follow the thread below. someone asked the same question and provided arguments, and i responded.
And your responses are naive at best, flat-out false at worst.
It's not economically viable for most organisations to keep sufficient developer staff to not only maintain and support their own unique in-house software, but also their own (vendor unsupported) forks of whatever OSS software they might be using. Which is precisely why they don't do it, and instead do things like pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to companies like Oracle for support.
Most companies have zero interest in maintaining software development staff *at all*, because they're not in the software development business. At *best* they're usually tolerated as a means to an end. The idea that the average company would actively seek to create and/or increase the size of a department that generates no revenue and requires skilled, expensive employees, for nebulous and practically unmeasurable benefits, is unrealistic.
The simple fact is that OSS is not the be-all and end-all, and most of the arguments you make against proprietary software are either equally applicable to OSS, or simply not relevant to anything except a miniscule proportion of corner cases (eg: code auditing).
Only a windows weenie would expect 10 year's of binary compatibility.
About the only platforms that *don't* offer 10 (if not more) years of binary compatibility - or at least make attempting it a high priority - are Linux and OS X (and I don't expect it to be true of OS X for much longer).
No, the importance of what they have to say has to do with how hard they work at helping to get it implemented -- doing work for the cause, OR contributing monetarily.
It does not. It stands alone.
Again, you are arguing that people with a surplus of some resource - time, money, cocaine, etc - should be able to pretend that resource is "speech", thereby giving them more of a "right to free speech" than those who don't. Which inevitably means you are arguing the rich have more of a right to free speech than the poor.
If someone wants to exercise their free speech, then they should write a letter to their representative. Sending him some money is no more different than sending him a few hookers, and neither is in any way remotely the same as "speech".
Plus, just because one side spends a lot doesn't mean they'll win.
Never suggested otherwise. I will, however, say that the side spending very little is pretty much guaranteed NOT to win (or even be in the running, for all intents and purposes).
However, that's irrelevant. The argument here is not about how much each side has to spend and whether than can ensure victory, it's that giving money to any side has nothing whatsoever to do with "free speech".
No, it's bribery. Which is, I suppose, "the ultimate form of speech" if you're of a particularly mindset. However, it's not one that should be allowed (let alone encouraged) in a modern democracy.
You are, after all, saying that the value or importance of what someone has to say - and, effectively, whether they can "say" it at all - is dictated by their size of their wallet.
no, you tell the automatic when to shift. not how quickly or into what gear. just up or down, and as quickly as it can.
If shift times of a modern automatic are a major concern, You're Doing It Wrong. The road is not a racetrack.
and heres the assumption (which you alluded to earlier). you think that just because i like to be in control (and dislike giving that to the AT) i drive like a maniac. i used a bit of hyperbole and its been taken as the literal truth, my mistake.
No, I think you're way too concerned about things you shouldn't be on a public road, and are hence probably driving around too fast and with too little foresight.
Want to fix the ELECTION laws, while not breaking the First Amendment Rights to Free Speech? It is really quite simple. One simple rule.
Only People (persons, not legal entities)who are eligible to vote can donate to political campaigns.
I have a better one:
Don't classify donations to political parties as "speech", when they're not even vaguely similar to it.
Uh, what? I can drive an auto just fine... i prefer not to, because I am better at shifting than an automatic transmission.
Not according to your own words you can't:
I feel like I'm going to die every time I pull into busy traffic in an automatic... I feel like I'm going to die every time I pull into busy traffic in an automatic... they always seem to upshift too early, sacrificing torque for smoothness, which would be great if I didn't have some whacko barreling up behind me at 50 and I need to be going fast enough that he won't smash into me 5 seconds ago.
So remind me again, why are you suggesting that somebody who prefers something that you don't like (I'm guessing that you tried driving a manual once, stalled, cried, and decided they are for idiots... correct me if I'm wrong), and is capable of operating far more vehicles than, is somehow wrong and you're right?
Firstly, I've been driving a reasonably wide variety of manual vehicles for 15-odd years now, so I have a rough idea of how to do it.
Secondly, I said nothing about preference, opinion, whether an AT is better than a MT, or made any judgement about people who prefer one over the other (unlike pretty much everyone else in this thread). I said that if someone can't drive an automatic car safely (and that inherently requires you to feel safe doing it), then they have zero authority to be criticising anyone else's driving.
