"Front wheel drive inertia?" WTF? So rear wheel drive cars don't need power steering? Are you just making shit up?
Power steering exists to make steering easier due to the weight of the vehicle resting on the wheels you're trying to turn. It has absolutely zilch to do with what wheels are used to drive the car forward.
Having said that, if the power steering fails on even the heaviest car at 70MPH, it doesn't take anywhere near the effort to steer it manually at that speed that it does at 5 MPH. Manual steering gets progressively easier as speed increases, due to less friction as you try to turn the quicker-rotating wheels. In fact, in a lot of cars you can hardly tell the difference between manual and power steering at speeds above about 40MPH. Braking, I'll give you, although power brake systems typically give you at least 2 full pedal depresses due to retained vacuum, even with complete engine failure. So, unless somebody starts pumping the brakes when their engine dies, which would be a completely moronic thing to do - meaning there's a non-trivial portion of the population who would probably do exactly that - then they won't have a problem bringing the car to a stop, either.
Somebody better at electronics could tell us if you can disrupt an ignition coil before doing bad things to the driver... I'm guessing "yes."
I doubt it. Every old ignition coil I've ever seen was contained in a steel canister, which was bolted to the engine block for a good, solid ground connection; basically, a built-in Faraday cage. You're certainly not going to be able to disrupt it on the secondary side where you're running multiple tens of thousands of volts. There's a usually *very* short wire running from the points in the distributor to the primary side, which could potentially be disrupted, but it would have to be a brutally powerful pulse, considering the length of that wire. On some more recent (relatively speaking, of course) GM cars, the coil was actually mounted in a hollow on the top of the distributor cap, with no exposed wiring at all. On top of that, the way points-style ignitions systems work is that a voltage is applied to the primary side of the coil, and when you want it to spark, the points *open*, and the collapse of the magnetic field from the primary is what induces the high voltage for the spark from the secondary side. This tiny wire would be almost impossible to disrupt on the primary side, because it's not what we typically think of as a control voltage; you'd basically have to induce a permanent current in the primary side, in order to prevent the collapse of the magnetic field. That would mean your EMP would have to be strong enough to cause an arc across the open points, in order to keep current flowing in what would then be an open circuit. I'm guessing anything strong enough to do this is going to fry virtually any living organism in the immediate vicinity, not to mention it would probably have power requirements that would be more expensive than just crashing a few police cars into the target vehicle......
Think long and hard about that Volvo. Do you want a car vulnerable to a very specific RF attack, or do you want one whose Lucas Electric system could fail at any second?
~proud 1800 owner
In England, Lucas Electrics - or more specifically, Joe Lucas, it's founder/owner - was frequently referred to as "Prince of Darkness."
On the other hand, they did invent intermittent wipers and self-dimming headlights.....
Uh, in times past the US has been 100% independent. In fact, prior to WWII the US was very isolationist and doing just fine as an independent sleeper superpower.
Sanctions wouldn't do shit.
Prior to WWII, the US contained a significant portion of the world's manufacturing capabilities. A lot of new and high-tech (for the time) devices were made in part or in full in the USA.
Since then, the US has exported a significant portion of its manufacturing, to the point where it has not only not gained new manufacturing capabilities in the last 30-40 years, but it has actually lost manufacturing capabilities that it once possessed.
As the GP stated, sanctions would bring the current USA to its knees, and rather quickly, I believe.
But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country.
Do not confuse "government" and "country." This is the propaganda that the powers that be like to spread.
The country is (among other things) the ideals the country stands for, and laws, including the constitution, that uphold those ideals. The government is a bunch of people who may or may not support those ideals, and may or may not break laws upholding those ideals when it suits them.
The head never moves, the disk spins under it. Putting a wing shape on the head wouldn't do anything.
The spinning disk creates airflow close to it. This means the air is moving past the head, which creates the same effect as if the head was moving through the air.
I've still got one of those "hideously bad IBM Deskstar drives from back then" and it's still working, I think.
Of course, that's because I pulled it out of service once I started seeing failure rates at work approaching 100%. (I worked at a white box manufacturer/support company at the time) It's sat on a shelf unused since then.
