Re: Computer Assisted Fornication

>

>>The thought of using a computer to fornicate may seem ridiculous, but >>consider this. Gasoline engines used to be able to function by simple >>carburation and "ignition points" and coil to ignite the fuel. Now a >>days, this requires computers and very complicated circuits that work >>fine, until something fails, and then it will require thousands of >>dollars of scanners and testers to check and determine what failed. > >Interesting. My Bluetooth OBD-2 dongle that talks to my smart phone >cost $11.10. Those very complicated circuits allow my full size >pickup with a V8 engine to achieve 20MPG and no emissions.

ODB2 doesn't tell all. Only a subset of the interface is standardized. There are a bunch of pins in there that are reserved for the OEMs to do what they want.

>But it dont stop there. Do you remember Mirrors? Yea, a simple piece of >>glass with a silver coating on the back. Well, they have now been >>replaced with computers. Now the kids look at themselves on the screen >>of their smartphone, while the camera on the phone creates the images >>and can also send those images over the internet while combing their >>hair. > >I can remember when I had to walk about in a strange building to find >a bathroom with a mirror. Now my phone does a fine job.

You piss on your phone?

>For decades, doctors gave patients an IV tube and the flow of the IV >>fluid was metered by a simple valve. This is no longer the case, that >>valve has now been replaced by a computerized device, which requires >>batteries, electrical power to recharge, and takes two or more doctors >>and/or nurses to push as many as 30 buttons to program the thing. > >30 pushes? You sure that just 29 might get the job done. During my >knee replacement, that fancy machine that you abhor metered the >narcotic precisely enough that I stayed comfortable but not stoned. > >Previous to that, the old fashioned method that you're so in love with >got me a narcotic shot every 6 hours. I was stoned for 4 hours and >then hurt until the next shot. Progress, no? > > >>Almost everything we touch these days has some sort of computer circuit >>controlling it. So, why not find a way to computerize sex....... > >Something tells me the last time you had sex was in the tube era. > >>50 Years ago, if you would have told someone they would be able to talk >>on the telephone ANYWHERE, without wires connected to the wall, and even >>be able to send pictures and music to you over this phone, they would >>have laughed at you, called you a fool, and asked what kind of drugs you >>were on..... > >Hmmm, well the fax machine was invented in the late 1800s. AT&T Bell >labs demonstrated video phones in the 50s. So no I don't think anyone >informed would find today amazing at all. Simply steady progress.

In the 50s "ew, why would I want a video phone" was a common reaction to the idea. Now it's no big deal. We "talked" with the granddaughter for a half hour last week. We don't see her more than once a year, or so (it's been 18 months now) and she's only two.

Reply to
krw
Loading thread data ...

On a sunny day (Wed, 20 Sep 2017 21:23:10 -0400) it happened Neon John wrote in :

Cloning is the future, I am number 6.

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

Not so much. The best I can get, consistently, is around 18 on the highway.

Reply to
krw

You drive a truck? I drive an estate, it gets just under 70mpg combined. Even my ancient commercial managed over 20mpg.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

Sure.

I have no idea what "an estate" is (at least in this context).

Reply to
krw

plenty of pics of estate cars on google I've never understood American cars, they make no sense to me.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

I think the American cars of the sixties and early seventies were totally awesome - except for all the controls being on the wrong side of course.

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

e

mmercial managed over 20mpg.

"Estate" car. English for what Australians call "station wagons".

The passenger compartment is extended to the back bumper to offer more carr ying space than you get in a trunk. They tend to have an up-ward opening re ar door, and a flat floor space behind the back seat, so that you can slide loads in, rather than having to lift them over the lip of a trunk.

Make the roof higher, and you have got a van.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

Ah, a station wagon. A poor compromise, IMO.

Choice is good.

Reply to
krw

The 60s had some great cars. By the early 70s American cars sucked big time. All of them. They got a lot better after 90ish.

Reply to
krw

American car manufacturers took a while to work out that customers would choose compact cars, if they were offered them, then proceeded to make their "compact" cars bigger and bigger, year by year.

Advertising is used to move consumer choices in the direction that makes more money for the guy paying for the advertising.

The idea of finding out what people actually want, and selling that, doesn't seem to have really taken root in the USA - the Republican Party is a particularly dire case in point.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
bill.sloman

On a sunny day (Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:39:58 -0400) it happened snipped-for-privacy@notreal.com wrote in :

I had a Ford Mustang V8 in those days, to make it stable in the turns I had a big load in the back. Also with todays fuel prices it would be a no-no. For the rest it was great fun, and fast. Not much space... Very little tronix either, if at all. Later Peugeot station wagon, more space, more people, more efficient. Even had a hand-crank :-)

Reply to
Jan Panteltje

Generally. Why US buyers make the choices they do I don't know.

US cars tend to be very large for what reason I don't know. It appears buyers think that size equals safety.

They have bizarrely large engines. The mpg figures are dire. And to top it off they're frequently delivered faulty as new - I kid you not. Also IMLE they aren't reliable & don't last well.

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

I had a '74 Rustang II (AKA "Pinto in drag"). It didn't last three years (the body completely rotted out). I now have a '14 Mustang Convertible. Great car. Fun to drive but it still has no space. No one has ever been in the "back seat", other than to clean the back window. If I need space, I use the pickup.

Reply to
krw

It's amazing that you care. Why?

At some level it does but that's not the reason. They're comfortable to drive and have space for stuff.

Clueless.

Reply to
krw

This is one of only about 20 words krw knows.

Reply to
lonmkusch

same here. Some people need to move a tonne or more of stuff each time and have a vehicle to suit, but most of us don't.

and one of only one attitude he has

NT

Reply to
tabbypurr

Facts are facts. You're totally clueless, as are all lefties.

Reply to
krw

That makes no sense.

It's got nothing to do with "each time". Most don't have a vehicle to suite every need. One has to work for all.

Truth. Certainly. You both *are* clueless. At best, you're living 30 years in the past. Alzheimers does that.

Reply to
krw

plimsoles are plimsoles. It's about as useful a statement.

he's got you figured.

Reply to
tabbypurr

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.