Bastard Powerbook From Hell
William R. Walsh
that when the only original part left is the machine's case and
battery (makes no difference in or out, power adapters are
good)...that this still does not please the demons in the machine or
prove to be sufficient as a repair.
Time for the serious tools--a pickup truck, LART, some boots and quite
possibly a heavy server of some type. And maybe some fire.
David P. Murphy
> Time for the serious tools--a pickup truck, LART, some boots and quite
> possibly a heavy server of some type. And maybe some fire.
As in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8252603302689399428&pl=true ?
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy
systems programmer
http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
mailto:dpm_u...@myths.com
Howard S Shubs
> So when is a repaired Powerbook not repaired at all? It would appear
> that when the only original part left is the machine's case and
> battery (makes no difference in or out, power adapters are
> good)...that this still does not please the demons in the machine or
> prove to be sufficient as a repair.
So, how old is this machine? I finally gave up on my '98 Wallstreet 2 a
few months ago.
--
Life is toxic. It leads to death and
too much of it at once can kill you.
Howard S Shubs
dpm_u...@myths.com (David P. Murphy) wrote:
Looks like a lot of that machine *survived*! WTF?!?
M. Clarkson (a.k.a. desertwolf)
> possibly a heavy server of some type. And maybe some fire.
Start with by hitting the motherboard with straight 210 wall voltage from a
dryer plug. Then go straight to the arc welder. As a finishing touch pack
some (a few pounds) powdered magnesium into the gaps left by the arc
welder. Take it out to a deserted area (like your favorite luser's lap)
and apply flames liberally. There shouldn't be much left once the
magnesium burns out. Douse whatever is left with holy water to ensure the
Demon remains exorcized.
--
-"Orwell was an optimist."
Paul Arthur
I recommend Fe2O3 + 2Al with a lashing of Mg. If this fails, nuke it
from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
--
Press every key to continue.
Howard S Shubs
"M. Clarkson (a.k.a. desertwolf)" <mclar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Douse whatever is left with holy water to ensure the Demon remains
> exorcized.
Which one, the Powerbook or the luser?
William R. Walsh
Maybe, but I've no fan of senseless destruction, and that looked like
it to me. (Nowhere did I see the machine was broken or that it had
really screwed up.)
If they ever blow up the G5 (and I expect they'll try), it will be
interesting to see how it stands up. I recall seeing pictures of a
classic Mac that had been packed with some fireworks or explosives and
touched off. Remarkably, it looked pretty good...more well done than
anything else.
William
William R. Walsh
>So, how old is this machine? I finally gave up on my '98 Wallstreet 2 a
>few months ago.
Three years...and during that time I've never been impressed. For
starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up apple
on the back of the display was more important than network link LEDs.
I also don't like the texture/composition of the casing.
Such a failure and continued misbehavior is not excusable. Perhaps my
expectations are high, but my heavily hot-rodded Compaq LTE 5000
followed me daily until March of 2005 without missing a beat. I still
use it and some PCMCIA cards for a portable network tester.
William
William R. Walsh
> If this fails, nuke it
>from orbit; it's the only way to be sure.
The microwave is probably all that's in my budget. Perhaps the
aluminum case would be too reflective, in which case I'd probably
throw a lit candle in there[1] to help out.
[1] Tried this for the first time a few weeks ago, when I had some
spare time. Damn, what a big flash and an even bigger BANG. I pulled
the plug pretty quickly after a few of those.
William
Zebee Johnstone
William R Walsh <newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:
>
> Three years...and during that time I've never been impressed. For
> starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up apple
> on the back of the display was more important than network link LEDs.
I mostly use it wireless, so the link info is right there on the menu
bar.
It does what I ask it to, which isn't much.... but it does that very
well.
Zebee
Peter Corlett
> Three years...and during that time I've never been impressed. For
> starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up apple on
> the back of the display was more important than network link LEDs. I also
> don't like the texture/composition of the casing.
I think the idea is that if you need to look at the LEDs for diagnostics, as
opposed to just gawping at the pretty lights, the OS has failed to live up
to expectations and you've pretty much already lost.
The other alternative explanation is that if you omitted to add more memory
to the machine than the stock 256MB, the hard disk LED is going to be on
solid anyway.
--
I'm always impressed by the braille on a wine bottle labels.
So far I've not been able to drink suffient to find them useful.
I guess everybody needs goals.
- Geoff Lane in the Monastery
Bruce Tomlin
> Three years...and during that time I've never been impressed. For
> starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up apple
> on the back of the display was more important than network link LEDs.
> I also don't like the texture/composition of the casing.
It could be worse. At least now you have ifconfig. And you should see
all the etching in the case of my 17" where my palms rest while typing.
But my main problem is that a latch point disappeared, so the lid only
too happily opens up whenever it feels like. I need to get it in the
shop before its three years are up in August, so Apple has two months to
learn how to apply heat sink compound properly in its planned
replacement.
My Pismo 500 still works fine, though its original hard drive and
DVD-ROM died, the replacement CD-RW/DVD-ROM faceplate broke off, two
"yo-yo" power supplies died, its last battery only charges to 19%, it's
a bit rickety, and it currently lacks wireless (the card in maternal
unit's G4 gumdrop died, and it was being used as my wireless access
point there, so that had priority.)
Bruce Tomlin
<slrne6af5c.8av...@shasta.narnia.fantasy-forest.com>,
Paul Arthur <flower...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I recommend an as-is listing on ebay. The curse will be transferred as
long as the recipient willingly accepts it (clicking the "bid" button is
willing enough for Cthulu), and the extra cash can't hurt.
Edward Teach
wrote:
> ab...@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter Corlett) writes:
>
> > William R. Walsh <newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Three years...and during that time I've never been impressed. For
> > > starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up apple on
> > > the back of the display was more important than network link LEDs. I also
> > > don't like the texture/composition of the casing.
> >
> > I think the idea is that if you need to look at the LEDs for diagnostics, as
> > opposed to just gawping at the pretty lights, the OS has failed to live up
> > to expectations and you've pretty much already lost.
>
> Yeah, but there's a lot to be said for "fsck, that's not the right
> cable..." lights. I can get by without them, but I don't want to.
Powerbooks sense whether a crossover or regular cable is plugged in, and
automagically do the right thing.
Until they decide that regular cables plugged in are xover cables and
xover cables are regular cables and conveniently start automagically
switching into incompatible mode, anyway. This little trick will come as
no surprise to anyone here, I'm sure.
--
Edward Teach <ete...@apesseekingknowledge.net>
No one's life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness while the legislature is in session.
Garrett Wollman
Edward Teach <ete...@ApesSeekingKnowledge.net> wrote:
>Until they decide that regular cables plugged in are xover cables and
>xover cables are regular cables and conveniently start automagically
>switching into incompatible mode, anyway. This little trick will come as
>no surprise to anyone here, I'm sure.
Not specific to PowerBooks: most gigabit PHYs[1] do the same thing --
which can make it fun when you have a marginal pair and both ends
decide the other guy is crossed. At least that problem is easy to
diagnose with the Proper Test Equipment.
-GAWollman
[1] Or perhaps it's the MAC that does this. I'm not sufficiently up
on gigabit hardware designs to know, and it's probably UI for someone
here. I do recall that some 10/100 designs used two separate PHYs,
often with one on the same chip as the MAC and the other outboard.
But I wouldn't expect that to be common today.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Peter Corlett
[...]
> Yeah, but there's a lot to be said for "fsck, that's not the right
> cable..." lights. I can get by without them, but I don't want to.
That's not terribly useful in my case as the manky bit of cable that doesn't
always link properly belongs to BT and is on the other side of a switch and
a router.