Why? It's wrong. The original warranty applies, from the original purchase date. Eliminating your warranty simply because you've used it is fraud, and I've never seen a single manufacturer - of hard drives, or anything else - do this.
That would probably depend on what the GP calls "old." A 1959 Impala, which is the one in the video, is quite a bit beyond "old" if you ask me. A mid to late '70s New Yorker would qualify more as "old," rather than "classic," and would also be much better in a crash than something from the '50s.
Although the crumple zones on a new car help a lot, so does the extra ton or so of weight on something older. Really, it would depend on what car the "old New Yorker" hit, and how.
Let's put that question a different way: If a US citizen from, say, Virginia, chooses to drive to downtown D.C. and blow up some US government building in protest of some situation created by the government of the US, should we execute them without trial because they're working against the country?
Of course they should still have all the rights a US citizen enjoys. Until they are convicted of a crime against the US, in a public, open trial, they are NOT a criminal, regardless of what the government douchebags of the day claim.
I'm not from the USA, and I think partisan politics, US or otherwise, are the biggest piece of shit blocking progress in the world that we have. They're all assholes. It's just a matter of figuring out who's the smallest asshole, and getting them to run things. Unfortunately, this is a lot easier said than done....
Killing people fighting with the enemy isn't really a problem.
The enemy of whom? The US government, or the citizens of the US? How do we know they're fighting with the enemy? Because the US government says so? But aren't they the same ones that are doing the killing? What evidence have they presented? Oh..it's classified, so we can't see it.
Let's see how that would work in a real situation for the rest of us: Person A shoots person B. Police: Freeze! Police! Drop the gun! Person A: But he was fighting with terrorists! Police: Really? Can you prove that? Person A: I have evidence, but I can't show it to you. You'll just have to trust me. Police: Oh, ok. As long as you have evidence, we don't need to see it. Carry on.
See how stupid that sounds? So why is it ok when the government does it?
Weird. Canada's system isn't that different from yours. We have the House that's filled with elected assholes, and a Senate that's filled with appointed assholes. We have elections where we pick a candidate from our preferred party for the House, and the party with the most seats forms a government. The leader of that party is the Prime Minister. The difference is, we have 3 major parties, plus a few minor ones to pick from. The balance of power in what we call a minority government is usually held by the smallest of the 3 major parties, sometimes even by a minor party.
A minority government means the winning party has the most seats of any party, obviously, but the number of seats held by all the other parties put together is more than the number held by the winning party. This prevents a lot of abuse by the winning party, as they have to compromise with other parties to get anything passed. A majority government has more than half the seats held by the winning party, which leads to abuse as often as not. With the 2 party US system, a majority government is all you ever get.
From an outside view, party patriotism is much higher in the US than Canada. You have states that always elect R, and states that always elect D. The politicians don't concern themselves with those, because they know nothing is going to change there. It's the swing states that are the issue, of which there aren't many. So, (pulling numbers out of the air, I'll admit) if 45% of the country always votes D because it's D, and 45% always votes R because it's R, (ironic that I typoed that, and hit Shift-4, instead of Shift-r, so it was "always votes $") then the most any 3rd party would ever be able to get is 10%, which is useless for winning an election, although it might give them a nice balance of power.
The issue is, your population is conditioned to think that only D or R is a legitimate vote. I know, there's the whole electoral college crap, which does complicate matters somewhat, but a sea change in the political climate in the US is entirely possible, even with the current system in place. You just have to get a big chunk of the population, on both sides of the party divide, to start seeing third party as a legitimate vote, rather than a protest vote. Unfortunately, there's so much "the D/R party is evil incarnate, we need to vote R/D to stop them from ruining the universe" attitude, that I don't think that's going to happen soon, without an ENORMOUS effort from some grassroots people.
You're making the assumption that these people are actually operating as enemy combatants, for which the only assurances we have are the government's say so. They won't show us any evidence, as they say it's classified. They don't show the accused any evidence either, for the same reason, plus they don't want to "tip their hand."
At best, the government has a one-sided interpretation of evidence. At worst, it's a completely made up fabrication designed to eliminate someone who has whistleblower evidence.
