From another group:

"> After their 25mph-capped car was stopped going "too slow": doing 24mph
> in a 35mph limit.
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ice-pull-over-
> Googles-driverless-car-for-driving-too-slowly.html>

That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
wrote:

>That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"

The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
dump track immediately behind it?

Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.

--
Anne's Little Brother Bob
St Francis would have done better to preach to the cats.

--
Bob
A shack on Sungoo
www.kanyak.com

"Opinicus" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>>Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>>officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>
> The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
> example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
> driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
> oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
> two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
> kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
> it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
> dump track immediately behind it?
>
> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.

I think so, but then it is not something I would ever buy or use. I like to
be in complete control when I am driving!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Opinicus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
> >>Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
> >>officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
> >
> > The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
> > example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
> > driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
> > oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
> > two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
> > kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
> > it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
> > dump track immediately behind it?
> >
> > Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>
> I think so, but then it is not something I would ever buy or use. I like to
> be in complete control when I am driving!

It's like the newest release of Windows. Wait until the bugs are
worked out before upgrading.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "Opinicus" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>> >>Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>> >>officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>> >
>> > The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
>> > example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
>> > driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
>> > oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
>> > two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
>> > kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
>> > it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
>> > dump track immediately behind it?
>> >
>> > Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>>
>> I think so, but then it is not something I would ever buy or use. I like
>> to
>> be in complete control when I am driving!
>
> It's like the newest release of Windows. Wait until the bugs are
> worked out before upgrading.

Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could never
trust it.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 1:22:31 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> From another group:
>
> "> After their 25mph-capped car was stopped going "too slow": doing 24mph
> > in a 35mph limit.
> >
> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ice-pull-over-
> > Googles-driverless-car-for-driving-too-slowly.html>
>
> That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
> Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
> officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>
>
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

That's pretty goofy. Thank god it wasn't stopped for speeding!

On 2015-11-13, Opinicus > wrote:

> The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
> example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
> driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
> oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
> two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
> kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
> it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
> dump track immediately behind it?

Yer right.

While yer example seems a bit far-fetched --specially when you take
into consideration that most sober responsible drivers would have an
equally hard time making such choices-- it is the basis of whether or
not this technology is valid. Can you imagine thousands of attorneys
arguing who was at fault, the car or the driver? It's a losing
proposition.

> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.

I think the only reason it is even being explored is, the insurance
companies think they will save $$$$, and the creators/producers of
"smart" cars will reap huge profits.

I will NEVER buy a car with IoT technology embedded.

nb

On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:51:10 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:

> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could never
> trust it.

I will probably get one when I am too old to drive. Better than
being housebound.

Cindy Hamilton

"Cindy Hamilton" > wrote in message
...
> On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 10:51:10 AM UTC-5, Ophelia wrote:
>
>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could never
>> trust it.
>
> I will probably get one when I am too old to drive. Better than
> being housebound.

nahh you won't be too old to drive <g> I hear about 90 yo s still on the
road

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:32:20 +0200, Opinicus
> wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>wrote:
>
>>That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>>Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>>officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>
>The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
>example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
>driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
>oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
>two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
>kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
>it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
>dump track immediately behind it?
>
>Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.

They'd work fine if all vehicles are driverless but not when in mixed
traffic and among pedestrians.

Sheldon wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:32:20 +0200, Opinicus
> > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
> >>Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
> >>officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
> >
> >The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
> >example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
> >driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
> >oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
> >two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
> >kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
> >it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
> >dump track immediately behind it?
> >
> >Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>
> They'd work fine if all vehicles are driverless but not when in mixed
> traffic and among pedestrians.

"Driverless" cars have been touted as "the next BIG THING" since the late '50's, when General Motors starting tinkering with the concept by installing automatic driving units in 1958 Chevrolets. Some background:

http://www.velocetoday.com/self-driv...han-you-think/

"A 1958 Chevrolet like this one was probably the first self-driving car in the US. It participated in an experiment carried out that year on a specially prepared new intersection on the outskirts of Lincoln, Neb. Two of these Chevrolet passenger cars were equipped with special RCA (radio Corporation of America) radio receivers and audible and visual warning devices that could activate the steering mechanism, acceleration and braking. Detector circuits buried in the road surface by the Nebraska Department of Roads. A series of lights along the edge of the road determined the place and speed of the vehicles on the pavement and transmitted radio impulses to guide the cars. It was proven that the system worked well..."


