242 posts • joined Saturday 27th December 2008 22:49 GMT
Re: Surely there's some armature?
It's possible. Don't forget the full range of Lego bricks include the Technic Lego bricks with the holes in the size and the black stud pieces for interconnecting them that way. Using those to brace on the flat (between adjacent rows) and vertically (between separate layers) I can well imagine building some incredibly strong load bearing beams with the right engineering principals. Even using standard bricks I remember figuring out how to make a reasonably strong beam as a kid - the trick was to realise that in the usual orientation the studs would naturally pull apart from below but you could work around that by building those parts sideways on, i.e. with the studs pointing horizontally as opposed to vertically.
I don't recall Lego as ever being cheap though, it was always very expensive compared to other toys or even rival brands of the same kind of brick. The key to vast collections was the quality - Lego just doesn't die. I had a large collection but it was built up both of stuff I'd got and hand-me-downs from my brother and sister, elder cousins and even my parents(!). It then went to my nephew whose now 19 and I've no doubt we'll get it back whenever my wife and I start a family since we're naturally the next in line for sprogs within the family.
Re: Xbox One
This time it's easy to compare. Same architecture, same company that makes the GPU/CPU. They have a significantly weaker GPU and slower RAM.
These kind of comparisons are simplistic at best if the question is how successful they are going to be. If you look at the previous generation of consoles in the same way there's no question that the PS3 is the most powerful unit from MS, Sony and Nintendo. The Wii was woefully underpowered in comparison. The PS3 always struggled, especially at first, whereas the Wii was a surprise hit.
Re: Something fishy
What the hell kind of data was being transferred? The only thing I can think of that even comes close is back-to-back-to-back non-stop movies. Network pings don't even come close.
That handset was faulty. What makes you think anything meaningful was being transferred? I remember a few years ago spending a thankless couple of days tracking down a network fault at one of those clients from hell - you know the ones - where there was no network map, no documentation to speak off, just hundreds of identical and unlabelled grey ethernet cables. Eventually I tracked down the fault - it was a 250GB WD NAS appliance whose NIC had started jabbering non stop. It had been going on for several days by the time it was eventually tracked down. A quick back of an envelope calculation suggested it was transmitting well over 8TB a day and that is was this paralyzing the network.
That wasn't pings, nor ARP requests, nor previously requested data... it was nothing - it wasn't even formatted as ethernet frames. It was still enough to get passed around from switch to switch and cripple the entire broadcast domain. I'd imagine something similar has happened here - you are billed based on how much data you shift, not how much sense it makes.
Nintendo might be able to claim copyright
I doubt that that is the case. The resulting video is clearly a composite work (generated imagery on one hand and player input and commentary on the other). Copyright law is clear that each party retains its own copyrights in such cases (assuming Nintendo's is valid, which is not itself 100% clear). Nintendo do know that, so while it's easy to get overexcited and throw terms such as "fraud" around, the term does seem to be apply to this land grab.
Why do have a nagging suspicion that any proposed solutions are going to end up more hassle than the problem? There are more keys than users... and this is a problem how? It makes perfect sense to me to use a different key for each account you may wish to access from - e.g. one for your phone, one for your home network, etc etc. A single key per user is a much greater vulnerability - one device is compromised and that's the lot of them gone.
Key rotation sounds like a nice idea but consider where key authentication is used - it tends to be in "off-grid" situations where e.g. Kerberos is inappropriate. No point is saying that keys should be changed periodically when in practice it isn't going to get done for that system belonging to an occasional client that you need to access once in a blue moon. On the other hand I'd welcome some form of automatic key update - e.g. if new public keys are generated on a system keep the old ones around. If they're needed to login to a system transparently update the key to the new one as part of the authentication process.
Whatever's chosen it needs to be as convenient as possible - the great strength of SSH is that it decentralises this kind of issue making cross-network authentication a doddle. Lose that and security may actually suffer if less secure alternatives are chosen.
Re: Excuse me?
About the laptop analogy... let's try another one: whether I'm employed or not, I still have to use the loo. Then, from your point of view, I should be taxed for using it, right? So, what's your take on this now?
You are taxed for using the loo. Get a new loo or bathroom installed and it will come out of your taxable income and the bill will be subject to VAT - you are actually taxed twice. You are not taxed for the toilet at work which is needed solely in connection with your employment.