> The attitude of ALL hardware manufacturers suck, anyway.
AHS ASS, yes.
--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger ab...@mooli.org.uk for full key
Richard Bos
> ab...@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter Corlett) writes:
>
> > William R. Walsh <newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Three years...and during that time I've never been impressed. For
> > > starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up apple on
> > > the back of the display was more important than network link LEDs. I also
> > > don't like the texture/composition of the casing.
> >
> > I think the idea is that if you need to look at the LEDs for diagnostics, as
> > opposed to just gawping at the pretty lights, the OS has failed to live up
> > to expectations and you've pretty much already lost.
>
> Yeah, but there's a lot to be said for "fsck, that's not the right
> cable..." lights. I can get by without them, but I don't want to.
There's also something to be said for "hey, is that drive still active"
lights. USB stick manufacturers understand this, and put LEDs on their
devices. Apple, typically of them, do not understand this, and that has
been a pain in the friggin' arse for as long as I've used Macs. It's the
single greatest improvement that could be made to any Mac with only a
very minor modification, but as usual with Apple, usability is not as
important as style.
> The attitude of ALL hardware manufacturers suck, anyway.
s/hardware//.
Richard
Pete Verdon
> There's also something to be said for "hey, is that drive still active"
> lights. USB stick manufacturers understand this, and put LEDs on their
> devices. Apple, typically of them, do not understand this, and that has
> been a pain in the friggin' arse for as long as I've used Macs.
Hey? There aren't any drives on my Mac[1] of that aren't under the
machine's control and hence could be yanked out before it's finished
with them. Of course, that's arguably a fault in itself, but that's not
what you're complaining about. And even my stick of musical Apple
chewing gum has a status LED on it.
Pete
[1] Or any other Mac that I'm aware of - even the original 3.5" floppy
drives were under software control if I hear rightly.
Robert Uhl
>
> For starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up
> apple on the back of the display was more important than network link
> LEDs.
It _is_ more important--to the marketing dept., and to the sort of
status-conscious person who wishes to advertise for said marketing
dept. For free.
Which all just goes to verify the old adage, 'first thing we do is kill
all the marketers.'
--
I believe a little incompatibility is the spice of life, particularly if he
has income and she is pattable. --Ogden Nash
Richard Bos
> Richard Bos wrote:
>
> > There's also something to be said for "hey, is that drive still active"
> > lights. USB stick manufacturers understand this, and put LEDs on their
> > devices. Apple, typically of them, do not understand this, and that has
> > been a pain in the friggin' arse for as long as I've used Macs.
>
> Hey? There aren't any drives on my Mac[1] of that aren't under the
> machine's control and hence could be yanked out before it's finished
> with them.
The CD drives of all Macs I've used had the usual paperclip hole. Well
hidden away behind a sleek, modern[2]-design cover, but it was there.
Also, sometimes it is nice to know whether a program (or a whole
machine) is completely hung, or is merely thrashing its disk. Yeah, I
know: "Get a faster machine". Bleah.
Richard
[2] That's a problem all of its own, in a couple of years, of course
David Scheidt
:Pete Verdon <use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> wrote:
:> Richard Bos wrote:
:>
:> > There's also something to be said for "hey, is that drive still active"
:> > lights. USB stick manufacturers understand this, and put LEDs on their
:> > devices. Apple, typically of them, do not understand this, and that has
:> > been a pain in the friggin' arse for as long as I've used Macs.
:>
:> Hey? There aren't any drives on my Mac[1] of that aren't under the
:> machine's control and hence could be yanked out before it's finished
:> with them.
:The CD drives of all Macs I've used had the usual paperclip hole. Well
So did the auto-eject -- and inject! -- floppy disks of the macs. The
auto-inject floppys went away about 1994. They were auto-eject until
they stopped shipping them, I think.
William R. Walsh
>I think the idea is that if you need to look at the LEDs for diagnostics, as
>opposed to just gawping at the pretty lights, the OS has failed to live up
>to expectations and you've pretty much already lost.
Maybe so.
However, the environment in question is one where security is somewhat
important. Unused network wall or floor plugs tend to be unplugged at
the point of the switch when they haven't been used for a while.[1]
Checking in software can always be done, but in most cases, nothing
beats looking right at the LEDs to see what's going on.
What would it have added to the machine's price? Another $0.00001
cent?
[1] Obviously this wouldn't stop anyone determined to get on the
network. It's unlikely that said someone would go unnoticed for more
than a minute or two though. And each machine is firewalled...
William
William R. Walsh
>I mostly use it wireless, so the link info is right there on the menu
>bar.
When originally purchased and spec'd out, this machine was not
configured with onboard wireless networking.
Oddly enough, when it came back from being repaired by Apple, it also
came back with a never-before-present integrated AirPort adapter. Why
this is I don't know. <shrugs>
You've given me an interesting idea however...<UI deleted>
William
Maarten Wiltink
news:44690736...@news.xs4all.nl...
> [...] sometimes it is nice to know whether a program (or a whole
> machine) is completely hung, or is merely thrashing its disk. Yeah, I
> know: "Get a faster machine". Bleah.
I spell that 'Listen closer.' (Faster machnie[0]? Those things cost
*money*.)
Tebgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
[0] My fingers have a will of their own, and know that AHS. And,
apparently, they speak reasonably good German.
Richard Bos
> "Richard Bos" <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> news:44690736...@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> > [...] sometimes it is nice to know whether a program (or a whole
> > machine) is completely hung, or is merely thrashing its disk. Yeah, I
> > know: "Get a faster machine". Bleah.
>
> I spell that 'Listen closer.'
Easy to do when it's at home. Not so easy when it's in a layout room
with two dozen other computers, a broadsheet-sized flatbed scanner, the
usual accompaniment of orkers of cows, and the bloody radio blaring
bloody MTV-level noise all bloody day long.
Richard
David Skinner
> The CD drives of all Macs I've used had the usual paperclip hole. Well
> hidden away behind a sleek, modern[2]-design cover, but it was there.
> Also, sometimes it is nice to know whether a program (or a whole
> machine) is completely hung, or is merely thrashing its disk. Yeah, I
> know: "Get a faster machine". Bleah.
I inherited[1] one of those early Compaq TC1000 tablet PCs. The ones
that tried to save power/battery runtime by emulating a Pentium III with
a combination of a Transmeta Crusoe CPU and some software hooks.
Resulting in a terribly slow machine, helped only slightly by maxing-out
the RAM slots.
Worse still, it's *unevenly* slow. Some things it does quite acceptably.
Some things always take an age. Most things take an age the first time
you do them that session, but are a lot quicker thereafter[2].
Having said that, I actually quite like the machine - I like its styling
and concept more than the modern tablets - it's like having a huge
1024x768 PDA with 20GB of storage and access to a full range of XP[3]
software. But it doesn't have a HDD LED, and the HDD drive is whisper-
quiet, so that doesn't help. So you've got no quick way of knowing
whether $APP is hung, whether XP is in trouble, or whether you just need
to give it another 10 seconds to catch-up.
[1] Has anyone *ever* purchased a tablet PC out of their own pocket? I'm
sure every one in private ownership was obtained the same way: $ORK gets
one on evaluation. $ORK decides that, whilst cute, it doesn't justify
the price premium and decides not to buy any. However, someone likes
that evaluation machine enough to find budget to hang onto it. Then it
spends three years as a fashion accessory at meetings. Finally, once
it's too slow or battered to be of serious business use, someone quietly
takes it home.
[2] SOP before letting anyone else see the machine is to start it up,
let XP settle down, launch and close all the apps that you think you
might want to use, and then Hibernate it ready for action. Saves all
that exhaling, looking at your shoes and making "tut" noises later.