My MT 2009 Camry has cruise control, no big deal to put it in as there is just an extra sensor. The additional control is in the ability to prevent upshifting, which is what you cannot easily do in an AT.
Sure you can. Just move the lever (or hit the button on the steering wheel, as the case may be).
also, then you floor the gas, you ever notice that time lag? I don't have that with my MT.
Greetings, dick. I see that you're also illiterate. I explained further down, in other posts, that I drove that automagic tranny in 1999. Another poster suggests that today's trannies are better, and I conceded that maybe they are.
Whether the autos in 18-wheeler trucks are good, bad, or indifferent is utterly irrelevant in a discussion about driving *passenger vehicles*.
Incompetence? Gee, thanks a lot. I lived through the computer's blunder, so maybe I'm not all that fucking incompetent?
If someone can't drive an automatic *CAR* smoothly and safely, and tries to blame it on the transmission, they're incompetent. If someone is driving an 18-wheeler truck without being intimately familiar as to how it works, then they're just being foolish.
And, oh yes. What they do with BIG equipment is often applicable to small equipment, and vice versa. Perhaps you're familiar with the term "scale", as it pertains to both computers and hardware?
Yes, I am, which is why I know that what works at one end of the scale is frequently inappropriate for the other.
An automatic transmission removes the fine-grained control you have over the torque applied to the rear wheels while driving, and especially to the torque split between front and rear wheels while braking. Modern road cars are pre-set with the brake bias too far twoards the front for competitive driving, for safety reasons regarding unskilled drivers and general commuting. Engine braking (in a rear wheel drive car) or left foot braking (in a front wheel drive) allows you to dynamically shift the brake bias for superior turn-in and better control of weight shift.
We're not talking about a track, we're talking about the street. If you're driving around on the street such that you're doing this sort of thing, then you're a bad driver.
Let me correct a misconception: you don't need to have an automatic transmission in order to use cruise control. My 5 speed manual has cruise control.
I'm well aware you don't need an automatic to have cruise control. Which is why I didn't write anything to the contrary.
The manual transmission is perfect for quickly accelerating onto a US Interstate highway. Once I reach my cruising speed, I simply click on the cruise control.
So is an auto. Even a gutless 1.6L 4 cylinder Corolla with an automatic transmission can get up to speed on the typical on ramp (particularly true in the US, where motorways are typically well designed and built).
Australian, but I've spent plenty of time driving in Europe and the US.
At least in Germany, cruise control _can_ be helpful when you go with the flow. But if all lanes have different speeds and you actually want to go as fast as traffic permits, cruise control sucks.
In which case it's probably an inappropriate time to use it. However, I covered probably 5,000km in Germany while I was living in Europe, and the cruise controls in the cars I rented were all used extensively.
If you think an AT can be controlled properly, would you ride a motorcycle with one (outside of CVT scooters)?
Sure - I've ridden bikes with autos a few tmes. However, since my bikes are pretty much solely for enjoyment, an auto certainly wouldn't be my first choice (though darting around European cities on a scooter is awesome fun).
having driven manuals, AT, AT w/clutchless shifting at the stick, AT w/paddles, on nearly the same model car (dealer loaners) i find automatics of any type more annoying, either for the reasons GP noted (poor shifting choices mostly), or because for 95% of driving time its not necessary to manage the gearing effectively. when I get to that 5%, I either pound frantically for a nonexistent clutch (and sometimes hit the brake...) or forget to shift entirely because im not in 'what gear should i be in' mode.
You're not doing yourself any favours as someone worth listening to on the topic of safe driving.
its an annoying combination of a helping hand and pseudo-control. also shifting in an AT is nothing like shifting a manual. you dont get a clutch, so you cant control when you engage the gears. you push the stick/button and it goes. no feathering makes it not the same. i can start my car in 3rd gear if i really want to, do you know of an AT that can do that?
Most autos will start in at least 2nd, some will let you lock in specific gears.
You control when you engage the gears by when you shift the lever or push the button. This is not a difficult concept.
griping about crappy software is not the same as not being able to drive it. AT drives 'adequately'. im not used to 'adequately', im used to 'cylinders to the asphalt, so dont screw up'.
So you drive like a maniac on public roads, and try to blame the hardware for your poor judgement ?