Really? So Christian churches 2000 years ago had electric lights, 6 piece rock bands, and huge sound systems? Wait...that's right....there were no Christian churches 2000 years ago, because Jesus was barely even born. Most scholars put his earliest possible birth year at 7 BC. He lived till at least his early 30s, possibly as old as 40, and Christianity as a religion wasn't founded until his death, as the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus died and was raised to save us from our sins. Most of the principles and teachings of Jesus became a part of Christianity, but without the "saviour" part, it's just another new-age life philosophy. Without Jesus being dead and raised, there is no Christianity. So, Christianity as a religion is, at most, AD 2013 + 7 BC - 31 years of life = 1989 years old.
Since we know that rules have changed within the Christian church, which is where Protestantism came from with the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, you're obviously both trolling, and full of shit. Incidentally, Christians can also protest against the church itself, as that's where the name "Protestant" came from. They were protesting the doctrines, rituals and leaders (among other things) of the Catholic church, and ended up forming their own denominations.
So, when renaissance Christians protested their leaders, they could leave and take parts of their religion and leave to form a related-but-different one. When modern US citizens protest their leaders, they get stalked to the ends of the earth, slandered, and their lives made a living hell for being unpatriotic to their government, which said government equates with the country as a whole.
I guess the 16th century Catholic Church was more enlightened and free than the 21st century US government.
OT, but why do many people differentiate between Catholics and Christians? Catholics ARE Christians, but not necessarily the reverse is true.
I think you answered your own question, there. Why do people differentiate between pit bulls and dogs? Why do people differentiate between Chevrolets and cars? Why do people differentiate between cell phones and electronics? Why do people differentiate between politicians and humans? Wait....ok...forget that last one...
People differentiate because a subgroup and a general classification are not the same thing.
"Worship" wasn't really the right word for the GP to use, I don't think, but there is definitely a heck of a lot of Mary-veneration/devotion in Catholicism as a whole. Mary is prayed to, praised, hailed, etc, and there is a non-miniscule line of thought that states that Mary plays a role in salvation. This is only, as far as I know, based on the fact that she's seen as the the "Mother of God," if you will, by the Catholic Church. There's nothing scriptural about it, unless they misinterpreted the "Blessed are you, for being chosen to give birth to Jesus" part. As a devout <fill in religion here>, it would be an awesome position to be in, to give birth to the saviour of your people, certainly. But that in no way elevates her into the position she's put in by the Catholic Church. She's still a sinner, she's still imperfect according to both Old Testament and New Testament teachings, she's still just as much in need of Jesus' saving purpose as everyone else in the world.
Pre-Jesus, in Judaism, only certain people could come into the presence of God in the inner temple, because they had been through an elaborate spiritual cleansing process just prior to it. During the crucifixion, the curtain stopping people from entering the inner temple was torn, signifying the removal of restrictions. This is commonly believed to be God stating that everyone can now come speak directly to God, with no intercessor necessary. The Catholics have basically ignored this in a large sense, and have replaced the Jewish priests with Mary, as their intercessors to God.
Who are actively working to cause direct physical harm to the US and it's interests.
Says who? (Hint: the same people who want to kill them) Where is the evidence? (Hint: it's classified. Nobody can ever see it) Where is the trial? (Hint: there isn't one) Where is their chance to defend themselves against their accusers? (I think you get the picture.)
There is absolutely no difference, legally, between a presidential execution order and a Kim Jong il statement to the effect of: "I don't like you. You need to die."
The fact that you support this kind of abuse speaks volumes as to your limited thought processes, and bias against anyone who isn't you.
Really? You didn't realize that computer hacking is illegal in pretty much every civilized country in the world, including the US? Doesn't matter where the target is, just that the hacker operated from within the US.
Slashdot Mirror
"Front wheel drive inertia?" WTF? So rear wheel drive cars don't need power steering? Are you just making shit up?
Power steering exists to make steering easier due to the weight of the vehicle resting on the wheels you're trying to turn. It has absolutely zilch to do with what wheels are used to drive the car forward.
Having said that, if the power steering fails on even the heaviest car at 70MPH, it doesn't take anywhere near the effort to steer it manually at that speed that it does at 5 MPH. Manual steering gets progressively easier as speed increases, due to less friction as you try to turn the quicker-rotating wheels. In fact, in a lot of cars you can hardly tell the difference between manual and power steering at speeds above about 40MPH.