http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...n-1958/255823/

http://paleofuture.com/blog/2007/5/1...-usa-1958.html

http://www.techinsider.io/gm-1956-se...-video-2015-10


--
Best
Greg

On 11/13/2015 6:14 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> From another group:
>
> "> After their 25mph-capped car was stopped going "too slow": doing 24mph
>> in a 35mph limit.
>>
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ice-pull-over-
>> Googles-driverless-car-for-driving-too-slowly.html>
>
> That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
> Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
> officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"

I'm sure the car will have to ultimately have to have a
passenger who is able to stop it and pull over in such an
event. I am pretty sure the car driving around by itself won't
be allowed.

nancy

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>> "Opinicus" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>>> >>Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>>> >>officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>>> >
>>> > The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
>>> > example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
>>> > driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
>>> > oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
>>> > two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
>>> > kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
>>> > it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
>>> > dump track immediately behind it?
>>> >
>>> > Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>>>
>>> I think so, but then it is not something I would ever buy or use. I
>>> like to
>>> be in complete control when I am driving!
>>
>> It's like the newest release of Windows. Wait until the bugs are
>> worked out before upgrading.
>
> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could never
> trust it.

Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one with all
the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.

Cheri

On 11/13/2015 2:29 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 6:14 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> From another group:
>>
>> "> After their 25mph-capped car was stopped going "too slow": doing 24mph
>>> in a 35mph limit.
>>>
>>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ice-pull-over-
>>> Googles-driverless-car-for-driving-too-slowly.html>
>>
>> That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>> Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>> officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>
> I'm sure the car will have to ultimately have to have a
> passenger who is able to stop it and pull over in such an
> event. I am pretty sure the car driving around by itself won't
> be allowed.
>
> nancy
I have, on at least three prior occasions, written posts that delve into
the “alleged” lurid past of one of our former presidents, George Herbert
Walker Bush (GHWB), the current but ailing patriarch of the Bush Family
Dynasty – I refer to them as the Bush Family Crime Syndicate, certainly
not in terms of endearment – but rather more like the Mafia Godfather
who prepares his sons to take over the family business upon his death.
This particular post references an article by Stew Webb, a contributor
of Veterans Today.

In his life-time, George H. W. Bush (GHWB) has controlled every
clandestine (hidden from view) and secret organization/operation within
the arsenal of the United States government as either 1) Director of the
CIA, 2) Vice President to Ronald Reagan (who was an unwitting puppet to
the Bush controlled cabal – GHWB secretly gave Reagan poisons that
hastened his fall into Alzheimer’s Disease and evidence suggests he
helped plan Reagan’ attempted assassination by John Hinckley, whose
family were close friends of the Bush family – a coincidence?) and 3)
ultimately as President of the United States before Bill Clinton took
office.

On 11/13/2015 10:52 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:32:20 +0200, Opinicus
> > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>>> Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>>> officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>>
>> The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
>> example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
>> driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
>> oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
>> two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
>> kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
>> it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
>> dump track immediately behind it?
>>
>> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>
> They'd work fine if all vehicles are driverless but not when in mixed
> traffic and among pedestrians.
>
I have, on at least three prior occasions, written posts that delve into
the “alleged” lurid past of one of our former presidents, George Herbert
Walker Bush (GHWB), the current but ailing patriarch of the Bush Family
Dynasty – I refer to them as the Bush Family Crime Syndicate, certainly
not in terms of endearment – but rather more like the Mafia Godfather
who prepares his sons to take over the family business upon his death.
This particular post references an article by Stew Webb, a contributor
of Veterans Today.

In his life-time, George H. W. Bush (GHWB) has controlled every
clandestine (hidden from view) and secret organization/operation within
the arsenal of the United States government as either 1) Director of the
CIA, 2) Vice President to Ronald Reagan (who was an unwitting puppet to
the Bush controlled cabal – GHWB secretly gave Reagan poisons that
hastened his fall into Alzheimer’s Disease and evidence suggests he
helped plan Reagan’ attempted assassination by John Hinckley, whose
family were close friends of the Bush family – a coincidence?) and 3)
ultimately as President of the United States before Bill Clinton took
office.