Ever driven an 18 wheeler? Ever driven an 18 wheeler with an AUTOMATIC???? I did. Once. Never again.
Wow. How the hell is driving a semi trailer relevant to driving a normal passenger vehicle ?
As has been pointed out, the transmission cannot anticipate that I need a bit more torgue to climb a hill that it hasn't sensed yet. Nor can it see that I need to merge into traffic. It senses nothing, anticipates nothing - it only responds to certain stimuli, and everything is WRONG by the time those stimuli reach the brain controlling the transmission.
Bullshit. Stop trying to blame incompetence and ignorance on hardware.
Steady on, he didn't say he can't drive an auto. He said he feels like he's going to die every time he's in busy traffic in an auto.
Ie: he can't drive an auto.
Seriously. If you're in any mechanically sound, remotely modern vehicle, and you feel like you're "going to die" driving it in normal conditions, then you shouldn't be on the road.
I know what he means - for a yawning commute to work in the morning, you can't beat an auto, but the moment anything remotely interesting happens, automatic transmissions are terrifying. Best case, you know your transmission perfectly and you can predict what it'll do, so you can drive around its quirks. Worst case, you're unfamiliar with the car and it kicks down in the middle of a corner, sending you ass backwards through a hedge (or concrete barrier, or oncoming traffic).
If you're driving around a corner in a way that causes a kickdown, in a car you're unfamiliar with, then you don't know how to drive properly.
Seriously. If you're in any mechanically sound, remotely modern vehicle - automatic or otherwise - and you feel like you're "going to die" driving it in normal conditions, then you shouldn't be on the road.
You're the one arguing automatics can't be controlled properly. I want to know in what ways.
i think you've never driven for fun.
I drive quite frequently for fun, though not as often as I'm on a motorbike, these days.
when, on the other hand, you don't need to shift so frequently, it becomes nice to have something to think about. here, automatics just take away the enjoyment of a long drive.
Long drives are boring, regardless. Having to regularly row through the gearbox just makes the whole experience more fatiguing - and the last thing you want on a long trip is more fatigue.
cruise control is usually liked by people who aren't bothered about driving and just want it to be as painless as possible. i find it quite boring.
Cruise control is liked by people who are experienced at driving distances and realise that it makes monitoring your speed one less thing you have to worry about, again reducing fatigue.
It blows my mind that anyone would want to drive for any non-trivial distance without cruise control.
if you can drive your auto with as much control as your manual, then i don't think you actually HAVE much control over your car.
What is it, exactly, I shouldn't be able to do ?
and i don't have any trouble driving an auto, actually its less taxing on the mind. but sometimes i like being in control of my car, especially on trips >100km.
Long trips are one of the best times to have an auto (along with cruise control). Probably beaten out only by city driving and commuting.
I'm a little over 50 & have never hit the accel instead of the brake since I was in my teens. Oh, and if "old" people are such bad drivers, please explain why my insurance rates are at their lowest point ever and I now own 2 cars and the insurance for both is less than what I paid in my 20's and 30's for a single car that cost 1/2 as much as one of my current cars? If 50+ drivers were less capable, shouldn't my insurance be more than 4 times what I paid back then?
Insurance rates measure accidents you _have_, not accidents you _cause_.;)
no, a typewriter does not give you greater control over your typing (much less actually) whereas manual transmissions can provide a great degree of control and comfort just not available in automatics.
I don't have any trouble at all driving my automatic cars with as much "control and comfort" as I do my manual cars. Neither should anyone who wants to try and call themselves a good driver.
Slashdot Mirror
follow the thread below. someone asked the same question and provided arguments, and i responded.
And your responses are naive at best, flat-out false at worst.
It's not economically viable for most organisations to keep sufficient developer staff to not only maintain and support their own unique in-house software, but also their own (vendor unsupported) forks of whatever OSS software they might be using. Which is precisely why they don't do it, and instead do things like pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to companies like Oracle for support.
Most companies have zero interest in maintaining software development staff *at all*, because they're not in the software development business. At *best* they're usually tolerated as a means to an end. The idea that the average company would actively seek to create and/or increase the size of a department that generates no revenue and requires skilled, expensive employees, for nebulous and practically unmeasurable benefits, is unrealistic.
