If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Now the gov't wants your car to text with other cars... this should end well. Subby can't wait to hack it   (nytimes.com) divider line 142
    More: Dumbass, Car Talk, connected car, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  
•       •       •

3460 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Aug 2014 at 10:41 AM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-08-21 12:53:43 PM  
 
2014-08-21 12:54:53 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Higher-end cars are already incorporating those features. Infiniti makes a car that automatically brakes when when a car in front of you brakes, and it doesn't even have to be the one directly in front of you. It can also detect the car in front of that one.


Isn't that using a type of radar equivalent sensing system? I'm interested in my car communicating directly to the other car computers around me and knowing that it's okay to maintain 10 mph over the speed limit in order to go with the flow of traffic and not cause an accident because I am doing the speed limit. I can then use that information as evidence in court.
 
2014-08-21 12:56:20 PM  
Cars are going to drive themselves soon. Most of these "innovations" are just social engineering to get us used to that idea.

Self-driving cars can't come soon enough, but it's going to freak out municipalities that depend on fines for income.
 
2014-08-21 12:56:56 PM  
Also my personal philosophy: if someone gains access to the device physically, you lose. Consider everything on the compromised device lost or dangerous, and behave accordingly. If the device requires users physically access it, constantly check it for damage or compromise, such as ATMs.
 
2014-08-21 01:09:15 PM  

Jument: "Hey baby, wanna fark?"


Just $5 a month.
 
2014-08-21 01:09:47 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: Cars are going to drive themselves soon. Most of these "innovations" are just social engineering to get us used to that idea.

Self-driving cars can't come soon enough, but it's going to freak out municipalities that depend on fines for income.


They'll find a way.  Corporations and government agencies  NEVER, ever, ever scale back, tighten their belts or reduce egregious wage / salary payments.  They just tap a new vein, get some new laws written and "MOAR".  It's part of the reason we're under the rule of a government that's kiting checks against 17 trillion in bad debt and the corporations that own it are buying small countries.
 
2014-08-21 01:11:54 PM  
The fun part: When some hacker manages to crack 10,000,000 cars simultaneously, overrides flash with gibberish, and runs his own program, "Malachi_Crunch.exe", and 10,000,000 cars floor the pedal and center on the yellow lines after about 10 seconds.
 
2014-08-21 01:14:09 PM  
This is a good thing you farking morans. This will facilitate the Google car and make driving safer. You be able to drink and drive safely.
 
2014-08-21 01:19:44 PM  

HAMMERTOE: The fun part: When some hacker manages to crack 10,000,000 cars simultaneously, overrides flash with gibberish, and runs his own program, "Malachi_Crunch.exe", and 10,000,000 cars floor the pedal and center on the yellow lines after about 10 seconds.


That is a long-solved problem.

People have a tendency to forget that their laptop is not the standard by which all computers and software are manufactured. Most of the security problems experienced by general purpose computers do not apply to special-purpose computers because the cost of hardening special-purpose computers is worth undertaking and because they can be specifically designed to limit the scope of changes that can occur to their code.

Your computer is easy to hack because it needs to do lots of completely different things very easily so it's designed to run just about anything that you can get on it with very few checks on where it came from, who put it there or what it actually does. Your car's central control units? Not so much.

Well... in theory, anyway. Whether any individual manufacturer actually follows a sensible development plan is another story, but, then, is that really fundamentally different than them selling a car that the wheel falls off of at high speed because of an error on the assembly line?
 
2014-08-21 01:23:39 PM  

skozlaw: People have a tendency to forget that their laptop is not the standard by which all computers and software are manufactured. Most of the security problems experienced by general purpose computers do not apply to special-purpose computers because the cost of hardening special-purpose computers is worth undertaking and because they can be specifically designed to limit the scope of changes that can occur to their code.

Your computer is easy to hack because it needs to do lots of completely different things very easily so it's designed to run just about anything that you can get on it with very few checks on where it came from, who put it there or what it actually does. Your car's central control units? Not so much.


Well, yeah.  But if you can deal with code at the assembler level and write an instruction set and get your hands on the back door of whatever these devices are running, you're in.  ~-~Nothing~-~ that comes down to 0 / 1 instruction sets is uncrackable.
 
2014-08-21 01:28:50 PM  

skozlaw: You're willing to sacrifice convenience, safety, comfort and efficiency for a bottom-dollar price. That's fine if that's your preference, but it doesn't make cars too expensive.


It does if all that stuff is mandated, or if you can't purchase a car without them because the manufacturers have decided that it's "standard" equipment.

"Too expensive" is a relative term anyway.  What adding all that stuff on does is make it more expensive for the people on the margins, those who can afford it the least.  So a person who might have looked at getting a bare-bones new economy car looks instead at getting a used car.  Or someone with a family who wanted a new 4 door mid-sized finds that they only thing they can afford is a 4 door compact.

You can't argue that adding features doesn't add cost, unless you think it's all free.

Take a look at two roughly similar cars:  The 1989 Geo Metro, and the 2014 Hyundai Accent.  They both fill the same automotive niche.   The Metro had an MSRP of  $5,995 in 1989, and the Accent has one of $14,645.  When you correct for inflation, that Metro would cost $11,523 today.

So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.

They've also had a cost to the environment:  The Metro was much more efficient than the Accent, getting 51 MPG highway.  The Accent gets 38 MPG.  If you drive 12,000 miles in a year, in 5 years you'll have used up 403 more gallons of gas in the Accent than you would have in the Metro.

Now, I don't have emissions numbers to work with, but I'm willing to bet that the very fact that it burnt 34% less gas per mile means that the emissions were probably on par with what modern non-hybrid economy car emits despite their relative lack of emissions control gimcrackery.

Which, BTW, is a fun word to use.
 
2014-08-21 01:30:11 PM  

Madaynun: Jument: "Hey baby, wanna fark?"

Just $5 a month.


Totally.
 
2014-08-21 01:30:54 PM  

HAMMERTOE: The fun part: When some hacker manages to crack 10,000,000 cars simultaneously, overrides flash with gibberish, and runs his own program, "Malachi_Crunch.exe", and 10,000,000 cars floor the pedal and center on the yellow lines after about 10 seconds.


On a more benign level, I can imagine a hacker turning your car into a bitcoin miner. They've got all kinds of things mining bitcoins that have no business doing it. Your cable box could be mining at this very moment, really.
 
2014-08-21 01:34:39 PM  

TheGogmagog: Granted no one is sitting watching your movements. But get shot by a cop? We'll go through your history and find out why you deserved to be shot.


Because you thought his gun was an ornament?

clture.org
 
2014-08-21 01:44:30 PM  

dittybopper: So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.


No, you can assume all the consumer-preferred goodies and much larger engine cost that much. An '89 Geo Metro got fantastic mileage because it had a 3-cylinder, 1.0-liter engine that got pushed 50 hp, plus hand-cranked windows, manual steering, 4-speed manual gearbox, no air conditioning, etc. The standard Hyundai Accent today has power everything, AC, cruise control, CD player, etc., and a 138-hp engine. You can't BUY the equivalent of a Geo Metro today, because people don't want cars that are that bare bones. The closest equivalent in '89 to a 2014 Accent would be a loaded Toyota Corolla, which cost about $15 grand then.
 
2014-08-21 01:46:38 PM  
For those  saying "I'll just drive an old car", do you really think the gov't is going to let you do that when (not if) the tech is implemented? They'll outlaw driving anything under a certain age, maybe you'll be able to get a special permit for antique cars (and the gov't will decide what constitutes "antique") to be driven only on special occasions.

/that includes your red Barchetta
//good luck eluding the Eyes
 
2014-08-21 01:54:48 PM  

skozlaw: Well... in theory, anyway. Whether any individual manufacturer actually follows a sensible development plan is another story, but, then, is that really fundamentally different than them selling a car that the wheel falls off of at high speed because of an error on the assembly line?


I can see the sense in that, but the programming is going to have to be written to accept modification. Not only for updates, but to manage different options and levels of performance in equipment as well as different operators.
 
2014-08-21 01:59:18 PM  
"Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.
 
2014-08-21 02:12:17 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Higher-end cars are already incorporating those features. Infiniti makes a car that automatically brakes when when a car in front of you brakes, and it doesn't even have to be the one directly in front of you. It can also detect the car in front of that one.


So... A sensor that sees the color red?
 
2014-08-21 02:13:46 PM  
Back around 1974 I'd have found this fascinating, interesting and been excited over it. It would have been an indicator that we were getting closer to the fascinating universe I had read about -- especially in books by Sci-Fi writer Larry Niven.

Today the first things that cross my mind are A) what 'secret' information will such systems gather on drivers, B) how long before someone manages to hack them for whatever reason, C) will some form of GPS program be hidden in the technology for use by law enforcement and D) how many thousands of dollars is this going to increase the price of a car.

I mean, weekly, we're discovering 'hidden' programs in cells and computers that gather and store information on us, car thieves have developed electronic keys to break into high end cars with 'secure' electronic security systems and we've all read the articles about how hackers use baby monitors to check out your home for possible robbing. The same with previously secure wireless security cameras.
We already know about the high end cars which, if stolen, can be tracked by the cops and have their engines shut off by remote control.

Decades ago, police radar guns wound up generating radar detectors, when they switched to laser, out came laser detectors. Around the same time, laser pointers popped up and within a few years or so, morons made them more powerful and started shining them into the cockpits of landing airliners as a 'joke'.

Now, a Mom developed an 'app' for cells, which, when your kids ignore your texts, you can shut their phone off. It also lets you know when they're trying to get it working again.

I had never expected people to so quickly develop ways to corrupt the technology. Nor did I expect TV programs to pop up as expose's (SP) telling everyone how to hack into things such as wireless spots, wireless security systems and baby monitors.
 
2014-08-21 02:17:10 PM  
PS: I'm old. My first computer was hand cranked.
 