On 11/13/2015 1:58 PM, Gregory Morrow wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 14:32:20 +0200, Opinicus
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 11:14:18 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That raises interesting questions (or would do if it happened here).
>>>> Is a driverless car obliged to stop if asked to do so by a police
>>>> officer in uniform; and, who can be prosecuted if it doesn't?"
>>>
>>> The interesting questions that driverless cars raise are legion. For
>>> example imagine, in order to take evasive action in an emergency, a
>>> driverless car has to choose between plowing into a lampost, an
>>> oncoming car, a store front, a little old lady crossing the street,
>>> two minority group kids standing by the curb, one non-minority group
>>> kid standing by the curb, etc etc etc. Which does it go for? Or does
>>> it just stop dead in its tracks and get crushed by the out-of-control
>>> dump track immediately behind it?
>>>
>>> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>>
>> They'd work fine if all vehicles are driverless but not when in mixed
>> traffic and among pedestrians.
>
> "Driverless" cars have been touted as "the next BIG THING" since the late '50's, when General Motors starting tinkering with the concept by installing automatic driving units in 1958 Chevrolets. Some background:
>
> http://www.velocetoday.com/self-driv...han-you-think/
>
> "A 1958 Chevrolet like this one was probably the first self-driving car in the US. It participated in an experiment carried out that year on a specially prepared new intersection on the outskirts of Lincoln, Neb. Two of these Chevrolet passenger cars were equipped with special RCA (radio Corporation of America) radio receivers and audible and visual warning devices that could activate the steering mechanism, acceleration and braking. Detector circuits buried in the road surface by the Nebraska Department of Roads. A series of lights along the edge of the road determined the place and speed of the vehicles on the pavement and transmitted radio impulses to guide the cars. It was proven that the system worked well..."
>
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/technolog...n-1958/255823/
>
> http://paleofuture.com/blog/2007/5/1...-usa-1958.html
>
> http://www.techinsider.io/gm-1956-se...-video-2015-10
>
>
I have, on at least three prior occasions, written posts that delve into
the “alleged” lurid past of one of our former presidents, George Herbert
Walker Bush (GHWB), the current but ailing patriarch of the Bush Family
Dynasty – I refer to them as the Bush Family Crime Syndicate, certainly
not in terms of endearment – but rather more like the Mafia Godfather
who prepares his sons to take over the family business upon his death.
This particular post references an article by Stew Webb, a contributor
of Veterans Today.

In his life-time, George H. W. Bush (GHWB) has controlled every
clandestine (hidden from view) and secret organization/operation within
the arsenal of the United States government as either 1) Director of the
CIA, 2) Vice President to Ronald Reagan (who was an unwitting puppet to
the Bush controlled cabal – GHWB secretly gave Reagan poisons that
hastened his fall into Alzheimer’s Disease and evidence suggests he
helped plan Reagan’ attempted assassination by John Hinckley, whose
family were close friends of the Bush family – a coincidence?) and 3)
ultimately as President of the United States before Bill Clinton took
office.

On 11/13/2015 6:57 PM, Cheri wrote:
>

>
> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one with
> all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.
>
> Cheri

Bought a new car 6 weeks ago and it has every bell and whistle made.
Set the adaptive cruise control and it will maintain safe distance to
the car in front of you, including fast stops. The lane keep assist
will take you around curves too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjdmw8D9-Y

Get the Ultra package so you can have the heads up display. The blind
spot detection shows in the HUD too and is very handy.

On 11/13/2015 8:29 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/13/2015 6:57 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one with
>> all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Bought a new car 6 weeks ago and it has every bell and whistle made. Set
> the adaptive cruise control and it will maintain safe distance to the
> car in front of you, including fast stops. The lane keep assist will
> take you around curves too.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbjdmw8D9-Y
>
> Get the Ultra package so you can have the heads up display. The blind
> spot detection shows in the HUD too and is very handy.
I have, on at least three prior occasions, written posts that delve into
the “alleged” lurid past of one of our former presidents, George Herbert
Walker Bush (GHWB), the current but ailing patriarch of the Bush Family
Dynasty – I refer to them as the Bush Family Crime Syndicate, certainly
not in terms of endearment – but rather more like the Mafia Godfather
who prepares his sons to take over the family business upon his death.
This particular post references an article by Stew Webb, a contributor
of Veterans Today.

In his life-time, George H. W. Bush (GHWB) has controlled every
clandestine (hidden from view) and secret organization/operation within
the arsenal of the United States government as either 1) Director of the
CIA, 2) Vice President to Ronald Reagan (who was an unwitting puppet to
the Bush controlled cabal – GHWB secretly gave Reagan poisons that
hastened his fall into Alzheimer’s Disease and evidence suggests he
helped plan Reagan’ attempted assassination by John Hinckley, whose
family were close friends of the Bush family – a coincidence?) and 3)
ultimately as President of the United States before Bill Clinton took
office.