The simple fact is that OSS is not the be-all and end-all, and most of the arguments you make against proprietary software are either equally applicable to OSS, or simply not relevant to anything except a miniscule proportion of corner cases (eg: code auditing).
man. the list is endless and i dont have time to list many more.
You don't appear to have made any arguments that can't be applied similarly to OSS.
Only a windows weenie would expect 10 year's of binary compatibility.
About the only platforms that *don't* offer 10 (if not more) years of binary compatibility - or at least make attempting it a high priority - are Linux and OS X (and I don't expect it to be true of OS X for much longer).
No, the importance of what they have to say has to do with how hard they work at helping to get it implemented -- doing work for the cause, OR contributing monetarily.
It does not. It stands alone.
Again, you are arguing that people with a surplus of some resource - time, money, cocaine, etc - should be able to pretend that resource is "speech", thereby giving them more of a "right to free speech" than those who don't. Which inevitably means you are arguing the rich have more of a right to free speech than the poor.
If someone wants to exercise their free speech, then they should write a letter to their representative. Sending him some money is no more different than sending him a few hookers, and neither is in any way remotely the same as "speech".
Plus, just because one side spends a lot doesn't mean they'll win.
Never suggested otherwise. I will, however, say that the side spending very little is pretty much guaranteed NOT to win (or even be in the running, for all intents and purposes).
However, that's irrelevant. The argument here is not about how much each side has to spend and whether than can ensure victory, it's that giving money to any side has nothing whatsoever to do with "free speech".
It's the ultimate form of speech.
No, it's bribery. Which is, I suppose, "the ultimate form of speech" if you're of a particularly mindset. However, it's not one that should be allowed (let alone encouraged) in a modern democracy.
You are, after all, saying that the value or importance of what someone has to say - and, effectively, whether they can "say" it at all - is dictated by their size of their wallet.
no, you tell the automatic when to shift. not how quickly or into what gear. just up or down, and as quickly as it can.
If shift times of a modern automatic are a major concern, You're Doing It Wrong. The road is not a racetrack.
and heres the assumption (which you alluded to earlier). you think that just because i like to be in control (and dislike giving that to the AT) i drive like a maniac. i used a bit of hyperbole and its been taken as the literal truth, my mistake.
No, I think you're way too concerned about things you shouldn't be on a public road, and are hence probably driving around too fast and with too little foresight.
Want to fix the ELECTION laws, while not breaking the First Amendment Rights to Free Speech? It is really quite simple. One simple rule.
Only People (persons, not legal entities)who are eligible to vote can donate to political campaigns.
I have a better one:
Don't classify donations to political parties as "speech", when they're not even vaguely similar to it.
Uh, what? I can drive an auto just fine... i prefer not to, because I am better at shifting than an automatic transmission.
Not according to your own words you can't:
I feel like I'm going to die every time I pull into busy traffic in an automatic... I feel like I'm going to die every time I pull into busy traffic in an automatic... they always seem to upshift too early, sacrificing torque for smoothness, which would be great if I didn't have some whacko barreling up behind me at 50 and I need to be going fast enough that he won't smash into me 5 seconds ago.
So remind me again, why are you suggesting that somebody who prefers something that you don't like (I'm guessing that you tried driving a manual once, stalled, cried, and decided they are for idiots... correct me if I'm wrong), and is capable of operating far more vehicles than, is somehow wrong and you're right?
Firstly, I've been driving a reasonably wide variety of manual vehicles for 15-odd years now, so I have a rough idea of how to do it.
Secondly, I said nothing about preference, opinion, whether an AT is better than a MT, or made any judgement about people who prefer one over the other (unlike pretty much everyone else in this thread). I said that if someone can't drive an automatic car safely (and that inherently requires you to feel safe doing it), then they have zero authority to be criticising anyone else's driving.
My MT 2009 Camry has cruise control, no big deal to put it in as there is just an extra sensor. The additional control is in the ability to prevent upshifting, which is what you cannot easily do in an AT.
Sure you can. Just move the lever (or hit the button on the steering wheel, as the case may be).
also, then you floor the gas, you ever notice that time lag? I don't have that with my MT.
Sure you do. You have it when you change gears.
Greetings, dick. I see that you're also illiterate. I explained further down, in other posts, that I drove that automagic tranny in 1999. Another poster suggests that today's trannies are better, and I conceded that maybe they are.