[3] I'm in the huge minority in This Place, but I find XP, properly
tamed, a quite acceptable desktop OS. Plus, I've heard nothing but
horror stories of people trying to get other OS'es onto these things
without losing most of the tablet functionality.
[...] More text in footnotes than in main body. I don't care.
Pete Verdon
> [1] Has anyone *ever* purchased a tablet PC out of their own pocket? I'm
> sure every one in private ownership was obtained the same way: $ORK gets
> one on evaluation. $ORK decides that, whilst cute, it doesn't justify
> the price premium and decides not to buy any.
A friend's orkplace uses tablet PCs extensively, but they're not your
typical office environment. He sets up (and occasionally runs) the sound
systems at big gigs and shows, where the amplifiers, processors, etc can
all be controlled remotely.
Each such rig now goes out with a tablet PC so that the engineer can
walk around the auditorium (particularly in theatres) tweaking things.
Pete
Graham Reed
> starters, I'd like to LART the *idiot* that thought a light-up apple
> on the back of the display was more important than network link LEDs.
If you want to be _really_ annoyed by that light-up apple thing, try
using the machine in bright sun, with its back to the sun ('cause you
want the screen in some amount of shade).
On mine, you can see a suspiciously apple-shaped over-bright bit in
the middle of the screen. Makes it hard to read an xterm.
--
But it is for a good reason. Not dying on the job is cool.
-- Randy the Random in the Monastery
Lionel
<newsg...@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> opined:
>So when is a repaired Powerbook not repaired at all? It would appear
>that when the only original part left is the machine's case and
>battery (makes no difference in or out, power adapters are
>good)...that this still does not please the demons in the machine or
>prove to be sufficient as a repair.
>
>Time for the serious tools--a pickup truck, LART, some boots and quite
>possibly a heavy server of some type. And maybe some fire.
I've found that stripping another machine for parts - with a soldering
iron - in direct view of the demonically-possessed machine, & saying
"This is what I do to machines that don't want to work" is a
remarkably effective form of exorcism.
And yes, I have witnesses.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Lionel
opined:
BTDT, & you have my sympathy. A partial solution is to break the
radio.
Richard Bos
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:15:15 GMT, ral...@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos)
> opined:
>
> >"Maarten Wiltink" <maa...@kittensandcats.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Richard Bos" <ral...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
> >> news:44690736...@news.xs4all.nl...
> >>
> >> > [...] sometimes it is nice to know whether a program (or a whole
> >> > machine) is completely hung, or is merely thrashing its disk. Yeah, I
> >> > know: "Get a faster machine". Bleah.
> >>
> >> I spell that 'Listen closer.'
> >
> >Easy to do when it's at home. Not so easy when it's in a layout room
> >with two dozen other computers, a broadsheet-sized flatbed scanner, the
> >usual accompaniment of orkers of cows, and the bloody radio blaring
> >bloody MTV-level noise all bloody day long.
>
> BTDT, & you have my sympathy. A partial solution is to break the
> radio.
Now if only I could break the loudest of the cow-orkers...
Richard
Peter Corlett
[...]
> Easy to do when it's at home. Not so easy when it's in a layout room with
> two dozen other computers, a broadsheet-sized flatbed scanner, the usual
> accompaniment of orkers of cows, and the bloody radio blaring bloody
> MTV-level noise all bloody day long.
I fixed the "so much distraction in the office I can't get anything done"
problem by handing in my notice today.
Tanuki
<hel...@ninehells.com> said
>On Wed, 17 May 2006 16:18:27 GMT, Richard Bos wrote:
>> Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>>> BTDT, & you have my sympathy. A partial solution is to break the
>>> radio.
>>
>> Now if only I could break the loudest of the cow-orkers...
>
>filings in tactically adventageous locations, drops from heights onto
>hard surfaces, submersion in corrosive liquids, and of course good old
>fashioned incineration.
You forgot the electrified nipple-clamps and the syphilitic warthog.
--
Tanuki
"Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." --Primer
M. Clarkson (a.k.a. desertwolf)
> I fixed the "so much distraction in the office I can't get anything
> done" problem by handing in my notice today.
>
Happy recovery via unemployment! May your recovery be long enough to
recover while short enough to allow sufficient funds to recover with.
--
-"Orwell was an optimist."
Stuart Lamble
> BTDT, & you have my sympathy. A partial solution is to break the
> radio.
Reminds me of my CS Honours year. The lab with the good systems was also
the lab with the radio. I was in there late one night with another
honours student. The radio was blaring out something that I call noise.
I got up, and changed the channel to (IIRC) 3MBS. For non-residents of
.melb.vic.au, that's one of two classical music radio stations.
The other honours student immediately sent me a message via the instant
messaging system that was then prevalent at the sniversity: "Ahhh, much
better."
There were many times when I very seriously considered radiocide.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
Maarten Wiltink
news:MPG.1ed4299bc...@130.133.1.4...
[...]
> [3] I'm in the huge minority in This Place, but I find XP, properly
> tamed, a quite acceptable desktop OS. Plus, I've heard nothing but
(I've fixed your post for you.)
You're my hero. Confront the ueber-pedantic with their own motto and
dare them to deny the consequence: ASS really means _all_ software.
That said, I'll now quietly step back and call out my moral support
from a safe distance while the howling masses tear you to shreds.
Tebrgwrf,
Maarten Wiltink
Mike Andrews
In sober fact, his post isn't quite fixed enough. One more change:
s/huge mi/tiniest possible mi/
_There_. All better.
--
French does have a certain je ne sais quoi, but I don't know
what it is.
-- Jeffrey Goldberg, in nanae
Joe Bednorz
>"David Skinner" <branest...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1ed4299bc...@130.133.1.4...
>[...]
>> [3] I'm in the huge minority in This Place, but I find XP, properly
>> tamed, a quite acceptable desktop OS. Plus, I've heard nothing but
>> horror stories of people [with] other OS'es ...
I've properly tamed WinXP myself, although it *was* a bit of a
struggle installing Win98SE over it. Especially given the way that
WinXP <useful information deleted>.
>
>(I've fixed your post for you.)
>
>You're my hero. Confront the ueber-pedantic with their own motto and
>dare them to deny the consequence: ASS really means _all_ software.
After WinXP, Win98SE is a joy to use. (Excuse me, the nurse is here
with my medication. Ah, they've upped the tranquilizer AND the
mood-stabilizer doses. Again. Chemical restraints, how I do love
thee.)
>
>That said, I'll now quietly step back and call out my moral support
>from a safe distance while the howling masses tear you to shreds.
>
It's like having a Special Olympics contender claim to be Marie, Queen
of Roumania. Not even irritating.
--
A luser will return a perfectly good hammer to the hardware store
saying "There's something wrong with it. It keeps hitting my thumb."
All the best,
Joe Bednorz
David P. Murphy
> I fixed the "so much distraction in the office I can't get anything done"
> problem by handing in my notice today.
A Bastardly resolution indeed: everything is fixed from *your* point of view.
Congratulations and good luck.
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy
systems programmer
http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
mailto:dpm_u...@myths.com
David P. Murphy
> I've properly tamed WinXP myself, although it *was* a bit of a
> struggle installing Win98SE over it. Especially given the way that
> WinXP <useful information deleted>.
Co-worker had a hell of a time with his XP system yesterday.
In the first place, it became so seriously hosed that Qryy
support actually suggested reinstalling. In the second place,
his attempts to re-install via the CD resulted in XP happily
using files from the hard drive instead. This did not result
in a bootable system.
Scott Packard
> Hi!