Ban Google from gTLDs
They want to run http://search? That's invalid - their must be one dot in there. Ignoring that breaks the existing hostname resolution mechanism that we were all assured that would be unaffected.
If Google are going it alone and breaking that then that indicates that their branding and commercial interests are more important than maintaining interoperability. Throw all of their applications out without a second thought.
Re: Excuse me?
Is he really saying that he has to pay more taxes because Google employees are "allegedly" paying less by not paying tax for their free meals?
It seems pretty clear cut to me. His argument is essentially "If you don't pay the tax that you are supposed to, but I do, I have to pay more tax to make up for the tax you didn't pay." Do you argue that tax evasion and benefits fraud are victimless crimes? Who do you think ends up paying the bill?
Your analogy with your laptop is a poor one. It is a tool provided by the company for the purposes of carrying out the company's business - if it was not for that employment you would not need access to the companies systems, applications and so on. Food is a personal rather than employment expense: if you quit your job you still need to eat.
Re: ""Email is fundamentally broken," Jon Callas, Silent Circle's CTO"
Just don't email anything you wouldn't shout from the rooftops. Sorted.
Remember that the next time you are looking for an important message among thousands of spam mails, or indeed get a message from email@example.com that turns out not to be Mr Obama. Email's security problems go way beyond simple eavesdropping.
Re: Ever wondered if...
Not in an observed supernova, because the chemicals are already here. However, everything in your body outside of hydrogen, (any trace of) helium, and lithium are cooked in stars, and IIRC anything from neon up comes from a star that went supernova (certainly iron and beyond).
That used to be accepted wisdom but it has been shown at the very least not to be entirely true. Putting the heavier elements on supernova was only really a hook on which to hang an awkward problem without a better answer, since models suggested the process would actually work in reverse, tending to force everything back towards lighter elements as opposed to building heavier ones.
It is carbon stars that are now regarded as responsible for much of the heavy elements and we have direct observational evidence to support that conclusion. Technetium has been detected in carbon stars spectroscopically, and since the most stable isotope has a half life of "only" four million years it is reasonable to conclude that it must have been formed in situ. The process doesn't release any energy by itself of course, but there is energy available to drive the processes from other reactions that are occurring.
No push to upgrade business machines anymore
I have two machines here - a 3.2 Ghz quad core desktop that is getting on for 2½ years old now, and an Atom 2700 based ITX machine that is less than 12 months old but let's face it: in terms of performance it is comparable to a regular desktop of perhaps 6 years ago. It is still the Atom that gets by far the most use, simply because it is plenty fast enough for 99% of my use and has the attraction of being considerably quieter. The near silence is something you couldn't have got 6 years ago but for bean counting purposes it's the performance that matters and there simply isn't any need to upgrade machines of that level of performance. If they run Office and a modern web browser that's the most demanding applications covered.
It's long been the gamers driving the PC market from a technology perspective, not business, for whom it is basically the need to run the latest version of Windows that is the usual key driver for upgrades. If you don't want the latest version of Windows, or indeed the current hardware it up to running it, that is an entire hardware upgrade cycle obliterated. When the time does come to upgrade whatever low end systems are bought are going to be so far in excess of anything actually needed, again, thanks to the gamers, that they'll be good for five or six years at least. The days of three year replacement cycles are firmly behind us.
Core performance on the M5 should be far better than the T5 systems; it's got much more L3 cache per chip (48MB vs 8MB), fewer cores (6 vs 16) so a massive boost to L3 cache per core (8MB vs 0.5MB). Obviously, you need more of them to match the T5 equivalent system for raw compute capability, but anything which is memory intensive will prefer the M5 boxes.
Oddly enough that's the one I skipped over - it seems to me to be a conceptually flawed "me too" attempt to claim single-threaded credentials. Niagara and successors have always focused on overall throughput instead. The entire approach made a lot of sense - you can either spend increasingly large amounts of silicon on caches and various prediction stages gaining ever smaller returns or you can simply state "Cache misses and pipeline stalls are gonna happen. Do something else when they do."
The entire core design is premised on that attitude - it is madness to have so many threads per core otherwise. The M5 deviates from that basic approach with no alteration to the threads per core, no smarter pipeline, just an increase in the already relatively distant L3 cache. I'll be interested to see how it works in practice but I suspect it is a purely marketing-driven variant with little practical benefit.
Re: What has this got to do with a Supernova?
