A lot of that has to do with the car itself. Mind you, power steering cuts off after the vehicle reaches a certain speed, and it tapers to the cutoff.
My truck has power steering.:) It has a big ol' steering wheel, and that's it's power steering.
Many cars manufactured with power steering have teeny tiny steering wheels. If you put a bigger steering wheel on the car, you'd have an easier time steering it when the power steering breaks.:)
Useless trivia: to pass inspection in the state of Texas, your steering wheel must be at least as big as the steering wheel that came on the car when it was manufactured brand new. So you can't slap on a small, stylish, chain steering wheel. You actually have to make sure it's as big as the original wheel was. (most inspectors don't care and will still pass the car, but they're not supposed to)
That's not drive-by-wire, and throttle-by-wire is irrelevant. Most fuel injected systems are pretty damn close to throttle-by-wire already (and some, starting back in the late 80s, already were, it's nothing new).
Drive-by-wire is when there's *no* mechanical connection from the steering wheel to the steering wheels, brake pedal to the brakes, and shifter to the, um, gears. Electro-hydraulic assist doesn't cut it. Um, federal regs are supposed to ban sales of cars in the US that don't provide a mechanical steering system that works even when all power assist systems fail.
Brakes are in the same boat, plus federal regs require a mechanical backup to the main system. I thin kthey pretty much require the backup be cable, but I could be wrong.
As for the shifter? Irrelevant. As long as your steering and brakes work, you can get yourself out of 99.999999999999999% of tense situations when any other single or group of systems fails.
(for the record, the older auto transmissions aren't "drive-by-wire". Placing the car in one of the gears actually opens and closes valves in the valve body. The valve body, and indeed the whole transmission, is essentially a hydraulic computer. Newer, fancier auto trannies, I don't know about. I'm talking the fancy stuff on the hybrids)
The hydro boost still stores a charge just like your vacuum booster, so if the belt brakes it still works fine.
I'd say that in my experience people's engines stall more than their belts break, so I'd rate a belt breaking as a non-issue.
What's more important is that while hydro-boost does provide more power assist than vacuum-boost, the hydro booster isn't actually more reliable than the vacuum booster. Remember, less parts, simpler system, more reliable. A vacuum booster only has like 3 moving parts, and two of those don't require the third to work anyway.
I'll do whatever I damn please with my ignition and you can't stop me
We won't need to. We'll just need to change lanes, because as soon as you remove your ignition key and try to turn, your steering wheel is going to lock.:)
Worst case for us? Ride in the shoulder, slow down, and watch you crash on the next curve. Hm, maybe that's not worst case.;)
Now, my 71 chevy pickup, on the other hand. 3 in the tree, none of that other power crap, and no locking steering wheel. I pull into gas stations all the time with my key in my pocket. People are always asking me if I ran out of gas.:)
I can push my 71 Chevy half-ton pickup off the road myself. It's all a matter of just knowing what the fuck you're doing. Most people that push cars don't actually know what they're doing.:)
I've pushed some pretty big monsters in my time. I've even lifted the rear end of a Ford Escort half an inch off the ground, while my roomate pushed on the side of it (we were hiding it from our landlord who didn't want non-running cars in the driveway). For that matter, I've picked up heavier cars.
It's all a matter of knowing where the real strength in your body is and (damn corporate speak) leveraging it properly. (I might probably should mention that in this same time period I could bench press 5-speed manual trannies from rear-wheel drive jap cars and trucks)
Having a hard time believing a 79 Celica was intentionally manufactured without power steering. Not saying it didn't happen, mind you, just not believing it was intentionally built that way.:)
Fact is, power steering cuts off anyway after you get above parking lot speed. The only exceptions I'm aware of are late 70s and early-mid 80s Olds and Cadillacs, and those cars are widely known to be crap anyway. But they were the last of the boats Chevy built.
Anyway, here's some 79 Toyota Celica trivia for you: The alternator used in the Celica is internally mechanically compatible with the Celica Supra of the same year. It's less amps, but if your Supra is a stick it'll be just fine. You have to take the guts out of the celica's alternator case and transplant them to the supra's alternator case, however. Should work for 79-81 Celicas and the same year Supras. (The Supra was only made for 6 months of 79, though. It's a rare bird, I wish I still had mine:( )
That's a rare bird, although Chevy is one of the few companies to put hydro-boost in consumer-grade cars (BMW, Porsche, and the fancy ones have all used it, though).
