Fads, foolishness and furniture
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
disgusted to see that once again the Followers of Fashion have
restricted the availability of unfashionable items. In particular,
trying to find a good selection of desks without keyboard drawers is
becoming quite unrecovery.
<rhetorical>
Why is it that every time someone[1] comes up with a halfway usable
design, someone else will decide to "improve" it in a fashion that
destroys or at least reduces its usability, and they take pains to
ensure that the "enhancement" is not optional?
</rhetorical>
[1] Not limited to furniture, or to computer-related goods and
services. But it really doesn't matter whom you put upon the list.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
"The most dementing of all modern sins:
the inability to distinguish excellence from success." David Hare
Garrett Wollman
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
>In particular, trying to find a good selection of desks without
>keyboard drawers is becoming quite unrecovery.
About four months ago, I bought a very nice Jesper corner desk, with
which I had to pay for the installation of a keyboard tray -- so I
assume they'd sell you one without. It *is* expensive, but then
again, the stuff you find at Staples doesn't come with a ten-year
warranty either. (The corner desk and a 30-inch return, with
adjustable legs, delivery, and setup, set me back about $900. If I
had bought their ``executive'' series -- with an inlaid border -- it
would have set me back $1200.)
Of course, I still don't have a chair that's as nice as my desk....
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:
> [1] Not limited to furniture, or to computer-related goods and
> services.
Not remotely limited to those. My peeve lately has been automotive
design. Specifically, automatic lights on automobiles.
Good God, all I want -- and is this SO much to ask? -- is that:
a) lights be ON when I move a switch controlling them to the ON
position; and
b) these same lights be OFF when I move the switch back.
It's just that simple. And I repeat: is this really such a damnedly
unreasonable demand?
No, instead, the geniuses in Detroit (Detroit being the main offender;
the foreign cars are much less obnoxious) have decided to figure it
all out for me ahead of time.
"Is it dark? Why, then, you must want the lights to be on."
What, even if I'm trying to run the engine to keep warm as I sit in a
dark and remote spot at 4:00 a.m. trying to watch a fucking METEOR
SHOWER? Even then?
"Yes, even then. Lights on. So sorry, no way to turn them off."
@#$%!
(That was a rental. No way would I own a car with such a monstrously
luserish design.)
Then we have the whole subject of interior lights, which stay on after
I'm out of the car. And some models (GM mostly, I think) keep the
headlights on once I'm out of the car, as well. Of course, I have no
way to determine, immediately, whether the lights are on because I've
left the switch in the on position, or whether the goddam car is just
being "helpful."
I'm pretty sure they'd go right out if I drove it into a deep lake and
swam away from it. Don't think I wouldn't love that.
Even my new and so-far-beloved Toyota has been infected, slightly,
with this disease. First off, it has "daytime running lights." At
least the designers at Toyota have the good sense to give you a means
of turning these stupid things off when you're stopped -- simply
engage the parking brake. (The dealership will be turning these
things off permanently next week when I take it in for a trailer hitch
installation. Even the DaimlerChryslers and GMs can be reprogrammed
to turn off the running lights.)
The only other irritating thing is that the front interior lights
always come on when a door is open. All of the other ones are
controllable via the traditional three-mode on/off/door switch, but
the front ones are in permanent "door" mode, meaning they are
controlled by the position of the doors.
It seems the version without a moonroof has a three-position switch to
control this behavior, but when a moonroof is installed, that switch's
position is taken up by the moonroof control switch. I guess I sort
of admire that kind of efficiency, but I still feel vaguely cheated.
I suspect I am one of about three consumers worldwide who gives a shit
about this stuff, given that the really out-there idiocy of GM in this
respect has failed to affect their sales significantly. Oh, well.
End rant.
ObRecovery: Just saw "Gosford Park." Highly amusing.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone disagrees with any statement I make, I
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |am quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it. -T. Lehrer
***~~~~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Maynard
<INVALID...@example.com> wrote:
>Good God, all I want -- and is this SO much to ask? -- is that:
>a) lights be ON when I move a switch controlling them to the ON
> position; and
>b) these same lights be OFF when I move the switch back.
Lexus got this right (as they did with so much else). There's a
four-position switch: off, parking lights, on, auto. The first three do
exactly what they say, regardless of light condition. The fourth position is
the only one where the car makes the choice.
>Then we have the whole subject of interior lights, which stay on after
>I'm out of the car. And some models (GM mostly, I think) keep the
>headlights on once I'm out of the car, as well. Of course, I have no
>way to determine, immediately, whether the lights are on because I've
>left the switch in the on position, or whether the goddam car is just
>being "helpful."
Lexus does this, too...I've gotten comfortable with assuming that the car is
being helpful. If I want to force the lights off, I just push the button on
the key remote that locks the doors a second time, and the lights go out
immediately.
>Even my new and so-far-beloved Toyota has been infected, slightly,
>with this disease. First off, it has "daytime running lights." At
>least the designers at Toyota have the good sense to give you a means
>of turning these stupid things off when you're stopped -- simply
>engage the parking brake. (The dealership will be turning these
>things off permanently next week when I take it in for a trailer hitch
>installation. Even the DaimlerChryslers and GMs can be reprogrammed
>to turn off the running lights.)
I haven't gone looking for this one on my car; DRLs don't bother me much,
and they do rate an insurance discount. I will note, however, that a SAAB
9.3 convertible I had as a rental once had a simple, well-documented, user
procedure for disabling the DRLs: they told you which fuse to remove.
>I suspect I am one of about three consumers worldwide who gives a shit
>about this stuff, given that the really out-there idiocy of GM in this
>respect has failed to affect their sales significantly. Oh, well.
>End rant.
Considering that people still buy Fords despite their documented high level
of suckage...
Jasper Janssen
(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>Good God, all I want -- and is this SO much to ask? -- is that:
>
>a) lights be ON when I move a switch controlling them to the ON
> position; and
>
>b) these same lights be OFF when I move the switch back.
>
>It's just that simple. And I repeat: is this really such a damnedly
>unreasonable demand?
Personally, I'd enjoy c) These same lights be on auto when I move the
switch to "AUTO" position. I don't mind featuritis, as long as they're
useful features and I can turn them off.
>No, instead, the geniuses in Detroit (Detroit being the main offender;
>the foreign cars are much less obnoxious) have decided to figure it
>all out for me ahead of time.
>
>"Is it dark? Why, then, you must want the lights to be on."
The new Citroens advertise with this. A similar system is installed for
the wipers, except it responds to water instead of light (duh..). I
suspect the main reason Detroit is more obnoxious than foreign is that the
foreign cars are simply a few years behind in such developments. Probably
all the non-Detroit ones do have an on/off/auto switch rather than a
permanent "auto" setting, though.
Jasper
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote:
> >It's just that simple. And I repeat: is this really such a damnedly
> >unreasonable demand?
>
> Personally, I'd enjoy c) These same lights be on auto when I move
> the switch to "AUTO" position. I don't mind featuritis, as long as
> they're useful features and I can turn them off.
I didn't mention it, but my new Sienna has an AUTO position for the
headlights. I like it, and I don't object to leaving it in that
position by default. What drives me completely batshit is a design
that doesn't include a means of disabling it. "Any feature that can't
be disabled is a bug."
One slightly disturbing thing: the manual recommends turning the AUTO
feature off if the car is to be parked more than a week, so presumably
it uses some nontrivial amount of power even when the ignition is off.
> >No, instead, the geniuses in Detroit (Detroit being the main offender;
> >the foreign cars are much less obnoxious) have decided to figure it
> >all out for me ahead of time.
> >
> >"Is it dark? Why, then, you must want the lights to be on."
>
> The new Citroens advertise with this. A similar system is installed
> for the wipers, except it responds to water instead of light
> (duh..).
I've been wondering for years when someone was going to come out with
such a device. I'd welcome it, provided -- of course -- that it could
be overridden.
> I suspect the main reason Detroit is more obnoxious than foreign is
> that the foreign cars are simply a few years behind in such
> developments. Probably all the non-Detroit ones do have an
> on/off/auto switch rather than a permanent "auto" setting, though.
I don't know that they're "behind," I think they merely proceed more
cautiously. The Japanese have a history of letting Detroit do their
market research for them, then coming in and improving on something
sort-of-cool by an order of magnitude or three. My favorite example
of this phenomenon was the piece-o-shit Pontiac Fiero, which was
followed up by the sublime Toyota MR2.
Toyota has had a feature for over 15 years that I am simply amazed no
one else has copied. If you have your lights on, and you turn your
ignition off, then open the driver's door, the lights go off. (They
can then be turned on again immediately, overriding the automatic
shutoff, if you desire.) Many is the time I have had my lights on in
the rain, then parked and forgotten to turn them off. When I return
to my car six hours later, the (retractable) lights are up, but off,
reminding me that I have been a dumbshit and have only been saved from
having to jump- or roll-start by the foresight of an automatic system.
So I'm not against automation. I'm against automation that thinks it
can anticipate every possible situation, so that there is no need for
any kind of manual override.
This goes for the DRLs, too. I would happily keep them on nearly 100%
of the time if I could simply control them with a switch. Again, I
really do not think this is a whole hell of a lot to ask. But if I
have to choose between always-on-not-controllable and always-off-not-
controllable, I'll pick "off." If I really need lights, I'll just
turn on my headlights.
Mike Andrews
: Then we have the whole subject of interior lights, which stay on after
: I'm out of the car. And some models (GM mostly, I think) keep the
: headlights on once I'm out of the car, as well. Of course, I have no
: way to determine, immediately, whether the lights are on because I've
: left the switch in the on position, or whether the goddam car is just
: being "helpful."
: I'm pretty sure they'd go right out if I drove it into a deep lake and
: swam away from it. Don't think I wouldn't love that.
Well, we don't have to worry about cops using _that_ vehicle.
On my Chrysler T&C, if I turn the lights off _BEFORE_ I turn the
motor off, the lights stay off. If I turn the motor off first,
then flicking the lights off-on-off turns them off. Otherwise the
timer keeps the lights on for about 30 seconds.
: The only other irritating thing is that the front interior lights
: always come on when a door is open. All of the other ones are
: controllable via the traditional three-mode on/off/door switch, but
: the front ones are in permanent "door" mode, meaning they are
: controlled by the position of the doors.
: It seems the version without a moonroof has a three-position switch to
: control this behavior, but when a moonroof is installed, that switch's
: position is taken up by the moonroof control switch. I guess I sort
: of admire that kind of efficiency, but I still feel vaguely cheated.
_IDIOTS_ They need to install a new switch bracket and bezel, to
accommodate the extra switch and its wiring to the moonroof. That
they didn't is a sign of marketroids imposing a false economy.
: I suspect I am one of about three consumers worldwide who gives a shit
: about this stuff, given that the really out-there idiocy of GM in this
: respect has failed to affect their sales significantly. Oh, well.
: End rant.
_You_ _are_ _not_ _alone_.
: ObRecovery: Just saw "Gosford Park." Highly amusing.
Isn't it just. I have to see it again, now that my hearing is up
to spec (more or less) again. The first time, my L ear was just
behaving like /dev/null, and I missed about 30% of the dialog.
Even then, it was ROFL material, except the theater floor was
grody beyond belief.
It reminded me a _lot_ of various long-duration meetings and one
"retreat" I've been required to attend.
--
"Integration by parts -- a very powerful technique."
"Teaching by intimidation -- also a very powerful technique."
- Logan Shaw, quoting Chuck Odle, his Calculus teacher,
in the Monastery.
Garrett Wollman
J.D. Baldwin <baldwi...@panix.com> wrote:
>Toyota has had a feature for over 15 years that I am simply amazed no
>one else has copied. If you have your lights on, and you turn your
>ignition off, then open the driver's door, the lights go off.
Whereas every other make of car I've been in recently just rings an
bell that's supposed to be annoying-enough to break through whatever
sort of fog you're in.
Now here's an anti-foot-shooting feature I particularly like, although
I haven't tested it yet: if you leave your keys in the ignition, exit
the car, manually lock the door, and then close it with the keys still
in place, the driver's-side door will automatically unlock, and cannot
be locked remotely. (One of my strongest phobias is of losing my
keys....)
I suspect you would dislike the feature of my Accord that turns on the
courtesty lights whenever the ignition switch moves from "off" to
"lock". This also enables the driver's-side power window; both turn
off when the door is opened.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Red Drag Diva <f...@thingy.apana.org.au>
wrote, quoting me:
> :Toyota has had a feature for over 15 years that I am simply amazed no
> :one else has copied. If you have your lights on, and you turn your
> :ignition off, then open the driver's door, the lights go off. (They
> :can then be turned on again immediately, overriding the automatic
> :shutoff, if you desire.) Many is the time I have had my lights on in
> :the rain, then parked and forgotten to turn them off. When I return
> :to my car six hours later, the (retractable) lights are up, but off,
> :reminding me that I have been a dumbshit and have only been saved from
> :having to jump- or roll-start by the foresight of an automatic system.
>
My 1987 MR2, my new 2002 Sienna, various other models I've driven over
the years. Cecil Adams once did a column on "Why isn't there a better
way to make sure the lights go off?" and one (or more) of the
follow-up letters described the Toyota system. Cecil agreed that he
couldn't think of a better system.
> I prefer the other way Toyota does this: headlights on, ignition off
> = loud beeeeeep until you correct the battery-draining error.
Even if the door isn't open? I'd smash the thing to bits with an axe
before logging 100 miles on the odo.
Even if it only applies with an open door, the problem, for me, is
that I've become so inured to tones and beeps and whistles that this
kind of "warning" doesn't even register with me anymore.
