Dr. Pat responds;
I went with the better, faster, more advanced, more reliable and easier to
drive "truck". That way I avoid all those problems. A fraction of millions
of roads is more than I'll ever need.
The roads we have are pretty good. Most of the "other" roads
are innumerable re-iterations of the same road. You can take
one road, give it 22 different names and 8 different versions, you can also
repackage it and call it "new and improved", but it is still one road.
My sister-in-law and her hubby both have the "microshaft trucks" and they
have gone through 4 of them in the past 3 years just to keep up with the
road changes. Then they get to buy MORE new roads.
The RISC engine in my 1994 "truck" MAY be available to the other kind in
2002. Then they all have to buy new trucks and new roads to go along with it
and start all over again, again, again.
dadoctah@worldnet.att.net
P.S. I have on my nomex cover-alls.
----------
>From: Patrick and Kelly Engram <shetland@erols.com>
>To: DML <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>, engramz@aol.com, jbass42@erols.com,
tminnicks@stpaul.com, kblythe@netgsi.com
>Subject: DML: Dakota's and computers
>Date: Thu, Dec 17, 1998, 2:39 AM
>
>I'm not sure if anyone ever posted this, so I'll post it myself. Got a
>few chuckles out of it...
>
>title-"yeah, but would you want your car to crash twice a day?" from
>ASE bulletin, December '98
>
>At a recent computer expo, a computer executive compared hisindustry
>with the auto industry and stated that if auto manufacturers had kept up
>with technology like the computer industry has, consumers would all be
>driving twenty-five dollar cars that get 1000 miles per gallon.
>Right....and if that was the case:
>
>1. Every time they painted the lines on the road, you would have to buy
>a new Dakota (edited for DAK content)
>
>2. occasionally your truck would die on the freeway for no reason, and
>you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
>
>3. Occasionally, executing a maneuver would cause your truck to stop
>and fail and you would have to reinstall the engine. For some strange
>reason, you would accept this too.
>
>4. You could only have one person in your truck at a time, unless you
>bough a Truck98 or TruckNT. But, then you would have to buy more seats.
>
>5. Macintosh would make a truck that was powered by the sun, was
>reliable, five times as fast, twice as easy to drive, but would only run
>on five percent of the roads.
>
>6. Macintosh truck owners would get expensive Microsoft upgrades to
>their trucks, which would make their trucks run much slower.
>
>7. The oil, gas, and alternator warning lights would be replaced by a
>single general truck default warning light.
>
>8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size butt.
>
>9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going off.
>
>10. If you were involved in a crash, you would have no idea what had
>just happened.
>
>
>I bet we could come up with a few more to add to this- such as-
>
>-Every 10 months, your truck loses half of its resale value.
>-You would have to restart it when the blinker or horn stopped working,
>just in case it was a glitch.
>-You would have to wait 2 minutes for the basic functions to become
>operational so you could put it
> in Drive and pull away.
>
>I'm looking forward to what else ya'll can come up with on this one!
>
>Patrick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:28 EDT