The GP was right in that most power brakes use a vaccuum booster. I'd say "all" just because the chances that someone drives a hydro-boost for daily driving or in their family car are pretty slim, they just haven't been widely deployed. Hydro-boost is still less common than no boost at all, in fact. Well, in my subjective experience.
What cars have hydroboost?
The ones I have worked with are BMW 8-series, certain Chevies (usually very large vans, box vans, and a few trucks, common on Chevy diesel pickups), a Jaguar (forgot the exact model), and I think the old Alfa-Romeos (it was a co-worker's car, actually, but a customer brought one into the shop and I got to work on it). That's literally all the hydroboost I've seen, and I've done close to a thousand brake jobs. I'm not saying that's all that's out there, just that it's extremely uncommon.
And, for the record, if your chevy has hydroboost, a vacuum booster will bolt right in.:) I've made that conversion before, when the customer didn't want to spring for the hydro-boost unit (it was the third one she'd have bought).
Heh, I was driving a Honda Accord, um, 1985 hatchback, with an auto transmission. Honda's ignition system is to just push the key. So over time, you get used to pushing the key when you turn off the car.
So, the car stalled on a 3-lane road on Christmas Eve. It stalled because I ran out of gas. I was in the center lane (median to the left). Nothing else to do, I pulled the key, got out, and was about to start walking to the gas station. Then a cop pulled up behind me and asked what happened. He didn't offer to take me to get gas, but he did say he was going to push the car. I thought "I've pushed plenty of cars, it'll take a little while to get down the road, but then the car will be safe". So I got back in and was ready.
So the cop edges up until his bumper was up against mine (remember that cop cars have those battering rams on their cars). Then he floors it, I guess. He pushed me up to 45 mph. So, at 45mph, he pulled off and left, figuring I'd coast to the turn off on my right that was coming up. Well, the turn came up, so I grabbed the wheel and turned it hard to right.
And of course it locked.
I was damn lucky actually, the steering wheel had locked at enough of an angle that I still made the turn, and I was able to put the key back in quickly enough to finish the turn next to the curb. And my underwear was still clean.
By federal law, in order for a car to be sold in the US, it must be manufactured to:
Steer without power assist. So if your power steering system fails, you can still steer the car.
Steer without power! No electricity for some reason? You *must* be able to steer the car.
Stop without power assist. So if your engine cuts off, you can still stop the car.
Have a secondary braking system capable of stopping the car with at least two wheels that operates independently of the main brakes. That's usually called an Emergency Brake but is more correctly called a Parking Brake, and if you have to use it, you're already fucked.
I would expect congress to get all luddite over drive-by-wire. In order for drive-by-wire to work in applications where it's already used you find heavy maintenance regulations and a draconian regulatory body overseeing the things. Such a system is pretty impractical for cars, and drive-by-wire becomes a worthless engineering feat if you still have to make the same systems work with mechanical backups.
Using electric brakes with metallic pads means no brake fade, ever, up to the point where you warp your rotors.
This is inaccurate, to say the least. A great deal of brake fade happens because your rotors are too hot and are no longer capable of discharging heat. Since your brakes work by converting inertia into heat, if your brakes cannot discharge any more heat, they stop working. Basic physics here. No matter how the pads are actuated, the system still has to disperse the heat.
Occasionally, when shifting from first to second, if you don't do it quite right, the shifter will go into second but leave the rest of the mechanism in first. You have to reach under the hood and pull the shift forks to match the shifter. I've gotten used to it, so now I shift perfectly every time, but I've spent some hairy moments in the shoulder of the freeway.
The throttle cable is also sticky in humid conditions (but not dry). The fix for this is to assertively tap the gas pedal (pushing in the clutch first if you're already in gear, of course). That usually unsticks it. Because of the way the throttle cable attaches to the gas pedal lever I can't just pull the pedal with my toe to close the throttle, only the springs in the carb will close the throttle. What am I saying? There's no gas pedal, that fell off years ago. I touch the lever directly with my foot these days.:)
Eh? You're on crack. The only serious danger to turning off your car in this situation is the possibility of being able to pull the key out and the steering wheel locking. If your car has an automatic transmission and was made in the last 15 years, you can't pull the key out without putting it in park and there's no danger.
As soon as the engine cuts off, you have enough power stored in your brake booster for a fairly lengthy pedal push (the vacuum boost, hyrdo-boost is supposed to have some residual power left in the system as well). So you may not necessarily be surprised by a sudden lack of power brakes, but you will notice the pedal getting stiffer and stiffer.