Opinicus > wrote in
:

>
>
> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>

We've had what are essentially pilotless aircraft for decades now. Oh,
sure, there's a flight crew on the flight deck ready to take over in case
of computer failure, but your average widebody carrying several hundred
human beings is being flown by well over a hundred microprocessors, from
takeoff to landing. As a former software engineer, I think about that a
lot every time I board a flight...

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...

>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could never
>> trust it.
>
> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one with
> all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.

Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
anything!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Alan Holbrook" > wrote in message
. 130...
> Opinicus > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>>
>
> We've had what are essentially pilotless aircraft for decades now. Oh,
> sure, there's a flight crew on the flight deck ready to take over in case
> of computer failure, but your average widebody carrying several hundred
> human beings is being flown by well over a hundred microprocessors, from
> takeoff to landing. As a former software engineer, I think about that a
> lot every time I board a flight...

Yes, and it is a scary thought! At least there are not too many planes
knocking around for it to bump into


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
>>> never trust it.
>>
>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.
>
> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
> anything!
>
>
I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.

--

Xeno

On 14/11/2015 7:07 PM, Alan Holbrook wrote:
> Opinicus > wrote in
> :
>
>>
>>
>> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>>
>
> We've had what are essentially pilotless aircraft for decades now. Oh,
> sure, there's a flight crew on the flight deck ready to take over in case
> of computer failure, but your average widebody carrying several hundred
> human beings is being flown by well over a hundred microprocessors, from
> takeoff to landing. As a former software engineer, I think about that a
> lot every time I board a flight...
>
As long as Micro$oft have nothing to do with the programming of planes,
I'll be quite happy.

--

Xeno

On 14/11/2015 10:09 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 21:41:03 +1100, Xeno >
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/11/2015 7:07 PM, Alan Holbrook wrote:
>>> Opinicus > wrote in
>>> :
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Driverless cars are Stupid Technology.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We've had what are essentially pilotless aircraft for decades now. Oh,
>>> sure, there's a flight crew on the flight deck ready to take over in case
>>> of computer failure, but your average widebody carrying several hundred
>>> human beings is being flown by well over a hundred microprocessors, from
>>> takeoff to landing. As a former software engineer, I think about that a
>>> lot every time I board a flight...
>>>
>> As long as Micro$oft have nothing to do with the programming of planes,
>> I'll be quite happy.
>
> Penguins don't fly very well.
>
What have penguins and Micro$oft have in common???


--

Xeno

"Xeno" > wrote in message
...
> On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
>>>> never trust it.
>>>
>>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
>>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.
>>
>> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
>> anything!
>>
>>
> I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.

<g> I've had plenty of fancy cars in my life and now I am very happy with
the one I have. I answers all my needs

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 3:07:05 AM UTC-5, Alan Holbrook wrote:

> We've had what are essentially pilotless aircraft for decades now. Oh,
> sure, there's a flight crew on the flight deck ready to take over in case
> of computer failure, but your average widebody carrying several hundred
> human beings is being flown by well over a hundred microprocessors, from
> takeoff to landing. As a former software engineer, I think about that a
> lot every time I board a flight...

As a current software engineer at a company that makes productivity
tools for systems control engineers (our customers include Gulfstream,
Crane Aerospace, Boeing, Rolls Royce Jet Engine, GE Aircraft Engines,
et al.), I think "Maybe I should get a horse."

Cindy Hamilton

On 14/11/2015 10:42 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Xeno" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
>>>>> never trust it.
>>>>
>>>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
>>>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my
>>>> lifetime.
>>>
>>> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
>>> anything!
>>>
>>>
>> I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.
>
> <g> I've had plenty of fancy cars in my life and now I am very happy
> with the one I have. I answers all my needs
>
My wife just mentioned today she wants a new one sooner rather than
later.. It seems she's been looking at the ads.... I had planned on
getting rid of our current car in about 2 and a half years time. It will
be about 8 years old then and, as far as I am concerned, past its use by
date. So, the question remains, when.....


--

Xeno

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:46:34 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "Xeno" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
> >>>> never trust it.
> >>>
> >>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
> >>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.
> >>
> >> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
> >> anything!
> >>
> >>
> > I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.
>
> <g> I've had plenty of fancy cars in my life and now I am very happy with
> the one I have. I answers all my needs
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

I enjoyed the cars I had during the late 70's and 80's. Mostly because they were over 1000 lb lighter than the cars of today, around 1700 to 2200 lbs. Heck, my 67 Plymouth Barracuda with V8 weighed about the same as a modern Toyota Corolla - 2800 lbs. OTOH, modern cars are a lot more comfortable.