Braking, I'll give you, although power brake systems typically give you at least 2 full pedal depresses due to retained vacuum, even with complete engine failure. So, unless somebody starts pumping the brakes when their engine dies, which would be a completely moronic thing to do - meaning there's a non-trivial portion of the population who would probably do exactly that - then they won't have a problem bringing the car to a stop, either.
Somebody better at electronics could tell us if you can disrupt an ignition coil before doing bad things to the driver... I'm guessing "yes."
I doubt it. Every old ignition coil I've ever seen was contained in a steel canister, which was bolted to the engine block for a good, solid ground connection; basically, a built-in Faraday cage.
You're certainly not going to be able to disrupt it on the secondary side where you're running multiple tens of thousands of volts.
There's a usually *very* short wire running from the points in the distributor to the primary side, which could potentially be disrupted, but it would have to be a brutally powerful pulse, considering the length of that wire. On some more recent (relatively speaking, of course) GM cars, the coil was actually mounted in a hollow on the top of the distributor cap, with no exposed wiring at all.
On top of that, the way points-style ignitions systems work is that a voltage is applied to the primary side of the coil, and when you want it to spark, the points *open*, and the collapse of the magnetic field from the primary is what induces the high voltage for the spark from the secondary side.
This tiny wire would be almost impossible to disrupt on the primary side, because it's not what we typically think of as a control voltage; you'd basically have to induce a permanent current in the primary side, in order to prevent the collapse of the magnetic field. That would mean your EMP would have to be strong enough to cause an arc across the open points, in order to keep current flowing in what would then be an open circuit.
I'm guessing anything strong enough to do this is going to fry virtually any living organism in the immediate vicinity, not to mention it would probably have power requirements that would be more expensive than just crashing a few police cars into the target vehicle......
Think long and hard about that Volvo. Do you want a car vulnerable to a very specific RF attack, or do you want one whose Lucas Electric system could fail at any second?
~proud 1800 owner
In England, Lucas Electrics - or more specifically, Joe Lucas, it's founder/owner - was frequently referred to as "Prince of Darkness."
On the other hand, they did invent intermittent wipers and self-dimming headlights.....
It reeked of pot. Big deal.
Scents are not visible.
Uh, in times past the US has been 100% independent. In fact, prior to WWII the US was very isolationist and doing just fine as an independent sleeper superpower.
Sanctions wouldn't do shit.
Prior to WWII, the US contained a significant portion of the world's manufacturing capabilities. A lot of new and high-tech (for the time) devices were made in part or in full in the USA.
Since then, the US has exported a significant portion of its manufacturing, to the point where it has not only not gained new manufacturing capabilities in the last 30-40 years, but it has actually lost manufacturing capabilities that it once possessed.
As the GP stated, sanctions would bring the current USA to its knees, and rather quickly, I believe.
But the sad fact is, he's also betraying his country.
Do not confuse "government" and "country." This is the propaganda that the powers that be like to spread.
The country is (among other things) the ideals the country stands for, and laws, including the constitution, that uphold those ideals.
The government is a bunch of people who may or may not support those ideals, and may or may not break laws upholding those ideals when it suits them.
The head never moves, the disk spins under it. Putting a wing shape on the head wouldn't do anything.
The spinning disk creates airflow close to it. This means the air is moving past the head, which creates the same effect as if the head was moving through the air.
I've always wondered why they didn't just use a near vacuum enclosure
The heads have to have air or some gas to make them "fly". In a vacuum, the heads grind the oxide off the platters.
So THAT'S what IBM did wrong with the DeathStars!!
Geedy Lee hates you and your slight. You should consider yourself lucky to ever hear such wonderful music in the first place, loser.
Geddy Lee hates that you misspelled his name....
I've still got one of those "hideously bad IBM Deskstar drives from back then" and it's still working, I think.
Of course, that's because I pulled it out of service once I started seeing failure rates at work approaching 100%. (I worked at a white box manufacturer/support company at the time) It's sat on a shelf unused since then.
Mod parent up
Why? It's wrong.
The original warranty applies, from the original purchase date. Eliminating your warranty simply because you've used it is fraud, and I've never seen a single manufacturer - of hard drives, or anything else - do this.
You'd lose that bet.
And likely only once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g
That would probably depend on what the GP calls "old." A 1959 Impala, which is the one in the video, is quite a bit beyond "old" if you ask me. A mid to late '70s New Yorker would qualify more as "old," rather than "classic," and would also be much better in a crash than something from the '50s.
Although the crumple zones on a new car help a lot, so does the extra ton or so of weight on something older. Really, it would depend on what car the "old New Yorker" hit, and how.
Let's put that question a different way:
If a US citizen from, say, Virginia, chooses to drive to downtown D.C. and blow up some US government building in protest of some situation created by the government of the US, should we execute them without trial because they're working against the country?
Of course they should still have all the rights a US citizen enjoys. Until they are convicted of a crime against the US, in a public, open trial, they are NOT a criminal, regardless of what the government douchebags of the day claim.
I'm not from the USA, and I think partisan politics, US or otherwise, are the biggest piece of shit blocking progress in the world that we have.
They're all assholes. It's just a matter of figuring out who's the smallest asshole, and getting them to run things. Unfortunately, this is a lot easier said than done....
slashdot captcha: pinhead
how are the captchas so spot on!!
They're provided by the NSA.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.....
Killing people fighting with the enemy isn't really a problem.
The enemy of whom? The US government, or the citizens of the US?
How do we know they're fighting with the enemy? Because the US government says so? But aren't they the same ones that are doing the killing? What evidence have they presented? Oh..it's classified, so we can't see it.
Let's see how that would work in a real situation for the rest of us:
Person A shoots person B.
Police: Freeze! Police! Drop the gun!
Person A: But he was fighting with terrorists!
Police: Really? Can you prove that?
Person A: I have evidence, but I can't show it to you. You'll just have to trust me.
Police: Oh, ok. As long as you have evidence, we don't need to see it. Carry on.
See how stupid that sounds? So why is it ok when the government does it?
Weird. Canada's system isn't that different from yours. We have the House that's filled with elected assholes, and a Senate that's filled with appointed assholes. We have elections where we pick a candidate from our preferred party for the House, and the party with the most seats forms a government. The leader of that party is the Prime Minister.
The difference is, we have 3 major parties, plus a few minor ones to pick from. The balance of power in what we call a minority government is usually held by the smallest of the 3 major parties, sometimes even by a minor party.
A minority government means the winning party has the most seats of any party, obviously, but the number of seats held by all the other parties put together is more than the number held by the winning party. This prevents a lot of abuse by the winning party, as they have to compromise with other parties to get anything passed. A majority government has more than half the seats held by the winning party, which leads to abuse as often as not. With the 2 party US system, a majority government is all you ever get.
From an outside view, party patriotism is much higher in the US than Canada. You have states that always elect R, and states that always elect D. The politicians don't concern themselves with those, because they know nothing is going to change there. It's the swing states that are the issue, of which there aren't many. So, (pulling numbers out of the air, I'll admit) if 45% of the country always votes D because it's D, and 45% always votes R because it's R, (ironic that I typoed that, and hit Shift-4, instead of Shift-r, so it was "always votes $") then the most any 3rd party would ever be able to get is 10%, which is useless for winning an election, although it might give them a nice balance of power.
The issue is, your population is conditioned to think that only D or R is a legitimate vote. I know, there's the whole electoral college crap, which does complicate matters somewhat, but a sea change in the political climate in the US is entirely possible, even with the current system in place. You just have to get a big chunk of the population, on both sides of the party divide, to start seeing third party as a legitimate vote, rather than a protest vote.
Unfortunately, there's so much "the D/R party is evil incarnate, we need to vote R/D to stop them from ruining the universe" attitude, that I don't think that's going to happen soon, without an ENORMOUS effort from some grassroots people.
You're making the assumption that these people are actually operating as enemy combatants, for which the only assurances we have are the government's say so.
They won't show us any evidence, as they say it's classified.
They don't show the accused any evidence either, for the same reason, plus they don't want to "tip their hand."