At high speeds, power steering cuts off anyway. Some cars use engine vacuum to cut it off, but most (newer) cars use an electrical solenoid signaled by the actual speed given from the speed sensor in the transmission. I can't stress this enough, power steering is only active at very low speeds. Pretty much as soon as you pull out of a parking lot your power assist has cut off. So losing your power steering at high speeds you've lost nothing, it wasn't on in the first place. (There are some older, stupider cars that are an exception to this, but if you're driving one of those, this will never happen to you anyway, and you still won't notice the power steering cutting off at high speeds) Now, you should bear in mind that as the car slows down it will get harder to steer than you're used to, but the risk of crashing due to unfamiliarity with the steering system without power assist is so low that it's almost not even worth mentioning.
In this situation, the *best* thing you can do would be to move your key back to the accessory position. That kills the engine. Moving the transmission into neutral would be good just to make sure you're coasting, but leaving it in drive shouldn't matter either. Depends on the transmission.
If you can't do that, and you're driving an automatic, try putting the transmission into reverse. I don't actually know what would happen at high speed, but at low speeds all that happens is your engine dies and the car coasts.
Another option, (haven't read the article yet, it's loading) is to open up your fuse box, find the fuse for the cruise control, and remove it. While *I* can do this fairly painlessly in all of my vehicles, I suggest you try something else before trying this. It is very dangerous, even at regular city speeds, to muck around the fusebox while driving. Frequently fuseboxes require all sorts of weird maneuvering to reach, and that's what makes it dangerous while driving. If you have a passenger, have him either do the deed or take the wheel from you. If you can't locate the cruise fuse easily, locate the ECM fuse. Pulling it will kill the engine for you. You don't want to pull fuses willy-nilly, but many of the fuses are safe to pull if you can't find the one you're looking for easily. The ones to be careful with are ABS, lights (surprisingly enough), and that's all I'm coming up with. You're safe to pull the ABS fuse, but you will lose anti-lock brakes when you do it. That just means your brakes will be able to lock, so be careful, especially if you're a slave to the ABS system. Just remember that under federal law a car must be capable of stopping with the hydraulic brakes even in the failure of power assist and ABS.
Of course, the most obvious solution is to just shift the car into neutral and slowly apply the parking brake.:)
This was the second space-reaching flight of SpaceShipOne. I'm sure Gordo knew about the first one.
Actually, it was the third. Mike Melvill piloted SS1 on its first space voyage in June.
Actually, it was the fourth. Since SpaceShipOne's ultimate destination was always space, you can consider every flight it's made to be space-reaching, and they did fire up its rocket on Pearl Harbor Day last year.
Heh, I did answer it by addressing the whole thing. He picked a nit about vaginas, so I took on the whole topic of nudity and indecency, thus answering both his specific question and just about any other question he may have had.
Plus, what point are you trying to prove when you mention that people who live in warmer climates tend to wear less clothes.... isn't that pretty obvious?
That nudity and decency are arbitrary and determining that nudity is indecent serves no useful purpose.
You can be in front of me, just don't cut me off. The stopping distance *I* need is 3-4 times the distance you need, to space yourself accordingly.
As for too tall? My truck has never been too tall. Because when it's that loaded up, I wouldn't be able to see behind me. There are still vehicles large than mine on the road who need even more stopping distance than I need.
Speaking of stopping distance, its amazing how many people think that a 20 year old pickup, fully loaded, with trailer, will stop as quickly as a compact car. At least, that's what I'm assume they are thinking, why else would they pull out right in front of me?
Um, probably precisely because they know they can't stop as well as you, and in their experience it's the nuts driving the compact cars that insist on pulling out in front of the 20yo pickups loaded and with trailers....
Speaking as such a driver, I might add. I leave lots of room, only to have some idiot in a Honda Accord or Civic pull out right in front of me. Do you want to die? I don't want to kill you, but if you hit your brakes, I won't have much of a choice.
Motorcycles and scooters are more heavily regulated than pedal-bikes, and so pedal-bikes have a few advantages. First, you don't have to have insurance. That brings cost of ownership down a bit. Second, you're not exactly limited to streets. True, most municipalities don't let you ride on sidewalks, but there are numerous bike trails and stuff (at least, around here there are) that you can cut through for a nice ride and also get a shortcut. Third, you can actually get off the bike and take a crosswalk, periodically giving you a slight advantage at an intersection. Fourth, if you get tired, hit seriously adverse weather, or whatever, you can usually catch a bus.