The Mark I was actually the second of the Manchester machines. It is the SSEM or "Baby" which holds the honour of being the first stored program computer. It was only built as a test bed for Mark I development and quickly broken up but it was a distinct machine in its own right.
Turing never really had anything to do with either machine - he was more concerned with the NPL pilot ACE and actually spoke of the Baby/Mark I in highly disparaging terms. He considered the design wasteful of hardware - he argued against instruction decoding in favour of effectively embedding each and every control signal in the basic instruction format. Subsequent developments have essentially all followed the Mark I pattern as opposed to Turing's preference, but it seems there is such a cult of Turing admiration that details like that are often brushed aside.
Re: Hint, kids (of any gender) ...
... if your partner(s) is(are) more interested in the computer/drugs/comics/alcohol/politics/religion/sports/exercise(in any form)/ElReg/TV/music or anything else than they are in you, as an individual ... my advice is to simply move on.
Frankly I wouldn't want to be around anyone display that kind of attitude with no reference whatsoever to the circumstances. Can you honestly say you've never stayed at teh pub past the time the missus expects you back for example? If she's demanding sex but it's 2am and you are in work early the next day is a refusal really unreasonable? Finally, consider your own prejudices. If the genders were reverse and it was a naked man chasing a woman around the neighbourhood and demanding sex would you still feel the same way?
Re: I'm not seeing what the problem is?
It isn't just non-western governments either that get sniffy about maps over seemingly innocuous things. The then Post Office Tower (then Telecom Tower then BT Tower) in central London was completed in 1964 and pretty difficult to miss. However, its existence was still an official secret until 1993 and it was omitted from OS maps as a consequence.
Re: Lots of companies doing this
It's precisely that - an accounting wheeze. One of the main metrics you'll see in any company report is the return on assets - not how much money you make, but how much money you make as a proportion of how much money is tied up inside the company in real estate, plant, reserves etc. The argument is that a company making £2m on £10m of assets is "better" than one making £3m on £20m. In purely percentage terms it makes sense at least in the short term but it isn't how great companies are built. If you can free up cash to spend profitably elsewhere perhaps, but more often than not it simply ends up going back to shareholders or blown on overpriced vanity acquisitions - witness the current kerfuffle over the proposed Dell buyout for example.
The problem is that inevitably makes the company smaller in absolute terms and it either loses markets (when divisions are sold off) or running costs (when assets are sold and outsourced). Neither is good for the long term prospects of the company. Greater leverage also means greater risk, higher borrowing costs and greater vulnerability to events such as the financial crash.
There's plenty of examples of good companies being run into the ground this way: personally ICI is always the one that comes to mind. A once great industrial behemoth got taken over by the beancounters who sold off division after division and plant after plant, arguing "those are low growth areas" all along the line. They apparently didn't notice the company had shrunk and shrunk until it was taken over by foreigners for beer money.
In short, if you have money involved in the widget business pull it out pronto when it is run by people proclaiming "this is how you run a business" instead of "this is how you make a better widget".
It gets worse...
It was down, then withdrawn, now it's throwing a PHP exception.
If anyone wants a username and password for Marvell's MySQL database it's easy enough to find right now...
Re: I have lost the ultra-violet wiping-out gadget (ask your dad)
Yes, and she did state EPROM, unless it has been edited after the fact...
Re: Copy & Paste from /. ?
More likely the other way round - the text is clearly written in response to something else, and it fits quite well as a follow up to the Panic post. It is posted in isolation on Slashdot without any context making the whole message seem a little out of left field. It would also be far from the first time someone has bulk copy and pasted something to Slashdot with nothing in the way of attribution.
I've no idea as to the respective time zones for those timestamps but is seems clear which was first in reality.
Re: GPIB?!?! AHHHHHHHH!!!!
It's still in quite widespread use if you look in the right places. While mass-produced stuff has generally abandoned it even in its traditional test equipment heartland it retains the advantage of being very easy to implement - it's the only bus that can transmit at those kinds of speeds while being built on a generic stripboard for example. If the device in question is a unique one-off that's a very strong attraction, since the costs of PCB design and fabrication can't be amortised over a large number of units. The relatively simple protocol (especially by multidrop standards) at both ends of the connection helps massively with those short-run costs too.