My Subaru has an even simpler means of preventing this kind of battery
drain: ignition off, lights off. (There is an override switch, but
that's the default behavior. Of course, it's possible to forget that
you left the override switch on. Them's the breaks.)
> Of course, it didn't come with a way to switch it off.
Then, in my opinion, it's b0rken. (Sort of my whole point.)
> Nevertheless, I have left headlights on far too often to really
> object.
I leave them on fairly often, myself. 99.999% of the time, the system
saves me (despite the fact that I have disabled the alarm). I have
been burned once, having out-idioted the idiot-proofing. I reached in
through the open top (my MR2 is a T-top) and knocked the switch (it's
not a knob-type) into a position where the parking lights were on. I
didn't notice, and went inside. When I came down in the morning, the
battery was dead, and I felt like a right ass. (The alarm wouldn't
have helped me here, either, as the door was closed.)
Jasper Janssen
(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>I didn't mention it, but my new Sienna has an AUTO position for the
>headlights. I like it, and I don't object to leaving it in that
>position by default. What drives me completely batshit is a design
>that doesn't include a means of disabling it. "Any feature that can't
>be disabled is a bug."
>
>One slightly disturbing thing: the manual recommends turning the AUTO
>feature off if the car is to be parked more than a week, so presumably
>it uses some nontrivial amount of power even when the ignition is off.
Well, if there is the slightest chance that it might go false-positive and
turn your headlights on while the car's not generating any power.. you
should be able to implement such a system in no more milli-amps than that
blinky led of the alarm system.
>> The new Citroens advertise with this. A similar system is installed
>> for the wipers, except it responds to water instead of light
>> (duh..).
>
>I've been wondering for years when someone was going to come out with
>such a device. I'd welcome it, provided -- of course -- that it could
>be overridden.
They've been advertising for a while now with commercials having the
import that every Citroen salesman knows absolutely every feature those
cars have, because the cars're so good being a salesguy for them means you
devote your entire life to it. The current commercial, OTOH, is a "new"
salesguy, firstdayonthejob, who knows less about the features of the new
car than the client does, and who manages to make the Mrs Client spill her
coffee all over the windscreen -- at which time the wipers start running.
>I don't know that they're "behind," I think they merely proceed more
>cautiously. The Japanese have a history of letting Detroit do their
>market research for them, then coming in and improving on something
>sort-of-cool by an order of magnitude or three. My favorite example
>of this phenomenon was the piece-o-shit Pontiac Fiero, which was
>followed up by the sublime Toyota MR2.
Nani? Don't follow you. We don't have either of those cars here, I think.
Not that I know of, anyway.
>Toyota has had a feature for over 15 years that I am simply amazed no
>one else has copied. If you have your lights on, and you turn your
>ignition off, then open the driver's door, the lights go off. (They
>can then be turned on again immediately, overriding the automatic
>shutoff, if you desire.) Many is the time I have had my lights on in
>the rain, then parked and forgotten to turn them off. When I return
>to my car six hours later, the (retractable) lights are up, but off,
>reminding me that I have been a dumbshit and have only been saved from
>having to jump- or roll-start by the foresight of an automatic system.
Fiat has a different but similar system, and it's one of the reasons my
mother has been driving Fiats for.. about 18 years now, I think, and that
first one was secondhand, too, so the system's been in place well over 20
years.
When you turn off the ignition, the lights go off by default, but if you
really want you can press a button by the side of the contact lock while
turning the key that will keep them on if you really want.
So, basically, they solved the same problem with a relatively complex
contact lock rather than fancy electronics.
>So I'm not against automation. I'm against automation that thinks it
>can anticipate every possible situation, so that there is no need for
>any kind of manual override.
Well, coping with every situation includes IMHO listening to the pilot
when he wants something done differently.
>This goes for the DRLs, too. I would happily keep them on nearly 100%
>of the time if I could simply control them with a switch. Again, I
>really do not think this is a whole hell of a lot to ask. But if I
>have to choose between always-on-not-controllable and always-off-not-
>controllable, I'll pick "off." If I really need lights, I'll just
>turn on my headlights.
I'm not against safety features that can't be turned off, per se. Given
how many lusers there are on the road, and all. You don't give them an
administrator account on an NT box, but a locked-down-as-tight-as-windows
can go one, either, after all.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
(Andrew Dalgleish) wrote:
>In article <a6g6lm$aas$1...@reader2.panix.com>, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>>
>> In the previous article, Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote:
>>> I suspect the main reason Detroit is more obnoxious than foreign is
>>> that the foreign cars are simply a few years behind in such
>>> developments.
>
>are a few nice cars from the USA, there are a lot of foreign cars
>I would prefer.
Enh. I would take it kindly if you didn't characterise me as USAian. The
nationality on m passport and my place of residence is the Kingdom of the
Netherlands.
Jasper
David P. Murphy
>>My favorite example
>>of this phenomenon was the piece-o-shit Pontiac Fiero, which was
>>followed up by the sublime Toyota MR2.
> Nani? Don't follow you. We don't have either of those cars here, I think.
> Not that I know of, anyway.
I once sat in a Fiero, around 1985. It was by far the most comfortable
car I have ever driven. Maybe it's just my shape and size.
That's all I know about it.
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
systems programmer ftp://ftp.myths.com
mailto:d...@myths.com (personal)
COGITO ERGO DISCLAMO mailto:Murphy...@emc.com (work)
Earl Grey
> I've been looking around for a desk for my home PC, and have been
> disgusted to see that once again the Followers of Fashion have
> restricted the availability of unfashionable items. In particular,
> trying to find a good selection of desks without keyboard drawers is
> becoming quite unrecovery.
Ikea.
Or...
http://www.bushfurniture.com/html/contempocherry_7.htm
"Some Assembly Required.[tm]"
Only thing I don't like about the second product is the front round-bit
moves around a bit, and has a gap that ... accumulates cruft.
Otherwise, though, VERY satisfied.
--
They tell me that you're going to try posting to Alt.Sysadmin.Recovery.
It's a Magnificent Idea; A Daring and Splendid Idea! It will be FUN!
Assuming you're not vaporized, dissected, or otherwise killed in an
assortment of supremely horrible and painful ways! Exciting, Isn't It?!
Arvid Grøtting
> I'm not against safety features that can't be turned off, per se. Given
> how many lusers there are on the road, and all. You don't give them an
> administrator account on an NT box, but a locked-down-as-tight-as-windows
> can go one, either, after all.
You then route their HTTP and HTTPS traffic through a proxy that has a
compete and utter disregard for DNS TTLs, and then I change IP
addresses on our webservers.
OK, so it wasn't you. I still wonder whether the suckage mode of the
proxies some of our customers were behind was «all your TTL are
$bignum» or «all your A are belong stay the same for as long as I
run».
--
In its experience the Court has found testimonial predictions of
future events generally less reliable even than testimony as to
historical fact, and cross-examination to be of little use in
enhancing or detracting from their accuracy. -- T. P. Jackson
hav...@bigmailbox.net
> My Subaru has an even simpler means of preventing this kind of battery
> drain: ignition off, lights off. (There is an override switch, but
> that's the default behavior. Of course, it's possible to forget that
> you left the override switch on. Them's the breaks.)
Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Lancia and Ferrari have the same system: ignition
off, light off. If you want light on, you have to press a button
on the keylock and rotate the keys past the ignition off mark.
I've always wondered why other car makers haven't adopted the same method,
maybe there is a patent on the keylock design.
Mike
Harri J Haataja
>J.D. Baldwin <baldwi...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>Toyota has had a feature for over 15 years that I am simply amazed no
>>one else has copied. If you have your lights on, and you turn your
>>ignition off, then open the driver's door, the lights go off.
>
>Whereas every other make of car I've been in recently just rings an
>bell that's supposed to be annoying-enough to break through whatever
>sort of fog you're in.
My father is apparently past the point where he hears the crickets
chirping like they say. Enough actually that he can't hear the car's
annoying whistle.
--
I'm broken. Please show this to someone who can fix can fix
-- A message in a TeX system
Harri J Haataja
>Red Drag Diva <f...@thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:
>> I prefer the other way Toyota does this: headlights on, ignition off
>> = loud beeeeeep until you correct the battery-draining error.
>
>Even if the door isn't open? I'd smash the thing to bits with an axe
>before logging 100 miles on the odo.
At least on Corollas, no. If door is opened, lights on and keys out
(IIRC, might be enough to be in off pos), beeee...
And yes, the method for disabling this is quite simply to detach the
beeper. Not difficult IIRC. Doesn't even require an axe =)
>My Subaru has an even simpler means of preventing this kind of battery
>drain: ignition off, lights off. (There is an override switch, but
>that's the default behavior. Of course, it's possible to forget that
>you left the override switch on. Them's the breaks.)
I think Peugeot 405 my brother has ('89, somewhat crude interior but
quite nice to drive and doesn't look that bad either IMHO) has some kind
of driver's seat sensor in the lights and a nice switch set somewhere
under the hood or near the fuse box, I forget the details, that allows
you to choose among quite a few combinations of automatic headlight
positions. Yes, includes all-manual IIRC.
One thing I can't help but wonder is how widespread is the law that you
need normal lights ("low beams"?) to be on *always* when moving and
standing lights when the engine is running even if you were still.
"See and be seen" with minimal room for interpretation.
Dan Holdsworth
<INVALID...@example.com>
>
>In the previous article, Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote:
>> >It's just that simple. And I repeat: is this really such a damnedly
>> >unreasonable demand?
>>
>> Personally, I'd enjoy c) These same lights be on auto when I move
>> the switch to "AUTO" position. I don't mind featuritis, as long as
>> they're useful features and I can turn them off.
>
>I didn't mention it, but my new Sienna has an AUTO position for the
>headlights. I like it, and I don't object to leaving it in that
>position by default. What drives me completely batshit is a design
>that doesn't include a means of disabling it. "Any feature that can't
>be disabled is a bug."
Personally, I take a similar view.
I also see GM's view quite clearly; they are marketing to Joe Random
Luser, more specifically the Luser sub-species that currently infests
large areas of the USA.
For such lower life-forms, a simplistic computer control really _IS_
more intelligent than they are. [1]
By taking control out of the hands of the lusers and putting it into
the hands of a PIC, GM are marginally improving safety for many, at
the risk of annoying the few intelligent life forms left on the planet.
[1] A survey of the behaviour of USA customers of domestic air
conditioner units found that a large percentage seemed to view a
thermostat as a simple switch; they turned it to one extreme to
turn on the unit, and back to the other to turn it off. No effort
was made to read documentation or to understand the idea of a
thermostat; to them it was a switch, no more.
--
Dan Holdsworth PhD da...@supanet.com
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion
J.D. Baldwin
> positive and turn your headlights on while the car's not generating
> any power.. you should be able to implement such a system in no more
> milli-amps than that blinky led of the alarm system.
I can't believe that this is the rationale for the warning ... the
idea of the auto-headlights popping on with the ignition *off* is a
little too bizarre for me. And, like you, I can't see why the sensor
should take any significant amount of power. Perhaps they're just
being conservative.
> >I don't know that they're "behind," I think they merely proceed more
> >cautiously. The Japanese have a history of letting Detroit do their
> >market research for them, then coming in and improving on something
> >sort-of-cool by an order of magnitude or three. My favorite example
> >of this phenomenon was the piece-o-shit Pontiac Fiero, which was
> >followed up by the sublime Toyota MR2.
>
> Nani? Don't follow you. We don't have either of those cars here, I
> think. Not that I know of, anyway.
I don't believe the MR2 was ever sold in Europe. Pity, as I think it
would have fit in well there.
I really doubt that any Fiero has ever touched its wheels to a highway
in Europe. (Okay, maybe a couple of military guys brought them over
when they got transferred to Germany.)
Here's the story:
Pontiac introduced a small two-seat sports car, the Fiero, in 1984.
It sucked. Bad. It was under-powered and had a tendency to fall
apart at provocation like, well, being driven and such. Also an
unfortunate tendency to burst into flames, Pinto-style, except that
the Pinto had to be rear-ended in order to precipitate such an
explosion. Even so, the new Fiero was a popular and much-admired
design.
So Toyota jumped on the idea and introduced the MR2 in 1985. (In
truth, it had been planned earlier, but no one at Toyota was sure
whether to export it to North America until the Fiero proved
saleable.) It did not suck. At all.
[I should note that both stole liberally from the Fiat X1/9 and
Bertoni designs.]
Pontiac improved the Fiero incrementally during each of its successive
model years from 1985 to 1988. They made it not-suck. In fact, they
made it into a reasonably fine automobile, though in my NSH opinion it
still wasn't up there with the MR2. Of course, in a typical-for-GM
marketing decision, just as soon as they made it into a halfway decent
car, they discontinued the model because it wasn't selling. (In fact,
people loved the car, but it had a reputation for being a piece of
shit. Sales were actually on the upswing when they made the decision
to cancel it. They never gave the not-nearly-as-shitty version a
chance.)
Toyota has produced the MR2 all along, but has changed the design
significantly twice -- the three designs are known among enthusiasts
as Mark I, II and III. They stopped selling MR2s in North America for
a few years, but they are now available as the convertible "Spyder"
model (the Mark III). *Very* attractive cars, though not built for
people over 5'10", from what I can see. I am 6'1" and fit into my
1987 Mark I model just fine.
Here are some pix of the two models:
http://www.chrismore.com/fieropic.asp
http://www.mr2.com/MR2Desc.html
The Mark I example in the second URL looks pretty well identical to
mine, except that mine isn't supercharged. (Nor do I want it to be.
The pickup is just fine, the maintenance is easier and 135 mph is as
fast as I ever care to travel in an auto.)
> [DRLs]
> I'm not against safety features that can't be turned off, per
> se. Given how many lusers there are on the road, and all. You don't
> give them an administrator account on an NT box, but a locked-down-
> as-tight-as-windows can go one, either, after all.
I'm not convinced DRLs are a "safety feature," at least in the
continental U.S. where lighting conditions are good. I know a lot of
motorcyclists are up in arms about the concept, and for good reason --
until DRLs were introduced, motorcycles stood out more because they
were the only vehicles with lights on during the day. Now, seeing
lights-on vehicles is commonplace, and they all sort of blend into the
same background, rendering motorcycles even *more* "invisible" to the
average motorist. Thus, DRLs may actually *decrease* safety for some
people. It wouldn't be the first time a "safety" feature had
unforeseen adverse effects. (Cue airbag flame war.)
You bring up an interesting fantasy of mine: classes of license. If
you have a class-I license, your car is electronically restricted to
50 mph and a lower rate of acceleration, and you have to keep DRLs on.
A class-II license gets to go 70 mph, maybe still with DRLs. A
class-III license gets the "governing" removed, and doesn't have to
bother will silly bullshit like DRLs.
Oh, yeah, also you'd need a special, and easily-lost, endorsement to
drive a vehicle over a certain gross weight.
The color of the sky in my world? It's sort of pinkish-purple. Why
do you ask?
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Anthony de Boer - USEnet <ab...@leftmind.net>
wrote, quoting me:
> > ... Many is the time I have had my lights on in
> >the rain, then parked and forgotten to turn them off. ...
>
> And here I had you figured as one of those hypercompetent people who
> survive on a carrier flight deck, as your .sig suggested. I guess
> training and procedures with civilian gear isn't quite as rigorous,
> though.
<sheepish grin>
I guess it all depends how high the stakes are.
I never landed with my gear up! (Not even in a simulator.)
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In <slrna8ngq2.he1...@brains.not.invalid>, on 03/10/2002
at 08:40 PM, andrew...@dalgleish.dyndns.org (Andrew Dalgleish)
said:
>Why do some USA-ians think everyone is behind them? Although there
>are a few nice cars from the USA, there are a lot of foreign cars I
>would prefer.
More to the point, why do we continue to use the terms foreign and
domestic long after they have lost their meaning? Is a Ford built on
the Left Coast (Island Division) of Europe domestic? Is a Toyota built
in Pennsylvania foreign? When the same car is sold under two
different names, is one foreign and one domestic?
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
In <Pine.OSX.4.31.020310...@kapu.net>, on 03/10/2002
at 08:09 PM, Earl Grey <bo...@kapu.net> said:
> Ikea.
The ones I saw there had keyboard drawers.
> http://www.bushfurniture.com/html/contempocherry_7.htm
Thanks. I'll take a look.
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
<INVALID...@example.com> said
>I don't believe the MR2 was ever sold in Europe. Pity, as I think it
>would have fit in well there.
Wrong. All "series" of MR2 were (and still are) sold in .UK
>I really doubt that any Fiero has ever touched its wheels to a highway
>in Europe. (Okay, maybe a couple of military guys brought them over
>when they got transferred to Germany.)
Again wrong - a friend had one. Despite being powered by a 2.8something
litre V6 engine, it was still spectacularly sluggish by comparison with
equivalently-engine-sized cars of similar size.
--
!Raised Tails! -:Tanuki:-
"New LART Bio(tm) - removes spammer-blood even at the lower temperatures
recommended for today's fabrics and finishes. Approved by Whirlpool and Maytag"
Jamie Bowden
> Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote:
>
> >>My favorite example
> >>of this phenomenon was the piece-o-shit Pontiac Fiero, which was
> >>followed up by the sublime Toyota MR2.
>
> > Nani? Don't follow you. We don't have either of those cars here, I think.
> > Not that I know of, anyway.
>
> I once sat in a Fiero, around 1985. It was by far the most comfortable
> car I have ever driven. Maybe it's just my shape and size.
>
> That's all I know about it.
The final year of the Fiero, the 6 cyl. version was a damn fine little
car. Of course, since it was a good car, done right by that point, it was
promptly discontinued.
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
Jamie Bowden
My old VW bug would mostly do this. With the ignition key in the lock
position, only the running lights were on if you forgot to push the
plunger back down. I came out of work after more than one shift thankful
for that.
Omri Schwarz
> In article <a6g6lm$aas$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> J.D. Baldwin <baldwi...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >Toyota has had a feature for over 15 years that I am simply amazed no
> >one else has copied. If you have your lights on, and you turn your
> >ignition off, then open the driver's door, the lights go off.
>
> Whereas every other make of car I've been in recently just rings an
> bell that's supposed to be annoying-enough to break through whatever
> sort of fog you're in.
>
> Now here's an anti-foot-shooting feature I particularly like, although
> I haven't tested it yet: if you leave your keys in the ignition, exit
> the car, manually lock the door, and then close it with the keys still
> in place, the driver's-side door will automatically unlock, and cannot
> be locked remotely. (One of my strongest phobias is of losing my
> keys....)
How would it tell from this scenario and from
you leaving the keys in, opening the door,
and then closing and locking it because some
nut is accosting you?
--
Omri Schwarz --- ocs...@mit.edu ('h' before war)
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering: "Noise is principally
due to the presence of the patient." -- R.F. Farr
Douglas Henke
> I'm not convinced DRLs are a "safety feature," at least in the
> continental U.S. where lighting conditions are good. I know a lot
> of motorcyclists are up in arms about the concept, and for good
> reason -- until DRLs were introduced, motorcycles stood out more
> because they were the only vehicles with lights on during the day.
> Now, seeing lights-on vehicles is commonplace, and they all sort of
> blend into the same background, rendering motorcycles even *more*
> "invisible" to the average motorist. Thus, DRLs may actually
> *decrease* safety for some people.
Not just motorcyclists, either.
DRLs are very much a multiple-replay prisoner's dilemma, with a large
number of players. If everybody defects (i.e. runs around in broad
daylight with their lights on), then nobody (car or bike) stands out,
and nobody gets any safety benefit.
And, of course, DRLs make impossible the very useful conventions of
communication with other motorists using the headlights during
daytime:
oncoming, flashing: dangerous conditions (FVO including "speed trap") ahead
from aft, flashing: please permit me to pass at your earliest convenience
from aft, flash from vehicle in driving lane to vehicle in passing lane:
you have cleared me and may rejoin the driving lane in front of me
oncoming, solid, dark clouds on horizon: dire weather ahead
solid (in group): I am part of a funeral procession
solid (alone): I have gotten lost from a funeral procession (or, I have
been driving longer than it's been light out and have a low SAQ)
> It wouldn't be the first time a "safety" feature had unforeseen
> adverse effects. (Cue airbag flame war.)
Aye. Though DRLs (much like airbags) are optional on ALL vehicles; I
have little sympathy to spare for those unable/unwilling to make the
required modifications. "Hack the source if the 50% rule bothers you"
was reasonable for rn, and isn't that much different for cars.
Example: There is a set of drivers who are well-versed in threshold
braking and who will be incrementally safer _without_ anti-lock brakes.
There is another, vastly larger set, who _think_ they are in the
first set. Exercise for reader, etc.
> You bring up an interesting fantasy of mine: classes of license. If
> you have a class-I license, your car is electronically restricted to
> 50 mph and a lower rate of acceleration, and you have to keep DRLs
> on. A class-II license gets to go 70 mph, maybe still with DRLs. A
> class-III license gets the "governing" removed, and doesn't have to
> bother will silly bullshit like DRLs.
Needs a "class L" license, also, which limits you to sitting in the
passenger seat with the engine off, making little "vroom, vroom"
noises with your lips.
--
Mail to henke at insync dot net.
Greg Andrews
>
>Not remotely limited to those. My peeve lately has been automotive
>design. Specifically, automatic lights on automobiles.
>
>Good God, all I want -- and is this SO much to ask? -- is that:
>
>a) lights be ON when I move a switch controlling them to the ON
> position; and
>
>b) these same lights be OFF when I move the switch back.
>
>It's just that simple. And I repeat: is this really such a damnedly
>unreasonable demand?
>
>No, instead, the geniuses in Detroit (Detroit being the main offender;
>the foreign cars are much less obnoxious) have decided to figure it
>all out for me ahead of time.
>
SWMBO's Saturn shuts off its driving lights when the handbrake
lever is pulled. Perhaps that might work with your car...
-Greg
--
+++++ Greg Andrews +++ ge...@panix.com +++++
I have a map of the United States that's actual size
-- Steven Wright
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Omri Schwarz <ocs...@h-after-ocsc.mit.edu>
wrote, quoting wol...@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman):
> > Now here's an anti-foot-shooting feature I particularly like,
> > although I haven't tested it yet: if you leave your keys in the
> > ignition, exit the car, manually lock the door, and then close it
> > with the keys still in place, the driver's-side door will
> > automatically unlock, and cannot be locked remotely. (One of my
> > strongest phobias is of losing my keys....)
>
> How would it tell from this scenario and from
> you leaving the keys in, opening the door,
> and then closing and locking it because some
> nut is accosting you?
Presumably if you lock it with the built-in (as opposed to the remote)
"lock all doors" button (or, for that matter, manually, with the
lever), it will lock.
I know my Sienna[1] has some kind of anti-lock-the-keys-in-the-car
feature, but I don't know what it is yet. Maybe it's similar.
Most American makes I know of allow you to lock the door by moving the
lever to "locked" and closing the door. I regard this as stupid, as I
believe the default "unlock on close" of most Japanese makes to be
safer. Of course, that design would be luserish, too, if there were
no override available, but in the case of the Toyotas I've owned, the
door can be locked by locking it, then closing it while holding the
handle.
I have NEVER locked my keys in my car. Not once, in nearly 20 years
of car ownership. Why? Because I got myself into the habit of
locking the door with the key, and not by holding the handle. It's
tough to lock your keys in your car when you use it to lock the door.
I know of one car model that *required* you to lock it with the key.
To me, this is the most luserish design of all. It will surprise no
one to hear that this particular make was French. (Hi, Dave.)
[1] Did I mention that it's new?[2]
[2] Ten years ago, I probably told someone to hunt me down and shoot me
if I ever started acting excited about a new minivan. God help me.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
> The final year of the Fiero, the 6 cyl. version was a damn fine
> little car. Of course, since it was a good car, done right by that
> point, it was promptly discontinued.
Of course it was discontinued. It wasn't selling.
Why wasn't it selling? Because everybody knew it sucked.
Why did everybody know it sucked? Because that's what they'd been
seeing for four years.
Frrfu.
Garrett Wollman
Omri Schwarz <ocs...@h-after-ocsc.mit.edu> wrote:
>How would it tell from this scenario and from
>you leaving the keys in, opening the door,
>and then closing and locking it because some
>nut is accosting you?
(a) there's a pressure sensor in both seats
(b) there's a difference between someone locking the door from the
inside, and someone locking the door using the remote transmitter.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Douglas Henke <he...@kharendaen.krall.org>
wrote, quoting me:
> DRLs are very much a multiple-replay prisoner's dilemma, with a
> large number of players. If everybody defects (i.e. runs around in
> broad daylight with their lights on), then nobody (car or bike)
> stands out, and nobody gets any safety benefit.
I wouldn't quite go that far. I submit that a sea of moving autos
with lights on is more visible than a sea of moving autos without.
There is a nonzero probability that someone, somewhere, will notice a
lighted car just a bit earlier, even though he's thoroughly inured to
seeing every single car on the road lit up in this way.
I think the real safety benefit is probably so low as to be
negligible, and it is decidedly negative for the poor motorcyclists.
Probably hugely negative for the bicyclists, who will now become even
*more* invisible. I Do Not Like This Idea.
I felt, and feel, the same way about that third brake light. There's
no good reason to believe that the safety benefit will continue to
exist in the long term, and I am definitely not in favor of adding
even *more* eye-level red lights to the phosphorescent miasma with
which nighttime drivers must already contend.
Pity there's no good way to measure the total safety picture on this
one. Running of red lights at night has become markedly more common
in recent years, despite highly-publicized enforcement crackdowns. Is
the prevalence of that third big red light a factor? I think it's
possible.
> And, of course, DRLs make impossible the very useful conventions of
> communication with other motorists using the headlights during
> daytime:
> [snip examples]
Hadn't considered that angle. I suppose this is the sort of thing
that would be trumped if the real-world safety benefit could be shown
to be quite large, or even significant. As I am unconvinced that any
benefit is really significant, and there certainly aren't any hard
figures supporting that notion, I believe these are valid points.
> > It wouldn't be the first time a "safety" feature had unforeseen
> > adverse effects. (Cue airbag flame war.)
>
> Aye. Though DRLs (much like airbags) are optional on ALL vehicles;
Not in the US. DRLs are still optional, but I think the pro-DRL lobby
is gaining momentum, and it doesn't hurt that mandating them in the US
helps the automakers to save money (since they no longer have to treat
Canadian exports as different in this respect).
Airbags, however, are mandatory equipment, and have been for several
years. This was *hugely* luserish back when they were first mandated,
as airbags can be quite dangerous. Due to some adverse publicity
about injuries due purely to airbags, they have been scaled back now
so that they blow with a force appropriate to helping an already-
restrained driver, not to saving the dumbasses who won't wear their
belts. I have changed my opinion of airbags so drastically that I
actually sprang for the side bags in the car I just bought.