I've long considered using a pedal bike to get around many of the issues that face driving. But since I now work at home, I probably burn a hell of a lot less gas than even a pedal-bike commuter.:)
As a man, I've used every single part of my body for sex at one point or another. I'm trying really hard to think of a part of my wife's body she hasn't used and failing.
So what's your point about sexual pleasure from boobs? I get sexual pleasure from a very light backrub (not massage, the kind that gives you goose bumps). Does that now make my bare back offensive and unsuitable for showing during the superbowl half-time show?
Heh. Married with three kids and an anonymous coward calls me a virgin. Hmmm.....
If you really want to know, I think this whole nudity taboo us just stupid-stupid-stupid. And by forcing clothes on people through the use of "decency" and taboos you actually create a situation where people are more sexually frustrated than otherwise. Also, if you pay real close attention, you find clothing being worn less and less the closer you get to the equator...
Do you really want an answer? Put it that way, we shouldn't show *any* bare skin at all, because someone, somewhere sucks/licks/touches/squeezes it as a precursor to ejaculation.
Sorry, I'm with the chick on this one. Why can men show nipples on TV but women can't? Why are boobs considered indecent? What *is* decency, and what right do you or anybody else have to force your standards of decency onto me? I sure in the hell don't lay claim to any right to force my own standards of decency on you. Can we get some Golden Rule action going, please?
For the record, my own kids are well-familiar with boobs. The older ones have each watched the younger ones breastfeeding, and they've all sucked tit for food. The two older ones also watched the younger one being born. They have no myths at this time about sexuality, even if we haven't covered every little detail yet. But they've seen at least what the woman's parts are for.
And I don't have a TV because there's so much crap on TV. I really couldn't care less that Janet Jackson showed a tit, there's much worse crap on their every day. If my kids saw her tit? I wouldn't care. No reason to, they see tits every day. My daughter's gonna grow her own at some point, right?
This is crap. The whole idea that sex is indecent is antithetical to one of the basic missions of life: procreation.
I'm reading this as totally contradictory to your original post.
in any case, it supports my post completely, because when someone acts to take out our orbital installations, we'll have an idea what to do to even up the odds. If we hadn't even thought of it for fear of taking action, we'd be helpless when someone does it to us.
Heh, after rereading your original post, my reply, and then your reply, I'm thinking we're still saying the same thing.
At the heart of my reply is the reason the DMCA is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution includes this text:
The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The DMCA goes outside the boundaries of this power by providing protection for copyright owners that implement a scheme that protects one of the rights of the work perpetually, even after the work itself has entered the public domain. To date I have seen no copy-protection scheme that dealt with that specific issue, yet the DMCA (used successfully as written in this case, as you've pointed out in your thoughtful response) protects copy-protection schemes and provides harsh penalties for breaking them.
I'm not very familiar with the case either, and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this case has the potential to get the DMCA declared unconstitutional on these grounds if and only if Blizzard's copy-protection scheme didn't deal with the expiration of the copyright. It strikes me as being a pretty strong case if they approached it as protecting Fair Use Rights and ensuring the game will go into the public domain as it's supposed to. They'd have still lost at this stage because it takes SCOTUS to declare the law unconstitutional, so just to get to the supreme court they have to lose the original case and then win a few appeals.
Taken like that, the battle could only be beginning. Or maybe they picked a war and have lost the first engagement (which is required to get the DMCA tossed out by the courts).
So, yeah, my post wasn't responding directly to your meaning, but I think my meaning was responding directly to your meaning.:)
Hey, offtopic, but I recall you work with an animation/film studio? I ran into someone not long ago that's looking for cheap/free post-production tools for independent film makers. She's actually an independent film maker herself. Do you happen to know of any?
Sadly, the little detail that this also bypassed their anti-piracy measures has been lost in the winds of time.
Will their anti-piracy measures seek to limit copying when the copyright on the game expires? If not, then they are in violation of copyright and it should be revoked.:)
Copyright is "We'll give you sole rights to commercial exploitation of your work for a limited time, and then you place it in the public domain". "Anti-piracy measures" are "You give me sole rights to commercial exploitation of my work, and I never place it in the public domain".
The two don't work together. So like patent, I think that if you wish to protect your work using methods not provided by law then you should not enjoy legal protection over the work.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of that has to do with the car itself. Mind you, power steering cuts off after the vehicle reaches a certain speed, and it tapers to the cutoff.