>
>>I think the idea is that if you need to look at the LEDs for diagnostics, as
>>opposed to just gawping at the pretty lights, the OS has failed to live up
>>to expectations and you've pretty much already lost.
>
> Maybe so.
>
> However, the environment in question is one where security is somewhat
> important. Unused network wall or floor plugs tend to be unplugged at
> the point of the switch when they haven't been used for a while.[1]
>
> Checking in software can always be done, but in most cases, nothing
> beats looking right at the LEDs to see what's going on.
>
> What would it have added to the machine's price? Another $0.00001
> cent?
I notice the target market and the number of years the company has
been in business matter more than the LED cost.
I'm thinking about cars and mechanical switches though.[1]
- Scott
[1] How many different functions can we multiplex onto this
one button?[2]
[2] All of them!
Stuart Lamble
> Co-worker had a hell of a time with his XP system yesterday.
> In the first place, it became so seriously hosed that Qryy
> support actually suggested reinstalling.
Last I checked, that was usually one of the first things that Qryy
"support" suggests.
> In the second place,
> his attempts to re-install via the CD resulted in XP happily
> using files from the hard drive instead. This did not result
> in a bootable system.
I am reminded of the last time I had to re-install Windows. The
blornfrazzling thing was a "clean install" CD. I wanted to nuke and
reinstall, so it was perfect, right? Right?
Guess again.
I ended up having to escape out to a command prompt, delete everything
in sight, find a copy of something to let me access and nuke system
files, and *then*, and *only* then, start the install process. No, it
wouldn't let me just nuke the partition and install from scratch. $DEITY
only knows why.
I'm pushing my sister towards the Nccyr (should I be scared that I
didn't have to type the unrotted form and then rot it, missing the
correct translation only by the transposition of two letters?) path. It
may suck just as bad at times, but at least it sucks differently.
stevo
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 00:38:59 +0000, William R. Walsh wrote:
>
> I'm thinking about cars and mechanical switches though.[1]
>
starting my car. Procedure goes something like this:
1. get in car
2. put key in ignition
3. put foot on clutch[3] and turn key
4. nothing happens
5. Do the windows thing[4]
6. Car starts
I just figured it was the battery nearing the end of it's life. The
battery is the OEM that came with the car when I got it new nearly 4
years ago, so it's about due to die soonish anyway.
This monday on the other hand I could only repeat steps 2 to 5 with no
change. So I swear and call out the RACWA[5]. Nice RAC man comes out and
fixes my car.
Turns out the problem was a switch that will not allow you to start the
car unless your foot is on the clutch. To stop you running people over
by accident, I suppose. MY switch OTOH decided I wasn't going to start
the car whether I had my foot on the clutch or not. On discussion with
the RAC guy I got him to just bypass the switch completely. Car starts a
dream now. At least until the battery dies for real, that is.
>
> [1] How many different functions can we multiplex onto this
> one button?[2]
> [2] All of them!
[3] Yes I drive a manual. I like to decide when to change gears, not
when some system arbitrarily decide they should change
[4] remove key, wait 30 seconds, reinsert key and turn
[5] Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia
--
Stevo st...@madcelt.org
Chromosomes and Genes, spawn these faithful scenes
Evolution can be mean. There's no dumb-ass vaccine
Jimmy Buffet - Permanent Reminder of a Temporary Feeling
Stuart Lamble
> Turns out the problem was a switch that will not allow you to start the
> car unless your foot is on the clutch. To stop you running people over
> by accident, I suppose. MY switch OTOH decided I wasn't going to start
> the car whether I had my foot on the clutch or not. On discussion with
> the RAC guy I got him to just bypass the switch completely. Car starts a
> dream now. At least until the battery dies for real, that is.
This sounds vaguely familiar. I was having trouble with my boot. It
wouldn't open. Not through the central locking, not through the key --
it just Plain Would Not Unlock (and hence open).
Turns out that the actuator that hooks it into the central locking
system was broke. The mechanic pulled it out, and it now works fine
using the key. No longer works with the central locking, but I can live
with that ... as long as I don't inadvertently lock the keys in the
boot, that is.
David Gersic
> 3. put foot on clutch[3] and turn key
> 4. nothing happens
If you're driving a car made in Japan, there's a good chance the starter
motor solenoid has worn out a $10 set of copper contacts. A rebuilt
starter runs about $150-200. Fortunately, there's a local place that
sells the contacts, and I have lots of wrenches.
> 5. Do the windows thing[4]
How, exactly, do you reinstall a car? Or did you just reboot it and
hope for the best?
> Turns out the problem was a switch that will not allow you to start the
> car unless your foot is on the clutch. To stop you running people over
> by accident, I suppose. MY switch OTOH decided I wasn't going to start
> the car whether I had my foot on the clutch or not.
A guy I used to work with got stuck for a huge towing bill, plus the
shop labour fee, to find out that he had only a simple problem. He'd
kicked the floor mat up under the clutch pedal, keeping this switch from
allowing him to start the car.
Peter Corlett
> David Gersic wrote:
>> How, exactly, do you reinstall a car? Or did you just reboot it and hope
>> for the best?
Good luck. Qrovna's installer won't recognise the engine on anything newer
than a Model T.
Peter Corlett
> A Bastardly resolution indeed: everything is fixed from *your* point of
> view. Congratulations and good luck.
I'm expecting to wake up with a particularly nasty hangover on June 3rd.
You're all welcome to help in its creation.
In the interim, I have the joys of writing hand-over documentation, even
though I doubt that anybody will actually read it. A BOFH of my acquaintance
in a similar situation did it in Latin, which is one way to ensure nobody
will read it. Mine will out of necessity explain Rkvz and Nfgrevfx
configurations so might as well be in Latin.
--
ASCII silly question, get a silly ANSI.
- Maria Blackmore in uknot
David P. Murphy
> On 2006-05-18, David P. Murphy <dpm_u...@myths.com> wrote:
>> Co-worker had a hell of a time with his XP system yesterday.
>> In the first place, it became so seriously hosed that Qryy
>> support actually suggested reinstalling.
> Last I checked, that was usually one of the first things that Qryy
> "support" suggests.
Obviously I should have re-calibrated the measuring spoons before
adding the sarcasm in that post. Or perhaps I should just change
the units involved from "pinch" to "fistful".
mrob...@worldnet.att.net
>Turns out the problem was a switch that will not allow you to start the
>car unless your foot is on the clutch. To stop you running people over
>by accident, I suppose.
Most manual-transmission cars sold in .us since around 1985 or so have
this as standard. I understand that it is still not very common in less
litigous parts of the world. It's a good example of something that
stops other people from doing something stupid, but stops me from doing
something clever - like using the starter to get the car off of the
railroad tracks or to the side of the highway or into the garage.
If you decide you want this feature for some reason, the switch is usually
mounted on a small bracket near the top end of the clutch pedal arm.
You may have to take down a trim panel over the pedals to see it. Often
the nose of the switch is threaded and can be adjusted fore and aft in
the bracket. Another possibility is that some mechanical problem with
the clutch is preventing the clutch pedal from traveling as far as it
used to, so that it can't trigger the switch.
Rira vs lbh qba'g jnag gur pyhgpu crqny fjvgpu, lbh pna erebhgr gur gjb
jverf gung tb gb vg gb n fvzcyr gbttyr fjvgpu chepunfrq sebz lbhe sevraqyl
ybpny nhgb cnegf fgber. Uvqr guvf fjvgpu fbzrjurer haqre gur qnfu naq vg
znxrf n ehqvzragnel nagv-gursg qrivpr.
Cars with automatics have a similar switch that only allows cranking in
Park or Neutral. Sometimes the switch won't trigger if you don't move
the lever into position with verve and elan. I've helped a couple of
people stranded in parking lots by asking them to shift out of Park and
then back into Park firmly.
At $ORK, I am working with an engine and ECU with an interesting
feature: the starter is totally under ECU control. There is no wire
from the "start" terminal on the ignition switch to the starter
solenoid. The ignition switch transmits a start request over the
network to the ECU, which then triggers a relay that is connected to
the starter solenoid. If you turn the key on and then manually jump
the starter solenoid, the ECU DTRT and runs the engine.
Matt Roberds
Robert Sneddon
writes
>Most manual-transmission cars sold in .us since around 1985 or so have
>this as standard. I understand that it is still not very common in less
>litigous parts of the world.
In a lot of the rest of the world manual transmission cars are common
and people learn to drive them, hence no clutch cut-out switch.
.uk cars have real handbrakes (ObUS: parking brakes) since hill starts
are a part of the driving test. Rolling back even fractionally as you
press the accelerator, let out the clutch and release the handbrake is
an automatic fail on the driving test. The ability to do three things at
once in a smooth synchronised manner doesn't seem to be a prerequisite
to getting a driving licence in the US. More's the pity.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
Stuart Lamble
> .uk cars have real handbrakes (ObUS: parking brakes) since hill starts
> are a part of the driving test. Rolling back even fractionally as you
> press the accelerator, let out the clutch and release the handbrake is
> an automatic fail on the driving test. The ability to do three things at
> once in a smooth synchronised manner doesn't seem to be a prerequisite
> to getting a driving licence in the US. More's the pity.
I've been thinking for a long time now that Australia's standards for
driving tests are too lenient. This proves it. When I did my test, I did
so in an automatic. For the duration of my probationary license (3
years), I was not allowed to drive a manual. Once I gained my full
license, I was given that privilege. No, I didn't have to prove to
anybody that I was able to do so.
I went out and had a few lessons in a manual, to the point where I now
feel I can get from point A to point B in one if I have to. I'm still
slow off the mark when going from a standing start, and also to change
up to second or third, but I can manage it. Roll backwards on a hill?
Likely, alas, although not very far (not far enough to be of concern to
the driver behind, I hope.)
I suspect that my level of skill in a manual exceeds that of the typical
Australian. This is a worry.
Alan J. Flavell
> On 2006-05-20, Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > .uk cars have real handbrakes (ObUS: parking brakes) since hill
> > starts are a part of the driving test. Rolling back even
> > fractionally as you press the accelerator, let out the clutch and
> > release the handbrake is an automatic fail on the driving test.
> > The ability to do three things at once in a smooth synchronised
> > manner doesn't seem to be a prerequisite to getting a driving
> > licence in the US. More's the pity.
>
> I've been thinking for a long time now that Australia's standards
> for driving tests are too lenient. This proves it.
I used to be laughed at by my colleagues when I worked in Germany, for
using the handbrake when stopped in traffic (as taught in UK driving
schools, and required in the driving test).
I got the laugh back when I was a passenger with a colleague who
rolled back into the car behind, and had to pay up.
But now I learn that my habit of working down through the gears on
approach to a junction - so that I'm always in the right gear for the
speed - would fail me in the modern UK driving test - the candidate is
supposed to brake without changing gear, and only select the right
gear for moving off from the junction. Funny old world.
> When I did my test, I did so in an automatic. For the duration of my
> probationary license (3 years), I was not allowed to drive a manual.
> Once I gained my full license, I was given that privilege. No, I
> didn't have to prove to anybody that I was able to do so.
It's not like that in the UK. If you pass the test in an auto, your
licence is good only for driving autos, ever. You'd need a fresh test
if you wanted to drive manuals. If you pass the test in a manual (as
I did), you can drive either. Though I'm not very good with autos!
> I suspect that my level of skill in a manual exceeds that of the
> typical Australian. This is a worry.
On the whole - being able to assess road conditions and the "body
language" of other road users is more important than the mechanical
details of getting the vehicle moving, and stopping it again, provided
that one stays within the envelope of one's ability.
Being able to do both is a bonus, for sure.
imho and ymmv, natch
Stuart Lamble
> On Sat, 20 May 2006, Stuart Lamble wrote:
>> When I did my test, I did so in an automatic. For the duration of my
>> probationary license (3 years), I was not allowed to drive a manual.
>> Once I gained my full license, I was given that privilege. No, I
>> didn't have to prove to anybody that I was able to do so.
>
> It's not like that in the UK. If you pass the test in an auto, your
> licence is good only for driving autos, ever. You'd need a fresh test
> if you wanted to drive manuals. If you pass the test in a manual (as
> I did), you can drive either. Though I'm not very good with autos!
That is as it should be, IMO. Going from a manual to an automatic isn't
all that difficult. Going from an automatic to a manual, OTOH ...
>> I suspect that my level of skill in a manual exceeds that of the
>> typical Australian. This is a worry.
>
> On the whole - being able to assess road conditions and the "body
> language" of other road users is more important than the mechanical
> details of getting the vehicle moving, and stopping it again, provided
> that one stays within the envelope of one's ability.
True, but if one doesn't know *how* to get the vehicle moving ("What's
this third pedal for?"), being able to assess road conditions &c pales
into complete insignificance. At least stopping is (and remains)
straightforward, regardless of the type of vehicle being driven, which
removes one cause for concern (out of a myriad...
Zebee Johnstone
Stuart Lamble <7d6-...@carousel.its.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
> True, but if one doesn't know *how* to get the vehicle moving ("What's
> this third pedal for?"), being able to assess road conditions &c pales
> into complete insignificance. At least stopping is (and remains)
I don't think so at all.
If you are stopped you aren't much of a danger although you might be
an annoyance. If you kangaroo your way trying to get started ditto.
It is possible that if you can't hillstart well you might roll back
over a startled motorcycle, but I dunno that's anywhere near as much
of a problem as people in nominal control of a ton and a half of
lethal weapon who can't assess road conditions and anticipate
problems.
Given the choice I'd prefer good drivers to good starters every time.
Zebee
Paul Colquhoun
Perhaps standards have slipped recently^w in the last 30 years. When I
was learning to drive we were taught to do hill starts, etc. And all in
a manual, since automatics were rare at the time, especially in country
Queensland.
Actually, thinking back I can't be sure I was actually *tested* on hill
starts, only that I was taught. And concidering that the landscape was
pretty flat, it took deliberate action to find one of the few suitable
stretches of road to do the hill starts on.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
gem...@tpg.com.au
<7d6-...@carousel.its.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>I went out and had a few lessons in a manual, to the point where I now
>feel I can get from point A to point B in one if I have to.
When I eventually decided to get a licence (in my early 20s), I started
with a manual. I had enough problems synchronising multiple mechanical and
traffic-processing requirements that I rethought the whole process and
took a couple of lessons in an automatic. Without the distractions of
clutch and gear lever, it only took a day or so to become comfortable with
standard traffic speeds, expected road behaviour, three-point turns and so
on, and how other drivers were likely to react.
With this under my belt, I shifted back to a manual for the remainder of
the lessons, and could then devote more brainpower to the subtleties of
gearstick and clutch.
All my cars since have been manual, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
-SteveD
Zebee Johnstone
Stuart Lamble <7d6-...@carousel.its.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I suspect that my level of skill in a manual exceeds that of the typical
> Australian. This is a worry.
I dunno. I don't find too many people in manuals rolling back on hill
starts, and those that do don't roll back much.
(I tell it's a manual by seeing the arm movements. Drivers of autos
are usually using that arm to hold the mobile...)
Zebee
detha
> Actually, thinking back I can't be sure I was actually *tested* on hill
> starts, only that I was taught. And concidering that the landscape was
> pretty flat, it took deliberate action to find one of the few suitable
> stretches of road to do the hill starts on.