I work in just that kind of short-run embedded engineering shop. Several times I have sat down at 9am with a list of requirements and gone home at 5pm having designed a circuit, written the firmware and host software, built the thing and tested it. That's doable with GPIB. The next preferred option would be 10base-T, but that means careful impedance matching, PCB layout, a TCP/IP stack on the device, more sophisticated host software, etc etc. The unit costs will end up lower but you have to offset those against the design costs: that's generally at least a day's work and if the production run is three or four easier is almost always cheaper.
Re: There is a reason for Software Smugness
Thinking about better algorithms is never a bad idea.
Of course it is, what is really dumb is presenting that kind of moronic statement as an axiom when in reality it is merely justification for one's own vanity. Smart people use dumb methods on occasion simply because of an appreciation of real world factors and having the common sense to employ some form of cost-benefit analysis. How many chunks of code are only ever used a small number of times, possibly even once? Think about "code" in the broadest sense of the word - it could be some one-off data manipulation job or even a simple for loop at the shell prompt.
Consider a job that we know in advance is a one-off. You use your "better" algorithms and take two hours to devise a solution that does the task in two seconds. I spend two minutes knocking something up that does the same job in another two minutes. Your solution may be "better" purely in a vanity sense but is that really the best use of resources? Remember your assertion: "Thinking about better algorithms is never a bad idea."
Re: Who cares?
The only person here without a decent brain in his skull is YOU. So many of you gasoline car-centric bigots can't deal with the idea of a motor vehicle not using gasoline for motivational power that you can't accept even the *idea* of alternatives. I'm a motorcycle rider and I look forward to seeing what great ideas the future will hold for motive transportation systems.
I've driven less than 200 miles in the last twelve months. In fact thinking about it apart from a hire car when I away last summer I haven't driven at all. In all probability you burn far more petrol than I have. This isn't some great position of principal but a simple reflection that my life is arranged in such a way that I wouldn't benefit from a private motor vehicle in ordinary circumstances.
The facts don't matter though - you didn't even know that so you assumed motives that I don't have and attacked me on invalid premises as a result. We see the real motives in your post, adopting a holier-than-thou attitude over my presumed transgressions because you ride a bike rather than drive a car. I've got news for you: it's the same fucking thing that goes in the tank as a car so I don't know what your attitude derives from.
No. This isn't the first time Musk has cried foul over shitty reviews. Again, he is unable to actually challenge the NYT account - the telemetry "disproving" the article actually correlates pretty well in substance. This particular electric car is not some future nirvana made real today. The fact that you want it to be does not make it the case.
If there is a choice between believing an independent reviewer and someone who makes a living punting the very wares under consideration when in comes to whether they are crap or not I know who I am first inclined to believe, especially when the company has a track record of reacting furiously to any reviews that portray it in a less than positive light.
Not only does Musk apparently not know how to make a decent car, he has obviously never heard of the Streisand effect either. This single review must have had 100 times the exposure by now than it would ever have had if he had simply kept his mouth shut. If this review has cost him money I suggest he looks in the mirror to see who is to blame.
Re: Lowest common denominator
It seems a lot of the "quantum leap" criticism is at best misdirected. The key property of a quantum leap being alluded to is not (as frequently supposed) the size of the leap, but that it is a transition from one state to another with no discernible intermediate state. In other words, it is not a metaphor for "huge advance" but "step change".
I've no doubt that the phrase is frequently misinterpreted but the correct interpretation has always seemed perfectly clear to me. Even in everyday contexts it is frequently (probably even usually) used in a perfectly correct manner even if not precisely what was intended.
Yes, the cloud there is still going strong - it moved to Frame Relay and now MPLS. Of course it has a real meaning there - the "cloud" is a visual depiction of the network internals that you neither know nor care about since that's purely the telco's problem.
Re: Kettle, black
coming from the browser that hasn't rendered tables correctly for over 14 years.
I'm no FF advocate but fair's fair. If you bothered to read the bug report you would see it is nothing to do with "correct" table handling, but undesired behaviour when presented with invalid table code. There is no "correct" handling that eventuality.
Re: Assume it was an auto box.
Disabled guy suddenly expected to put in 10x the control input to either break or stop at 200km/h???
As has been noted elsewhere we know nothing about the disability so that is just speculation. It is also ridiculous to say that manual steering require some kind of superhuman strength - plenty of people do it every day, yes, even disabled ones. It is finally absolute nonsense to suggest the steering is actively locked with the ignition off - as I showed even a moment's thought shows it to be complete and utter twaddle made up on the spot.