My truck has power steering. :) It has a big ol' steering wheel, and that's it's power steering.
Many cars manufactured with power steering have teeny tiny steering wheels. If you put a bigger steering wheel on the car, you'd have an easier time steering it when the power steering breaks. :)
Useless trivia: to pass inspection in the state of Texas, your steering wheel must be at least as big as the steering wheel that came on the car when it was manufactured brand new. So you can't slap on a small, stylish, chain steering wheel. You actually have to make sure it's as big as the original wheel was. (most inspectors don't care and will still pass the car, but they're not supposed to)
That's not drive-by-wire, and throttle-by-wire is irrelevant. Most fuel injected systems are pretty damn close to throttle-by-wire already (and some, starting back in the late 80s, already were, it's nothing new).
Drive-by-wire is when there's *no* mechanical connection from the steering wheel to the steering wheels, brake pedal to the brakes, and shifter to the, um, gears. Electro-hydraulic assist doesn't cut it. Um, federal regs are supposed to ban sales of cars in the US that don't provide a mechanical steering system that works even when all power assist systems fail.
Brakes are in the same boat, plus federal regs require a mechanical backup to the main system. I thin kthey pretty much require the backup be cable, but I could be wrong.
As for the shifter? Irrelevant. As long as your steering and brakes work, you can get yourself out of 99.999999999999999% of tense situations when any other single or group of systems fails.
(for the record, the older auto transmissions aren't "drive-by-wire". Placing the car in one of the gears actually opens and closes valves in the valve body. The valve body, and indeed the whole transmission, is essentially a hydraulic computer. Newer, fancier auto trannies, I don't know about. I'm talking the fancy stuff on the hybrids)
The hydro boost still stores a charge just like your vacuum booster, so if the belt brakes it still works fine.
I'd say that in my experience people's engines stall more than their belts break, so I'd rate a belt breaking as a non-issue.
What's more important is that while hydro-boost does provide more power assist than vacuum-boost, the hydro booster isn't actually more reliable than the vacuum booster. Remember, less parts, simpler system, more reliable. A vacuum booster only has like 3 moving parts, and two of those don't require the third to work anyway.
I'll do whatever I damn please with my ignition and you can't stop me
We won't need to. We'll just need to change lanes, because as soon as you remove your ignition key and try to turn, your steering wheel is going to lock. :)
Worst case for us? Ride in the shoulder, slow down, and watch you crash on the next curve. Hm, maybe that's not worst case. ;)
Now, my 71 chevy pickup, on the other hand. 3 in the tree, none of that other power crap, and no locking steering wheel. I pull into gas stations all the time with my key in my pocket. People are always asking me if I ran out of gas. :)
I can push my 71 Chevy half-ton pickup off the road myself. It's all a matter of just knowing what the fuck you're doing. Most people that push cars don't actually know what they're doing. :)
I've pushed some pretty big monsters in my time. I've even lifted the rear end of a Ford Escort half an inch off the ground, while my roomate pushed on the side of it (we were hiding it from our landlord who didn't want non-running cars in the driveway). For that matter, I've picked up heavier cars.
It's all a matter of knowing where the real strength in your body is and (damn corporate speak) leveraging it properly. (I might probably should mention that in this same time period I could bench press 5-speed manual trannies from rear-wheel drive jap cars and trucks)
Having a hard time believing a 79 Celica was intentionally manufactured without power steering. Not saying it didn't happen, mind you, just not believing it was intentionally built that way. :)
Fact is, power steering cuts off anyway after you get above parking lot speed. The only exceptions I'm aware of are late 70s and early-mid 80s Olds and Cadillacs, and those cars are widely known to be crap anyway. But they were the last of the boats Chevy built.
Anyway, here's some 79 Toyota Celica trivia for you: The alternator used in the Celica is internally mechanically compatible with the Celica Supra of the same year. It's less amps, but if your Supra is a stick it'll be just fine. You have to take the guts out of the celica's alternator case and transplant them to the supra's alternator case, however. Should work for 79-81 Celicas and the same year Supras. (The Supra was only made for 6 months of 79, though. It's a rare bird, I wish I still had mine :( )
That's a rare bird, although Chevy is one of the few companies to put hydro-boost in consumer-grade cars (BMW, Porsche, and the fancy ones have all used it, though).