>
.za has a simple solution to that. Part of the country is hilly, part of
it extremely flat. So every examination center has a small artificial
hill in the yard, along with some lines and cones to test parallel
parking and 3-point turns.
That section is the start of the test, fail any of them and you're not
even let loose on the road. Not that it helps much, until recently it
was apparently very easy to obtain a license using the trade-off between
skills and cash.
D
Pete Verdon
> True, but if one doesn't know *how* to get the vehicle moving ("What's
> this third pedal for?"), being able to assess road conditions &c pales
> into complete insignificance. At least stopping is (and remains)
> straightforward, regardless of the type of vehicle being driven
Well, except that you'll stall if you don't make use of that mysterious
third pedal at some point in the process.
Pete
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On 2006-05-20, Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> .uk cars have real handbrakes (ObUS: parking brakes) since hill starts
>> are a part of the driving test. Rolling back even fractionally as you
>> press the accelerator, let out the clutch and release the handbrake is
>> an automatic fail on the driving test. The ability to do three things at
>> once in a smooth synchronised manner doesn't seem to be a prerequisite
>> to getting a driving licence in the US. More's the pity.
>
> I've been thinking for a long time now that Australia's standards for
> driving tests are too lenient. This proves it. When I did my test, I did
> so in an automatic. For the duration of my probationary license (3
> years), I was not allowed to drive a manual. Once I gained my full
> license, I was given that privilege. No, I didn't have to prove to
> anybody that I was able to do so.
In NSW, I think you have an "A" placed on your license. I never had
one on mine, so I could be wrong.
> I went out and had a few lessons in a manual, to the point where I now
> feel I can get from point A to point B in one if I have to. I'm still
> slow off the mark when going from a standing start, and also to change
> up to second or third, but I can manage it. Roll backwards on a hill?
> Likely, alas, although not very far (not far enough to be of concern to
> the driver behind, I hope.)
Hopefully not more than ... what was it? A metre, I think the law
requires you not fall further back than.
> I suspect that my level of skill in a manual exceeds that of the typical
> Australian. This is a worry.
I found it trivial to work the clutch when I started. I think it was
because the first dozens of kilometers I ever did were on various
varieties of tractors and farming equipment in first gear barely using
the throttle. Oh, and backing trailers full of oranges around corners
at the end of the rows when I was 10 years old and mum couldn't work
out which way to turn the wheel.
So when it came time to teach my first charge how to perform a three
point turn without stalling, it was... interesting.
--
TimC
"I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors."
-- Plorkwort, 26 September 2004 on alt.religion.kibology
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> approach to a junction - so that I'm always in the right gear for the
> speed - would fail me in the modern UK driving test - the candidate is
> supposed to brake without changing gear, and only select the right
> gear for moving off from the junction. Funny old world.
Weird. Wouldn't that mean you would stall around the corner if you
didn't have the clutch disengaged? Would having the clutch disengaged
then not mean you full control of the vehicle?
>> When I did my test, I did so in an automatic. For the duration of my
>> probationary license (3 years), I was not allowed to drive a manual.
>> Once I gained my full license, I was given that privilege. No, I
>> didn't have to prove to anybody that I was able to do so.
>
> It's not like that in the UK. If you pass the test in an auto, your
> licence is good only for driving autos, ever. You'd need a fresh test
> if you wanted to drive manuals. If you pass the test in a manual (as
> I did), you can drive either. Though I'm not very good with autos!
What's to know about them? Accelerator, go. Foot off the accelerator
to change down gears. Brake, stop. Get pissed off at the delay
between accelerator and go. Get pissed off at it keep alternating
gears up a hill climb (the bus driver in question probably could have
tried letting up the throttle a bit, but then we would have never
gotten over the mountains).
--
TimC
"The Write Many, Read Never drive. For those people that don't know
their system has a /dev/null already." -- Rik Steenwinkel, singing
the praises of 8mm Exabytes
TimC
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
I was wondering why it is that I don't like autos.
We can't talk on a mobile if we have to rev up through all the gears
as fast as possible to scream away from the lights, can we?
--
TimC
I bet the human brain is a kludge.
-- Marvin Minsky
Alexander Schreiber
> On 2006-05-20, Robert Sneddon <fr...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> .uk cars have real handbrakes (ObUS: parking brakes) since hill starts
>> are a part of the driving test. Rolling back even fractionally as you
>> press the accelerator, let out the clutch and release the handbrake is
>> an automatic fail on the driving test. The ability to do three things at
>> once in a smooth synchronised manner doesn't seem to be a prerequisite
>> to getting a driving licence in the US. More's the pity.
>
> I've been thinking for a long time now that Australia's standards for
> driving tests are too lenient. This proves it. When I did my test, I did
> so in an automatic. For the duration of my probationary license (3
> years), I was not allowed to drive a manual. Once I gained my full
> license, I was given that privilege. No, I didn't have to prove to
> anybody that I was able to do so.
IIRC you can also do the drivings test in germany in an automatic. But
you are subsequently onlu allowed to drive an automatic. Should you come
to your senses and develop a desire to drive a manual, you have to go
through an additional test.
Regards,
Alex.
--
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
looks like work." -- Thomas A. Edison
Random Data
> Weird. Wouldn't that mean you would stall around the corner if you
> didn't have the clutch disengaged? Would having the clutch disengaged
> then not mean you full control of the vehicle?
There's generally a fair bit between comfortable driving torque and
stalling. But I'd fail that test as well, because I downshift all the
time. Hell, I've driven for ~20 minutes in peak hour traffic without
touching the brakes just to see if I could.
--
Dave Hughes | da...@hired-goons.net
"...and Trogdor smote the kerrek. And all was laid to burnination."
- Strongbad
Random Data
> We can't talk on a mobile if we have to rev up through all the gears
> as fast as possible to scream away from the lights, can we?
Left hand gears [1]
Right hand phone [1]
Right foot accelerator.
Left foot clutch (optional, you don't need it after getting started).
Knees "mostly" holding wheel.
Where's the problem?
[1] Swap where appropriate.
--
Dave Hughes | da...@hired-goons.net
"SCSI is *not* magic. There are fundamental technical reasons why it is
necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now and then."
- Daniel M. Drucker
Alan J. Flavell
> On 2006-05-20, Alan J. Flavell (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > But now I learn that my habit of working down through the gears on
> > approach to a junction - so that I'm always in the right gear for
> > the speed - would fail me in the modern UK driving test - the
> > candidate is supposed to brake without changing gear, and only
> > select the right gear for moving off from the junction. Funny old
> > world.
>
> Weird. Wouldn't that mean you would stall around the corner if you
> didn't have the clutch disengaged?
No-no, you /are/ supposed to change into the right gear for the
corner, before negotiating it. And the /general/ principle is to be
in the correct gear for the speed at all times. *But* what they seem
to be teaching here (under the slogan of "selective" gear changing)
is, suppose you're in 4th gear approaching a junction which you'd
expect to negotiate in 2nd, then what you're supposed to do (modulo
other traffic conditions) is to use the brakes to reach the junction
at the right speed, and only then to change directly to 2nd. Google
suggests http://www.wanadrive.co.uk/AskAnInstructor.htm
> Would having the clutch disengaged
> then not mean you full control of the vehicle?
No, you mustn't coast with the clutch disengaged. And I don't know
what they teach you to do if you're approaching in 5th and expect to
need 1st. I think most cars would want at least one intermediate
change of gears in that case, no?
I guess one of the benefits of using the brakes is that it puts the
brake lights on, for any clue-impaired idiots behind. Engine braking
doesn't achieve that.
Pete Verdon
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:38:56 +0000, TimC wrote:
>>We can't talk on a mobile if we have to rev up through all the gears
>>as fast as possible to scream away from the lights, can we?
> Left hand gears [1]
> Right hand phone [1]
> Right foot accelerator.
> Left foot clutch (optional, you don't need it after getting started).
> Knees "mostly" holding wheel.
>
> Where's the problem?
Alternatively, left hand phone, right hand wheel, and passenger
providing "voice activated gearbox" services. I've found myself expected
to fill that role a couple of times.
Pete
David Taylor
> On Sun, 21 May 2006, TimC wrote:
>>
>> Weird. Wouldn't that mean you would stall around the corner if you
>> didn't have the clutch disengaged?
>
> No-no, you /are/ supposed to change into the right gear for the
> corner, before negotiating it. And the /general/ principle is to be
> in the correct gear for the speed at all times. *But* what they seem
> to be teaching here (under the slogan of "selective" gear changing)
> is, suppose you're in 4th gear approaching a junction which you'd
> expect to negotiate in 2nd, then what you're supposed to do (modulo
> other traffic conditions) is to use the brakes to reach the junction
> at the right speed, and only then to change directly to 2nd. Google
> suggests http://www.wanadrive.co.uk/AskAnInstructor.htm
Which is mainly useful in the situation where you discover you can't
actually go. Instead of changing gears frantically, you just push
in the clutch and stop. Then change into first and go.
>> Would having the clutch disengaged
>> then not mean you full control of the vehicle?
>
> No, you mustn't coast with the clutch disengaged. And I don't know
> what they teach you to do if you're approaching in 5th and expect to
> need 1st. I think most cars would want at least one intermediate
> change of gears in that case, no?
Brake to the minimum speed you can, then put in the clutch and stop.
Or change gear and keep going.
--
David Taylor
Dave Brown
> .uk cars have real handbrakes (ObUS: parking brakes) since hill
> starts are a part of the driving test.
My dad was rather Bastardly and insisted that I learn how to do a
hill start *without* using the hand brake.
It requires a bit of finesse and some dancing on the pedals, but
it sure is an awesome party trick on your driving test.
--Dave (I got my license on the morning of my 16th birthday, which
was great for shooting down those people who asked "so
when're you going for your license?" "Already taken care
of that.")
--
<turtle> i mean i'm all for pissed off women piloting planes that carry
weapons of mass destruction but do they have to be feminists?
Robert Sneddon
J. Flavell <fla...@physics.gla.ac.uk> writes
>I guess one of the benefits of using the brakes is that it puts the
>brake lights on, for any clue-impaired idiots behind. Engine braking
>doesn't achieve that.
I shift down with engine braking and cover the brake pedal with my foot
just in case I need it in a hurry. That usually means the brake lights
are on since I've got the brakelight pedal switch set pretty
sensitively.
It may be old-fashioned of me but I would think in stop-start traffic
hammering the brakes forty or fifty times in a two-mile stretch of
lights is going to lead to some brake fade as the pads heat up.
Garrett Wollman
Tanuki <mailer...@canismajor.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>"Gears to go, brakes to slow" is what my driving-instructor taught me
>25-odd years ago. I generally don't make any attempt to use engine-
>braking - indeed one of my all-time-favourite cars[1] had a freewheel
>mechanism so there was essentially *no* engine-braking. It allowed
>clutchless gearchanges too. More cars should be like this.
I suppose that's OK in a topographically-challenged country. I don't
think that would fly here (or rather, it would, all too well).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every
wol...@csail.mit.edu | generation can invoke its principles in their own
Opinions not those | search for greater freedom.
of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Joe Zeff
<fla...@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>But now I learn that my habit of working down through the gears on
>approach to a junction - so that I'm always in the right gear for the
>speed - would fail me in the modern UK driving test - the candidate is
>supposed to brake without changing gear, and only select the right
>gear for moving off from the junction. Funny old world.
Downshifting is more than just being in the right gear for your speed.
It also allows you to use engine compression to help slow down. Good
drivers downshift for both reasons, so I guess that UK doesn't want to
license good drivers anymore.
--
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
Physics is the mess that results when
you pollute mathematics with reality.
http://www.lasfs.org http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz
Joe Zeff
<fla...@physics.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>I guess one of the benefits of using the brakes is that it puts the
>brake lights on, for any clue-impaired idiots behind. Engine braking
>doesn't achieve that.
If there's somebody behind you, put just enough pressure on the brake
pedal to turn on your brake lights. Furrfu!
--
Joe Zeff
The Guy With the Sideburns
another clue like that and I may have to start thinking.
http://www.lasfs.org http://home.earthlink.net/~sidebrnz
David P. Murphy
> If there's somebody behind you, put just enough pressure on the brake
> pedal to turn on your brake lights. Furrfu!
You say that as if the luser behind you might have a chance to *notice*
the light, let alone act upon it. Ain't gonna happen.
ok
dpm
--
David P. Murphy
systems programmer
http://www.myths.com/~dpm/
mailto:dpm_u...@myths.com
Zebee Johnstone
Roger Burton West <ro...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>
>>I dunno. I don't find too many people in manuals rolling back on hill
>>starts, and those that do don't roll back much.
>
> window-table of a pub just next to a hill with traffic lights on it...
So requiring it in the licence test is obviously not useful.
I note that my test didn't require a hill start, but my driving
instructor taught me to do it.
I suspect that like most things my parents' attitude to car handling
was more important than either law or instructor. I didn't drive much
with Dad when I was a teenager which was no doubt a good thing as he
was never as good as he thought he was... but Mum was and is a very
safe careful driver and scathing of those who were not. So I learned
early that people who couldn't hillstart were incompetent, and I
didn't want to be that.
Skills are only retained if considered useful, and therefore practiced.
Most people who roll back at lights probably know the theory but can't
be arsed retaining the skills to do it because they don't see the point.
THeir mothers were probably not coldly contemptuous enough of drivers
who couldn't in their formative years.
Zebee
Zebee Johnstone
Joe Zeff <the.guy.with....@lasfs.info> wrote:
> Downshifting is more than just being in the right gear for your speed.
> It also allows you to use engine compression to help slow down. Good
> drivers downshift for both reasons, so I guess that UK doesn't want to
> license good drivers anymore.
By your definition.
Funny, my mother's a very good driver. She learned to drive just after
the war in the time of petrol rationing, and her attitude is "revving
the engine uses petrol whether you are accelerating or decelerating".
Mind you "brakes in those days faded on hills, so of course you used
the gears then."
I was taught to change into the gear I needed when I needed it and not
before 20 odd years ago. TO use the gears for go and brakes for stop,
except when on hills.
On the motorcycle it's different - my bikes don't like changing many
gears at once, especially if the bike's going quite slowly. So I only
change a maximum of 2 before clutch out again. I also use a much
wider rev range than I do in a car, so I engine brake a lot more.
Zebee
mrob...@worldnet.att.net
>brake lights on, for any clue-impaired idiots behind. Engine braking
>doesn't achieve that.
It has been proposed that "brake" lights get activated by any slowing
down that happens at greater than a set rate, but I don't think it's
even been done in a production car. Some school and city buses have
something like this, but I think these often require manual help from
the driver.
The other day, I saw a tow truck with LED brake lights that flashed a
few times and then came on steady whenever they were energized. I
understand that such lights are also marketed to those who are too poor
or too dumb to drive cars. [0]
Matt Roberds
[0] Note that it usually takes less than two posts for the motorcycle
riders here to start ranting about "cagers". If that doesn't draw
flames, neither should this.
