Wait for it...... the naysayers will tell us we have the "best of the best and no other technology exists". As I drive my vehicle, it gets no better gas mileage than back in the 1960s. Hey, but all those onboard computers tell me if my gas cap is on, lock my doors, control the acceleration, deceleration, braking, and steering of my vehicle. This all makes me feel safer, doncha-kno.......Ahhh, no, no, no. Give me a Willys 4X4 or a 67 Mustang with only linkage,cables, and carb-ed motor and I'm a happy dude ready to fly me to the moon,....... as Sinatra use to say..
The difference is that the technology now makes very little pollution emission from your gasoline-powered vehicle. And back in the 60s, a luxury car would cheerfully consume gas at the rate of 12 miles per gallon. Now it is far better. If you had a hybrid vehicle, you can approach 45-50 miles per gallon. So, don't make out the 60s technology as being perfect. It was good, but that was when Los Angeles had smog, remember? Do you like smog? Computers are part of the pollution solution, because they allow the engine to fine-tune itself cylinder by cylinder, ignition by ignition.
Look, I know who you are and your role for defending the existing energy infrastructure. I don't agree with you.. The electronics on vehicles are far more of a ruse.... a deception for tracking, control, hacking, and sabotage. I can get a near 100% burn from gasoline compared to the 15 to 20% today.
Is it an AI bot? My original comment above was actually bait for this "boilerplate one" you mentioned and presto! There it is like all the other times.
Based on what you know of me, you know nothing. Some current electronics may be susceptible to wireless manipulation, but that is not why computers have come into vogue in automobiles. I would love to understand what you mean by your percentages, when they do not at all correspond to the direction of technical development. You are implying that past automobiles had better gas mileage than current ones (for equivalent emissions reduction and vehicle size). Not true.
Many of us know who you are, You wear your putative credentials on your sleeves. Every response provided over the a year or so always is protective of the infrastructure status quo. While these subjects have interest to others, your response is a blatherskitic stump. So be it.
Wait for it...... the naysayers will tell us we have the "best of the best and no other technology exists". As I drive my vehicle, it gets no better gas mileage than back in the 1960s. Hey, but all those onboard computers tell me if my gas cap is on, lock my doors, control the acceleration, deceleration, braking, and steering of my vehicle. This all makes me feel safer, doncha-kno.......Ahhh, no, no, no. Give me a Willys 4X4 or a 67 Mustang with only linkage,cables, and carb-ed motor and I'm a happy dude ready to fly me to the moon,....... as Sinatra use to say..
The difference is that the technology now makes very little pollution emission from your gasoline-powered vehicle. And back in the 60s, a luxury car would cheerfully consume gas at the rate of 12 miles per gallon. Now it is far better. If you had a hybrid vehicle, you can approach 45-50 miles per gallon. So, don't make out the 60s technology as being perfect. It was good, but that was when Los Angeles had smog, remember? Do you like smog? Computers are part of the pollution solution, because they allow the engine to fine-tune itself cylinder by cylinder, ignition by ignition.
Look, I know who you are and your role for defending the existing energy infrastructure. I don't agree with you.. The electronics on vehicles are far more of a ruse.... a deception for tracking, control, hacking, and sabotage. I can get a near 100% burn from gasoline compared to the 15 to 20% today.
Every comment from him is a boilerplate one. Nothing new at all.
Is it an AI bot? My original comment above was actually bait for this "boilerplate one" you mentioned and presto! There it is like all the other times.
Based on what you know of me, you know nothing. Some current electronics may be susceptible to wireless manipulation, but that is not why computers have come into vogue in automobiles. I would love to understand what you mean by your percentages, when they do not at all correspond to the direction of technical development. You are implying that past automobiles had better gas mileage than current ones (for equivalent emissions reduction and vehicle size). Not true.
Many of us know who you are, You wear your putative credentials on your sleeves. Every response provided over the a year or so always is protective of the infrastructure status quo. While these subjects have interest to others, your response is a blatherskitic stump. So be it.