The GP was right in that most power brakes use a vaccuum booster. I'd say "all" just because the chances that someone drives a hydro-boost for daily driving or in their family car are pretty slim, they just haven't been widely deployed. Hydro-boost is still less common than no boost at all, in fact. Well, in my subjective experience.
What cars have hydroboost?
The ones I have worked with are BMW 8-series, certain Chevies (usually very large vans, box vans, and a few trucks, common on Chevy diesel pickups), a Jaguar (forgot the exact model), and I think the old Alfa-Romeos (it was a co-worker's car, actually, but a customer brought one into the shop and I got to work on it). That's literally all the hydroboost I've seen, and I've done close to a thousand brake jobs. I'm not saying that's all that's out there, just that it's extremely uncommon.
And, for the record, if your chevy has hydroboost, a vacuum booster will bolt right in. :) I've made that conversion before, when the customer didn't want to spring for the hydro-boost unit (it was the third one she'd have bought).
Heh, I was driving a Honda Accord, um, 1985 hatchback, with an auto transmission. Honda's ignition system is to just push the key. So over time, you get used to pushing the key when you turn off the car.
So, the car stalled on a 3-lane road on Christmas Eve. It stalled because I ran out of gas. I was in the center lane (median to the left). Nothing else to do, I pulled the key, got out, and was about to start walking to the gas station. Then a cop pulled up behind me and asked what happened. He didn't offer to take me to get gas, but he did say he was going to push the car. I thought "I've pushed plenty of cars, it'll take a little while to get down the road, but then the car will be safe". So I got back in and was ready.
So the cop edges up until his bumper was up against mine (remember that cop cars have those battering rams on their cars). Then he floors it, I guess. He pushed me up to 45 mph. So, at 45mph, he pulled off and left, figuring I'd coast to the turn off on my right that was coming up. Well, the turn came up, so I grabbed the wheel and turned it hard to right.
And of course it locked.
I was damn lucky actually, the steering wheel had locked at enough of an angle that I still made the turn, and I was able to put the key back in quickly enough to finish the turn next to the curb. And my underwear was still clean.
Ok, some words.
By federal law, in order for a car to be sold in the US, it must be manufactured to:
I would expect congress to get all luddite over drive-by-wire. In order for drive-by-wire to work in applications where it's already used you find heavy maintenance regulations and a draconian regulatory body overseeing the things. Such a system is pretty impractical for cars, and drive-by-wire becomes a worthless engineering feat if you still have to make the same systems work with mechanical backups.
Using electric brakes with metallic pads means no brake fade, ever, up to the point where you warp your rotors.
This is inaccurate, to say the least. A great deal of brake fade happens because your rotors are too hot and are no longer capable of discharging heat. Since your brakes work by converting inertia into heat, if your brakes cannot discharge any more heat, they stop working. Basic physics here. No matter how the pads are actuated, the system still has to disperse the heat.
My truck does these two things, sorta.
Occasionally, when shifting from first to second, if you don't do it quite right, the shifter will go into second but leave the rest of the mechanism in first. You have to reach under the hood and pull the shift forks to match the shifter. I've gotten used to it, so now I shift perfectly every time, but I've spent some hairy moments in the shoulder of the freeway.
The throttle cable is also sticky in humid conditions (but not dry). The fix for this is to assertively tap the gas pedal (pushing in the clutch first if you're already in gear, of course). That usually unsticks it. Because of the way the throttle cable attaches to the gas pedal lever I can't just pull the pedal with my toe to close the throttle, only the springs in the carb will close the throttle. What am I saying? There's no gas pedal, that fell off years ago. I touch the lever directly with my foot these days. :)
I love my truck. ;)
Eh? You're on crack. The only serious danger to turning off your car in this situation is the possibility of being able to pull the key out and the steering wheel locking. If your car has an automatic transmission and was made in the last 15 years, you can't pull the key out without putting it in park and there's no danger.
As soon as the engine cuts off, you have enough power stored in your brake booster for a fairly lengthy pedal push (the vacuum boost, hyrdo-boost is supposed to have some residual power left in the system as well). So you may not necessarily be surprised by a sudden lack of power brakes, but you will notice the pedal getting stiffer and stiffer.
At high speeds, power steering cuts off anyway. Some cars use engine vacuum to cut it off, but most (newer) cars use an electrical solenoid signaled by the actual speed given from the speed sensor in the transmission. I can't stress this enough, power steering is only active at very low speeds. Pretty much as soon as you pull out of a parking lot your power assist has cut off. So losing your power steering at high speeds you've lost nothing, it wasn't on in the first place. (There are some older, stupider cars that are an exception to this, but if you're driving one of those, this will never happen to you anyway, and you still won't notice the power steering cutting off at high speeds) Now, you should bear in mind that as the car slows down it will get harder to steer than you're used to, but the risk of crashing due to unfamiliarity with the steering system without power assist is so low that it's almost not even worth mentioning.
In this situation, the *best* thing you can do would be to move your key back to the accessory position. That kills the engine. Moving the transmission into neutral would be good just to make sure you're coasting, but leaving it in drive shouldn't matter either. Depends on the transmission.
If you can't do that, and you're driving an automatic, try putting the transmission into reverse. I don't actually know what would happen at high speed, but at low speeds all that happens is your engine dies and the car coasts.
Another option, (haven't read the article yet, it's loading) is to open up your fuse box, find the fuse for the cruise control, and remove it. While *I* can do this fairly painlessly in all of my vehicles, I suggest you try something else before trying this. It is very dangerous, even at regular city speeds, to muck around the fusebox while driving. Frequently fuseboxes require all sorts of weird maneuvering to reach, and that's what makes it dangerous while driving. If you have a passenger, have him either do the deed or take the wheel from you. If you can't locate the cruise fuse easily, locate the ECM fuse. Pulling it will kill the engine for you. You don't want to pull fuses willy-nilly, but many of the fuses are safe to pull if you can't find the one you're looking for easily. The ones to be careful with are ABS, lights (surprisingly enough), and that's all I'm coming up with. You're safe to pull the ABS fuse, but you will lose anti-lock brakes when you do it. That just means your brakes will be able to lock, so be careful, especially if you're a slave to the ABS system. Just remember that under federal law a car must be capable of stopping with the hydraulic brakes even in the failure of power assist and ABS.
Of course, the most obvious solution is to just shift the car into neutral and slowly apply the parking brake. :)
This was the second space-reaching flight of SpaceShipOne. I'm sure Gordo knew about the first one.
Actually, it was the third. Mike Melvill piloted SS1 on its first space voyage in June.
Actually, it was the fourth. Since SpaceShipOne's ultimate destination was always space, you can consider every flight it's made to be space-reaching, and they did fire up its rocket on Pearl Harbor Day last year.
(Can we get a fifth, anyone? ;) )
Heh, I did answer it by addressing the whole thing. He picked a nit about vaginas, so I took on the whole topic of nudity and indecency, thus answering both his specific question and just about any other question he may have had.
Plus, what point are you trying to prove when you mention that people who live in warmer climates tend to wear less clothes.... isn't that pretty obvious?
That nudity and decency are arbitrary and determining that nudity is indecent serves no useful purpose.
You can be in front of me, just don't cut me off. The stopping distance *I* need is 3-4 times the distance you need, to space yourself accordingly.
As for too tall? My truck has never been too tall. Because when it's that loaded up, I wouldn't be able to see behind me. There are still vehicles large than mine on the road who need even more stopping distance than I need.
No it's not
This E-SHIT is really starting to get on my nerves. When I saw "e-bike" I thought "Wow, someone's invented a bike you can download from a website".
What's next? e-penis?
Speaking of stopping distance, its amazing how many people think that a 20 year old pickup, fully loaded, with trailer, will stop as quickly as a compact car. At least, that's what I'm assume they are thinking, why else would they pull out right in front of me?
Um, probably precisely because they know they can't stop as well as you, and in their experience it's the nuts driving the compact cars that insist on pulling out in front of the 20yo pickups loaded and with trailers....
Speaking as such a driver, I might add. I leave lots of room, only to have some idiot in a Honda Accord or Civic pull out right in front of me. Do you want to die? I don't want to kill you, but if you hit your brakes, I won't have much of a choice.
Motorcycles and scooters are more heavily regulated than pedal-bikes, and so pedal-bikes have a few advantages. First, you don't have to have insurance. That brings cost of ownership down a bit. Second, you're not exactly limited to streets. True, most municipalities don't let you ride on sidewalks, but there are numerous bike trails and stuff (at least, around here there are) that you can cut through for a nice ride and also get a shortcut. Third, you can actually get off the bike and take a crosswalk, periodically giving you a slight advantage at an intersection. Fourth, if you get tired, hit seriously adverse weather, or whatever, you can usually catch a bus.