I still wish the system came with a "disable" switch. For one thing,
it would increase my child-carrying capacity, which can be an issue
when you have kids in Little League and soccer. For another, it can
make rescue/extraction faster by a minute or two in the event of a
serious wreck. (That's another unintended consequence for you.)
> I have little sympathy to spare for those unable/unwilling to make
> the required modifications. "Hack the source if the 50% rule bothers
> you" was reasonable for rn, and isn't that much different for cars.
I never found the 50% rule to be either reasonable or even slightly
effective -- it didn't really stop idiots from failing to trim quoted
text, and it did force clueful ones to add lines, or change quote
characters, in order to deliver a perfectly appropriate one-liner.
But that's another topic . . .
> Example: There is a set of drivers who are well-versed in threshold
> braking and who will be incrementally safer _without_ anti-lock
> brakes. There is another, vastly larger set, who _think_ they are
> in the first set. Exercise for reader, etc.
I have empirically proven that I am in the narrower set when it comes
to clean, dry pavement. I have grave doubts that I can perform to
that spec on wet or icy pavement, so I will keep the ABS on,
thankyouverymuch.
Since my original bitching, I re-read the owner's manual. My first
reading indicated that the DRL "system" fuse also controlled many
other things, such as "instruments," that I wasn't willing to do
without, and so discarded this option. Now I see that while the
"system" is in the hands of that fuse, the lights themselves are
controlled by another, which does not affect anything else. I intend
to experiment with this soon.
> Needs a "class L" license, also, which limits you to sitting in the
> passenger seat with the engine off, making little "vroom, vroom"
> noises with your lips.
Wouldn't the MSCE people sue for patent infringement?
Garrett Wollman
Douglas Henke <he...@kharendaen.krall.org> wrote:
>DRLs are very much a multiple-replay prisoner's dilemma, with a large
>number of players. If everybody defects (i.e. runs around in broad
>daylight with their lights on), then nobody (car or bike) stands out,
>and nobody gets any safety benefit.
Not so, and you've entirely missed the point of DRLs.
The purpose of DRLs is not to make some vehicles ``stand out''. The
purpose of DRLs is to make vehicles visible *at all* under a specific
set of conditions:
a) Bright sunlight, and
b) Low solar angle resulting in stark shadows (think canyons, either
natural or urban)
Light-adjusted eyes are quite poor at distinguishing dark objects
moving around in a region of relative darkness. Headlamps on the
vehicles in the shadowed area make them sufficiently luminous to be
detected by other drivers despite the bright sun (and often through
their sunglasses).
(This is the same reason why some jurisdictions require drivers to
burn headlights for a half hour after sunrise and before sunset.)
Omri Schwarz
> In article <octofhu...@no-knife.mit.edu>,
> Omri Schwarz <ocs...@h-after-ocsc.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >How would it tell from this scenario and from
> >you leaving the keys in, opening the door,
> >and then closing and locking it because some
> >nut is accosting you?
>
> (a) there's a pressure sensor in both seats
>
> (b) there's a difference between someone locking the door from the
> inside, and someone locking the door using the remote transmitter.
Got it.
Jasper Janssen
(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>In the previous article, Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote:
>I don't believe the MR2 was ever sold in Europe. Pity, as I think it
>would have fit in well there.
>
>I really doubt that any Fiero has ever touched its wheels to a highway
>in Europe. (Okay, maybe a couple of military guys brought them over
>when they got transferred to Germany.)
You'd be surprised how many american cars, especially older models (aka,
now cheap ones) are finding their way to here nowadays. Though the ones
you notice in particular are the the typical "American sled" types, big
Caddies, Mustangs, and the like.
>
>shit. Sales were actually on the upswing when they made the decision
>to cancel it. They never gave the not-nearly-as-shitty version a
>chance.)
Sounds like GM alright.
>The Mark I example in the second URL looks pretty well identical to
>mine, except that mine isn't supercharged. (Nor do I want it to be.
>The pickup is just fine, the maintenance is easier and 135 mph is as
>fast as I ever care to travel in an auto.)
Odd shape. I'm not 100% sure I like it, but then I generally don't like
the "typical eighties car" look. Too angular.
>I'm not convinced DRLs are a "safety feature," at least in the
>continental U.S. where lighting conditions are good. I know a lot of
I'm not 100% convinced either. Here, you nowadays have to have the normal
lights on during the day -- not sure if that was law yet or just advice,
though. Are these DRLs special lights, or are they the same as the normal
lights except used during the day?
[motorcyclists]
>average motorist. Thus, DRLs may actually *decrease* safety for some
>people. It wouldn't be the first time a "safety" feature had
>unforeseen adverse effects. (Cue airbag flame war.)
I think the main argument back when here wasn't so much visibility during
full daylight in clear skies, but that many, many, many people turn their
lights on far too late (either in terms of nighttime or fog), which
results in dangerous situations during the semi-lit times.
I haven't made my mind up, and I won't til I actually have some decent
driving experience.
>You bring up an interesting fantasy of mine: classes of license. If
>you have a class-I license, your car is electronically restricted to
>50 mph and a lower rate of acceleration, and you have to keep DRLs on.
>A class-II license gets to go 70 mph, maybe still with DRLs. A
>class-III license gets the "governing" removed, and doesn't have to
>bother will silly bullshit like DRLs.
>
>Oh, yeah, also you'd need a special, and easily-lost, endorsement to
>drive a vehicle over a certain gross weight.
Well, uhm, isn't that already implemented? At least here in .nl, and I
think all over .eu, if you want to drive something more than 3000 kg, you
need a special license, and if you want to drive more than a certain size
of trailer (more than 750 kg *or* more than 1/2 the weight of the pulling
vehicle, IIRC, at least for trailers on cars) you have to have a different
license.
A license: Motorcycles
B license: Normal cars (up to 3000 kg and up to 8 passengers plus driver,
with trailer up to limits above)
C license: trucks
D license: buses (ie, more than 8 passengers)
E license: trailers. If you want to drive a trailer attached to a truck,
you need a BCE license.
Basically, all drivers licenses are stamped with (usually) B or BE (in the
old days, a trailer was standard with a car license so those people got
grandfathered BE licenses), or letters as appropriate. Also means you only
have one license, no matter how many classes you're qualified in.
I could see this being extended to B- licenses and so on :)
Jasper
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Garrett Wollman <wol...@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> (This is the same reason why some jurisdictions require drivers to
> burn headlights for a half hour after sunrise and before sunset.)
s/some/all/ at least in the U.S., I believe.
Stuart Lamble
>Airbags, however, are mandatory equipment, and have been for several
>years. This was *hugely* luserish back when they were first mandated,
>as airbags can be quite dangerous. Due to some adverse publicity
>about injuries due purely to airbags, they have been scaled back now
>so that they blow with a force appropriate to helping an already-
>restrained driver, not to saving the dumbasses who won't wear their
>belts.
Speaking as a driver in .au, we are legally *obliged* to wear seat
belts. Not doing so is cause for a fine (can't remember the exact
penalties offhand, as seatbelts are the first thing I put on before
I turn on the engine.)
The result of this is that we get SRS[1] airbags, instead of the
"PRS"[2] airbags that the US got initially. As a result, the
inflation is less dramatic (although it's still pretty damn
impressive), and less likely to cause serious injury.
Airbags were one thing that I _insisted_ upon (both driver and
passenger side) when I bought my car. It was the reason that
Nissan wasn't in the running (the Pulsar only came with a driver-side
airbag, not a passenger-side).
>I still wish the system came with a "disable" switch. For one thing,
>it would increase my child-carrying capacity, which can be an issue
>when you have kids in Little League and soccer. For another, it can
>make rescue/extraction faster by a minute or two in the event of a
>serious wreck. (That's another unintended consequence for you.)
The question is: do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? In the case
of the weaker SRS airbags, I'd argue that the answer is "yes". In the
event of a serious wreck, it could well be that the airbags are what
stop you being killed outright -- in which case, a slower extraction
is outweighed (let's face it, if it's a choice between being pulled
out of the car in 10 minutes, dead, or in 11 minutes with serious
injuries that need to be treated *stat*, any sane person would take
the 11 minutes.)
The biggest hassle with a "disable" switch is people who turn it off,
then forget about it, promptly losing the benefits of the airbags that
they paid for. You could argue, though (and I'd agree, to a point)
that that is _their_ problem. Cue tangential story about an old
backup "exclusion" policy that caused loss of data, because it was
still being applied in a manner that was no longer appropriate,
simply because nobody in a position to realise that it was no
longer appropriate remembered that it was active.
[...]
[on ABS brakes]
>I have empirically proven that I am in the narrower set when it comes
>to clean, dry pavement. I have grave doubts that I can perform to
>that spec on wet or icy pavement, so I will keep the ABS on,
>thankyouverymuch.
IIRC, ABS perform *very* badly when it comes to gravel roads... ISTR
that the fastest way to stop on gravel is to do a deliberate skid,
building up the gravel in front of the wheel, and that ABS stops
that happening. Since I never drive on gravel, this is a non-issue
for me (but others may need to consider it). ICBW, though.
ABS was the other consideration when I bought my car. Given the choice
between ABS and airbags, I'll take ABS, TYVM. (This is why Mitsubishi
dropped out of the running: the Lancer had two airbags, but no ABS,
and the Magna was just too damn large.)
Nowadays, all this stuff is close to standard on all cars of all sizes.
Not a bad thing, IMO.
[1] Supplementary (secondary?) Restraint System.
[2] Expansion should be obvious; my term, not necessarily the
car manufacturers'.
--
"You didn't slay the dragon?!"
"It's on my to-do list, now come on!"
-- Shrek.
Garrett Wollman
Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote:
>Are these DRLs special lights, or are they the same as the normal
>lights except used during the day?
DRLs as implemented on American cars (which I think is another way of
saying ``as required by Canadian regulations'') are high beams running
on lower-than-normal voltage. This makes them more visible than
regular service headlamps during the day, without blinding other
drivers should the operator forget to switch on said service headlamps
when darkness falls. It's not uncommon to see lusers driving around
at night with only DRLs on, though.
Douglas Henke
> > [ DRL as multiple-replay prisoner's dilemma ]
> I wouldn't quite go that far. I submit that a sea of moving autos
> with lights on is more visible than a sea of moving autos without.
> There is a nonzero probability that someone, somewhere, will notice a
> lighted car just a bit earlier, even though he's thoroughly inured to
> seeing every single car on the road lit up in this way.
There is also nonzero (and, IMHFO, higher) probability that someone,
somewhere, will be distracted by the sea of moving lights and thus
miss some unlighted road hazard. Or, that they will miss a lighted
vehicle (like an emergency vehicle, motorcycle, bicycle, etc.) which
no longer stands out.
However, if it isn't expressed in numbers, it's opinion. And all the
numbers I've seen show nothing more than "daytime running lights help
you be safer if you use them in an environment where few/no others
do." As usual, we're implementing safety features without having any
real idea if they help or hinder.
> > I have little sympathy to spare for those unable/unwilling to make
> > the required modifications. "Hack the source if the 50% rule bothers
> > you" was reasonable for rn, and isn't that much different for cars.
>
> I never found the 50% rule to be either reasonable or even slightly
> effective [...]
No argument here. However, the "hack the source if the rule bothers
you" meta-rule is (again, IMHFO) a smart one.
> > Needs a "class L" license, also, which limits you to sitting in the
> > passenger seat with the engine off, making little "vroom, vroom"
> > noises with your lips.
>
> Wouldn't the MSCE people sue for patent infringement?
I thought their patent only covers the particular subcase of the method
in question where the license holder covers the inside of the windscreen
with spittle.
--
Mail to henke "process and method for pretending to drive a car" at
insync dot net.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jasper Janssen <jas...@insaneoc.com> wrote,
> I'm not 100% convinced either. Here, you nowadays have to have the
> normal lights on during the day -- not sure if that was law yet or
> just advice, though. Are these DRLs special lights, or are they the
> same as the normal lights except used during the day?
In some models, they are actually separate bulbs. In others, they are
the "normal" lights being run on a lower voltage.
> >Oh, yeah, also you'd need a special, and easily-lost, endorsement to
> >drive a vehicle over a certain gross weight.
>
> Well, uhm, isn't that already implemented?
Yes, but I was specifically targeting SUVs. I have no deep objection
to SUVs, and I am not by any means in the "outlaw them!" brigade, but
I would like to see those who want to own and drive them required to
meet a higher standard of proficiency (and a cleaner driving record).
> At least here in .nl, and I think all over .eu, if you want to drive
> something more than 3000 kg, you need a special license, and if you
> want to drive more than a certain size of trailer (more than 750 kg
> *or* more than 1/2 the weight of the pulling vehicle, IIRC, at least
> for trailers on cars) you have to have a different license.
I don't know what the limits are, specifically, in the US, but it's
*way* more than 3,000 kg before you start triggering special licensing
requirements. I believe it's 26,001 lbs. in Michigan, for example,
and there are a few exceptions to that, even.
J.D. Baldwin
> > Wouldn't the MSCE people sue for patent infringement?
>
> I thought their patent only covers the particular subcase of the
> method in question where the license holder covers the inside of the
> windscreen with spittle.
If I had a sigmonster, he'd be munching on that right now.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Dave Brown <dagb...@LART.ca> wrote:
> The Honda Civic is French? Dayamn. The things you learn.
Heh. The model I was thinking of was the Rebel^W Renault Alliance.
I'm not surprised that it wasn't unique, merely disappointed.
Bogdan Iamandei
[...]
> Speaking as a driver in .au, we are legally *obliged* to wear seat
> belts. Not doing so is cause for a fine (can't remember the exact
> penalties offhand, as seatbelts are the first thing I put on before
> I turn on the engine.)
