On Saturday, September 3, 2016 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "dsi1" wrote in message
> ...
>
> On Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:45:40 PM UTC-10, wrote:
> > Who Decided that Food Needs to be Exposed to Fire before it's eaten.
> > With a few exceptions, almost everything we eat is exposed to fire in
> > some form or other. WHY??????
> >
> > Ok, I would not want to eat raw meat, but why must we cook (use fire) on
> > vegetables, fruits, grains, and so on?
> >
> > Personally, I hate cooking, and cooking is all about exposing food to
> > fire. Its not the fire that I hate, it's the fact that food burns, gets
> > stuck to pots and pans, and requires precise timing and control of the
> > flames. Something I have never been able to get right!
> >
> > If it was not for restaurants, I'd live on salads and other raw fruit
> > and veggies.
>
> You're in luck - in the future, we'll be 3-D printing our foods and
> microwaving it. No fire involved - unless you consider electromagnetic
> radiation to be "fire." I can't wait!
> =========
>
> Hey talking about your future predictions, did you predict that a car could
> inform other similar cars of free parking spots???
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ars-fleet.html
>
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

What I said is that the cars will be networking with each other and relaying information within the network. This should reduce the reliance on sensors needed by an individual car and will enable the cars in the network to act as a single entity which will probably increase the efficiency of the system.

Connectivity is going to be a thing in the future. We need to have a universal networking protocol that allows my toaster to talk to my car or washing machine. OTOH, my guess is that those Mercedes won't be sharing any parking info with cars they consider inferior.