I've long considered using a pedal bike to get around many of the issues that face driving. But since I now work at home, I probably burn a hell of a lot less gas than even a pedal-bike commuter. :)
As a man, I've used every single part of my body for sex at one point or another. I'm trying really hard to think of a part of my wife's body she hasn't used and failing.
So what's your point about sexual pleasure from boobs? I get sexual pleasure from a very light backrub (not massage, the kind that gives you goose bumps). Does that now make my bare back offensive and unsuitable for showing during the superbowl half-time show?
Heh. Married with three kids and an anonymous coward calls me a virgin. Hmmm.....
If you really want to know, I think this whole nudity taboo us just stupid-stupid-stupid. And by forcing clothes on people through the use of "decency" and taboos you actually create a situation where people are more sexually frustrated than otherwise. Also, if you pay real close attention, you find clothing being worn less and less the closer you get to the equator...
Do you really want an answer? Put it that way, we shouldn't show *any* bare skin at all, because someone, somewhere sucks/licks/touches/squeezes it as a precursor to ejaculation.
Sorry, I'm with the chick on this one. Why can men show nipples on TV but women can't? Why are boobs considered indecent? What *is* decency, and what right do you or anybody else have to force your standards of decency onto me? I sure in the hell don't lay claim to any right to force my own standards of decency on you. Can we get some Golden Rule action going, please?
For the record, my own kids are well-familiar with boobs. The older ones have each watched the younger ones breastfeeding, and they've all sucked tit for food. The two older ones also watched the younger one being born. They have no myths at this time about sexuality, even if we haven't covered every little detail yet. But they've seen at least what the woman's parts are for.
And I don't have a TV because there's so much crap on TV. I really couldn't care less that Janet Jackson showed a tit, there's much worse crap on their every day. If my kids saw her tit? I wouldn't care. No reason to, they see tits every day. My daughter's gonna grow her own at some point, right?
This is crap. The whole idea that sex is indecent is antithetical to one of the basic missions of life: procreation.
What's sexual about a tit? It's used for feeding babies. Do you get a boner looking at a fork, a knife, a plate, or a spoon?
What is so sexual and offensive about a tit?
I'm reading this as totally contradictory to your original post.
in any case, it supports my post completely, because when someone acts to take out our orbital installations, we'll have an idea what to do to even up the odds. If we hadn't even thought of it for fear of taking action, we'd be helpless when someone does it to us.
Heh, after rereading your original post, my reply, and then your reply, I'm thinking we're still saying the same thing.
At the heart of my reply is the reason the DMCA is unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution includes this text:
The DMCA goes outside the boundaries of this power by providing protection for copyright owners that implement a scheme that protects one of the rights of the work perpetually, even after the work itself has entered the public domain. To date I have seen no copy-protection scheme that dealt with that specific issue, yet the DMCA (used successfully as written in this case, as you've pointed out in your thoughtful response) protects copy-protection schemes and provides harsh penalties for breaking them.
I'm not very familiar with the case either, and I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that this case has the potential to get the DMCA declared unconstitutional on these grounds if and only if Blizzard's copy-protection scheme didn't deal with the expiration of the copyright. It strikes me as being a pretty strong case if they approached it as protecting Fair Use Rights and ensuring the game will go into the public domain as it's supposed to. They'd have still lost at this stage because it takes SCOTUS to declare the law unconstitutional, so just to get to the supreme court they have to lose the original case and then win a few appeals.
Taken like that, the battle could only be beginning. Or maybe they picked a war and have lost the first engagement (which is required to get the DMCA tossed out by the courts).
So, yeah, my post wasn't responding directly to your meaning, but I think my meaning was responding directly to your meaning. :)
Hey, offtopic, but I recall you work with an animation/film studio? I ran into someone not long ago that's looking for cheap/free post-production tools for independent film makers. She's actually an independent film maker herself. Do you happen to know of any?
Sadly, the little detail that this also bypassed their anti-piracy measures has been lost in the winds of time.
Will their anti-piracy measures seek to limit copying when the copyright on the game expires? If not, then they are in violation of copyright and it should be revoked. :)
Copyright is "We'll give you sole rights to commercial exploitation of your work for a limited time, and then you place it in the public domain". "Anti-piracy measures" are "You give me sole rights to commercial exploitation of my work, and I never place it in the public domain".
The two don't work together. So like patent, I think that if you wish to protect your work using methods not provided by law then you should not enjoy legal protection over the work.