Zebee Johnstone
Satya <sat...@satyaonline.cjb.net> wrote:
> On 21 May 2006 21:20:13 GMT, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>> Funny, my mother's a very good driver. She learned to drive just after
>> the war in the time of petrol rationing, and her attitude is "revving
>> the engine uses petrol whether you are accelerating or decelerating".
>
I thought so, but then I found that running a bike on closed throttle
means that it stops from fuel starvation eventually...
As the revs increase, the pistons go up and down, sucking the fuel in.
Zebee
Jim Richardson
>> the war in the time of petrol rationing, and her attitude is "revving
>> the engine uses petrol whether you are accelerating or decelerating".
>
>
>=> more throttle".
>
> I guess I'm looking for a clue.
>
In a carb'd engine, the increased rpm, will draw in more fuel, even with
the butterfly closed. It's a vacuum demand system. The fuel won't burn
well of course, being too rich a mixture, so out the exhaust it goes.
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If space is warped, time is all that's weft.
Kevin
<tcon...@no.spam.accepted.here-astro.swin.edu.au> wrote:
<trimmed for brevity>
>In NSW, I think you have an "A" placed on your license. I never had
>one on mine, so I could be wrong.
>> I went out and had a few lessons in a manual, to the point where I now
>> feel I can get from point A to point B in one if I have to. I'm still
>> slow off the mark when going from a standing start, and also to change
>> up to second or third, but I can manage it. Roll backwards on a hill?
>> Likely, alas, although not very far (not far enough to be of concern to
>> the driver behind, I hope.)
>Hopefully not more than ... what was it? A metre, I think the law
>requires you not fall further back than.
In many U.S. cities that would put you 95cm into the engine of the car
directly behind you.
Kevin
Logan Shaw
> Pete Verdon <use...@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom.invalid> writes:
>> Alternatively, left hand phone, right hand wheel, and passenger
>> providing "voice activated gearbox" services. I've found myself
>> expected to fill that role a couple of times.
> So what did you do? Shift into reverse at 60mph?
>
> "You SAID 'reverse'! I distinctly heard it!"
This reminds of the time a friend and I were going to a shopping
center near his house. He was driving, and as we neared a certain
intersection, he started explaining that the stop sign at the
intersection was pointless (and there was some merit to his argument).
Then, when we got to that intersection, he ran straight through the
stop sign without even slowing down.
Of course, his purpose in running the stop sign was not to save
time or to save fuel or to concretely demonstrate the uselessness
of the stop sign. No, his purpose was to attempt to mess with the
mind of his passenger, namely me. He mostly succeeded.
So, on the return trip, I noticed we were coming to the same
intersection, and it became clear he was going to do the same
thing all over again just for effect. I knew it, and he could tell
I knew it. I can't recall for sure, but knowing him, he might've
flashed me an evil grin and/or cackled. Then I had an idea. I
simply reached over and pulled quite firmly on the hand brake at
the appropriate moment; we skidded somewhat wildly and stopped at
approximately the right place. Much to my amusement, he *completely*
did not consider the possibility that I would do such a thing.
"But! But! You're not supposed to do that!", he said. I replied,
"Yeah, well, you're not supposed to run stop signs either."
(Happily, he and I are still friends.)
- Logan
stevo
> On 2006-05-19, stevo <st...@madcelt.org> wrote:
>> Turns out the problem was a switch that will not allow you to start the
>> car unless your foot is on the clutch. To stop you running people over
>> by accident, I suppose. MY switch OTOH decided I wasn't going to start
>> the car whether I had my foot on the clutch or not. On discussion with
>> the RAC guy I got him to just bypass the switch completely. Car starts a
>> dream now. At least until the battery dies for real, that is.
>
> This sounds vaguely familiar. I was having trouble with my boot. It
> wouldn't open. Not through the central locking, not through the key --
> it just Plain Would Not Unlock (and hence open).
>
> Turns out that the actuator that hooks it into the central locking
> system was broke. The mechanic pulled it out, and it now works fine
> using the key. No longer works with the central locking, but I can live
> with that ... as long as I don't inadvertently lock the keys in the
> boot, that is.
>
Isn't it just wonderful living in a country where the govt is looking
after you? I see absolutely no reason for this switch other than the
fact that people are fuckwits who can't be trusted...kinda answered my
own question there, didn't I?
--
Stevo st...@madcelt.org
Chromosomes and Genes, spawn these faithful scenes
Evolution can be mean. There's no dumb-ass vaccine
Jimmy Buffet - Permanent Reminder of a Temporary Feeling
stevo
>
>> When I did my test, I did so in an automatic. For the duration of my
>> probationary license (3 years), I was not allowed to drive a manual.
>> Once I gained my full license, I was given that privilege. No, I
>> didn't have to prove to anybody that I was able to do so.
>
> licence is good only for driving autos, ever. You'd need a fresh test
> if you wanted to drive manuals. If you pass the test in a manual (as
> I did), you can drive either. Though I'm not very good with autos!
Here in .wa.au it is the same. I have a manual license, so I can drive
either. A friend of minne has an automatic license, so he can only drive
manuals. Whenever I drive a manual I always endup nose against the
windscreen on the first stop as my foot macro's say hit the clutch pedal
and the foot hits the only thing it can find...the brake pedal.
>
>> I suspect that my level of skill in a manual exceeds that of the
>> typical Australian. This is a worry.
>
> On the whole - being able to assess road conditions and the "body
> language" of other road users is more important than the mechanical
> details of getting the vehicle moving, and stopping it again, provided
> that one stays within the envelope of one's ability.
>
> Being able to do both is a bonus, for sure.
>
I am somewhat surprised at the fact that people find it strange that I
habitually look 100m down the road to see what's coming. Most people
barely look past the bonnet (ObUS: hood). I'm not a great driver, but
decades of experience has taught me I am better than most of the
fuckwits on the road.
stevo
> In alt.sysadmin.recovery on Sun, 21 May 2006 18:32:51 +0000 (UTC)
> Roger Burton West <ro...@nospam.firedrake.org> wrote:
>> Zebee Johnstone wrote:
>>
>>>I dunno. I don't find too many people in manuals rolling back on hill
>>>starts, and those that do don't roll back much.
>>
>> Whereas, in .uk, I once spent a very enjoyable afternoon at a
>> window-table of a pub just next to a hill with traffic lights on it...
>
> So requiring it in the licence test is obviously not useful.
>
> I note that my test didn't require a hill start, but my driving
> instructor taught me to do it.
I certainly have clear recollections of the hill start in the test. It
was a part that gave me a lot of trouble. The bigger part was reversing.
I still have trouble reversing. I can do it, I'm just not good at it and
do far too much correcting while doing it.
>
> I suspect that like most things my parents' attitude to car handling
> was more important than either law or instructor. I didn't drive much
> with Dad when I was a teenager which was no doubt a good thing as he
> was never as good as he thought he was... but Mum was and is a very
> safe careful driver and scathing of those who were not. So I learned
> early that people who couldn't hillstart were incompetent, and I
> didn't want to be that.
My father used to be a professional truck driver and is currently
working as a courier in a 2 ton ute. He KNOWS how to drive. He can also
reverse in to spaces I couldn't drive in to forwards. I learnt a lot of
useful habits from him[1]. I don't think I have ever thanked him for
that. Will have to fix that next time I see him.
[1] including some colourful language that came in very handy when I
started working with computers
>
> Skills are only retained if considered useful, and therefore practiced.
> Most people who roll back at lights probably know the theory but can't
> be arsed retaining the skills to do it because they don't see the point.
> THeir mothers were probably not coldly contemptuous enough of drivers
> who couldn't in their formative years.
>
> Zebee
--