Ermm.. ISTR it's 100-150$ fine and 3 demerit points.
Oh, and before you ask - no I don't have a driving license yet, so
no - I didn't find this out the hard way, TYVM!
Ino!~
--
I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire
off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark
near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.
D. Joseph Creighton
}In the previous article, Dave Brown <dagb...@LART.ca> wrote:
}> The Honda Civic is French? Dayamn. The things you learn.
}
}Heh. The model I was thinking of was the Rebel^W Renault Alliance.
Ah, memories. My first le car was a Renault.
--
"Don't marry for money; you can borrow it cheaper." - Scottish proverb
D. Joseph Creighton [ESTP] | Systems Analyst, Database Technologies, IST
Joe_Cr...@UManitoba.CA | University of Manitoba Winnipeg, MB, Canada, eh?
Bogdan Iamandei
>
> Yes, but I was specifically targeting SUVs. I have no deep objection
> to SUVs, and I am not by any means in the "outlaw them!" brigade, but
> I would like to see those who want to own and drive them required to
> meet a higher standard of proficiency (and a cleaner driving record).
Hmmm, like, say... "truck driving license" - to drive a SUV? I've seen
too many idiots driving them as if they were in a fucking sport car.
Yes - I know what SUV stands for - but when you have say, a Toyota
LandCruiser under your arse - I believe that is not "sleek&sporty"
at all.
Good[0] thing that Brisbane is not in an area where we would get
black-ice or snow, or for that matter - anything that's extremely
slippery. On the other hand, it appears that the drivers are really
trying their best to make it up for missing the above things.
Ino!~
[0] - Though I sometimes wonder if shouldn't Mr Darwin kick in and
do some gene-pool cleansing.
Matt Olson
>
>> Needs a "class L" license, also, which limits you to sitting in the
>> passenger seat with the engine off, making little "vroom, vroom"
>> noises with your lips.
>
> Wouldn't the MSCE people sue for patent infringement?
No, that's the certification that (in a sane world almost, but
not quite, entirely unlike our own) limits you to sitting in
front of a disconnected keyboard, making little "click, click"
noises.
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matt "rivethead" Olson, speaking for himself.
"The optimist thinks that this is the best of all possible worlds,
and the pessimist knows it."
-- J. Robert Oppenheimer, "Bulletin of Atomic Scientists"
Stuart Lamble
[penalties for not wearing seat belts]
>Ermm.. ISTR it's 100-150$ fine and 3 demerit points.
And to finish off the context: you can accumulate a certain number of
demerit points. If you accumulate more than the limit, you lose your
licence for a period of time.
*googles*
12 points in a 3 year period means you may lose your licence.
Exceeding the speed limit by:
45 kph or more - 6 points
30-45 kph - 4 points
15-30 kph - 3 points
1-15 kph - 1 point
Disobeying traffic controls (signals, major sign, or police directing)
- 3 points
Failing to give way - 3 points
No helmet on a motorcycle, no seatbelt, or with an unrestrained
passenger under 16 years old - 3 points
Driving on the wrong side of double lines, or a divided highway - 3 points
Just for example. See
http://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/randl/dr_licensing/dmrtinfo.htm
if you're really curious about all the details.
Cue the rant about crazy speed limit laws.
For example, one time (ROTted to avoid google) V sbhaq zlfrys qevivat
ng bar uhaqerq naq fvkgl xvybzrgref cre ubhe. Gur pne'f Rhebcrna,
(Trezna, VVEP), naq vf pncnoyr bs qbvat hc gb 250 xcu -- fznyy jbaqre
gung V sbhaq zlfrys jnl bire gur fcrrq yvzvg. Sbe gubfr jub xabj
Ivpgbevn'f ebnqf, guvf jnf ba gur Uhzr Serrjnl, fbhgu bs gur
Tbhyohea Inyyrl Uvtujnl, nobhg n lrne naq n unys ntb (tvir be gnxr
guerr zbaguf). Irel yvggyr genssvp, gbb, naq gur jrngure jnf pyrne;
gur ebnq jnf qel.
V fgvyy qba'g oryvrir V jnf qevivat qnatrebhfyl, rfcrpvnyyl tvira gung
V unq n irel ybat yvar bs fvtug ng gur gvzr V ernyvfrq V jnf geniryyvat
gung snfg.
Had it been on suburban streets, yes, it would have been inappropriate.
But, $DEITY damn it, I have (IMO) a good sense of appropriate and
inappropriate speed. I have driven at _thirty_ kph in a zone marked
sixty, because I believed it too dangerous to go any faster (this was
in pouring rain, very poor visibility, etc.) I doubt I would have been
booked doing sixty along there, even had a speed camera been set up,
despite the conditions being so poor.
Automated revenue raising, that's what it is. I'll go on record as
saying that there are times when it is _safest_ to go above the speed
limit -- very few and far between, granted, but they exist nonetheless.
Stuart Lamble
>I trained myself into this habit after several incidents in which I
>locked my keys in my first car, & had to teach myself automotive
>locksmithing to retrieve them. One upside to this was that I also learnt
>how to open many cars in under 30 seconds[0] without so much as
>scratching the paintwork.
Serious question: can you do this for a car that's been deadlocked?
If I press the "lock the doors" button on my remote once, the doors
are locked, but can be unlocked by pulling up the nice little tabby
thingy that sits on the inside. If, however, I press it a second
time, the doors are deadlocked -- they can only be unlocked by
using the key or the remote. In theory. (The other way is to turn the
key to lock, twice.)
Naturally, I'm in the habit of deadlocking the car when I leave it.
Doesn't do much to stop others breaking the windows, but it *does*
mean that they wouldn't be able to open the doors proper once said
windows are broken...
Mike Andrews
: Headlight Use: One-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before
: sunrise, or when light conditions restrict visibility to 1,000 ft.
: or less. Rain, snow, fog or other adverse weather conditions.
: Driving with headlights on during all hours of the day is permitted.
Pretty much ditto here in .ok.us, though I can't be arsed to look
the statute up. I did a year or two back.
: ObPetPeeve: Those fscking covers lusers put over their head and
: taillights. You know, smoked plastic or cutouts with the Dodge Ram
: Head or whatever in them. Are they not a) illegal for street use,
: b) a hazard, and c) something that cops can pull people over for?
: Fscking hell, I would like to be able to see the luser so I can
: attempt to avoid the luser entirely. Any luser with these on their
: lights whom is rear-ended ought to be cited, even if the luser
: behind them failed to maintain assured clear distance.
W.r.t. headlights, and in this state (.ok.us), (a) yes, (b) yes,
and (c) yes. .r.t. taillights, I'm not sure. I would not be
surprised to find that the taillight covers aren't (ahem) covered
in the law. P'raps there's a "not obscure more than <foo>% of the
original taillight" clause somewhere.
ObTTTSNBN: Just had a very nice lady express (by Email) an
interest in taking showers with me. Looking forward to scrubbing
her back.
--
The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could
never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.
--Abraham Lincoln, tyrant
Mike Andrews
: Word has it that on Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:51:18 +0000 (UTC), in this
: august forum, INVALID...@example.com (J.D. Baldwin) said:
:>I have NEVER locked my keys in my car. Not once, in nearly 20 years
:>of car ownership. Why? Because I got myself into the habit of
:>locking the door with the key, and not by holding the handle. It's
:>tough to lock your keys in your car when you use it to lock the door.
: I trained myself into this habit after several incidents in which I
: locked my keys in my first car, & had to teach myself automotive
: locksmithing to retrieve them. One upside to this was that I also learnt
: how to open many cars in under 30 seconds[0] without so much as
: scratching the paintwork.
: [0] FVO '30' that range from less than 10 if I have the tools in my hand
: & it's a familiar car, to a worst case of 900 seconds on a particularly
: secure car that I've never tried before.
I _have_ told my "with bobby pin and fingernail clippers" story
here, haven't I?
--
Imagine a stegosaurus wearing rocket powered roller skates, & you'll
get a fair idea of its elegance, stability & ease of crash recovery.
-- Lionel Lauer
Bogdan Iamandei
> On 12 Mar 2002 01:13:10 GMT, Bogdan Iamandei said:
>>...
>>Good[0] thing that Brisbane is not in an area where we would get
>>black-ice or snow, or for that matter - anything that's extremely
>>slippery. On the other hand, it appears that the drivers are really
>>trying their best to make it up for missing the above things.
>
> the indicator/signalling circuits in cars to fail early. Seems to
> affect most of the more expensive German cars[1] and all 4WDs.
s/of the more expensive German//
And I would probably s/4WDs/buses/ but I don't have yet too many
occurences do I'll limit myself at the first s&r.
> [1] The other day, I saw a BMW signal to change lanes. I was
> astonished. I had never seen that before. Must have been
> from interstate.
s/interstate/another country/ - that or the driver must've been some
sort of a sicko. BTW, did the said BMW also follow the direction it
signaled in? ;)
Ino!~
Satya
>Word has it that on Mon, 11 Mar 2002 22:51:18 +0000 (UTC), in this
>august forum, INVALID...@example.com (J.D. Baldwin) said:
>>tough to lock your keys in your car when you use it to lock the door.
>I trained myself into this habit after several incidents in which I
>locked my keys in my first car, & had to teach myself automotive
Hey, you own a Maruti 800 which I claim. With local papers.
BTDTGTTS.[0]
There was a time when bunch of us were stopped in San Jose at someone's
uncle's house, and aunt offered @TEA. Seeing we would be there for a
while, $roommate and I went to lock the car^Wvan doors. In my enthusiasm,
I got in from the door where I had gotten out, locked and shut it from
outside, and looked to see which other doors were unlocked and needed
locking.
You know where this is going, right? Yep, that was the only unlocked door,
and $roommate had left the key in the ignition. 40 minutes and $50 later
we were on our way.
[0] ObT-shirt: Got one saying "arf!" in small letters on breast pocket. It
rocks, and I can't wait to try it out on the public. haven't left the
house in 3 days (mad coding), though.
--
Satya.
mrob...@worldnet.att.net
>Now I see that while the [DRL] "system" is in the hands of that fuse,
>the lights themselves are controlled by another, which does not affect
>anything else. I intend to experiment with this soon.
When DRLs first came out on .us market cars, there was often a separate
DRL box that could be bypassed or powered off. I am told that on some
Fords, removing a relay would disable the DRLs. On newer cars, all
the lights are probably driven by the body computer, but you can still
probably wire around them.
At a guess, I'd say pulling the lights-only fuse you found will probably
kill all power to your headlamp filaments. To know for sure, go to the
library and look for the Mitchell manual for your year and make of car.
These will have decent reprints of the factory wiring diagrams. Some
libraries have these on CD now, but the last one of these I used had
the wiring diagrams scanned in at about 50 DPI or so. These manuals
usually don't circulate, so take note-taking suppliers or copier money.
Matt Roberds
Arvid Grøtting
> B license: Normal cars (up to 3000 kg and up to 8 passengers plus driver,
> with trailer up to limits above)
Actually, I think it's 3500 kg. It is in .no, anyway. (Someone
probably already pointed that out, though -- I haven't caught up yet.
It's too early in the morning.) Also, trailer size may be limited by
the registration papers of the pulling car.
And I've got a (grandfathered) B C1, meaning I can drive a car/truck
of 7500 kg or less. (I recently had to take a health check and renew
my license to keep it that way, though. And I've never driven one of
the famous C1-class trucks, but I know were to rent one and I do
expect my C1-class license to become useful one day.)
The weight figures are max allowed weight (as per the registration
papers), i.e. vehicle + driver + passengers + stuff[1].
[1] e.g. amps, speakers, lights, dimmer racks and cables.
--
Live phase 1 <--> RJ45 pin 3 GND <--> RJ45 pin 8
Live phase 2 <--> RJ45 pin 6
Live phase 3 <--> RJ45 pin 2 Is this suitable?
Neutral <--> RJ45 pin 1 Or should we kill phones too?
Earl Grey
> Earl Grey <bo...@kapu.net> said:
> > Ikea.
> The ones I saw there had keyboard drawers.
Maybe they were optional extras?
The desks I bought many moons ago were a solid slab of ... Beach, I think
it was, with a bolt-on chrome-steel frame, about 36' x 60'.
Quite serviceable, IMHO, and I'd have preferred to buy 'em again.
> > http://www.bushfurniture.com/html/contempocherry_7.htm
> Thanks. I'll take a look.
I bought the 60' and the hexagonal-shaped one, plus the filing cabinet.
But I would have rather had an Ikea here that I could occasionally throw
money at.
Signed,
Suffering Ikea withdrawal in Hawai`i....
--
They tell me that you're going to try posting to Alt.Sysadmin.Recovery.
It's a Magnificent Idea; A Daring and Splendid Idea! It will be FUN!
Assuming you're not vaporized, dissected, or otherwise killed in an
assortment of supremely horrible and painful ways! Exciting, Isn't It?!
Shalom Septimus
(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>In the previous article, Jamie Bowden <ja...@photon.com> wrote:
>> The final year of the Fiero, the 6 cyl. version was a damn fine
>> little car. Of course, since it was a good car, done right by that
>> point, it was promptly discontinued.
>
>Of course it was discontinued. It wasn't selling.
>
>Why wasn't it selling? Because everybody knew it sucked.
I thought the V6 Fiero was discontinued because it tended to catch fire?
Or am I remembering a similar model car?
<google> Seems it was the L4 version that caught fire; the factory got a
shipment of bad connecting rods. This source claims that it was dc'd
because it was cutting into sales of the Corvette!
--
Shalom
chas_...@speakeasy.net
[snip]
> Considering that people still buy Fords despite their documented high level
> of suckage...
