When you lose all servo assist you just have to stamp hard on the pedal the old fashioned way. It is mechanically connected to the brake callipers and no amount of messing with the ignition switch is going to change that.
Very misleading.
Really, really hard. And that's the problem.
A motor vehicle operator will not even notice loss of power steering at highway speeds. In fact at anything higher than 10-15 MPH, power steering loss is practically undetectable from an operator standpoint.
Even if that were true (and I have some personal anecdotes that suggest that it is not) the alleged improvement in steering at highway speeds is greatly offset by the fact that you are now traveling at highway speeds with brakes that are nearly nonfunctional.
These apple cars will be real unpopular after about the third software version upgrade when they can only do 20 miles/hr and need to be traded in for something thinner.
And what, exactly, are you imagining will be responsible for this alleged slowdown of said car?
As a VW owner, the nicest way I can frame my response is this. What in the HOLY FUCK is "accessory position"?
Note that I'm not exactly defending US made cars here. Being a US citizen and general car fan, however, I am nonetheless familiar with them. And your statements here are so mind-numbingly stupid that they deserve a response, if only to make everyone aware of what a holy fucking idiot you are.
The only kind of ignition switch I ever actually used has only off, on, and start.
"Accessory" is an ignition-switch mode in which things like the radio can be powered without the car engine or related subsystems (e.g. fuel pump) being powered. It is useful for sitting in your car after you've arrived at your destination, listening to the radio or waiting for someone to arrive. But then, you probably knew that, and wanted to impress us all with your vastly superior European-ness. Emphasis on pean-ness.
If the car is running down the road and I turn the key to off, no steering lock engages.
Reading comprehension fail. Go back and re-read the post you responded to. He did not say steering lock. He said power steering.
Yeah, the power assisted steering and vacuum assisted brakes revert to manual.
Have you ever actually driven a car where one of the power-assisted systems has failed? I have. I can assure you that it does not "revert to manual". Failed power steering and power brake systems are typically MUCH MUCH harder to operate than pure manual systems, and require enormous effort to control.
You have to use a little more force. BIG FUCKING DEAL. Any driver who can't deal with the loss pf power steering and power brakes at highway speed is a helpless twit and a Darwin candidate.
Since you seem to think it's not a big deal, please try the experiment for yourself. Get on the freeway, accelerate to 65 or 70mph (sorry, let me translate that to pean-ness: somewhere above 105kph) and then turn off the engine. Report back how it went. Go on, we'll wait.
Why would any tech person want to go to a marketing-department-run shithole like Apple?
This statement speaks volumes about exactly how much you do not know (or simply choose to ignore) about Apple. The notion that Apple is a marketing-driven company is so far off the mark as to be laughable.
An improperly structured program, will behave however the compiler felt like making it behave when it turned your lines of gibberish posing as code into machine instructions that actually manipulate registers and memory spaces.
This misses an important point that (apparently) needs stating: complex and/or deep nesting makes code more difficult to understand by programmers (perhaps even the one that wrote the code in the first place). A simple goto-based assertion macro goes a long way toward linearizing the flow of code such that it is simple to understand. If the compiler has trouble with that, then the guy that wrote the compiler needs to try harder.
If you worked for me, and you wrote garbage like that, I would give you a verbal warning and show you how to do it correctly. If you did it again, I would give you a documented written warning. The third time, I would fire you.
This kind of rhetoric doesn't exactly lead to meaningful discussion, and it indicates I will probably be unable to sway you with reason or logic. Thus, I'll simply state that you're a pedantic idiot who appears to be more interested in stupid ideals than practical solutions.
but apple and microsoft in this case were in the bad because of their initial suits. no one liked them, so you really couldn't blame samsung and motorola using the only ammo they got.
Legally speaking, Apple and Microsoft were well within their rights. Whether people liked the lawsuits or not is irrelevant. And yes, we *can* blame Motorola and Samsung for using that "ammo", because doing so was clearly a violation of the well-understood FRAND principles.
At this point, the only proper "fix" I can see is for Google to keep doing what they're doing. Keep improving Android, building and improve their collection of must-have apps, try to maintain a market of unlocked Android Nexus/One/GPE phones, and keep some pressure on the OEMs to get with the program.
And sadly, you may very well be right.
Branching the sources isn't the only way to do it. It's just how things seem to work. That the assorted manufacturers and carriers are particularly shitty FLOSS software development collaborators, and that the smartphone hardware ecosystem is basically a collection of one-offs... that's a hard thing to fix.
While that seems vaguely plausible on the surface, I honestly have to wonder if the vendors branch the sources because it is the most direct way to accomplish their goals. Which again seems plausible, unless we consider that maybe branching the sources is the most direct way precisely because Google didn't give them a better way to do it.
There seem to be three possibilities:
1) The vendors don't actually have a better way than branching the sources
2) Google gave them an abstraction layer, but the vendors are chumps and choose to ignore it
3) Google gave them an abstraction layer which sucked and the vendors rightly bypassed it.
From my perspective, #1 and #3 are inexcusable, and squarely at Google's feet. #2 is fixable by contract (except for rogue players like Amazon), which is still squarely at Google's feet.
Let me put it another way: if Google isn't happy about this situation, why the fuck didn't they fix it a long time ago?
You're point was just wrong. And I actually explained *why* your point is wrong. Simply reasserting your point doesn't count as supporting evidence for your point.
I wasn't repeating my point. I was laughing at you.
They might've believed having an "open" handset operating system would break the various carrier/manufacturer strangleholds on the market similar to how MS-DOS and the PC affected the computing market years ago.
But for that to work, they would have had to have a meaningful way to abstract HW from SW. Branching the sources (or customizing the distribution, or whatever you want to call it) is simply not a mechanism that lends itself to widespread availability of updates. And this is the crux of my point: they SHOULD have known that. If they didn't know that, then why not?
If you don't understand what is being discussed, then your retarded opinion about what is dumb and what isn't is meaningless.
Thank you for reinforcing my point.
Perhaps, quite large part of you also go to church every week and believe the world is 4000 years old. And also consider your football as a sport.
Oh look, another asshole European taking potshots at the US!
Color me surprised.
So because they just can't figure out why a rational person would buy an Apple product, they come with their ridiculous interpretations that there must be a "cult", or that people must be "sheep", or that an iPhone is "fashion" (without trying to figure out _why_ it is fashion), or that Apple has brainwashed for example half the US smartphone buyers (how would Apple have done that? )
I've been saying for years that this is cognitive dissonance. When a whole bunch of people like something, and someone else doesn't, they would rather invent conspiracy theories or chalk it up to "sheeple" rather than accept the possibility that (a) they might be wrong, or (b) different people are legitimately allowed to like different things.
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde
