Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Autos - Cars > Miscellaneous Autos > Re: Beware of h...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 16 of 113 Topic 3501 of 3692
Post > Topic >>

Re: Beware of high tech running amok

by tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brent P) Feb 26, 2008 at 07:14 AM

In article <john-DB55C2.02145526022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article <KZKdnRzeKKT5AF7anZ2dnUVZ_vfinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>  tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P) wrote:
> 
>> In article
<john-80127C.22411225022008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, 
>> John A. Weeks III wrote:
>> > In article <LOCdndwGhpv6F17anZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >  tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (Brent P) wrote:
>> > 
>> >> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a
key and 
>> >> >> twisting it?
>> >>  
>> >> > I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up
>> >> > keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key.  I bet you
>> >> > cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds.
>> >> 
>> >> I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it
either. 
>> > 
>> > Replace the word "keyless" entry with "***", and see how foolish
>> > that logic sounds when you say it out loud.  Just because you
>> > haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it
>> > once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future.
>> 
>> Why do I want more crap to carry around, another thing to break,
another 
>> thing that needs a battery... For what advantage? Not putting a key
into 
>> a lock? Then I'd never really trust the security of it. If it had a
door 
>> lock as a backup it couldn't be more secure, if it didn't when the 
>> battery fails or the remote breaks one would be SOL. 
> 
> Then why have electric start?  After all, it is just one more key
> to carry around, the starter is another thing to break, and another
> thing that needs a battery...for what advantage?  Not having to get
> out in the rain and cold to crank the car by hand?  What if the
> batter fails...one would be SOL.

If turning a key requires so much physical effort to you that you compare 
it with a hand crank well, you need to put more attention to your health 
than to usenet. Turning a key or pressing a button is the same amount of 
effort. It's not like a TV remote that removes the need to walk up to the 
television... you still need to walk up to the car and get in it. There 
is no big labor savings. None. Zero. Zilich. On the downside you have 
carry another thing around with you or an even bigger key and have yet 
another battery added to your life to deal with.
 




 113 Posts in Topic:
Beware of high tech running amok
"Ed White" <  2008-02-25 16:59:45 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Arif Khokar <akhokar12  2008-02-25 22:48:20 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Shawn Hirn <srhi@[EMAI  2008-02-26 05:53:34 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
z <gzuckier@[EMAIL PRO  2008-02-27 11:16:51 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
necromancer <55_sux@[E  2008-02-25 18:10:24 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John A. Weeks III&q  2008-02-25 18:59:01 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-25 21:41:27 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John A. Weeks III&q  2008-02-25 22:41:12 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
russotto@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-02-25 22:48:19 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-25 21:21:34 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
russotto@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-02-26 13:03:43 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John A. Weeks III&q  2008-02-26 02:13:11 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
russotto@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-02-26 13:09:24 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-25 23:02:28 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John A. Weeks III&q  2008-02-26 02:14:55 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-26 07:14:18 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-26 06:40:16 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-26 09:36:03 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-26 17:52:29 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-26 23:48:51 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"C. E. White" &  2008-02-27 07:10:23 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 07:00:31 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-27 06:30:01 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 09:03:59 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"C. E. White" &  2008-02-27 10:05:01 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ray <ray@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-02-27 15:08:21 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-27 06:27:13 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 09:02:26 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-27 21:01:45 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 23:10:15 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-27 22:00:45 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-28 15:55:19 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-28 14:52:05 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-28 17:01:06 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-28 11:47:49 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-28 11:54:51 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-28 15:05:40 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
gpsman <gpsman@[EMAIL   2008-02-28 05:46:13 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ray <ray@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-02-27 08:58:23 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-27 06:44:35 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 09:06:54 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 19:29:56 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 21:46:39 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 19:40:02 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 21:54:22 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-28 05:21:37 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Krhodes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-02-27 18:22:12 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 12:41:50 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 18:12:41 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 21:31:41 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
russotto@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-02-28 17:11:32 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 18:14:27 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 21:04:04 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
gpsman <gpsman@[EMAIL   2008-02-28 00:11:29 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-25 20:53:36 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Krhodes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-02-27 18:39:50 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
MLOM <grvan@[EMAIL PRO  2008-02-25 21:23:40 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Harry K <turnkey4099@[  2008-02-26 08:37:28 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Harry K <turnkey4099@[  2008-02-26 08:52:12 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-26 11:58:58 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-27 05:45:38 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ray <ray@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-02-27 15:11:01 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-27 05:47:51 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-27 07:45:04 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ray <ray@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-02-28 08:11:32 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-28 06:17:51 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
ray <rollingviolation@  2008-02-28 15:04:09 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Roger Blake <rogblake1  2008-02-29 04:41:28 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-27 07:48:41 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ray <ray@[EMAIL PROTEC  2008-02-28 08:15:47 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-27 11:44:24 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-27 11:51:20 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 15:23:21 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 15:26:34 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 18:05:26 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"Ed White" <  2008-02-27 22:20:35 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 21:50:01 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-28 16:01:20 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-28 18:19:26 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
russotto@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-02-29 19:55:22 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 16:11:36 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 18:28:15 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-28 16:54:33 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-28 19:00:44 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-27 17:01:27 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 19:33:40 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Ed Pirrero <gcmschemis  2008-02-28 17:11:40 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-27 17:22:21 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@  2008-02-27 21:04:34 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-29 06:14:15 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"HLS" <nospa  2008-02-26 01:02:39 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Shawn Hirn <srhi@[EMAI  2008-02-26 05:50:56 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"benteaches@[EMAIL P  2008-02-26 09:24:05 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"*" <nospam@  2008-02-27 09:47:21 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"C. E. White" &  2008-02-27 12:55:25 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
russotto@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-02-27 14:56:18 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
z <gzuckier@[EMAIL PRO  2008-02-27 11:14:47 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John S." <h  2008-02-27 13:20:49 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"Ed White" <  2008-02-27 17:46:06 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John S." <h  2008-02-27 15:34:38 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"Ed White" <  2008-02-27 22:38:28 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-28 07:46:51 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"C. E. White" &  2008-03-03 17:19:14 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Steve <no@[EMAIL PROTE  2008-03-04 12:22:35 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John S." <h  2008-02-28 16:22:44 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John S." <h  2008-03-01 13:23:55 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"C. E. White" &  2008-03-03 17:38:19 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"benteaches@[EMAIL P  2008-02-28 09:27:37 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
"John S." <h  2008-02-28 16:26:15 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
Scott in SoCal <scotte  2008-02-28 20:41:42 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
disston <cgwix@[EMAIL   2008-02-29 08:17:07 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
N8N <njnagel@[EMAIL PR  2008-02-29 10:15:23 
Re: Beware of high tech running amok
russotto@[EMAIL PROTECTED  2008-02-29 20:19:51 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan13V112 Fri Jul 25 12:18:04 CDT 2008.