On 15/11/2015 12:07 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:46:34 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Xeno" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
>>>>>> never trust it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
>>>>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
>>>> anything!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.
>>
>> <g> I've had plenty of fancy cars in my life and now I am very happy with
>> the one I have. I answers all my needs
>>
>> --
>> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
>
> I enjoyed the cars I had during the late 70's and 80's. Mostly because they
> were over 1000 lb lighter than the cars of today, around 1700 to 2200
lbs.

That would be all the electrical wizardry in modern cars. I see that my
current car (2010) is less obese than the current equivalent and more
obese than the 2002 model I originally had.

> Heck, my 67 Plymouth Barracuda with V8 weighed about the same as a
modern
> Toyota Corolla - 2800 lbs. OTOH, modern cars are a lot more comfortable.
>
You forgot to add that they are much safer. Less risk of you dying in an
accident can only be a good thing and it will allow you to contribute
here longer! ;-)

--

Xeno

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:27:34 +1100, Xeno >
wrote:



>>
>My wife just mentioned today she wants a new one sooner rather than
>later.. It seems she's been looking at the ads.... I had planned on
>getting rid of our current car in about 2 and a half years time. It will
>be about 8 years old then and, as far as I am concerned, past its use by
>date. So, the question remains, when.....

Longest I had a car was 14 years. My wife no longer drives as she used
to get mi car when I got a new one.

The last few I swapped out when they were ready for routine, but
expensive maintenance. Tires, brakes, serpentine belt, etc. Traded
them at about 70,000 miles. The last couple I bought exactly what I
wanted figuring it may be my last car. I hope to have a couple more
"last cars" though.

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 22:14:16 +1100, Bruce > wrote:

>>What have penguins and Micro$oft have in common???
><https://kasturika.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/linux.jpg>
)

--
Bob
A shack on Sungoo
www.kanyak.com

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 3:15:37 AM UTC-10, Xeno wrote:
> On 15/11/2015 12:07 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:46:34 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> >> "Xeno" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> >>>> ...
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
> >>>>>> never trust it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
> >>>>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my lifetime.
> >>>>
> >>>> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
> >>>> anything!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.
> >>
> >> <g> I've had plenty of fancy cars in my life and now I am very happy with
> >> the one I have. I answers all my needs
> >>
> >> --
> >> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
> >
> > I enjoyed the cars I had during the late 70's and 80's. Mostly because they
> > were over 1000 lb lighter than the cars of today, around 1700 to 2200
> lbs.
>
> That would be all the electrical wizardry in modern cars. I see that my
> current car (2010) is less obese than the current equivalent and more
> obese than the 2002 model I originally had.
>
> > Heck, my 67 Plymouth Barracuda with V8 weighed about the same as a
> modern
> > Toyota Corolla - 2800 lbs. OTOH, modern cars are a lot more comfortable.
> >
> You forgot to add that they are much safer. Less risk of you dying in an
> accident can only be a good thing and it will allow you to contribute
> here longer! ;-)
>
> --
>
> Xeno

Yes, I did forget to mention that modern cars are a lot safer. My guess is that the biggest advancement in automotive safety is ESC although the public is hardly aware of it. Still, I'd love to have an old Fiat 124 coupe or Mazda RX 2/3 rotary or Scirocco or even the Dodge Colt that I used to drive back when.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWBR0G1zup0

On 11/14/2015 7:27 AM, Xeno wrote:

> My wife just mentioned today she wants a new one sooner rather than
> later.. It seems she's been looking at the ads.... I had planned on
> getting rid of our current car in about 2 and a half years time. It will
> be about 8 years old then and, as far as I am concerned, past its use by
> date. So, the question remains, when.....

That's tricky. I don't want to act like I'm in charge of the money,
at the same time, No new car yet! I know once this one's 5 I won't
have a prayer of holding out against a new one.

Of course, we just keep one car, so if that one starts having any
issues, it's a pain in the neck.

nancy

On 11/14/2015 8:51 AM, dsi1 wrote:

> Yes, I did forget to mention that modern cars are a lot safer. My guess is that the biggest advancement in automotive safety is ESC although the public is hardly aware of it. Still, I'd love to have an old Fiat 124 coupe or Mazda RX 2/3 rotary or Scirocco or even the Dodge Colt that I used to drive back when.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWBR0G1zup0
>

Yep, the is driving and there is DRIVING. Some of the smaller cars were
a lot of fun.