Re: Assume it was an auto box.
Steering wheel lock?
What about it ? Do you think the towing eye would be any use whatsoever if the steering was locked whenever the ignition was off? You would have no power steering, nor power brakes for that matter, but they'll work fine purely mechanically.
Personally I can see a role for a smart TV along for very lines. When I first got this (Samsung) TV that I'm using as a monitor I observed it had an ethernet port, a general computer processor and support for USB keyboard and mouse. The only thing stopping it being a thin client X/RDP/VNC/whatever terminal is a bit of software. That software simply isn't there though so I have a Neoware thin client also sat on my desk, consuming power and taking up space for something the TV itself is perfectly capable of doing for itself.
Conveniently ignoring prior case law...
There have been various cases that have shown that basic function prototypes and class declarations are not copyrightable. The ruling have been that headers are essentially functional - the specification is not distinguishable from the expression. How many ways are there to specify a function of a given name that returns an int and takes two ints as parameters?
USL v Berkeley and SCO v IBM come to mind. Both came to the same conclusion.
The OS's FS just stores files of various types and names.
Congratulations on completely missing the point, or indeed what the basic premise of WinFS was. Your argument goes that since the OS has historically provided only unstructured flat files this is all applications have been written to use and hence their is no reason to support anything else regardless of the benefits available to applications designed to use a richer OS persistent store.
WinFS was not some kind of glorified extended attribute scheme for simply tagging files but something altogether more substantial. The essential idea was that any file holding useful information generally has some form of internal structure: instead of each application needing to process a raw byte stream and parse that structure for itself the OS can keep track of that structure for any application once for all applications using that file. This has potentially huge benefits for efficiency and resource and code sharing: if you read up even a little on what was really involved you may begin to see the real benefits of the actual model as opposed to basing misinformed criticism on a wildly inaccurate guess.
Dubious cable specs
I was under the impression 10GbE wasn't up to running on Cat6 over a full 100m span? Depending on the specifics of the particular install you may get 60m or so for isolated or shielded cables or down to around 40m for cables in crowded ducts. You need Cat6A for the full 100m.
And as for Cat7 although you see it on sale all the time it is essentially a meaningless marketing term - there is no formal spec making it somewhat akin to "350MHz" Cat5e leads.
Re: Precidence not necessary
Sure, trademarks are different to patents or indeed copyright - they not subject to automatic term limits but have compensatory restrictions in place of that limit.
It would appear to me that the very most trademark protection "Space Marine" could have even as original coinage would be as a "descriptive mark" which are themselves difficult to enforce (see here for a fuller explanation). The ability to cite prior works in the same and related genres would surely amount to evidence that it is generic in nature and thus not subject to even that protection. I hope the author does challenge this and Games Workshop invalidate their own trademark. I'm guessing via the mechanism used - challenging Amazon who will not want to get involved in the dispute - is tacit acceptance they know the weakness of their hand.
As a simple mental exercise...
...every time you see "NoSQL" substitute "dBase". I find it tends to break down the arguments quite succinctly and immediately calls to mind all the perils - lack of any real integrity constraints and being strongly tied to a particular system for starters (true, SQL isn't portable either but that's a little fettling as opposed to complete rewrites). It also shows that it's not a new idea and indeed it is one largely rejected 20 years ago.
What's changed? It's a new generation of cowboys that never learned the lessons of the past and that intrinsically assumes that their particular requirements are somehow unique. Instead of "we've got a lot of critical data here so we need to protect it at all costs" the argument becomes "we've got a lot of critical data here so the rules about how to look after it don't apply to us - they're for lesser beings than us".
Interesting but speculative
This seems to be pushing too many favourable interpretations at once for my liking. Most red dwarves we have been able to observe properly (i.e. relatively up-close) are flare stars. This isn't just a bit of UV, observed cases have been right across the visible spectrum. That by itself isn't a show-stopper necessary but it is enough to instantly fire my bullshit detector.
Next, it depends on a single-handed re-interpretation of data that has been evaluated using peer-reviewed methods. Again, it could be valid but it needs more eyes before it is simply asserted to be the truth.
Next, red dwarves are numerous but as is acknowledged they are dim. This doesn't just make the habitable zone much closer in to the star, it also makes it much narrower. When this isn't specifically addressed in the published coverage and figures have already been massaged away from accepted values this makes me even more suspicious.
Last but not least: you do not announce your results at a press conference. Of all the big "breakthroughs" of the last twenty years or so many have been announced this way and of the top of my head I can't recall any that were that stood up to scrutiny. If I'm dubious as to the science in any case but you choose to use a publicity-seeking mechanism to "publish" your results that bypasses the usual checks and balances, and where I can't see your detailed reasoning, what reason have I got to believe you?
Honestly, I expect to pay £50-100 for a "homebrew" one of these (i.e. the price range of a half-decent commercial inkjet, or some large homebrew lego project), and £300-500 for a full commercial-quality one. Until then, I don't see what market they serve.
3D printing is not new - it's been around in one form or another for the last 20 years. When they were first introduced you could easily be spending a couple of grand in consumables just for a singe average-sized "print". The printers themselves had six figure price tags. It was a restricted market but the market was there, and the people buying them were happy to pay the money. The customers were generally in product development and were realistic versus the cost of the alternative: namely hiring a model maker to make a prototype that might be ready in two weeks time if it was a simple job and he wasn't busy. The costs were comparable but printing generally had faster turn around times.
Now several key technologies are starting to come off-patent and we are looking at 1% of that cost. Suddenly that greatly reduced price tag is somehow too expensive? Sure, you can't yet print a one-off toothbrush that is cheaper than one made by the million. This surprises you? On the other hand if you have a regular requirement for fabrication of one-off custom components they are highly attractive versus making them some other way.
If your requirements are occasional rather than regular there are always the bureaux, just in the same way that the other week I had some A0 drawings printed out. I don't have an A0 printer, I don't have the space for an A0 printer. That doesn't mean I am denied the option of relatively low cost A0 printing on the high street.
PCB mills have been available for years for a fraction of the price that can do pretty much anything relatively flat, not quite as powerful as a Dremel but certainly a match for the traditional PCB or dentist drills. I have one here that'll take full 12x18 boards I bought a couple of years ago for under £500. It's useful for what it can do - relatively quick and the resulting boards are fairly cheap. It's also really nice being able cut and drill on the same machine with just a change of tool. The downside is that very small burrs don't seem to be available which affects how fine you can go - if you want to mount ½mm pitch SMDs you'll be out of luck.
Re: Prior art ?
It seems trivial and obvious, but there is a subtle difference. Pretty much every store I've been in uses desks / stands, not tables (and definitely no stools / chairs). Their wares are there to be looked at, not played around with.
Think a bit more broadly than simply phone shops. Tables parallel to the walls, shelving along those walls, stools... it sounds very much like most book shops in fact. No mention of what the actual merchandise is, in the quotes in the article at least.
Re: The vi thing
"I only ever use Linux".
This being a thread about editors for *nix systems and all.
Precisely. It isn't installed as standard on any on the principal BSDs, Solaris, AIX etc etc. POSIX mandates the presence of precisely one full screen text editor. It's called vi, not nano.
Re: Yet another bad research paper
I was thinking much the same. Whatever these figures mean (if anything at all) they sure as hell don't mean what people will naturally assume. My guess would be that they've simply junked some of the TCP traffic management features (the soft start mechanism for example) and cooked up these outlandish figures by basically shitting on everyone else on the network.
Re: The vi thing
10 years ago I might have agreed with you, but nano/pico has been (IIRC) has been ubiquitous for at least that long, and it's fair to regard it as the basic editor which will always be available
I can only translate this as meaning "I only ever use Linux". If you got any further than that you would realise just how wide of the mark this is.
Re: @Steven Jones
Mercedes Benz do a braking system where there is no direct mechanical / hydraulic link between your foot and the pads (it was used on the McLaren / Mercedes SLR, maybe others too). There was some electronics in the way. Apparently it is very 'odd' to drive, but the car did have tremendous stopping power...
Power assisted brakes are more or less ubiquitous - far more so than power steering or even ABS - but AFAIK all current road cars use some form of mechanical linkage for both brakes and steering. The power assistance only works when the ignition is on - it would rapidly deplete the battery if used outside of that - which means among other things you wouldn't be able o tow a car without the linkage.
This is well understood by the sports car manufacturers in particular who could greatly improve handling by trading camber angle for caster angle in the front suspension geometry. They resist that temptation to a certain exist since increased caster increases the steering wheel resistance - too much and it gets very difficult to drive without the power steering.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire