wanted to wow her, you could show her your iphone. Absolutely amazing. She would then wonder, what other wonders does this future hold? But would you have much else to show her that isn't just a slicker version of something she already has?
Yes, but that wasn't your premise. I agree with that...and I said it was also true from 1900 to 1960. (Or 1900 to now, in fact.)
If someone in 1960 met a time traveller from 1900, what tech development(1) would they show her that she would find amazing? Besides, that is, a television.
And, FYI, if you show someone from 1900 an airplane, they indeed never will have seen one before...and be happy that someone finally finished what everyone already knew was possible. (Think of airplanes in 1900 as voice recognition now. It's just barely not really working that well, and if we go into the future 60 years and see people talking to computers we'll hardly be startled or amazed.)
1) Now, someone from 1900 would find a lot of social developments amazing, but that's not the point.
Uh, that depends on what you mean by revolutionized. There are very few inventions that are not incremental improvements on things we were always doing.
And most of the actual changes, the ones that people from 1899 would have no idea of, are informational.
You show a person from 1899 a microwave, he'd understand it, it's just a faster stove with a timer. You show him an automobile, it's just a smaller train not confined to the tracks, or a buggy without a horse. (Actually, someone from 1899 would know what an automobile was anyway, even if they'd never seen one.)
The only things he wouldn't understand would be things like telephones and computers. Well, he would understand the concept of telephones, but he wouldn't understand what changes had happened because of them, and he wouldn't understand what we use computers for at all.
Saying 'Everything from 1960 has just been incremental except for information technology' is sorta missing the point that pretty much all developments since 1900 except for information technology have been incremental. (At least, if you include 'analog things like radio and television' under 'information technology'.) The last major invention before that was 'steam power', which allowed both shipping and factories, and that was pre-1900.
And if we're recommending books, you need to read 'The Third Wave'.
It's not just yield signs. People stop even when directed not to.
We have an four-way intersection here that starts a two-lane highway from three one-lane roads. The left lane of the highway is created from traffic going straight or turning left onto it, and the right lane is created from the right turn. This right turn lane splits off before the red light, so you don't have to stop or yield or merge or anything. You just get in the right-turn lane, keep driving, and tada, you're on the highway.
Guess what people do? That's right, they stop. So they put up a 'Keep Moving' sign, but people still stop, or at least slow down.
I keep hoping they'll put up those white 'can't change lanes' poles, which might help, but I suspect this is a losing battle. Perhaps if they put up a 'You have your own goddamn lane, you morons, so don't yield to non-existence traffic' sign.
Whenever I rail about traffic rules, I remember that intersection and force myself to remember why the rules are the way they are: Because most people appear to be utter idiots who operate their car by rote and obvious traffic signs, and giving them any extra options would melt their brains.
Yes, that is how it would work in places without any traffic control at all. But good luck actually finding such a location in America. They put stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, where two roads are perfectly straight and have nothing around for miles happen to cross. And at the end of every single little dirt road that reaches a main road is a stop sign.
I have never in my entire life seen two roads that cross without traffic control. I have seen a very obscure road or two terminate into another without a stop sign, but I suspect those were actually private roads. (Like I said, I'm actually _unsure_ about the yield rules at an intersection without traffic control, and it's not because I don't know how to drive, it's because I've literally never been in that situation.)
That is what we are complaining about. Not what the signs do, which is pretty standardize between countries, but the specific ones used everywhere. You reach the end of the road or a crossing of equal roads, in the US, you have a stop sign or a traffic light, period, so you must come to a complete stop regardless of traffic. (Unless you hit the green light, obviously)
The only place you'll ever see a intersection-based yield sign is at right turn lanes, only for people turning right. It is never used for any traffic that would cross other lanes of traffic. Because apparently Americans cannot figure out how that works. (Yield signs pop up a few other places, like the few roundabouts we have and in some merge places, but that's about it.)
Unwittingly, many people that roll stop signs slow down cross traffic resulting in delaying when the 'roller' would be able to pull out if they had just stop so everyone knows what they are doing.
No shit, and it's not just people who are breaking the law. I am constantly astonished at people who move their car around while on side roads.
Oh, yeah, pull forward randomly while I'm coming up on you. That will surely save you a quarter of a second while pulling out, nicely countering the three seconds you lost waiting for me to get past because I slammed on my fucking brakes because it looks like you're insanely about to pull out right in front of me. (A quarter of a second is more than three seconds, right?)
Same with idiots who wait until the last minute to break for a red light. Oh, wow, you're so much 'faster' than the people who started breaking early...you started waiting a good two seconds later. I'm not sure that actually accomplished anything, as you're still waiting at the light, and of course the people going in the other direction weren't sure you were stopping, so waited two seconds longer to go, making your red light longer...but you sure proved your penis^Hstopping power was impressive, didn't you?
I don't quite understand why we don't have a 'Yield to cars on the right' sign.
I.e., a sign that would work exactly like a stop sign with traffic, but there'd be no need to stop at if there was no oncoming traffic.
Obviously they'd only be put at places with good visibility.
I think that, in theory, a four way intersection with all yield signs would work like this, but we don't make them. (I'm fairly certain when everyone is supposed to yield, you're supposed to follow stop-sign rules about who can go when. Or rather, the stop-sign rules are just general rules, we just usually use them at a stop sign but they apply at any time when all cars have been given the same instructions. They'd even apply in a hypothetical intersection without any traffic control at all.)
Yeah, I wasn't trying to say if I cut the ignition and shifted into neutral and then shifted back out the engine would restart. (Or even that I'd end up back in gear.) I've never had any reason to try that, I'll have to do it some day.
However, now I'm confused. You say in modern cars, when you cut the engine off, you're in neutral, no matter what gear you were in before? (Except Park, obviously you'd stay in that.)
While that would, indeed, stop any sort of 'push start', it also would seems to cause several problems:
Does that mean you can't shift to Park? How are you supposed to park the thing after coasting to a stop? (Or after you do what I sometimes do when parking, accidentally turning the car off before I put it in park and only realizing I got the order wrong when I can't get the key out.)
Does that mean you can't shift to Neutral from Park? How do you tow a car you can't start?
Or is this not applicable shifting to Park or Neutral, just the gears that connect the wheels to the engine?
And another question for an out-of-control car: I always heard it was best to just turn the engine off, instead of shifting to neutral because the engine is still engaged, and slowing the car down.
Seems like this situation would render that inoperative. Which would tilt the balance to shifting to neutral but leaving the engine running, so you'd have power steering and brakes.
Power steering isn't needed if the car is moving, and with the car in gear, you can't typically turn the key to a point that the wheel will lock.
No. I was trying to say exactly that, that if the car is in gear, the wheels won't lock, but that's not exactly right, as I was corrected above.
It's based on the key. As the key won't turn off with the car in gear, the wheel lock can't engage with the car in gear. In fact, the wheel lock won't even engage with the key in a position where the car could be in gear, even if it's not.
I just checked on my car. All these tests were in park: I put the key in, turned the car on, and could turn the steering wheel. Then I killed the engine, put the key back to 'on' without starting the car, and I could still, with incredibly difficulty, turn the steering wheel. Same with ACC. (I can change gears in ACC, and, yes, that does seem odd to me. And my radio doesn't work in ACC. I find myself baffled by the premise of ACC.) But turn the key to off, and the steering wheel locks.
As long as the key is in a position where I could change gears, the steering wheel works, even if the actual gear I'm in is Park and the engine is off.
I'd certainly prefer to be able to flip the system on and off conveniently, but it's not really a compelling case to have a key.
I don't think I'm being very clear, but I wasn't suggesting a key. I was just suggesting a killswitch that operates like a key and is placed where the key is placed. (And, hell, if car makers are going to add switches like that to help maintenance, how about adding them under the hood, which would make much more sense.)
Also, the keyless cars don't let you START them from the remote. The remote unlocks it and enables everything (like turning a key from 0 to II), but actually starting the car requires pushing a button on the dashboard.
I know you can get keyless remotes that do remote start, although those seem to be optional features. I randomly checked Ford and Honda, and that's an extra $500 at both, so that's not as much as issue as I thought, as I though they were included. Although as $500 is clearly a scam for cars that already have push start engines (Hey, look, we can charge customers $500 to add a single button to a remote!), I expect at some point remote start will be standard.
And someone else unwittingly 'turning the key to accessory' could be almost as bad, depending on what you're working on, although that will just cause electrical disasters, not mechanical disasters.
However, while I was looking up keyless entry systems, I learned that the remotes actually seem to work by being near the car (Presumably in your possession) and someone attempting to open the door. Unlike older remote unlock systems, which was just a radio signal button, the new 'turn accessories on' remotes are triggered by someone trying to get into the car. (And turns them off when you gain distance from the car.) So that's not much of an issue.
Although it now means holding the keys yourself while you work on the car means...anyone can turn on the accessories by trying to open the car, assuming you are close enough. Which is probably not even something that would occur to people is going to happen.
A easily accessible kill switch is more likely to be inadvertently pressed by a curious child or a mischevious teen passenger traveling with friends, than it will need to be used by someone in an emergency.
You do realize I suggested that it gets put in the same place as the key right? On the steering column?
If you are allowing a curious child to screw around with your steering column while you are driving, you have a much scarier possibility than the idea they will accidentally turn the car off. Like, oh, them grabbing your steering wheel, which the right side of is obviously closer to them than the steering column itself.
And I have no idea what teenagers have to do with anything. No, we should not make it take longer to disable cars in emergencies just because teenagers might screw around. In fact, I have to suggest giving any sort of leeway in that form would just encourage such people to playfully repeatedly push the button for a second and half.
The alternative that I prefer is we standardize all keyless ignition cars on turning off with a 2 second press and hold on the ignition button and a public education campaign.
And then you have to figure out where the button is, and then have to educate everyone...
...or we could just put in the same place and format that everyone already knows contains the killswitch to a car: The steering column, in the form of a switch on the right side that you rotate counterclockwise. (Which in non-keyless cars also contains a removable key, but does not need to.)
I cannot imagine what possible purpose it would be to invent some second method of disabling a car besides the one everyone already knows, and from then on you'd have to know two different ways and hopefully remain calm enough to know which kind of car you're in. As opposed to just 'Instinctively grab flat thing sticking out of steering column and twist backwards', which could work in any car if we'd bother to legislate it. (Yes, yes, there are a very few cars that do not have the ignition key on the steering column, but that isn't really important.)
Also, with a button, there's no way to leave the car disabled.
And, perhaps just as important, a 'two second power off' button is, by definition, a software button. Which could, you know, screw up if your car has gone insane.
And if you are working on a car and don't want it to start, you should disconnect the battery, period. If you are trouble shooting with the power attached you should expect the car to start at any point, or if that is a problem, put all of the keys into the glove box. Doing anything else is unsafe.
Uh, assuming the car will start while you're working on it is only unsafe in cars where there's not a ignition disable, such as a key. I have no idea what sort of circular logic you're working on, but it's perfectly safe for me to work on my car and assume it won't start, because my car can only be started by someone getting into it and turning the key. So assuming I am even slightly observant, I am in no danger. (And frankly, if I'm not observant enough to notice someone walking up and climbing in a car that I'm working on, I probably shouldn't be allowed near cars at all. Also, if they don't notice someone has the hood up and is working on the car, they shouldn't be allowed near cars either.)
Me: These computers without hardware power switches are annoying and dangerous to work on without unplugging.
You: It's not safe to work on a computer without unplugging it. You can damage it.
Me: Uh...In the old days, we could just flip the switch on the side and not have to worry about it, as long as we didn't mess with the power supply itself.
You: You should assume that a computer can turn on at any time. Via invisible people walking up and flipping the switch without you, the person working on it, noticing or stopping them. Or something like th
Why should keyless cars have a button only? Make it a simple turn switch, left for off, right for on.
Why complicate it? We already have a place in a car where you can grab a flat thing and turn it forward to start it, and the other way to disable the engine. Everyone knows how to use it, and where it is. No one has to take their eyes off the road to find it, they can find it by reflex. It's called the 'key'.
So put the switch exactly where the key goes in cars with keys, on the steering column, in exactly the same style...it's just not a 'key' and can't be removed. (Nor does it need to be turned forward to start, that's a different button, although there's no reason to not have the switch also do that.)
I think you were assuming 'safety' issue, and, yes, people should disconnect the power if they're working near, for example, the fan, as that will come on regardless of the ignition.
I was thinking more of an oil change or something. There's not really any safety reason to disconnect the battery for that...but you don't want the car starting without any oil in it! Or without water, or while changing a tire, or while trying to replace the power steering line, or whatever.
And some of it, especially electrical problems inside the interior of the car, rather requires the battery be hooked up, and the ignition being turn on to test stuff, and then back off and stuff moved around, then turned on and tested again, and if the car is turned on while stuff is disconnected, you'll end up shorting stuff, or even shocking people.
There's a lot of car maintenance that you don't want someone able to randomly start the car during, but falls short of needing to disconnect the battery. As long as you['re close enough to stop someone from climbing in and turning the key.
But with keyless remote ignition, someone can start the car entirely out of the sight of the car, which can totally screw up not only whatever you're doing, but the actual car itself, depending on what place you're at. So there really should be an easy override on the car for that that doesn't requiring manually unhooking the entire electrical system.
Second, I've always wondered how fast you had to be rolling to "push" start an automatic. Thanks for doing it to your car instead of mine.
My oil light comes on when the car first starts, as there's some sort of problem in the first few seconds of operations. It's not a real problem, it's a bad sensor, but the way the car is designed, that light does not ever cut off if comes on. So I have two choices: Start my car twice or drive with the light on.
I usually do the second, but on long trips (When I start getting paranoid the light might _supposed_ to be on and there actually is something wrong.) I cut my car off for a split second and back on to reset the electronics, usually while going down a hill.
I suspect the minimum speed this works at varies between cars, and in pretty much all cases is much too high to actually start the car with unless you have another car to push it or something.
Third, I think you're wrong about how your car's steering wheel lock works. I know that in my cars, if I turn the wheel until it locks, I can unlock it by inserting the key and turning it to 'on'. But that's in Park. I've never tried it when the car was in gear. Are you really sure that makes any difference?
Actually, thinking about it, you may be right. It might be the key, instead of the gear. I also recall being able to turn my wheels in park.
However, that doesn't actually change the issue, because you normally can't turn turn the ignition entirely off while in gear.
So, the idea that turning off the ignition to stop a runaway car will stop the steering is still wrong, but not because of what I said, it's just wrong in that you can't actually turn them off that far. The steering works regardless of what you do when you're moving. As long as you have the key turned far enough that you could be in a gear besides park (Even if you are actually still in park.), the steering works.
Well, I guess you could insanely shift to park while driving at speed and yank the key out, but at that point you've got more problems than steering!
Now, there are cars where the keys can be removed while driving, but those cars, IIRC, leave the ignition in the 'on' position, so everything I said should still be true.
Hey, dumbass, pushing the button does shut the car off when you're parked. It just doesn't do it when you're moving.
Apparently, in your universe, not only do you check how to run the radio, you also try making an emergency stop while driving. How you do this without driving, I do not know. Or, alternately, and more likely, you're a fucking liar or complete idiot.
I swear to God, we need constant articles on slashdot about this, so we can find out who all these people are who think people should just magically know things in an emergency situation. Then, we can herd them all up, put them in emergency situations, and watch them all die ironically.
The driver's biggest mistake was likely not taking the time beforehand to familiarize himself with the vehicle's unfamiliar controls. Had the driver been prepared, this tragedy could have likely been avoided.
Yes, that is true, but no, he shouldn't have had to do that. We standardize certain controls on a car for a reason. Steering wheels are in the same place, pedals are in the same place, etc.
I see no reason why we shouldn't standardize the 'Cut the car off' manner also. Keyless cars should be required to have (In addition to this brake disengage) a little switch, right where the key was, that you can twist, exactly like a key, and cut the engine off.
This isn't just for drivers. What if the driver has a heart attack or something and collapses, and a passenger is trying to stop the car? Or, here's a fun one, what if someone is working on their car and wants to make it sure cannot be turned on while they're under the hood, and that someone in the house can't innocently press the remote ignition button?
There should be a damn mechanical switch in keyless cars. It doesn't have to be a 'key' that is removable, it doesn't have to ever be used, but there should be a switch that physically disables power to the starter and fuel pump, in an accessible location that everyone knows, period.
I don't know what a 'modern car' is, but my 1993 Pontiac Sunbird (Which only came as automatic) will indeed restart the engine if you've going about 20 or above and in gear. Which is obviously not that useful for starting the car, but it does mean you can turn it off and back on while driving down the road. (I occasionally do it to get a misbehaving 'Check Oil' light to go off.)
I'm pretty certain most car still work this way, that they all can be 'push started' in theory, although good luck actually getting them to that speed.
However, I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with anything, because I'm not sure why someone who cut their ignition to stop a runaway car would turn the ignition back on. Whether or not you have steering is based on whether or not you're in gear, not the state of the ignition. (Otherwise you'd be unable to push or tow cars with dead batteries.) People should just cut their ignition and stop. (Which no one knows how to do on push button ignitions.)
The FMV movie thingy didn't really have anything to do with the decline.
The problem was when people thought that 'FMV' was, itself, a genre, instead of just a way to have cut screens.
We eventually gave up on FMV cutscreens in favor of just using rendered ones, but it hardly signified a 'decline', unless you think cutscreens were a decline, and they've been around forever, if you define 'cutscreen' as 'You can't do anything and you're having a conversation or some plot point is happening.'
Granted, with your comment about 'heavily scripted' games, I get the feeling you don't like them. Which rather makes me wonder how exactly you think games _should_ be. You don't seem to like either plot or action or graphics.
In fact, it appears you want all games to be strategy games. Which, uh, isn't going to happen.
And, incidentally, X-Com, while everyone has fond memories of it, was _crap_ at the mission level. I've never played the later games, but I can't imagine how making it a FPS made it worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Iraq had been _openly_ supporting terrorists for decades.
Iraq was supporting terrorists for decades before we invaded? Let's see, by 'decades', you mean '20 years or more'.
Let's see, the Iraq war was 2003, let's try to figure out who Iraq was supporting just 15 years earlier.
Oh, look, in 1988 and before, they were supporting the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a group could be considered 'terrorist', although they were really more a militia, which were attempting to topple Iran's government...
Hey, wait, if we were supporting Iraq until 15 years before the invasion, how on earth were they supporting terrorists...decades...ago...goddammit, I can never remember how the 'Iraq has always been evil' game and 'The US is always been good' game is supposed to interact.
Hezbollah and the PLA are PLENTY good enough reasons.
Bwhahaha. Wow. That's...astonishing. Hezbollah in Iraq was an anti-Saddam movement, you fucktard. (Because, of course, Hezbollah is pro-Iran.)
And giving money to the PLA suicide-bomber widows was a PR move, you idiot, and rather demonstrates that Saddam had no actually connection to that organization at all. (Because giving random amounts of cash at the end to the only public identifiable people rather indicates a lack of any sort of insider status.)
Also Saddam was stupid enough to mouth off just after 9/11. Someone was going to be made an example of and he volunteered his people and himself.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was a troll. Please continue.
Finally consider that Machiavellian moves again the Saudis would not be openly discussed on CNN. The Saudis were known to financially support Iraq.
In much the same way that Iraq supported Hezbollah, I suppose. Or the same way that England supported France in the hundred year war.
And, of course, with both the Iraq and Afghanistan war, simply threatening war would have been enough.
Saddam, when he realized that the US wasn't interested in the fact he didn't have WMDs, had started negotiating some sort of surrender, trying to get immunity and sanctuary in some other Arab country for himself and his family, and in return handing Iraq over to whoever the hell the Americans wants.
The only reason he fought, in fact, was that he was (quite rightly) convinced that he'd be executed. So the real question is: Was it worth hundreds of thousands of lives to bring one person to trial?
We, of course, completely ignored any such negotiations, which were stopped by the actual invasion.
And the Taliban were, and are, cowards. And, hell, they didn't like bin Laden either, the only reason they let him live there was poor control of their country, and some bribes.
If we had simply said "Look, off the record, we're coming in to get bin Laden, regardless...we can either do this 'with your permission' leaving your authority intact, or we can just walk right in, leaving you in the uncomfortable position of having another country violate your sovereignty with a military force and you essentially forced to respond..."
They would have, of course, said 'Uh, sure, we don't like bin Laden either! Now, uh, we will join the Americans in removing this person who have seized control of part of our country! Here's a dozen guys with guns to help, because this is a 'joint' operation, after all. Also can we maybe have less trade sanctions...no? Just checking.'
We, of course, didn't bother with trying to do that, either. we said 'Turn him over', they said 'No', and we...gave up trying to negotiate and invaded. (And then we didn't even bother to get bin Laden, either.)
I'm not saying that America should go around threatening other countries. But frankly, we're a 800-pound gorilla, and if we're going to actually invade, the least we can do is threaten these incredibly weak countries a little bit more until they surrender, which at least doesn't result in hundreds of thousands of people dead.
But, of course, the neo-cons don't want to just push the US's weight around, which the US already does anyway. No, they think things are better with 'war', and apparently we've all forgotten that 'war' means 'Trying to kill people while they try to kill you'.
Yeah, I made the same mistake when reading. I was worried at first because I love my Nook STR and plan to keep buying them.
I especially love the fact I rooted mine so I can send books to it over the air, which was almost trivial.
1) Get Dropbox, install on desktop, and tell Calibre to open a directory in your dropbox as a 'device' so you can send books to it (You can make this happen at Calibre startup under advanced config)
2) Install DropSync or some other real Dropbox sync on the Nook, instead of the stupid non-syncing client you get when you root it. Tell what you pick to sync the directory in #2 to the Nook's book directory, either on the device or on the SD card. Tell it to sync on wifi, so you can just turn on wifi, wait ten minutes, turn it off.
3) [Optional] Install wifi automatic so your wifi starts when you plug the device in, and never have to worry about syncing again. Just plug it into the charger
4) [Optional] Install fbreader and use that instead of the stupid Nook reader. Doing this will also let you use NookTouchTools to remap the side buttons to volume control, so they work to page in other apps.
More or less, it just assumes you aren't flying anymore since as far as the system can tell, there is no longer wind over the wing
And the computer was fine with them being that far up in the air while they were parked?
There should be a computer warning added: WARNING: PLANE IS MYSTERIOUSLY PARKED IN MIDAIR. START FLYING THE PLANE BEFORE GRAVITY SHOWS UP AND THE PLANE HITS THE GROUND.
For instance, if the stall warning turned off because you're going so slow the airplane believes the sensors must be wrong, the computer should tell you that instead of just turning the stall warning off and leading the crew to think that things are getting better.
Yeah, that's completely idiotic design.
If the computer is getting inconsistent data, than it should be telling the pilots that. On top of the other warnings. 'STALL WARNING...AIRSPEED SENSOR IMPOSSIBILITY...STALL WARNING...AIRSPEED SENSOR IMPOSSIBILITY...YOUR DOOR IS AJAR...'
It is not the job of the computer to decide something is bogus and just shut up about it. It is the job of the pilot to say 'I have checked out this problem, everything is fine, and that sensor is clearly screwed up.' and push a button to turn off warnings coming from that sensor.
Seriously, we've now reached the automation level where the computer overrides the computer. The computer knows something is wrong, but the computer has decided that the computer can't be right about that, so no need to tell anyone. We really need to step back and say 'Wait a second here...perhaps we should not be having computers withhold their own information from the pilots!".
Likewise, the autopilot should be a big light in the middle of the console. Or, rather, the various levels of autopilot should all have lights. It should instantly be clear what level of automation is going on. And when a level that is turned on fails, it should be a big flashing light.
Specifically, the stall warning system on the A330 sounded for 50 consecutive seconds before ceasing. This was apparently due to the computer system automatically turning off the warning once the plane had dropped below 70 miles per hour, since that speed was supposed to be far outside the operating parameters of the plane.
The stall warning cut off because the airplane was going too slow to operate?
Apparently, the plane's designer didn't actually understand what a 'stall' is. I don't know anything about flying, and even I know how that going too slow causes a stall. Although you can get them other ways, too. It's something to do with the angle of the wings vs. the air going over them. Regardless, going far enough under the minimum airspeed causes a stall.
I have no idea why anyone would put a bottom-limit on a stall warning. What, did the airplane think it was on the ground or something? (Presumably it's smart enough to know if it was on the ground, it would be level, and, more importantly, the landing gear would be down.)
I like the idea of alarms that cut off when you're so far outside the operating limit of the airplane. That the airplane will just shrug and say, 'Yeah, you're fucked, I'll stop bothering you with warnings, and let you get some peace. Call me if you actually decide to fix this insanity.'.
Indeed.
I mean, while cars do not have dual controls, they do have a computer that can be set to control the throttle, called the 'cruise control'. And every cruise control I've ever seen operates by moving the pedal, even though it would probably be easier and cheaper to pull the cable or open a valve somewhere else, leaving the pedal position alone. Pulling a cable, even the one the pedal is hooked to, does not automatically mean the pedal moves. Having the cable move the pedal in addition to the pedal move the cable was a deliberate design choice, they could have done something else.
But if they had, then the driver would not be immediately aware the car was accelerating, at least not on purpose. So the cruise controls moves the pedal.
As a general principle, any sort of influence on the control of a vehicle that the operator has not caused must be reflected in the operator's controls, so the operator knows what the hell is going on.
Now, it used to be this was difficult. In a vehicle with mechanical switches to do something, if the computer decides to do it, it's rather expensive to make a dozen switch that can be flipped remotely. For example, my grandmother's car, from the mid-90s, has automatic headlights, but doesn't move the headlight switch when it turns them on.
But now we're moving everything to computer and instead of hard-wired switches, we just have momentary contact buttons with lights behind them. And we have by-wire designs that require no force to operate, so cheap-ass motors can be installed for force feedback. It is trivial to make the controls' states _always_ reflect what the vehicle thinks is going on.
In fact, you don't even need force feedback to fix the problem here. All you need is to physically lock one joystick in place when the other is in use. Just clamp the joystick down, put a button on top. When you're holding the button, you can move your joystick, and the other joystick can't be unlocked. (Unlike fighting with a computer, which is reasonable in a few circumstances, you really shouldn't be fighting with your copilot. You don't need to 'know' what he's doing with the joystick, because if he's doing something with his, you really shouldn't be touching yours at all.)
I shall pretend to be from 1900, and I will tell you exactly what I think of each of your inventions:
a microwave oven
This appears to be an oven. It's right there in the name. It seems to cook much faster than a gas oven, so it's good you're improving those. But it's not that astonishing.
The buttons on the front where you can set the time and stuff so you don't have to watch it, now, that is astonishing...and that's 'information technology', which we all agree has indeed made advancements. You can't strap a computer to an oven and claim the oven is revolutionary.
(Also, how are you showing me a household microwave in 1960 when they did not really exist until 1967? Is this one of those 'house of the future' demonstrations?)
a boeing aeroplane
Hey, cool, you got heavier-than-air crafts to work. Finally. We had to use lighter-than-air.
Of course, commercial air travel is still a decade and a half away.
a hydrogen bomb
Wow, a bomb. Never heard of things blowing up before.
and a radar installation.
maybe also a military submarine and an aircraft carrier.
At some point I'm going to mention that all this 'revolutionary' stuff you keep showing me seems to have nothing to do with 'improving life', which was the original premise of this, and seems to merely a better way to wage war.
besides television, you could show her instant global television transmission via satellite.
And, again, you missed the original premise of this, in that everyone agrees information technology has improved.
Are you asserting that the reason that carjackings happen is that criminals who have their hands in your car can turn it off?
Because there's nothing else they could reach, like someone's neck, that could enforce compliance with their demands? I would have to suggest a better protection would be not having criminals' body parts inside your car. Of course, in the real word, they threaten with a gun.
And all this is ignoring that carjackers do not want the goddamn car turned off. They want the driver out and the car still running. Disabling a car is pretty stupid.
Wow, people are willing to come up with all sorts of bullshit reasons that cars should be hard to turn off, aren't they? And the only reason anyone can think of is 'What if it's someone besides the driver?'.
The simple fact is if someone who can reach the steering column wants to fucking interfere with a car, they can, because they can also reach the driver and the steering wheel and often the gear shift. This is so astonishingly obviously I cannot even comprehend how the concept of 'protecting' the ignition from malicious people who can reach the driver would even exists inside people's head. Turning off the car is the least malicious thing people can do.
So, you said that between 1900 and 1960 we had a lot of revolutionary inventions...I point out that there's been no actual revolutionary inventions since 1900, and you point out gas stoves, something that was...invented in 1820, commercialized by 1880, and everyone had them by 1900?
And if you're trying to demonstrate the lack of revolutionary tech since 1960, you probably shouldn't throw in microwave ovens, which were indeed invented in 1955, but no one had until they were finally fit into a countertop version in 1967. (Not that microwaves are actually revolutionary.)
I wouldn't call atomic weapons, modern antibiotics, heavier than air flight incremental.
But you would, apparently, call unmanned drones, gene therapy, and highways 'incremental', which makes me think you've picked a rather random definition of 'incremental'.
And speaking of higways, the idea that ' We've even stopped getting places any faster' is completely and utterly wrong. Apparently, you have no idea how shitty the early roads were, and how completely impossible it was to actually get from place to place. Cities connected to cities, often via poorly paved roads or just dirt. No one actually bothered to make roads that people could drive long distances on, or that went anywhere but one town over. Hence, for example, the US interstate highway system, started in 1956, although before you get too happy about that date I will point out that almost none of it was finished by 1960. This eventually cut travel time by half or more over long distances. (And, of course, airplanes have gotten faster, too.)
Of course, in my universe, doing things 'faster' is by definition an incremental improvement, but whatever.
If you met a time traveller from 1960, and wanted to wow her, you could show her your iphone. Absolutely amazing. She would then wonder, what other wonders does this future hold? But would you have much else to show her that isn't just a slicker version of something she already has?
Yes, but that wasn't your premise. I agree with that...and I said it was also true from 1900 to 1960. (Or 1900 to now, in fact.)
If someone in 1960 met a time traveller from 1900, what tech development(1) would they show her that she would find amazing? Besides, that is, a television.
And, FYI, if you show someone from 1900 an airplane, they indeed never will have seen one before...and be happy that someone finally finished what everyone already knew was possible. (Think of airplanes in 1900 as voice recognition now. It's just barely not really working that well, and if we go into the future 60 years and see people talking to computers we'll hardly be startled or amazed.)
1) Now, someone from 1900 would find a lot of social developments amazing, but that's not the point.
Uh, that depends on what you mean by revolutionized. There are very few inventions that are not incremental improvements on things we were always doing.
And most of the actual changes, the ones that people from 1899 would have no idea of, are informational.
You show a person from 1899 a microwave, he'd understand it, it's just a faster stove with a timer. You show him an automobile, it's just a smaller train not confined to the tracks, or a buggy without a horse. (Actually, someone from 1899 would know what an automobile was anyway, even if they'd never seen one.)
The only things he wouldn't understand would be things like telephones and computers. Well, he would understand the concept of telephones, but he wouldn't understand what changes had happened because of them, and he wouldn't understand what we use computers for at all.
Saying 'Everything from 1960 has just been incremental except for information technology' is sorta missing the point that pretty much all developments since 1900 except for information technology have been incremental. (At least, if you include 'analog things like radio and television' under 'information technology'.) The last major invention before that was 'steam power', which allowed both shipping and factories, and that was pre-1900.
And if we're recommending books, you need to read 'The Third Wave'.
It's not just yield signs. People stop even when directed not to.
We have an four-way intersection here that starts a two-lane highway from three one-lane roads. The left lane of the highway is created from traffic going straight or turning left onto it, and the right lane is created from the right turn. This right turn lane splits off before the red light, so you don't have to stop or yield or merge or anything. You just get in the right-turn lane, keep driving, and tada, you're on the highway.
Guess what people do? That's right, they stop. So they put up a 'Keep Moving' sign, but people still stop, or at least slow down.
I keep hoping they'll put up those white 'can't change lanes' poles, which might help, but I suspect this is a losing battle. Perhaps if they put up a 'You have your own goddamn lane, you morons, so don't yield to non-existence traffic' sign.
Whenever I rail about traffic rules, I remember that intersection and force myself to remember why the rules are the way they are: Because most people appear to be utter idiots who operate their car by rote and obvious traffic signs, and giving them any extra options would melt their brains.
Yes, that is how it would work in places without any traffic control at all. But good luck actually finding such a location in America. They put stop signs out in the middle of nowhere, where two roads are perfectly straight and have nothing around for miles happen to cross. And at the end of every single little dirt road that reaches a main road is a stop sign.
I have never in my entire life seen two roads that cross without traffic control. I have seen a very obscure road or two terminate into another without a stop sign, but I suspect those were actually private roads. (Like I said, I'm actually _unsure_ about the yield rules at an intersection without traffic control, and it's not because I don't know how to drive, it's because I've literally never been in that situation.)
That is what we are complaining about. Not what the signs do, which is pretty standardize between countries, but the specific ones used everywhere. You reach the end of the road or a crossing of equal roads, in the US, you have a stop sign or a traffic light, period, so you must come to a complete stop regardless of traffic. (Unless you hit the green light, obviously)
The only place you'll ever see a intersection-based yield sign is at right turn lanes, only for people turning right. It is never used for any traffic that would cross other lanes of traffic. Because apparently Americans cannot figure out how that works. (Yield signs pop up a few other places, like the few roundabouts we have and in some merge places, but that's about it.)
Unwittingly, many people that roll stop signs slow down cross traffic resulting in delaying when the 'roller' would be able to pull out if they had just stop so everyone knows what they are doing.
No shit, and it's not just people who are breaking the law. I am constantly astonished at people who move their car around while on side roads.
Oh, yeah, pull forward randomly while I'm coming up on you. That will surely save you a quarter of a second while pulling out, nicely countering the three seconds you lost waiting for me to get past because I slammed on my fucking brakes because it looks like you're insanely about to pull out right in front of me. (A quarter of a second is more than three seconds, right?)
Same with idiots who wait until the last minute to break for a red light. Oh, wow, you're so much 'faster' than the people who started breaking early...you started waiting a good two seconds later. I'm not sure that actually accomplished anything, as you're still waiting at the light, and of course the people going in the other direction weren't sure you were stopping, so waited two seconds longer to go, making your red light longer...but you sure proved your penis^Hstopping power was impressive, didn't you?
I don't quite understand why we don't have a 'Yield to cars on the right' sign.
I.e., a sign that would work exactly like a stop sign with traffic, but there'd be no need to stop at if there was no oncoming traffic.
Obviously they'd only be put at places with good visibility.
I think that, in theory, a four way intersection with all yield signs would work like this, but we don't make them. (I'm fairly certain when everyone is supposed to yield, you're supposed to follow stop-sign rules about who can go when. Or rather, the stop-sign rules are just general rules, we just usually use them at a stop sign but they apply at any time when all cars have been given the same instructions. They'd even apply in a hypothetical intersection without any traffic control at all.)
Yeah, I wasn't trying to say if I cut the ignition and shifted into neutral and then shifted back out the engine would restart. (Or even that I'd end up back in gear.) I've never had any reason to try that, I'll have to do it some day.
However, now I'm confused. You say in modern cars, when you cut the engine off, you're in neutral, no matter what gear you were in before? (Except Park, obviously you'd stay in that.)
While that would, indeed, stop any sort of 'push start', it also would seems to cause several problems:
Does that mean you can't shift to Park? How are you supposed to park the thing after coasting to a stop? (Or after you do what I sometimes do when parking, accidentally turning the car off before I put it in park and only realizing I got the order wrong when I can't get the key out.)
Does that mean you can't shift to Neutral from Park? How do you tow a car you can't start?
Or is this not applicable shifting to Park or Neutral, just the gears that connect the wheels to the engine?
And another question for an out-of-control car: I always heard it was best to just turn the engine off, instead of shifting to neutral because the engine is still engaged, and slowing the car down.
Seems like this situation would render that inoperative. Which would tilt the balance to shifting to neutral but leaving the engine running, so you'd have power steering and brakes.
Power steering isn't needed if the car is moving, and with the car in gear, you can't typically turn the key to a point that the wheel will lock.
No. I was trying to say exactly that, that if the car is in gear, the wheels won't lock, but that's not exactly right, as I was corrected above.
It's based on the key. As the key won't turn off with the car in gear, the wheel lock can't engage with the car in gear. In fact, the wheel lock won't even engage with the key in a position where the car could be in gear, even if it's not.
I just checked on my car. All these tests were in park: I put the key in, turned the car on, and could turn the steering wheel. Then I killed the engine, put the key back to 'on' without starting the car, and I could still, with incredibly difficulty, turn the steering wheel. Same with ACC. (I can change gears in ACC, and, yes, that does seem odd to me. And my radio doesn't work in ACC. I find myself baffled by the premise of ACC.) But turn the key to off, and the steering wheel locks.
As long as the key is in a position where I could change gears, the steering wheel works, even if the actual gear I'm in is Park and the engine is off.
I'd certainly prefer to be able to flip the system on and off conveniently, but it's not really a compelling case to have a key.
I don't think I'm being very clear, but I wasn't suggesting a key. I was just suggesting a killswitch that operates like a key and is placed where the key is placed. (And, hell, if car makers are going to add switches like that to help maintenance, how about adding them under the hood, which would make much more sense.)
Also, the keyless cars don't let you START them from the remote. The remote unlocks it and enables everything (like turning a key from 0 to II), but actually starting the car requires pushing a button on the dashboard.
I know you can get keyless remotes that do remote start, although those seem to be optional features. I randomly checked Ford and Honda, and that's an extra $500 at both, so that's not as much as issue as I thought, as I though they were included. Although as $500 is clearly a scam for cars that already have push start engines (Hey, look, we can charge customers $500 to add a single button to a remote!), I expect at some point remote start will be standard.
And someone else unwittingly 'turning the key to accessory' could be almost as bad, depending on what you're working on, although that will just cause electrical disasters, not mechanical disasters.
However, while I was looking up keyless entry systems, I learned that the remotes actually seem to work by being near the car (Presumably in your possession) and someone attempting to open the door. Unlike older remote unlock systems, which was just a radio signal button, the new 'turn accessories on' remotes are triggered by someone trying to get into the car. (And turns them off when you gain distance from the car.) So that's not much of an issue.
Although it now means holding the keys yourself while you work on the car means...anyone can turn on the accessories by trying to open the car, assuming you are close enough. Which is probably not even something that would occur to people is going to happen.
A easily accessible kill switch is more likely to be inadvertently pressed by a curious child or a mischevious teen passenger traveling with friends, than it will need to be used by someone in an emergency.
You do realize I suggested that it gets put in the same place as the key right? On the steering column?
If you are allowing a curious child to screw around with your steering column while you are driving, you have a much scarier possibility than the idea they will accidentally turn the car off. Like, oh, them grabbing your steering wheel, which the right side of is obviously closer to them than the steering column itself.
And I have no idea what teenagers have to do with anything. No, we should not make it take longer to disable cars in emergencies just because teenagers might screw around. In fact, I have to suggest giving any sort of leeway in that form would just encourage such people to playfully repeatedly push the button for a second and half.
The alternative that I prefer is we standardize all keyless ignition cars on turning off with a 2 second press and hold on the ignition button and a public education campaign.
And then you have to figure out where the button is, and then have to educate everyone...
I cannot imagine what possible purpose it would be to invent some second method of disabling a car besides the one everyone already knows, and from then on you'd have to know two different ways and hopefully remain calm enough to know which kind of car you're in. As opposed to just 'Instinctively grab flat thing sticking out of steering column and twist backwards', which could work in any car if we'd bother to legislate it. (Yes, yes, there are a very few cars that do not have the ignition key on the steering column, but that isn't really important.)
Also, with a button, there's no way to leave the car disabled.
And, perhaps just as important, a 'two second power off' button is, by definition, a software button. Which could, you know, screw up if your car has gone insane.
And if you are working on a car and don't want it to start, you should disconnect the battery, period. If you are trouble shooting with the power attached you should expect the car to start at any point, or if that is a problem, put all of the keys into the glove box. Doing anything else is unsafe.
Uh, assuming the car will start while you're working on it is only unsafe in cars where there's not a ignition disable, such as a key. I have no idea what sort of circular logic you're working on, but it's perfectly safe for me to work on my car and assume it won't start, because my car can only be started by someone getting into it and turning the key. So assuming I am even slightly observant, I am in no danger. (And frankly, if I'm not observant enough to notice someone walking up and climbing in a car that I'm working on, I probably shouldn't be allowed near cars at all. Also, if they don't notice someone has the hood up and is working on the car, they shouldn't be allowed near cars either.)
Me: These computers without hardware power switches are annoying and dangerous to work on without unplugging.
You: It's not safe to work on a computer without unplugging it. You can damage it.
Me: Uh...In the old days, we could just flip the switch on the side and not have to worry about it, as long as we didn't mess with the power supply itself.
You: You should assume that a computer can turn on at any time. Via invisible people walking up and flipping the switch without you, the person working on it, noticing or stopping them. Or something like th
Why should keyless cars have a button only? Make it a simple turn switch, left for off, right for on.
Why complicate it? We already have a place in a car where you can grab a flat thing and turn it forward to start it, and the other way to disable the engine. Everyone knows how to use it, and where it is. No one has to take their eyes off the road to find it, they can find it by reflex. It's called the 'key'.
So put the switch exactly where the key goes in cars with keys, on the steering column, in exactly the same style...it's just not a 'key' and can't be removed. (Nor does it need to be turned forward to start, that's a different button, although there's no reason to not have the switch also do that.)
I think you were assuming 'safety' issue, and, yes, people should disconnect the power if they're working near, for example, the fan, as that will come on regardless of the ignition.
I was thinking more of an oil change or something. There's not really any safety reason to disconnect the battery for that...but you don't want the car starting without any oil in it! Or without water, or while changing a tire, or while trying to replace the power steering line, or whatever.
And some of it, especially electrical problems inside the interior of the car, rather requires the battery be hooked up, and the ignition being turn on to test stuff, and then back off and stuff moved around, then turned on and tested again, and if the car is turned on while stuff is disconnected, you'll end up shorting stuff, or even shocking people.
There's a lot of car maintenance that you don't want someone able to randomly start the car during, but falls short of needing to disconnect the battery. As long as you['re close enough to stop someone from climbing in and turning the key.
But with keyless remote ignition, someone can start the car entirely out of the sight of the car, which can totally screw up not only whatever you're doing, but the actual car itself, depending on what place you're at. So there really should be an easy override on the car for that that doesn't requiring manually unhooking the entire electrical system.
Second, I've always wondered how fast you had to be rolling to "push" start an automatic. Thanks for doing it to your car instead of mine.
My oil light comes on when the car first starts, as there's some sort of problem in the first few seconds of operations. It's not a real problem, it's a bad sensor, but the way the car is designed, that light does not ever cut off if comes on. So I have two choices: Start my car twice or drive with the light on.
I usually do the second, but on long trips (When I start getting paranoid the light might _supposed_ to be on and there actually is something wrong.) I cut my car off for a split second and back on to reset the electronics, usually while going down a hill.
I suspect the minimum speed this works at varies between cars, and in pretty much all cases is much too high to actually start the car with unless you have another car to push it or something.
Third, I think you're wrong about how your car's steering wheel lock works. I know that in my cars, if I turn the wheel until it locks, I can unlock it by inserting the key and turning it to 'on'. But that's in Park. I've never tried it when the car was in gear. Are you really sure that makes any difference?
Actually, thinking about it, you may be right. It might be the key, instead of the gear. I also recall being able to turn my wheels in park.
However, that doesn't actually change the issue, because you normally can't turn turn the ignition entirely off while in gear.
So, the idea that turning off the ignition to stop a runaway car will stop the steering is still wrong, but not because of what I said, it's just wrong in that you can't actually turn them off that far. The steering works regardless of what you do when you're moving. As long as you have the key turned far enough that you could be in a gear besides park (Even if you are actually still in park.), the steering works.
Well, I guess you could insanely shift to park while driving at speed and yank the key out, but at that point you've got more problems than steering!
Now, there are cars where the keys can be removed while driving, but those cars, IIRC, leave the ignition in the 'on' position, so everything I said should still be true.
Hey, dumbass, pushing the button does shut the car off when you're parked. It just doesn't do it when you're moving.
Apparently, in your universe, not only do you check how to run the radio, you also try making an emergency stop while driving. How you do this without driving, I do not know. Or, alternately, and more likely, you're a fucking liar or complete idiot.
I swear to God, we need constant articles on slashdot about this, so we can find out who all these people are who think people should just magically know things in an emergency situation. Then, we can herd them all up, put them in emergency situations, and watch them all die ironically.
The driver's biggest mistake was likely not taking the time beforehand to familiarize himself with the vehicle's unfamiliar controls. Had the driver been prepared, this tragedy could have likely been avoided.
Yes, that is true, but no, he shouldn't have had to do that. We standardize certain controls on a car for a reason. Steering wheels are in the same place, pedals are in the same place, etc.
I see no reason why we shouldn't standardize the 'Cut the car off' manner also. Keyless cars should be required to have (In addition to this brake disengage) a little switch, right where the key was, that you can twist, exactly like a key, and cut the engine off.
This isn't just for drivers. What if the driver has a heart attack or something and collapses, and a passenger is trying to stop the car? Or, here's a fun one, what if someone is working on their car and wants to make it sure cannot be turned on while they're under the hood, and that someone in the house can't innocently press the remote ignition button?
There should be a damn mechanical switch in keyless cars. It doesn't have to be a 'key' that is removable, it doesn't have to ever be used, but there should be a switch that physically disables power to the starter and fuel pump, in an accessible location that everyone knows, period.
I don't know what a 'modern car' is, but my 1993 Pontiac Sunbird (Which only came as automatic) will indeed restart the engine if you've going about 20 or above and in gear. Which is obviously not that useful for starting the car, but it does mean you can turn it off and back on while driving down the road. (I occasionally do it to get a misbehaving 'Check Oil' light to go off.)
I'm pretty certain most car still work this way, that they all can be 'push started' in theory, although good luck actually getting them to that speed.
However, I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with anything, because I'm not sure why someone who cut their ignition to stop a runaway car would turn the ignition back on. Whether or not you have steering is based on whether or not you're in gear, not the state of the ignition. (Otherwise you'd be unable to push or tow cars with dead batteries.) People should just cut their ignition and stop. (Which no one knows how to do on push button ignitions.)
The FMV movie thingy didn't really have anything to do with the decline.
The problem was when people thought that 'FMV' was, itself, a genre, instead of just a way to have cut screens.
We eventually gave up on FMV cutscreens in favor of just using rendered ones, but it hardly signified a 'decline', unless you think cutscreens were a decline, and they've been around forever, if you define 'cutscreen' as 'You can't do anything and you're having a conversation or some plot point is happening.'
Granted, with your comment about 'heavily scripted' games, I get the feeling you don't like them. Which rather makes me wonder how exactly you think games _should_ be. You don't seem to like either plot or action or graphics.
In fact, it appears you want all games to be strategy games. Which, uh, isn't going to happen.
And, incidentally, X-Com, while everyone has fond memories of it, was _crap_ at the mission level. I've never played the later games, but I can't imagine how making it a FPS made it worse.