Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) are a huge threat to both security and intellectual property.
But, security is a huge threat to productivity. Is it possible that while the employees were being drilled on security, they were being held accountable for productivity and not given tools that were nearly as productive as their PEDs? For example, everyone likes to yell at the guy who's not paying attention to the meeting because he's texting, but they forget that the same technology allows you to send the on call guy to the meeting and have an 95% chance he will be able to actively participate. The alternatives are to have a second meeting or hire another tech so there is one on call and one available for the meeting.
People immersed in security all day sometimes forget that security is about tradeoffs, not eliminating all sources of "insecurity". A good general rule is that if a security policy is being widely ignored, then it is probably not properly aligned with the organization's goals.
The answer is easy; no one who really cares about security was at the design table.
Also, custom circuits seems to be expensive in the auto industry. I recently had to replace a daytime running light controller on a car - it cost about $130. I opened up the old one and it was nothing but about 20 discrete through-hole components on a custom circuit board, mostly transistors and resistors. If you build everything on a programmable general purpose platform, you only pay the hardware costs once.
Just patch your car
Maybe in this case it's feasible. My Mazda3 cannot be customer patched and the dealership hates to do it because it takes two hours to do, but the factory only pays them for an hour of labor. I have zero trust that the auto industry will figure out patch rollouts in the near future. Also, even if they get patching right, it will just put them in the same shape that computers are now - which is sad shape.
No. Torque and horsepower are mathematically related. You cannot increase one without increasing the other. Look at all of the 1/4 mile time estimators - all of them figure out elapsed time using only horsepower and weight.
Actually, a tube frame is the tried-and-true way of making a great handling car. I'm currently building a Factory Five 818, which is based on a steel tube frame. It can easily pull 1.5 lateral G's at track height and 1.3G's at street height. It also is actually available and costs less than $20,000. It also only weighs 400 pounds more than this thing and it has a passenger seat.
Also, this will never be able to be put on the road in most US states without drastically changing the look of the front end. Most states have a minimum headlight height of 22 inches and some have a 24 inch minimum.
I wonder who you have to be to request to have the word "steal" changed so that it rolls in a behavior that you don't like. I hope the answer isn't "The President of Bell Media".
I suggest we all buy a dictionary, plop a bookmark at the word "steal" and mail it to him. Half a million dictionaries should be a poignant message.
It's always been like this. The focus on making new cars cleaner has always had small returns since you are simply making the cars that produce 10% of the pollution better and if you convert them all to "magic pixie dust fuel", you will still be left with the 90% from the broken cars. Previous studies have also shown that the pattern of which 25% isn't obvious. It isn't a simple rule like "old cars produce more NOx". Even a nearly new car can become a polluter without the owner noticing. Fortunately, the solution is both obvious and simple; do a tailpipe emissions test at they yearly inspection.
The airlines don't like this, because if you book NY to LA, they can no longer sell the Chicago to LA seat (except at last minute rates or more often push standby passengers onto that flight) that might normally be $150. So not only are they out $50 on you, they're potentially out an additional $150 on the unsold seat.
They already sold the Chicago to LA seat... to you. Why would it be unacceptable to not be able to sell the seat when they had already accepted the idea of flying someone on that leg for money they already collected? There are legitimate arguments to be made for the screwy fare system, but that one seems less than weak.