Thats typically because fully air-gapped machines are terribly useful, unless they inherently do not need to communicate for the task they are doing. for example.... uh.
What use is an air-gapped machine? How do you communicate, how do you control it? Build your own physical network infrastructure (preferrably with blackjack and hookers)?
An AC claiming to be Ethanol-fueled stated that a manual transmission is safer when your brakes get hacked because you can still engine break. He did this by giving the unfortunate example of shifting into 1st. He didn't explicitly state he would shift directly into first(*), and I took it to mean shifting into 1st after passing through all the other gears (yes, he still should have written 2nd). You took it as shifting directly into 1st, but even if that was his intention, it was simply an invalid example of a largely valid principle: you can slow down a manual transmission by engine braking.
And you can slow down an automatic transmission by engine braking.
Anyhow, I took your ambiguous statement as pertaining to engine braking (which, if dangerous, would refute his argument) rather than to switching directly into 1st gear (which is dangerous but missing the point). And now you're accusing me of "intentionally misquoting" because I didn't automatically assume you missed the point (which, as it turns out, you did).
Ehm, i maybe accused you of intentionally misquoting because..
(*) which would indeed be a very stupid thing to try at highway speeds though it won't kill you at any speed;
...because here it goes again. You still try to make it look like I had said shifting into 1st gear would kill you, you still didn't understand what i was originally saying, you're looking dumber and dumber every second.
Since we're just in the process of going back to the start, let me quote myself, again:
Good luck with that at any speed which would have the potential to kill you
Lets systematically chop this sentence into pieces which you can try to understand one at a time. Perhaps it's most useful to start with this one:
speed which would have the potential to kill you
This establishes the notion of a velocity at of above which you can potentially, or likely, die in a car. 5 mph is not one of them. 50 mph is one of them. 100mph is clearly one of them. Do you understand so far?
Now for the other part:
Good luck with that at
As hopefully becomes obvious now, all i was saying is that it will be hard shifting into 1st gear at such a speed.
Did you finally get it now?
at around 40 km/h or less, assuming you succeed to do it, it might deal some damage to the gearbox, but it's unlikely to kill you.
Yes, no shit sherlock. see above for an explanation why you're utterly and repeatedly missing the point.
It wouldn't matter if the transmission blew up too. The entire point of the situation or hypothetical is to keep your life at the cost of the car instead of losing both
My point was, if the transmission blows up, you're losing the ability to engine-brake, is all.
Good luck with that at any speed which would have the potential to kill you
The point of downshifting is to go from a speed which can potentially kill you to a speed that most likely won't kill you.
Yes. Better have free way ahead. However, the GP sounded like shifting right into 1st, which obviously isn't possible at considerable speed
Or turn off the ignition.
Great idea. Just don't turn the wheel, because the steering column locks. Hope you're dying on a straightaway!
Actually, the cars I know won't engage steering lock unless you actually pull out the keys. Things might be different in the USA, admittedly.
No, you're wasting gas that way, since you still need some to keep the idle rev. Non-ancient cars will actually shut off fuel injection when gravity happens to temporarily become 'fuel'
On the very limited number of cars that support this feature, it will occur regardless of whether you're in neutral or not.
No, and LOL. What do you think happens when the car is in neutral and you shut off the fuel?
With some practice, you can time the gas and the clutch just right so that the wheels will lose traction ("spin") when starting yet the engine doesn't go to insanely high RPM ("revving").
That does not work with lower-hp engines. Please find out at what revs you get the highest torque out of common gasoline engines.
And this can even be done with a very modest engine
No.
all that's needed is mastership of the pedals...
...and the way you keep talking about "mastership of the pedals" makes me suspect that this is a skill you very recently acquired. Otherwise you would kind of realize it's no big deal, and fairly easy to master.
If you can't do this, then I also wouldn't want to be close behind you when you attempt to start on a slope.
This is ridiculous. Again, like it was a big deal to properly start on a slope.
You keep basing your arguments on the wrong assumption that i somehow wasn't able to properly drive a manual transmission car. It really does not make sense to keep insisting that was the case. After driving all kinds of cars and motorcycle, and having done nearly 200,000 km on the Autobahn, I'm pretty sure I have 'mastered the pedals'. But thanks for your amateur insight.