Whether the autos in 18-wheeler trucks are good, bad, or indifferent is utterly irrelevant in a discussion about driving *passenger vehicles*.
Incompetence? Gee, thanks a lot. I lived through the computer's blunder, so maybe I'm not all that fucking incompetent?
If someone can't drive an automatic *CAR* smoothly and safely, and tries to blame it on the transmission, they're incompetent. If someone is driving an 18-wheeler truck without being intimately familiar as to how it works, then they're just being foolish.
And, oh yes. What they do with BIG equipment is often applicable to small equipment, and vice versa. Perhaps you're familiar with the term "scale", as it pertains to both computers and hardware?
Yes, I am, which is why I know that what works at one end of the scale is frequently inappropriate for the other.
An automatic transmission removes the fine-grained control you have over the torque applied to the rear wheels while driving, and especially to the torque split between front and rear wheels while braking. Modern road cars are pre-set with the brake bias too far twoards the front for competitive driving, for safety reasons regarding unskilled drivers and general commuting. Engine braking (in a rear wheel drive car) or left foot braking (in a front wheel drive) allows you to dynamically shift the brake bias for superior turn-in and better control of weight shift.
We're not talking about a track, we're talking about the street. If you're driving around on the street such that you're doing this sort of thing, then you're a bad driver.
Changing from barely tickover to peak power output without changing speed.
Yes, you can. I've never seen an auto yet that won't let you select specific gears.
Especially useful on turbo cars when you want to be able to overtake without the burden of turbo lag
Maybe you should try planning your overtaking maneuvers better.
Being in the right gear to accelerate away from a corner
Maybe you should try not treating the street like your personal racetrack.
Being able to manage your speed at very low speeds or while going downhill (ok auto boxes have overrides to allow engine breaking, but who uses them?)
Anyone who feels they need to, just like people who do it in manuals.
Let me correct a misconception: you don't need to have an automatic transmission in order to use cruise control. My 5 speed manual has cruise control.
I'm well aware you don't need an automatic to have cruise control. Which is why I didn't write anything to the contrary.
The manual transmission is perfect for quickly accelerating onto a US Interstate highway. Once I reach my cruising speed, I simply click on the cruise control.
So is an auto. Even a gutless 1.6L 4 cylinder Corolla with an automatic transmission can get up to speed on the typical on ramp (particularly true in the US, where motorways are typically well designed and built).
Let me guess: American, Canadian or Australian?
Australian, but I've spent plenty of time driving in Europe and the US.
At least in Germany, cruise control _can_ be helpful when you go with the flow. But if all lanes have different speeds and you actually want to go as fast as traffic permits, cruise control sucks.
In which case it's probably an inappropriate time to use it. However, I covered probably 5,000km in Germany while I was living in Europe, and the cruise controls in the cars I rented were all used extensively.
Basically the difference is proactive control (with MT) vs. being limited to reactive control (with AT).
Perhaps you shouldn't try racing around like you're on a track, so constantly being in the powerband is less important ?
If you think an AT can be controlled properly, would you ride a motorcycle with one (outside of CVT scooters)?
Sure - I've ridden bikes with autos a few tmes. However, since my bikes are pretty much solely for enjoyment, an auto certainly wouldn't be my first choice (though darting around European cities on a scooter is awesome fun).
i think we may have`to be satisfied with having different opinions in this subject, since you can't even CONTEMPLATE how someone can not-like cc.
Yes. Just like I wouldn't be able to understand someone who preferred a crank starter instead of electric.
For one, manuals have a pedal that allows you to physically disconnect a runaway engine from the tires.
Automatics have that too. It's called Neutral.
having driven manuals, AT, AT w/clutchless shifting at the stick, AT w/paddles, on nearly the same model car (dealer loaners) i find automatics of any type more annoying, either for the reasons GP noted (poor shifting choices mostly), or because for 95% of driving time its not necessary to manage the gearing effectively. when I get to that 5%, I either pound frantically for a nonexistent clutch (and sometimes hit the brake...) or forget to shift entirely because im not in 'what gear should i be in' mode.