Yeah, you know what you're getting when you walk down the block to the used
car lot, and tell them, "My car just died at the top of the freeway exit ramp
give me the cheapest piece of crap on the lot."
It's PREDICTABLE crappiness that's part of the charm.
--
Charles Herbig chas_...@speakeasy.net
Strange Feline Consulting Cat-Herder Extraordinaire
Rev. Chas, Pope of the Temple of Occupied Mexico
Christer Mort Boräng
> You bring up an interesting fantasy of mine: classes of license. If
> you have a class-I license, your car is electronically restricted to
> 50 mph and a lower rate of acceleration, and you have to keep DRLs on.
> A class-II license gets to go 70 mph, maybe still with DRLs. A
> class-III license gets the "governing" removed, and doesn't have to
> bother will silly bullshit like DRLs.
Lowering the rate of acceleration actually lowers safety in some
common situations (like turning into or crossing a fairly well
trafficked road, or overtaking slow moving vehicles).
This is, of course, assuming that the rate of acceleration is within
"normal" limits, and not insanely high[0].
//Christer
[0] Like the rallycross[1] cars...15 years ago, I read an article
about one that did 0-100 km/h in 1.9 seconds, and 0-160 km/h
(about 100 mph) in 3.5 seconds. Top speed was 185 km/h.
[1] Hmm...wonder if this is the english word for it.
--
| Tellusgatan 54 | Phone: Home +46 (0)31 43 52 03 CTH: +46 (0)31 772 5431 |
| S-415 19 Göteborg | Email: mo...@cd.chalmers.se Cell: +46 (0)707 53 57 57 |
| Sweden | WWW: http://www.cd.chalmers.se/~mort/ |
"An NT server can be run by an idiot, and usually is." -- Tom Holub, a.h.b-o-i
Jay Maynard
<INVALID...@example.com> wrote:
>I have NEVER locked my keys in my car. Not once, in nearly 20 years
>of car ownership. Why? Because I got myself into the habit of
>tough to lock your keys in your car when you use it to lock the door.
I took a different approach: I always carry a spare key in my wallet. It
gets used infrequently, but I've thanked myself for carrying it more than
once.
One advantage of keychain remote locks is that you have to have the key out
of the car to lock it from the outside...
Mike Andrews
: At a guess, I'd say pulling the lights-only fuse you found will probably
: kill all power to your headlamp filaments. To know for sure, go to the
: library and look for the Mitchell manual for your year and make of car.
: These will have decent reprints of the factory wiring diagrams. Some
: libraries have these on CD now, but the last one of these I used had
: the wiring diagrams scanned in at about 50 DPI or so. These manuals
: usually don't circulate, so take note-taking suppliers or copier money.
Or do what I do when I want a good image: take my lapdog _and_
my scanner. Gets a few odd looks for a minute, but also gets
images and books scanned the way I want 'em, without a worn-out
copier in the signal chain.
--
I had occasion to write today, "Best viewed through the bottom of a
beerglass" about a website that had another one of those binary
Windows-only plugins.
Paul Martin, in the Monastery
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, <mrob...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> At a guess, I'd say pulling the lights-only fuse you found will
> probably kill all power to your headlamp filaments. To know for
> sure, go to the library and look for the Mitchell manual for your
> year and make of car. These will have decent reprints of the
> factory wiring diagrams. Some libraries have these on CD now, but
> the last one of these I used had the wiring diagrams scanned in at
> about 50 DPI or so. These manuals usually don't circulate, so take
> note-taking suppliers or copier money.
Wouldn't it be easier and faster to, you know, *try* it?
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, James Turinsky <f-...@f-you.org> wrote,
quoting me:
> > In the previous article, Garrett Wollman <wol...@lcs.mit.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> (This is the same reason why some jurisdictions require drivers
> >> to burn headlights for a half hour after sunrise and before
> >> sunset.)
> >
> > s/some/all/ at least in the U.S., I believe.
>
> Other way around in Ohio:
Yeah, as soon as I wrote that, I remembered that it was the other way
in Minnesota, at least back when I learned to drive [mumble] years ago
there.
> ObPetPeeve: Those fscking covers lusers put over their head and
> taillights. You know, smoked plastic or cutouts with the Dodge Ram
> Head or whatever in them. Are they not a) illegal for street use,
> b) a hazard, and c) something that cops can pull people over for?
Idjits, no question about it. The reason I've heard given for non-
enforcement of the appropriate regulations is that there is a minimum
luminosity standard for such lights. The covers may or may not reduce
the light output below legal minima, but there's no good way to prove
it in the field, since cops don't drive around with the equipment to
do so.
No, instead the space and money that could go to something useful like
that is spent on radar/laser equipment to try to catch me going 50 mph
down a clean, dry, six-lane road with no traffic, in broad daylight,
just because it's marked "35." And that's *my* ObPeeve.
IIRC, Minnesota also had a law that you couldn't be in motion with
only your "parking lights" on. I never understood why; it seemed like
a reasonable enough visibility-enhancing step in conditions that don't
quite justify turning on the headlights.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Bogdan Iamandei <ino...@adminbase.net> wrote:
> Hmmm, like, say... "truck driving license" - to drive a SUV?
Well, I wouldn't require a full-blown commercial rating, but I'd like
to see a little extra instruction, and the nice thing about an
endorsement is that it can be taken away under conditions that don't
really justify loss of all driving rights.[1] So, for example, if you
incur a second red-light-running offense, you're still allowed to
drive (if you can get someone to insure you), but no more SUV for, oh,
say, ten years. One DUI ensures you will never be behind the wheel
of that Lincoln Navigator again.
> [0] - Though I sometimes wonder if shouldn't Mr Darwin kick in and
> do some gene-pool cleansing.
The problem with SUVs is that the Darwin vector points the wrong way.
Idiots who drive SUVs are more likely to survive the accidents they
cause[2] and many times more likely to kill innocents in the vehicles
they T-bone[3] or rear-end. I don't mind you driving one; I just want
to hold you to a higher standard of accountability if you do. (You
ought to be required to carry dramatically more insurance, as well.)
[0] NMF
[1] Yes, I believe driving is a *right* at common law, not a
"privilege." Nothing wrong with that; rights can be forfeited,
too, and often are.
[2] With a few narrow exceptions, such as roll-over accidents.
[3] About what it sounds like.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Christer "Mort" Boräng
<mort+...@dtek.chalmers.se> wrote, quoting me:
> > You bring up an interesting fantasy of mine: classes of license. If
> > you have a class-I license, your car is electronically restricted to
> > 50 mph and a lower rate of acceleration, and you have to keep DRLs
> > on. A class-II license gets to go 70 mph, maybe still with DRLs. A
> > class-III license gets the "governing" removed, and doesn't have to
> > bother will silly bullshit like DRLs.
>
> Lowering the rate of acceleration actually lowers safety in some
> common situations (like turning into or crossing a fairly well
> trafficked road, or overtaking slow moving vehicles).
Noted, and on reflection I have to admit that high rates of
acceleration probably don't cause many accidents. They probably
*correlate* with a high accident rate, but that's a different matter.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Earl Grey <bo...@kapu.net> wrote, quoting:
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz:
> > Earl Grey <bo...@kapu.net> said:
> > > Ikea.
> > The ones I saw there had keyboard drawers.
>
> Maybe they were optional extras?
Get a Bush or Sauder desk, build it yourself, and just neglect to
install the keyboard drawer.
I've seen some lovely oak roll-top desks with a regular center drawer
-- you know, for holding stuff -- at a local furniture store. They're
a bit on the pricey side, though.
D. Joseph Creighton
}And when a driver has their lights off, you can't see them far
}enough away to get onto the highway and up to speed without being
}rear-ended or T-boned.
I'm pretty sure they have shoulders on those Saskatchewan highways,
paved and unpaved. Our local variety here in Manitoba have served me
quite well.
}But in the Prairies, they're, literally, a lifesaver.
I agree but with one caveat: in blizzard/blowing-snow/fog conditions,
there is no way to turn them off. The diffused lighting is more of
a hazard IMO than my preferred practice of driving with only ambers
or (if you have them) fog lamps on.
--
"Nothing's really sacred but a sense of humor." - Ayn Rand
David P. Murphy
> : Headlight Use: One-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before
> : sunrise, or when light conditions restrict visibility to 1,000 ft.
> : or less. Rain, snow, fog or other adverse weather conditions.
> : Driving with headlights on during all hours of the day is permitted.
> Pretty much ditto here in .ok.us, though I can't be arsed to look
> the statute up. I did a year or two back.
I'm teaching Heather "if you can't see the sun, turn 'em on".
The advantage of simplicity.
> ObTTTSNBN:
By God, I wish it *was* obligatory!
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
systems programmer ftp://ftp.myths.com
mailto:d...@myths.com (personal)
COGITO ERGO DISCLAMO mailto:Murphy...@emc.com (work)
Jay Maynard
<INVALID...@example.com> wrote:
>Yeah, as soon as I wrote that, I remembered that it was the other way
>in Minnesota, at least back when I learned to drive [mumble] years ago
>there.
IDNKT. Texas has it as 30 minutes into the daylight side of either boundary.
Minnesota has, OTOH, adopted "wipers on, lights on"...but I don't know if
DRLs qualify for that.
>IIRC, Minnesota also had a law that you couldn't be in motion with
>only your "parking lights" on. I never understood why; it seemed like
>a reasonable enough visibility-enhancing step in conditions that don't
>quite justify turning on the headlights.
Texas has that as well. The problem is that parking lights only can be
misleading about the size/distance of the vehicle.
Jay Maynard
<INVALID...@example.com> wrote:
>Idiots who drive SUVs are more likely to survive the accidents they
>cause[2] and many times more likely to kill innocents in the vehicles
>they T-bone[3] or rear-end.
Grrrrrr.
This kind of advocacy should be as frowned upon here as gun control
advocacy, and for many of the same reasons. There's no way in hell you'll
get me to give up my SUVs, and inflammatory rhetoric like this only causes
flamage.
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
> >Idiots who drive SUVs are more likely to survive the accidents they
> >cause[2] and many times more likely to kill innocents in the vehicles
> >they T-bone[3] or rear-end.
>
> Grrrrrr.
>
> This kind of advocacy should be as frowned upon here as gun control
> advocacy, and for many of the same reasons. There's no way in hell
> you'll get me to give up my SUVs, and inflammatory rhetoric like
> this only causes flamage.
I see your point about the flame-bait nature of that stuff, but scroll
back a bit: I don't want to take away anyone's SUV unless and until
he starts acting like a moron with it. I might just get one myself
one day. I regard almost all of the "arguments" against SUVs as
bullshit, and many of them are frequently couched in deliberately
misleading terms. (Hmmm, maybe this really is like the gun-control
advocacy stuff.)
You want to do something inherently dangerous on the public roadways
(i.e., drive any kind of vehicle)? Fine -- we have a licensing
requirement for that, and we expect you to demonstrate a certain (low)
measure of responsibility before we take it away.
You want to do something even *more* dangerous on the public roadways
(i.e., drive a much heavier vehicle)? Also fine -- you just have to
demonstrate a *slightly* higher measure of responsibility before we
take that away. Run two red lights in the space of two years (just as
an example), and you're still free to drive a Civic to and from work
-- you just have to leave the Mountaineer at home for a while.
I do at least think the "gas guzzler" tax is moronic and ought to be
abolished. Let that $500 go to a somewhat increased insurance
requirement and a few other very small impediments to legal operation
of large vehicles. I'm not one of those dumbshit minimalists who
thinks you should have to get a CDL to drive a Jeep Cherokee. All I'm
talking about is a bit more insurance, *maybe* an extra demonstration
of proficiency, and a requirement to keep a cleaner driving record.
I honestly don't see what's unreasonable about any of that. Do you
really fail to see that someone with a history of irresponsible
driving is a dramatically greater threat behind the wheel of an SUV
than behind the wheel of a Miata?
Robert A. Uhl
>
> Hmmm, like, say... "truck driving license" - to drive a SUV? I've seen
> too many idiots driving them as if they were in a fucking sport car.
Here in Colorado we get a fair amount of snow in the winters (it only
sticks for a day or two, though--the rest of the time it's really
quite nice). When there's snow on the highways, I figure that a good
90% of the vehicles turned over in ditches are sport utilities. In
fact, I'm trying to remember the last time I saw something _other_
than an SUV in a ditch. Has to have happened.
My theory is that the driver are lusers (easy guess: why buy something
for city driving which is filthy expensive up front and guzzles
gasoline?) who think that four wheel drive and a big vehicle equal
stability and safety. Morons. Naturally, those things _aren't_ an
assurance of any such thing, and thus they end up in the ditch far
more often.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
>> Could someone tell me what are the advantages of kernel threads.
>> Do they have faster context switches?
> User level threads are faster. I believe that WinNT has now taken
> user level threads, and called them "fibers", so they now have
> "processes", "threads", and "fibers". I expect an announcement of
> "single-chain polymers" to come next. (The silliest thing is, I think
> I know how to do them.) --comp.os.linux.development.system
Robert A. Uhl
>
> I've seen some lovely oak roll-top desks with a regular center drawer
> -- you know, for holding stuff -- at a local furniture store. They're
> a bit on the pricey side, though.
I got the most wonderful roll-top for half price at a floor piece
sale. Beautiful piece of work, nary a dent or a flaw. Keep yer eyes
open and you can find this sort of thing.
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising
I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing.