[blah blah](A) do not know the first thing about engine braking (in which case my ridicule was justified) or (B) were mistakenly thinking about handbraking when making that "at any speed" statement and are now trying to cover up your mistake (in which case your current outrage is not justified).
or (C) you're completely and utterly missing the point, failed to read the commend you're replying to and generally make yourself look like an idiot right now.
designed for efficient performance on the Autobahn.
That sounds like you're repeating a TV ad about it, heh. Seriously, what does that even mean? Are you under the impression that cars for markets outside Germany were less performant?
Sure. I noticed that issue when writing the comment, but ignored it because it really does not make a difference.
And, for all we know or could tell, our intelligence might just as well be artificial. Not exactly what I believe, but it might be, and again, it does not matter. (If it does, feel free to point out why strong AI might be free from what we perceive as 'human error').
What is wrong with you? Your reply to my other comment already made no sense, this makes even less. Please add 'practicing basic logic' to my previous suggestion to practice basic reading comprehension.
Government takes out my brakes? No problem, shift into first and engine-brake going 10 mph down the hill.
Good luck with that at any speed which would have the potential to kill you
Any chance you're confusing engine braking (using the air that is pumped through the motor to dissipate energy) with applying the handbrake? Now, engine braking in first gear at high speed is likely to destroy your engine in addition to not being very effective, but I wouldn't think the chances of it killing you outright are that high.
At this point i'd like to recommend you practicing basic reading comprehension. No, pretty sure i don't confuse engine braking with the handbrake. Me not mentioning handbrakes at all gives a slight clue regarding this matter. My point is, you won't even be able to get the 1st gear engaged at any considerable speed (and if your do manage it, you destroy the engine (as you point out, supporting my point), likely destroying whatever was dissipating the energy before.
Get caught in a storm or drive into a lake? I can simply unlock the door or roll down my windows and swim out, no power components to sieze up or go inactive.
Car doors can usually be opened from the inside even when locked.
Disclaimer: i drive manual transmission too, but for none of the reasons you mention. My reasons are: a) simpler/more robust design (i.e. one less part which can fail fail), b) more control, c) avoid ridicule
You're driving manual and don't know how to engine brake? I got some ridicule for you right here. In my home country, you can't even pass the on-road driving exam if you don't demonstrate routine use of engine braking.
Uh, i was under the impression that i'm confusing engine braking with hand braking, now i'm not to know engine braking at all? You're not making much sense here, my dear friend. If you're representative for people in ``your home country'' then i'd much rather not drive there, thanks. I can go faster and safer here, anyway.
Maybe wanna try again?
(*) Damn you are even confused about what was 'bitten' here. Protip: not people.
Yeah that actually is a bad thing, since with such a car you're spending multiple times the necessary energy to get from A to B while not being any faster, in practical terms, than, say, I in my car which I easily get over 50 mpg (still ~30 mpg when driving 'wasteful', i.e. frequently going over 85 mph; ~15 when really pushing it (>110 mph))
Slashdot Mirror
As hard as it may be to remember these days, it is possible to communicate without the Internet
We're talking about systems here, not intersocial communication.
If you air-gap a machine, then you need to hire people to maintain the machine locally. This just does not scale.
especially when that communication need only be local
For instance?
eh and that should ofc read 'terribly useless'
Thats typically because fully air-gapped machines are terribly useful, unless they inherently do not need to communicate for the task they are doing. for example .... uh.
What use is an air-gapped machine? How do you communicate, how do you control it? Build your own physical network infrastructure (preferrably with blackjack and hookers)?
Let's go back to where this started, shall we?
Sure.
An AC claiming to be Ethanol-fueled stated that a manual transmission is safer when your brakes get hacked because you can still engine break. He did this by giving the unfortunate example of shifting into 1st. He didn't explicitly state he would shift directly into first(*), and I took it to mean shifting into 1st after passing through all the other gears (yes, he still should have written 2nd). You took it as shifting directly into 1st, but even if that was his intention, it was simply an invalid example of a largely valid principle: you can slow down a manual transmission by engine braking.
And you can slow down an automatic transmission by engine braking.
Anyhow, I took your ambiguous statement as pertaining to engine braking (which, if dangerous, would refute his argument) rather than to switching directly into 1st gear (which is dangerous but missing the point). And now you're accusing me of "intentionally misquoting" because I didn't automatically assume you missed the point (which, as it turns out, you did).
Ehm, i maybe accused you of intentionally misquoting because..
(*) which would indeed be a very stupid thing to try at highway speeds though it won't kill you at any speed;
...because here it goes again. You still try to make it look like I had said shifting into 1st gear would kill you, you still didn't understand what i was originally saying, you're looking dumber and dumber every second.
Since we're just in the process of going back to the start, let me quote myself, again:
Good luck with that at any speed which would have the potential to kill you
Lets systematically chop this sentence into pieces which you can try to understand one at a time.
Perhaps it's most useful to start with this one:
speed which would have the potential to kill you
This establishes the notion of a velocity at of above which you can potentially, or likely, die in a car. 5 mph is not one of them. 50 mph is one of them. 100mph is clearly one of them.
Do you understand so far?
Now for the other part:
Good luck with that at
As hopefully becomes obvious now, all i was saying is that it will be hard shifting into 1st gear at such a speed.
Did you finally get it now?
at around 40 km/h or less, assuming you succeed to do it, it might deal some damage to the gearbox, but it's unlikely to kill you.
Yes, no shit sherlock. see above for an explanation why you're utterly and repeatedly missing the point.
It wouldn't matter if the transmission blew up too. The entire point of the situation or hypothetical is to keep your life at the cost of the car instead of losing both
My point was, if the transmission blows up, you're losing the ability to engine-brake, is all.
Will Commercial Space Travel Blast Off in 2014?
Hence, no.
Turning off the ignition locks the steering wheel.
Hm. The (European) cars I drove wouldn't lock the steering wheel unless you actually pull out the key.
But yeah, if that happens, that would be quite dangerous
Yep, that's fairly obvious, except for the ``â¦.'' part which I don't understand.
Others, then again, might buy cars for compensating a small dick.
Good luck with that at any speed which would have the potential to kill you
The point of downshifting is to go from a speed which can potentially kill you to a speed that most likely won't kill you.
Yes. Better have free way ahead. However, the GP sounded like shifting right into 1st, which obviously isn't possible at considerable speed
Or turn off the ignition.
Great idea. Just don't turn the wheel, because the steering column locks. Hope you're dying on a straightaway!
Actually, the cars I know won't engage steering lock unless you actually pull out the keys. Things might be different in the USA, admittedly.
No, you're wasting gas that way, since you still need some to keep the idle rev. Non-ancient cars will actually shut off fuel injection when gravity happens to temporarily become 'fuel'
On the very limited number of cars that support this feature, it will occur regardless of whether you're in neutral or not.
No, and LOL. What do you think happens when the car is in neutral and you shut off the fuel?
With some practice, you can time the gas and the clutch just right so that the wheels will lose traction ("spin") when starting yet the engine doesn't go to insanely high RPM ("revving").
That does not work with lower-hp engines. Please find out at what revs you get the highest torque out of common gasoline engines.
And this can even be done with a very modest engine
No.
all that's needed is mastership of the pedals...
...and the way you keep talking about "mastership of the pedals" makes me suspect that this is a skill you very recently acquired. Otherwise you would kind of realize it's no big deal, and fairly easy to master.
If you can't do this, then I also wouldn't want to be close behind you when you attempt to start on a slope.
This is ridiculous. Again, like it was a big deal to properly start on a slope.
You keep basing your arguments on the wrong assumption that i somehow wasn't able to properly drive a manual transmission car. It really does not make sense to keep insisting that was the case. After driving all kinds of cars and motorcycle, and having done nearly 200,000 km on the Autobahn, I'm pretty sure I have 'mastered the pedals'. But thanks for your amateur insight.
damn if only there was a way to preview commends
Forgot your main rant..
[blah blah](A) do not know the first thing about engine braking (in which case my ridicule was justified) or (B) were mistakenly thinking about handbraking when making that "at any speed" statement and are now trying to cover up your mistake (in which case your current outrage is not justified).
or (C) you're completely and utterly missing the point, failed to read the commend you're replying to and generally make yourself look like an idiot right now.
Since you stated that "[engine braking] at any speed [emphais added] (...) would have the potential to kill you",
Oh, i get it, you can't read. Or else, you're intentionally misquoting. Let's see what i actually wrote:
Good luck with [shifting into 1st gear] at any speed which would have the potential to kill you
Aha.
And that will kill you... how?
You do understand the purpose of brakes, right? And the danger associated with losing all abilities to brake, including the engine.
Well - as efficient as it gets at high speed, since air drag is proportional to velocity^2
designed for efficient performance on the Autobahn.
That sounds like you're repeating a TV ad about it, heh. Seriously, what does that even mean? Are you under the impression that cars for markets outside Germany were less performant?
What about the broken traction control?
The car is capable, but that doesn't mean I have to use that capability.
The car has to have the capability all the time, meaning it's a) heavier than necessary and b) has a higher baseline fuel consumption
I can spin my wheels (in an automatic, without dropping gear, with traction control on)
Sounds to me like your traction control is broken
[I can spin my wheels] And I still get 40 to the gallon while driving at high speeds.
Eh, sure.
I would say it would be even better if it caused the engine to blow a rod and locked up because then you could feather the clutch
Yeah, or it might blow the transmission to dust, ending you up in permanent neutral ;)
they are the front tires, you lose steering, if the rear, they try to swing around in front of you.
Indeed
doesn't change the fact that your OS sucks.
Sure. I noticed that issue when writing the comment, but ignored it because it really does not make a difference.
And, for all we know or could tell, our intelligence might just as well be artificial. Not exactly what I believe, but it might be, and again, it does not matter. (If it does, feel free to point out why strong AI might be free from what we perceive as 'human error').
What is wrong with you? Your reply to my other comment already made no sense, this makes even less.
Please add 'practicing basic logic' to my previous suggestion to practice basic reading comprehension.
Wow... just... wow.
Well, I'll bite back.(*)
Government takes out my brakes? No problem, shift into first and engine-brake going 10 mph down the hill.
Good luck with that at any speed which would have the potential to kill you
Any chance you're confusing engine braking (using the air that is pumped through the motor to dissipate energy) with applying the handbrake? Now, engine braking in first gear at high speed is likely to destroy your engine in addition to not being very effective, but I wouldn't think the chances of it killing you outright are that high.
At this point i'd like to recommend you practicing basic reading comprehension. No, pretty sure i don't confuse engine braking with the handbrake. Me not mentioning handbrakes at all gives a slight clue regarding this matter. My point is, you won't even be able to get the 1st gear engaged at any considerable speed (and if your do manage it, you destroy the engine (as you point out, supporting my point), likely destroying whatever was dissipating the energy before.
Get caught in a storm or drive into a lake? I can simply unlock the door or roll down my windows and swim out, no power components to sieze up or go inactive.
Car doors can usually be opened from the inside even when locked.
...except when opening them against a significant pressure gradient. Car doors often cannot be opened in a sinking car, whether they are locked or not. And even if they can be opened, leaving them alone and going for the windows gives a better survival chance.
So, you agree with me on the door matter.
Disclaimer: i drive manual transmission too, but for none of the reasons you mention. My reasons are: a) simpler/more robust design (i.e. one less part which can fail fail), b) more control, c) avoid ridicule
You're driving manual and don't know how to engine brake? I got some ridicule for you right here. In my home country, you can't even pass the on-road driving exam if you don't demonstrate routine use of engine braking.
Uh, i was under the impression that i'm confusing engine braking with hand braking, now i'm not to know engine braking at all? You're not making much sense here, my dear friend. If you're representative for people in ``your home country'' then i'd much rather not drive there, thanks. I can go faster and safer here, anyway.
Maybe wanna try again?
(*) Damn you are even confused about what was 'bitten' here. Protip: not people.
Yeah that actually is a bad thing, since with such a car you're spending multiple times the necessary energy to get from A to B while not being any faster, in practical terms, than, say, I in my car which I easily get over 50 mpg (still ~30 mpg when driving 'wasteful', i.e. frequently going over 85 mph; ~15 when really pushing it (>110 mph))
if you can do it without having to rev up and clutch in quickly, then you clearly have too much horse power and mpg like a truck
What you describe isn't what GGP proposed. Also, what you describe can easily take a mile.