You're not doing yourself any favours as someone worth listening to on the topic of safe driving.
its an annoying combination of a helping hand and pseudo-control. also shifting in an AT is nothing like shifting a manual. you dont get a clutch, so you cant control when you engage the gears. you push the stick/button and it goes. no feathering makes it not the same. i can start my car in 3rd gear if i really want to, do you know of an AT that can do that?
Most autos will start in at least 2nd, some will let you lock in specific gears.
You control when you engage the gears by when you shift the lever or push the button. This is not a difficult concept.
griping about crappy software is not the same as not being able to drive it. AT drives 'adequately'. im not used to 'adequately', im used to 'cylinders to the asphalt, so dont screw up'.
So you drive like a maniac on public roads, and try to blame the hardware for your poor judgement ?
Again, someone making fun of GP.
Yes, because he deserves it.
Ever driven an 18 wheeler? Ever driven an 18 wheeler with an AUTOMATIC???? I did. Once. Never again.
Wow. How the hell is driving a semi trailer relevant to driving a normal passenger vehicle ?
As has been pointed out, the transmission cannot anticipate that I need a bit more torgue to climb a hill that it hasn't sensed yet. Nor can it see that I need to merge into traffic. It senses nothing, anticipates nothing - it only responds to certain stimuli, and everything is WRONG by the time those stimuli reach the brain controlling the transmission.
Bullshit. Stop trying to blame incompetence and ignorance on hardware.
Steady on, he didn't say he can't drive an auto. He said he feels like he's going to die every time he's in busy traffic in an auto.
Ie: he can't drive an auto.
Seriously. If you're in any mechanically sound, remotely modern vehicle, and you feel like you're "going to die" driving it in normal conditions, then you shouldn't be on the road.
I know what he means - for a yawning commute to work in the morning, you can't beat an auto, but the moment anything remotely interesting happens, automatic transmissions are terrifying. Best case, you know your transmission perfectly and you can predict what it'll do, so you can drive around its quirks. Worst case, you're unfamiliar with the car and it kicks down in the middle of a corner, sending you ass backwards through a hedge (or concrete barrier, or oncoming traffic).
If you're driving around a corner in a way that causes a kickdown, in a car you're unfamiliar with, then you don't know how to drive properly.
Seriously. If you're in any mechanically sound, remotely modern vehicle - automatic or otherwise - and you feel like you're "going to die" driving it in normal conditions, then you shouldn't be on the road.
i can't say, never having seen you drive.
You're the one arguing automatics can't be controlled properly. I want to know in what ways.
i think you've never driven for fun.
I drive quite frequently for fun, though not as often as I'm on a motorbike, these days.
when, on the other hand, you don't need to shift so frequently, it becomes nice to have something to think about. here, automatics just take away the enjoyment of a long drive.
Long drives are boring, regardless. Having to regularly row through the gearbox just makes the whole experience more fatiguing - and the last thing you want on a long trip is more fatigue.
cruise control is usually liked by people who aren't bothered about driving and just want it to be as painless as possible. i find it quite boring.
Cruise control is liked by people who are experienced at driving distances and realise that it makes monitoring your speed one less thing you have to worry about, again reducing fatigue.
It blows my mind that anyone would want to drive for any non-trivial distance without cruise control.
if you can drive your auto with as much control as your manual, then i don't think you actually HAVE much control over your car.
What is it, exactly, I shouldn't be able to do ?
and i don't have any trouble driving an auto, actually its less taxing on the mind. but sometimes i like being in control of my car, especially on trips >100km.
Long trips are one of the best times to have an auto (along with cruise control). Probably beaten out only by city driving and commuting.
I'm a little over 50 & have never hit the accel instead of the brake since I was in my teens. Oh, and if "old" people are such bad drivers, please explain why my insurance rates are at their lowest point ever and I now own 2 cars and the insurance for both is less than what I paid in my 20's and 30's for a single car that cost 1/2 as much as one of my current cars? If 50+ drivers were less capable, shouldn't my insurance be more than 4 times what I paid back then?
Insurance rates measure accidents you _have_, not accidents you _cause_. ;)
no, a typewriter does not give you greater control over your typing (much less actually) whereas manual transmissions can provide a great degree of control and comfort just not available in automatics.
I don't have any trouble at all driving my automatic cars with as much "control and comfort" as I do my manual cars. Neither should anyone who wants to try and call themselves a good driver.