To hope's end I rode, to heart's breaking:
Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, Stuart Lamble <s...@debtemp.lib.monash.edu.au>
wrote, quoting me:
> Speaking as a driver in .au, we are legally *obliged* to wear seat
> belts. Not doing so is cause for a fine (can't remember the exact
> penalties offhand, as seatbelts are the first thing I put on before
> I turn on the engine.)
I believe every state in .us now requires the wearing of seatbelts,
under penalty of fine. Some of the states played interesting games
with the federal seatbelt-law requirement (on which I could rant for
tens of minutes, but I'll let it go for now) for a while.
In Minnesota, they enacted a law saying, "Wear your seatbelt," but
there was no fine or other consequence for failure to do so. (They've
since changed that.)
In Michigan, they had a law and a fine to go with it, but the cops
couldn't pull you over for the seatbelt thing alone -- they had to
have another pretext for pulling you over, *then* they could write you
up for the seatbelt. (They've changed that, too.)
> The result of this is that we get SRS[1] airbags, instead of the
> "PRS"[2] airbags that the US got initially. As a result, the
> inflation is less dramatic (although it's still pretty damn
> impressive), and less likely to cause serious injury.
They've always been called SRS in .us cars, but I (per the footnote)
understand the distinction you're drawing. That change has been made
in .us, too.
> Airbags were one thing that I _insisted_ upon (both driver and
> passenger side) when I bought my car. It was the reason that Nissan
> wasn't in the running (the Pulsar only came with a driver-side
> airbag, not a passenger-side).
Talk about your survivor's guilt.
> >I still wish the system came with a "disable" switch. For one thing,
> >it would increase my child-carrying capacity, which can be an issue
> >when you have kids in Little League and soccer. For another, it can
> >make rescue/extraction faster by a minute or two in the event of a
> >serious wreck. (That's another unintended consequence for you.)
>
> The question is: do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks? In the case
> of the weaker SRS airbags, I'd argue that the answer is "yes". In
> the event of a serious wreck, it could well be that the airbags are
> what stop you being killed outright -- in which case, a slower
> extraction is outweighed (let's face it, if it's a choice between
> being pulled out of the car in 10 minutes, dead, or in 11 minutes
> with serious injuries that need to be treated *stat*, any sane
> person would take the 11 minutes.)
It can make more than a one-minute difference in some situations. The
only accepted means of disabling an airbag is to cut the power at the
battery -- they snip it right off with great big shears. If the front
end of your car is buried deep inside the rear end of a truck, or
otherwise inaccessible, this can become a big challenge. In such
situations, rescuers often simply risk it and pull you out anyway, but
it's an unfortunate consequence.
> The biggest hassle with a "disable" switch is people who turn it
> off, then forget about it, promptly losing the benefits of the
> airbags that they paid for. You could argue, though (and I'd agree,
> to a point) that that is _their_ problem.
I would argue that, yes, but that's nothing that can't be dealt with.
Make the "disable" switch reset (electromechanically) each time the
car is started, along with an alert that this has been done. If you
standardized it, you could probably save some lives by giving rescuers
a means to cut off the circuit right there on the steering column (or
wherever) without having do cut the power at the source and *then*
wait for the capacitors to discharge.
> IIRC, ABS perform *very* badly when it comes to gravel roads... ISTR
> that the fastest way to stop on gravel is to do a deliberate skid,
> building up the gravel in front of the wheel, and that ABS stops
> that happening. Since I never drive on gravel, this is a non-issue
> for me (but others may need to consider it). ICBW, though.
Never thought of that. Pity they haven't figured a way to make ABS do
the equivalent of differential braking, isn't it?
> ABS was the other consideration when I bought my car. Given the
> choice between ABS and airbags, I'll take ABS, TYVM.
Definitely no argument there.
> Nowadays, all this stuff is close to standard on all cars of all
> sizes. Not a bad thing, IMO.
Or there.
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
<wol...@lcs.mit.edu> said
>DRLs as implemented on American cars (which I think is another way of
>saying ``as required by Canadian regulations'') are high beams running
>on lower-than-normal voltage. This makes them more visible than
>regular service headlamps during the day, without blinding other
>drivers should the operator forget to switch on said service headlamps
>when darkness falls. It's not uncommon to see lusers driving around
>at night with only DRLs on, though.
We had a sucky thing in .UK back in the 1980s - "Dim-dip" headlights,
which came on if you put the parking lights on with the engine running.
THe idea was to stop clue-deficient people driving at night on parking
lights; instead what it did was have the clue-deficient drive on dim-dip
when they should have been on proper headlights.
Thankfully these dim-dip things are no longer fitted to new cars, and
the ones to which it was fitted are going the way of all flesh.
"See and be seen" is my philosophy - I'll drive on headlamps during the
day if it's rainy.
--
!Raised Tails! -:Tanuki:-
"I have seen the future, and it drools"
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
<jas...@insaneoc.com> said
>On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 19:39:57 +0000 (UTC), INVALID...@example.com
>(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>>Oh, yeah, also you'd need a special, and easily-lost, endorsement to
>>drive a vehicle over a certain gross weight.
>
>Well, uhm, isn't that already implemented? At least here in .nl, and I
>think all over .eu, if you want to drive something more than 3000 kg, you
>need a special license, and if you want to drive more than a certain size
>of trailer (more than 750 kg *or* more than 1/2 the weight of the pulling
>vehicle, IIRC, at least for trailers on cars) you have to have a different
>license.
They introduced something similar in .UK a while back, but only for
*new* drivers. Those of us who've held our licences for 20-odd years
can still drive up to 7.5 tonnes (including trailer).
There are also wierd restrictions on maximum-number-of-seats in vehicles
that can be driven by people of certain ages - intended to prevent
17-year-old just-passed-driving-test kids driving school minibuses and
suchlike.
It gets *really* complex when you've got a 21-year-old driving a
12-seater Land Rover and towing a trailer that weighs more than 750Kg.
There are exemptions for members of the Military. Not sure if .mil.uk
drivers actually *need* driving licences... I drove a .mil.uk Land Rover
at age 16 when the official minimum age for driving was 17...
Earl Grey
> This source claims that it was dc'd
> because it was cutting into sales of the Corvette!
Damn Straight!
"A Sports Car on the Installment Plan"
The last version of it was pretty Fly.
Garrett Wollman
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog <Tanuki@canis-^Hmajor.da^Hemon.co.uk> wrote:
>"See and be seen" is my philosophy - I'll drive on headlamps during the
>day if it's rainy.
This is mandatory in many .us states. (New York is nice enough to
actually tell you about it when you enter: ``MUST BURN HEADLIGHTS WHEN
USING WIPERS'', IIRC.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
Thomas W. Strong Jr.
> The desks I bought many moons ago were a solid slab of ... Beach, I think
> it was, with a bolt-on chrome-steel frame, about 36' x 60'.
Uh, pardon me for intruding, but I was under the impression that once it's
been turned into a solid slab it's no longer generally considered a part
of the beach and instead referred to as "glass".
My coat? It's that rather gneiss one in the second layer down.
--
Thomas W. Strong Jr. <str...@dementia.org>
http://www.tomstrong.org/
Dan Holdsworth
<s...@debtemp.lib.monash.edu.au>
was popularly supposed to have said:
>In article <a6jef3$ftu$1...@reader2.panix.com>, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
>>Airbags, however, are mandatory equipment, and have been for several
>>years. This was *hugely* luserish back when they were first mandated,
>>as airbags can be quite dangerous. Due to some adverse publicity
>>about injuries due purely to airbags, they have been scaled back now
>>so that they blow with a force appropriate to helping an already-
>>restrained driver, not to saving the dumbasses who won't wear their
>>belts.
>
>Speaking as a driver in .au, we are legally *obliged* to wear seat
>belts. Not doing so is cause for a fine (can't remember the exact
>penalties offhand, as seatbelts are the first thing I put on before
>I turn on the engine.)
This is also the case in the UK, and has been so since the 1970s. I
have vague memories of the massive advertising needed to imprint the
need to use safety belts on the lusing public; there is also a fine
for non-compliance.
Still, even now there are lusers that think that belts are a bad thing
because in a crash without a belt the luser "is thrown clear" instead
of being trapped as with a belt. Me, I'd rather be trapped in a steel
safety cage with limbs intact, but YMMV.
>The result of this is that we get SRS[1] airbags, instead of the
>"PRS"[2] airbags that the US got initially. As a result, the
>inflation is less dramatic (although it's still pretty damn
>impressive), and less likely to cause serious injury.
The UK had the safety belts imposed before airbags were commonplace,
so the UK versions are small affairs, designed to prevent facial
damage in a crash. Without a seat belt being worn, they are
utterly useless, _as the designers intended_.
[...]
>[on ABS brakes]
>>I have empirically proven that I am in the narrower set when it comes
>>to clean, dry pavement. I have grave doubts that I can perform to
>>that spec on wet or icy pavement, so I will keep the ABS on,
>>thankyouverymuch.
For myself also, I am possibly better than an ABS system on a flat dry
road. Otherwise, ABS will outperform me with ease.
Statistics published last week in New Scientist magazine [a] seem to show
that car users adjust their driving style to the safety features in the
vehicle. ABS does very little to improve car safety; indeed it seems to
make a small minority drive worse than they do without it.
Such lusers should be compelled to drive a specially adapted vehicle;
remove airbags, ABS and seatbelts, and mount a steel spike in the centre
of the steering wheel, plus some variant of a "dead man's handle" system
to stop the car when the luser driver became an ex-luser.
[a] UKian equivalent of Scientific American, published weekly.
--
Dan Holdsworth PhD da...@supanet.com
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion
Dan Holdsworth
<INVALID...@example.com>
>
>In the previous article, Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>> >Idiots who drive SUVs are more likely to survive the accidents they
>> >cause[2] and many times more likely to kill innocents in the vehicles
>> >they T-bone[3] or rear-end.
>>
>> Grrrrrr.
>>
>> This kind of advocacy should be as frowned upon here as gun control
>> advocacy, and for many of the same reasons. There's no way in hell
>> you'll get me to give up my SUVs, and inflammatory rhetoric like
>> this only causes flamage.
>
>I see your point about the flame-bait nature of that stuff, but scroll
>back a bit: I don't want to take away anyone's SUV unless and until
>he starts acting like a moron with it. I might just get one myself
>one day. I regard almost all of the "arguments" against SUVs as
>bullshit, and many of them are frequently couched in deliberately
>misleading terms. (Hmmm, maybe this really is like the gun-control
>advocacy stuff.)
I also take issue with this, but not because I like SUVs.
No, I fail to see why "Driving like a moron in an SUV" should be
treated any differently from "Driving like a moron in anything
else".
Admittedly SUVs are very damaging when driven by morons, but so
is just about any road vehicle. Morons should be separated from
driving road vehicles as soon as their stupidity becomes evident.
Omri Schwarz
So what would be wrong with requiring a C2 class
license for driving one?
(Note to non .usians: A class D is an ordinary
driver's license. A class C is the lowest
level of trucking license in the US. A C2 would
be between the two.)
--
Omri Schwarz --- ocs...@mit.edu ('h' before war)
Timeless wisdom of biomedical engineering: "Noise is principally
due to the presence of the patient." -- R.F. Farr
Jamie Bowden
> In article <a6jcd6$b8t$4...@reader2.panix.com>,
> J.D. Baldwin <baldwi...@panix.com> wrote:
> : I know of one car model that *required* you to lock it with the key.
> : To me, this is the most luserish design of all. It will surprise no
> : one to hear that this particular make was French. (Hi, Dave.)
>
> The Honda Civic is French? Dayamn. The things you learn.
Pontiac made at least one car with a blonde lock as well. Have a friend
who had one. She hated having to lock it with the key after closing the
door.
Jamie Bowden
--
"It was half way to Rivendell when the drugs began to take hold"
Hunter S Tolkien "Fear and Loathing in Barad Dur"
Iain Bowen <ala...@alaric.org.uk>
Matt Olson
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:43:44 +0000 (UTC), J.D. Baldwin
> <INVALID...@example.com> wrote:
>>Idiots who drive SUVs are more likely to survive the accidents they
>>cause[2] and many times more likely to kill innocents in the vehicles
>>they T-bone[3] or rear-end.
>
> advocacy, and for many of the same reasons. There's no way in hell you'll
> get me to give up my SUVs, and inflammatory rhetoric like this only causes
> flamage.
Easy there, tiger. What J.D. was saying is that the class
of idiots that drive SUVs are less likely to remove them-
selves from the gene pool and more likely to hurt others
than the class of idiots that drive, say, econoboxes. I
don't see any reflection on non-idiots who drive SUVs.
(I'd be interested to see a refereed study on whether SUVs
cause more/take less damage in accidents, and if so, how
much.)
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matt "keep music evil" Olson, speaking for himself.
"Oh, NT is reliable. You can count on it to keel over under just any
circumstance."
-- Rik Steenwinkel in the scary devil monastery
Tanuki the Raccoon-dog
<ol...@csu401.cs.ualberta.ca> said
>(I'd be interested to see a refereed study on whether SUVs
>cause more/take less damage in accidents, and if so, how
>much.)
http://www.nhtsa.org/ will probably be of help.
As will http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/sfsc.htm
All else being equal, you're safer traveling in a passenger vehicle
that's larger and heavier than in one that's smaller and lighter.
Joe Moore
Omri Schwarz <ocs...@h-after-ocsc.mit.edu> wrote:
>> Admittedly SUVs are very damaging when driven by morons, but so
>> is just about any road vehicle. Morons should be separated from
>> driving road vehicles as soon as their stupidity becomes evident.
>
>So what would be wrong with requiring a C2 class
>license for driving one?
Bbbbut, even NT can get a C2 certification....