"Xeno" > wrote in message
...
> On 14/11/2015 10:42 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Xeno" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
>>>>>> never trust it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
>>>>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my
>>>>> lifetime.
>>>>
>>>> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
>>>> anything!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.
>>
>> <g> I've had plenty of fancy cars in my life and now I am very happy
>> with the one I have. I answers all my needs
>>
> My wife just mentioned today she wants a new one sooner rather than
> later.. It seems she's been looking at the ads.... I had planned on
> getting rid of our current car in about 2 and a half years time. It will
> be about 8 years old then and, as far as I am concerned, past its use by
> date. So, the question remains, when.....
>

You must keep your wife happy!!!!!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 1:46:34 AM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Xeno" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 14/11/2015 8:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Cheri" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >>>> Amen to that but I still would never buy a driverless car. I could
>> >>>> never trust it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Me either. I want to drive my own vehicle and I also don't want one
>> >>> with all the bells and whistles so I hope my 2004 lasts for my
>> >>> lifetime.
>> >>
>> >> Me neither! I hope mine lasts too. I don't want to change mine for
>> >> anything!
>> >>
>> >>
>> > I hope to outlast my next 10 cars.
>>
>> <g> I've had plenty of fancy cars in my life and now I am very happy
>> with
>> the one I have. I answers all my needs
>>
>> --
>> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
>
> I enjoyed the cars I had during the late 70's and 80's. Mostly because
> they were over 1000 lb lighter than the cars of today, around 1700 to 2200
> lbs. Heck, my 67 Plymouth Barracuda with V8 weighed about the same as a
> modern Toyota Corolla - 2800 lbs. OTOH, modern cars are a lot more
> comfortable.


Well, you know what I have now (if you remember) and it is fine comfortable
enough for me)
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

dsi1 wrote:
>
> Yes, I did forget to mention that modern cars are a lot safer.

The safe (or not) factor with any car is the driver. Main rule to
surviving is to always assume that the other drivers will break the
rules.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 23:27:34 +1100, Xeno >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>
>>My wife just mentioned today she wants a new one sooner rather than
>>later.. It seems she's been looking at the ads.... I had planned on
>>getting rid of our current car in about 2 and a half years time. It will
>>be about 8 years old then and, as far as I am concerned, past its use by
>>date. So, the question remains, when.....
>
> Longest I had a car was 14 years. My wife no longer drives as she used
> to get mi car when I got a new one.
>
> The last few I swapped out when they were ready for routine, but
> expensive maintenance. Tires, brakes, serpentine belt, etc. Traded
> them at about 70,000 miles. The last couple I bought exactly what I
> wanted figuring it may be my last car. I hope to have a couple more
> "last cars" though.

I am saying that I will be happy if my current car is my last ... but if
this doesn't last, would want another just like it.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Nancy Young wrote:
> Of course, we just keep one car, so if that one starts having any
> issues, it's a pain in the neck.

The last van I owned was like that. It was a 1972 Dodge van with over
200K on the odometer. I babied it for 20 years and it ran fine until
the last 5 years. After that, I dreaded even driving it but it was my
work van so I had to. Each morning I would get in and say a prayer,
"Please God, let this start and get me to work." Then when it was time
to go home...."Please God, let this start and get me home."

I still have nightmares about those times. I sold it 7 years ago and
have a company van since then. No worries with this one. If it breaks,
it's the companies problem. heheheh It's been VERY reliable though
and rarely breaks down. I have full personal use for it too so I
don't need to buy my own vehicle. I don't take advantage of that perk
though. I use it very minimal for personal use.

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 5:02:49 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 11/14/2015 8:51 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > Yes, I did forget to mention that modern cars are a lot safer. My guess is that the biggest advancement in automotive safety is ESC although the public is hardly aware of it. Still, I'd love to have an old Fiat 124 coupe or Mazda RX 2/3 rotary or Scirocco or even the Dodge Colt that I used to drive back when.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWBR0G1zup0
> >
>
> Yep, the is driving and there is DRIVING. Some of the smaller cars were
> a lot of fun.

These cars would typically have a hundred or less horsepower but a thousand less pounds made it a lot of fun. The funniest car I ever had was an RX-3 station wagon in fluorescent lime green. The rotary engine however, gave this funny looking car a lot of street cred. I love that!