At best, the government has a one-sided interpretation of evidence. At worst, it's a completely made up fabrication designed to eliminate someone who has whistleblower evidence.
Really? So Christian churches 2000 years ago had electric lights, 6 piece rock bands, and huge sound systems?
Wait...that's right....there were no Christian churches 2000 years ago, because Jesus was barely even born.
Most scholars put his earliest possible birth year at 7 BC. He lived till at least his early 30s, possibly as old as 40, and Christianity as a religion wasn't founded until his death, as the whole point of Christianity is that Jesus died and was raised to save us from our sins. Most of the principles and teachings of Jesus became a part of Christianity, but without the "saviour" part, it's just another new-age life philosophy. Without Jesus being dead and raised, there is no Christianity.
So, Christianity as a religion is, at most, AD 2013 + 7 BC - 31 years of life = 1989 years old.
Since we know that rules have changed within the Christian church, which is where Protestantism came from with the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, you're obviously both trolling, and full of shit.
Incidentally, Christians can also protest against the church itself, as that's where the name "Protestant" came from. They were protesting the doctrines, rituals and leaders (among other things) of the Catholic church, and ended up forming their own denominations.
So, when renaissance Christians protested their leaders, they could leave and take parts of their religion and leave to form a related-but-different one. When modern US citizens protest their leaders, they get stalked to the ends of the earth, slandered, and their lives made a living hell for being unpatriotic to their government, which said government equates with the country as a whole.
I guess the 16th century Catholic Church was more enlightened and free than the 21st century US government.
OT, but why do many people differentiate between Catholics and Christians? Catholics ARE Christians, but not necessarily the reverse is true.
I think you answered your own question, there.
Why do people differentiate between pit bulls and dogs?
Why do people differentiate between Chevrolets and cars?
Why do people differentiate between cell phones and electronics?
Why do people differentiate between politicians and humans? Wait....ok...forget that last one...
People differentiate because a subgroup and a general classification are not the same thing.
"Worship" wasn't really the right word for the GP to use, I don't think, but there is definitely a heck of a lot of Mary-veneration/devotion in Catholicism as a whole.
Mary is prayed to, praised, hailed, etc, and there is a non-miniscule line of thought that states that Mary plays a role in salvation.
This is only, as far as I know, based on the fact that she's seen as the the "Mother of God," if you will, by the Catholic Church. There's nothing scriptural about it, unless they misinterpreted the "Blessed are you, for being chosen to give birth to Jesus" part. As a devout <fill in religion here>, it would be an awesome position to be in, to give birth to the saviour of your people, certainly. But that in no way elevates her into the position she's put in by the Catholic Church. She's still a sinner, she's still imperfect according to both Old Testament and New Testament teachings, she's still just as much in need of Jesus' saving purpose as everyone else in the world.
Pre-Jesus, in Judaism, only certain people could come into the presence of God in the inner temple, because they had been through an elaborate spiritual cleansing process just prior to it. During the crucifixion, the curtain stopping people from entering the inner temple was torn, signifying the removal of restrictions. This is commonly believed to be God stating that everyone can now come speak directly to God, with no intercessor necessary.
The Catholics have basically ignored this in a large sense, and have replaced the Jewish priests with Mary, as their intercessors to God.
Who are actively working to cause direct physical harm to the US and it's interests.
Says who? (Hint: the same people who want to kill them)
Where is the evidence? (Hint: it's classified. Nobody can ever see it)
Where is the trial? (Hint: there isn't one)
Where is their chance to defend themselves against their accusers? (I think you get the picture.)
There is absolutely no difference, legally, between a presidential execution order and a Kim Jong il statement to the effect of: "I don't like you. You need to die."
The fact that you support this kind of abuse speaks volumes as to your limited thought processes, and bias against anyone who isn't you.
Really? You didn't realize that computer hacking is illegal in pretty much every civilized country in the world, including the US? Doesn't matter where the target is, just that the hacker operated from within the US.
it's still illegal
Really? What law is being violated? Who could make or enforce such a law?
I'm not sure whether you're incredibly naive, or just trolling.
Computer hacking is illegal. On both sides of the border. Don't be intentionally idiotic.