ObWTF: Having a nice, normal conversations with $co-worker. Close my eyes
to blink, reopen them and the room isn't any brighter. Notice that all is
quiet. Then the lights come back on. Oh, fsck. I wonder what massively
important server isn't on UPS yet...
Ah, that one. Wow. SAP is important...
--Joe
--
When you find yourself on the cutting edge of technology, remember:
The trailing edge is sharper than the leading edge.
remove dash and subsequent local part to email me.
Cameron
cust95.manc.broadband.ntl.com>, da...@supanet.com says...
> On 12 Mar 2002 00:02:48 GMT, Stuart Lamble
> <s...@debtemp.lib.monash.edu.au>
> was popularly supposed to have said:
>
> >In article <a6jef3$ftu$1...@reader2.panix.com>, J.D. Baldwin wrote:
> Still, even now there are lusers that think that belts are a bad thing
> because in a crash without a belt the luser "is thrown clear" instead
> of being trapped as with a belt. Me, I'd rather be trapped in a steel
> safety cage with limbs intact, but YMMV.
>
In .nsw.au where it is mandatory to have laminated glass windscreens the
"I'd rather be thrown clear" lusers would end up decelerating 'into' an
unbreakable windscreen rather than 'through' a smashed windscreen. I'm
sure I'd rather have a fractured collarbone and whiplash from seat belt
trauma than be a 5cm (~2") smear on a piece of laminated glass. But
again YMMV
--
Regards
Cameron Biggart
Remove UNDERWEAR to reply via e-mail
Tino Schwarze
>> >No, instead, the geniuses in Detroit (Detroit being the main offender;
>> >the foreign cars are much less obnoxious) have decided to figure it
>> >all out for me ahead of time.
>> >
>> >"Is it dark? Why, then, you must want the lights to be on."
>>
>> The new Citroens advertise with this. A similar system is installed
>> for the wipers, except it responds to water instead of light
>> (duh..).
> I've been wondering for years when someone was going to come out with
> such a device. I'd welcome it, provided -- of course -- that it could
> be overridden.
BMW has had it for at least two years (at least the 7th series
models). Even a middle class Peugeot 307 has got this feature. (And it
can be disabled.) This particular Peugeot also has the automatic
lights. I can't remember whether they can be disabled though.
Bye, Tino.
--
* LINUX - Where do you want to be tomorrow? *
http://www.tu-chemnitz.de/linux/tag/
Jay Maynard
<INVALID...@example.com> wrote:
>(Hmmm, maybe this really is like the gun-control advocacy stuff.)
Yeah. Don't forget surrounded by emotion, too, instead of facts.
>You want to do something even *more* dangerous on the public roadways
>(i.e., drive a much heavier vehicle)? Also fine -- you just have to
>demonstrate a *slightly* higher measure of responsibility before we
>take that away. Run two red lights in the space of two years (just as
>an example), and you're still free to drive a Civic to and from work
>-- you just have to leave the Mountaineer at home for a while.
Why draw the line at the SUV, though? Why not include the big Buick
Roadmaster wagon or the Lincoln Town Car or the F-350 pickup or *any*
large vehicle? Hell, a Town Car outweighs my RX300 by at least 1500
pounds...who do you think loses in that situation? For that matter, my RX300
weighs less than just about any full-size car, so why penalize me for
driving it and not those who drive even bigger, heavier vehicles that, by
your logic, are even more dangerous?
>I honestly don't see what's unreasonable about any of that. Do you
>really fail to see that someone with a history of irresponsible
>driving is a dramatically greater threat behind the wheel of an SUV
>than behind the wheel of a Miata?
You'd be amazed at how much damage someone can do in a Miata. Or a Civic.
Not just to themselves, either. Trust me on this one. BTDTGTBUS[1]. The size
of the vehicle really doesn't make that much difference when the driver
decides to be irresponsible; all it does is influence how far apart the body
parts fly.
Oh, and then there's the lady driving a church bus who pulled out across a
highway, in front of my sister's Corolla...Gayle was going about 60, and as
much as I hate airbags[2], that one saved her life: the doc who treated her
says that it kept the seat belt from tearing her aorta. Of course, any
attempt to make people show greater driving responsibility to drive a church
bus will get slapped down hard...
[1] ...bloody uniform shirt.
[2] I firmly believe airbags do as much damage as they do good, between
their demonstrated propensity to kill and their image of saving everyone
regardless of whether or not they were wearing their seat belt. The first
airbag accident I ever ran was a guy who had a head-on in his shiny new
Eldorado when he crossed the center line on a bridge. No seat belt. Dead at
the scene. I will, however, have to reevaluate my views based on Gayle's
experience.
Jay Maynard
<INVALID...@example.com> wrote:
>In Minnesota, they enacted a law saying, "Wear your seatbelt," but
>there was no fine or other consequence for failure to do so. (They've
>since changed that.)
...but it's still a secondary offense only; they can't stop you for it.
In Texas, it's definitely grounds for a stop.
>It can make more than a one-minute difference in some situations. The
>only accepted means of disabling an airbag is to cut the power at the
>battery -- they snip it right off with great big shears. If the front
>end of your car is buried deep inside the rear end of a truck, or
>otherwise inaccessible, this can become a big challenge. In such
>situations, rescuers often simply risk it and pull you out anyway, but
>it's an unfortunate consequence.
I don't recall ever extricating soemone from a car where the air bag hasn't
already deployed in a situation like that. The sensors are too sensitive for
that. In practice, rescuers just go on as they always have.
>Never thought of that. Pity they haven't figured a way to make ABS do
>the equivalent of differential braking, isn't it?
What's this?
BTW, my car has an active skid control system that modulates throttle and
braking - the latter independently to each wheel - to help the driver
recover from a skid. I haven't had it activate yet; I haven't found myself
in a skid that I wasn't able to recover from quickly using the standard
techniques.
Rob Adams
>In article <slrna8qhd...@debtemp.lib.monash.edu.au>, Stuart Lamble wrote:
>
>[...]
>> Speaking as a driver in .au, we are legally *obliged* to wear seat
>> belts. Not doing so is cause for a fine (can't remember the exact
>> penalties offhand, as seatbelts are the first thing I put on before
>> I turn on the engine.)
>
>Ermm.. ISTR it's 100-150$ fine and 3 demerit points.
Ermm.. What's a demerit point :)
Okay I'm being facetious, but .nt.au does not have a demerit point
scheme.
Strange quirk in the law, if a normal car is pulled over and it is
found that passengers are not wearing seatbelt, the driver is also
fined. However if the car is a TAXI the driver does not get the fine.
If I have been informed correctly in sydney.nsw.au Taxi Drivers are
exempt from wearing seatbelts.
Rob.
--
ADVISORY: The email address contained in the header of this posting is
a legitimate address; it is used to harvest email addresses so that we
can email you our own email message containing advertisments. To stop
yourself getting on this list use robadams(at)dingoblue{dit}net(dit)au
Bogdan Iamandei
>
> In the previous article, Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>> >Idiots who drive SUVs are more likely to survive the accidents they
>> >cause[2] and many times more likely to kill innocents in the vehicles
>> >they T-bone[3] or rear-end.
>>
>> Grrrrrr.
>>
>> This kind of advocacy should be as frowned upon here as gun control
>> advocacy, and for many of the same reasons. There's no way in hell
>> you'll get me to give up my SUVs, and inflammatory rhetoric like
>> this only causes flamage.
>
> I see your point about the flame-bait nature of that stuff, but scroll
> back a bit: I don't want to take away anyone's SUV unless and until
> he starts acting like a moron with it. I might just get one myself
> one day. I regard almost all of the "arguments" against SUVs as
> bullshit, and many of them are frequently couched in deliberately
> misleading terms. (Hmmm, maybe this really is like the gun-control
> advocacy stuff.)
I did not intend to start a SUV-Control thread. SUV driving is ok
with me[0] - as long as the person behind the wheel has a clue about
his size, weight, weather conditions, traffic conditions and all the
other little bits and pieces generically known under the name of
"the law" that usually moron drivers ignore so well.
You have 10 SUVs? fine by me. You have no clue and drive one? well
that *IS* a problem.
Or for that matter - you have no clue and drive? - that's still a
problem.
Ino!~
[0] - I even happen to like them, and find them usefull, and I believe
there's one for me somewhere.
--
I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire
off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark
near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.
Bogdan Iamandei
[...]
> Today I am driving an example of an itty-bitty car: our Volvo is in
> the shop with a badly misbehaving fuel pump and I have the mechanic's
> 'courtesy car', a Subaru Sherpa. It's hard to find the appropriate
> category for this little glass coffin but 'Microvan' comes close. I
> suspect the engine is 1 litre or smaller. The wheels belong on roller
> skates. Maximum speed seems to be 80km/h, but it feels much faster
> (like more than 120 in the Volvo). Driving this thing is the nearest
> I will get to the luge. Ugh, I think someone's walking on my grave...
I see your Subaru Sherpa and I raise you a Daewoo Damas. Which is an
abomination pretty much described by the fact that you can park it on
your balcony, and still have enough space to go around it.
In short? It's like made out of tin can material - scary thin metal
sheet[0]. Even like that - it is underpowered and with a high centre
of gravity it's only stable position is tipped on a side.
One of my good friends was driving regularly one of these wheeled
coffins and at some point he had to throw in the back 3 or 4 kerb
bricks to beat some stability in the damn thing. Oh, and the real
fun begins when you have to drive that coffin on ice, with a bloody
blizzard wind blowing from one side. In the middle of nowhere. With
radio equipment in your back going easily over a couple of hundred
thousand dollars. Oh the stories he had after "excursions" like
that. I think he was pretty near of pulling the damned thing in a
freshly ploughed field and set it on fire.
Did mention that air tightedness was on their "TO DO" list?
Ino!~
[0] - Forgot your keys in? No problems, use this can opener.
Bogdan Iamandei
[...]
> [....] Naturally, those things _aren't_ an
> assurance of any such thing, and thus they end up in the ditch far
> more often.
ITYM "even further and more often"
Mike Andrews
: Bbbbut, even NT can get a C2 certification....
HAHAHAHaHaHaHahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
_Maybe_ a _particular_ NT machine can get C2 cert., as long as
it doesn't have any removable media and doesn't have a NIC, but
there's _No_ _Way_ that there is a particular NT software config
that, when installed on an arbitrary set of PeeCees, will render
all of the installations C2-certifiable.
The most secure possible NT install is one that doesn't have any
CPU chips.
It surprises me that any M$ product later than DOS is considered
"secure" for _any_ value of "secure".
--
"Bother", said Pooh, kicking the headless corpse of Piglet.
-- Dragon Prince, in the Monastery
Mike Andrews
: One of my good friends was driving regularly one of these wheeled
: coffins and at some point he had to throw in the back 3 or 4 kerb
: bricks to beat some stability in the damn thing. Oh, and the real
: fun begins when you have to drive that coffin on ice, with a bloody
: blizzard wind blowing from one side. In the middle of nowhere. With
: radio equipment in your back going easily over a couple of hundred
^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^
: thousand dollars. Oh the stories he had after "excursions" like
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
: that. I think he was pretty near of pulling the damned thing in a
: freshly ploughed field and set it on fire.
Not your *average* ham radio mobile rig, eh?
: --
: I have seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire
: off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark
: near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
: like tears in rain. Time to die.
--
"Of course they're pallid and mushroom-like, Howard!
They're _mushrooms_!"
-- from a Gahan Wilson cartoon
involving H.P. Lovecraft
Jasper Janssen
(J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
> know of one car model that *required* you to lock it with the key.
>To me, this is the most luserish design of all. It will surprise no
>one to hear that this particular make was French. (Hi, Dave.)
Fiat does it like that, but only for the front doors, not the rears., and
it seems to me to be one of the least luserish designs -- given that
remote controls and power locks in general don't make an appearance.
Jasper
st...@madcelt.org
> s...@debtemp.lib.monash.edu.au (Stuart Lamble) writes:
>> Exceeding the speed limit by:
>> 45 kph or more - 6 points
> Plus automatic loss of licence (for a year?) in NSW.
In wa.au it's also an almost guaranteed dangerous driving charge as well
as the police going over your car with a fine toother comb which
WILL result in a Yellow sticker[1] for your troubles.
[1] A work order to bring the COMPLETLY in line with all laws. ANd they
are True Bastards about it as well.
--
Stevo st...@madcelt.org
: Tech Support: The guys who follow the
: 'Parade of New Products' with a shovel.
Mike Andrews
Jasper Janssen
<he...@kharendaen.krall.org> wrote:
>And, of course, DRLs make impossible the very useful conventions of
>communication with other motorists using the headlights during
>daytime:
>
> oncoming, flashing: dangerous conditions (FVO including "speed trap") ahead
> from aft, flashing: please permit me to pass at your earliest convenience
> from aft, flash from vehicle in driving lane to vehicle in passing lane:
> you have cleared me and may rejoin the driving lane in front of me
> oncoming, solid, dark clouds on horizon: dire weather ahead
> solid (in group): I am part of a funeral procession
> solid (alone): I have gotten lost from a funeral procession (or, I have
> been driving longer than it's been light out and have a low SAQ)
No, it doesn't. Just flash them off and on instead of on and off.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>Still, even now there are lusers that think that belts are a bad thing
>because in a crash without a belt the luser "is thrown clear" instead
>of being trapped as with a belt. Me, I'd rather be trapped in a steel
>safety cage with limbs intact, but YMMV.
How about convertibles? No steel cage there, and "thrown clear" actually
can happen (as opposed to the part where you get thrown clear through one
of the windows. Youch.), if the top isn't on anyway.
Jasper