2014-08-21 02:18:59 PM  

Rik01: I had never expected people to so quickly develop ways to corrupt the technology


When you dump your entire economy into something that just creates simulacrums from data and sends and receives them, you run out of stuff to do pretty quickly.  Computer data security is like the war on drugs.  It moves too much  money around to actually address the problem of the malicious people who make it necessary.
 
2014-08-21 02:19:40 PM  

fredklein: Tobin_Lam: Higher-end cars are already incorporating those features. Infiniti makes a car that automatically brakes when when a car in front of you brakes, and it doesn't even have to be the one directly in front of you. It can also detect the car in front of that one.

So... A sensor that sees the color red?


Better. It can tell that the car in front of the car in front of you is panic braking and put on the brakes before the car in front of you has even reacted. Kind of like have x-ray vision.
 
2014-08-21 02:20:13 PM  

MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.



STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.
 
2014-08-21 02:27:44 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.


Um, 6 car lengths is not unreasonable for highway traffic. The rule of thumb is one car length for every 10mph.
 
2014-08-21 02:34:18 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.


Actually, maintaining large gaps is exactly how you break traffic waves. When everybody leaves enough gap that they can move at the constant, average speed, nobody has to hit their brakes when they encounter the back of the next wave and the pattern slowly distributes to the back and eventually "erases" it.

It's simply an applied example of normal distribution. The wave will grow, peak and then shrink away if everyone participates by creating the appropriate gaps.

Nobody actually does this, of course, because of the rule of "fark those guys behind me".
 
2014-08-21 02:35:19 PM  

fredklein: DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.

Um, 6 car lengths is not unreasonable for highway traffic. The rule of thumb is one car length for every 10mph.



But, if you're only going 10mph...
 
2014-08-21 02:38:27 PM  

skozlaw: DROxINxTHExWIND: STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Actually, maintaining large gaps is exactly how you break traffic waves. When everybody leaves enough gap that they can move at the constant, average speed, nobody has to hit their brakes when they encounter the back of the next wave and the pattern slowly distributes to the back and eventually "erases" it.

It's simply an applied example of normal distribution. The wave will grow, peak and then shrink away if everyone participates by creating the appropriate gaps.

Nobody actually does this, of course, because of the rule of "fark those guys behind me".


When I get in slow traffic, I get behind the semis. I know that the acceleration is going to be slower but the braking is also easier. It really reduces the stress.
 
2014-08-21 02:45:18 PM  

captjc: I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, car-to-car communication would be great. The ability to propagate information about upcoming hazards and allow the car to act on them would be amazing. If the car in front steps on the brakes, in addition to the brake lights, a signal could be sent to the car in back to slow down. Signals in cars and road signs can set tell a car "here is the speed limit, don't go faster than this", allowing for automatically-adjusting cruise control. The possibilities are endless to the information being sent and how it is acted upon to make a smarter system.

However, as a person who designs systems for a living and has to think about all the ways a design can be defeated and/or abused, the potential for mayhem is really great. The only secure system is an entirely closed system. If a person with a laptop and a $200 Software Radio can theoretically cause crashes and pileups, than the system isn't worth it. You had better convince me that this can't be abused, even then I would probably tell you to stuff it. Any system that would be useful (i.e. control the car faster than a human) would have a huge potential for abuse. Because this is a system that would really only work if all cars on the road would support it, a system of this kind would need specs that are set in stone and would need to have legacy support for 20 years or more. I am more than sure an exploit would be found within 20 years, even it if would mean finding a junker (or a stolen car), ripping the radio out and sending signals to the black box.


I'm with you on this one.  I'm in the process of getting a Merc E350 with all of the self-driving toys on it.  Apparently it is capable of driving autonomously but the regulators won't allow it to do so.   On the dealer's car I was given to try for awhile, I learned to trust the systems...BUT I also learned the systems weren't to be trusted 100% either.   Case in point:  The car has no problem "seeing" motorcycles all around it...except directly in front of it if the motorcyclist is dead-center in the lane.   FWIW, the Merc  can read (visually via camera + OCR) speed limit signs and obey them.  It also is a closed system, so it'll happily keep doing its thing no matter what technological changes come down the pathway.    Imagine the nightmare of embedded car systems being  forced to upgrade to remain compatible with newer cars.  I'm sure the dealerships would love it, but it'd send a lot of cars to the scrapyard sooner, which would hurt the lower income brackets.

As an aside, a Dutchman researched drivers' behavior and roads and found something quite interesting -- the more  unsafe a road was perceived as, the more careful drivers were.   As an experiment they removed signs, barriers, and other things we in the USA are starting to see as necessary for safe driving.   Accidents went DOWN substantially.  For fun, try counting the # of signs you see in a mile on a local road, city road, highway.  EVERY sign counts because they're all taking your eyes off the car in front of you.   I've done this a few times and the numbers were amazingly high.

Also, all of these "improvements" on safety are going to end up being like football helmets have been -- people will become complacent and act more carelessly.  Another case in point:  For people who have back-up cameras, I've noticed they almost never turn around and physically look behind them when reversing.   The backup cameras may help you avoid the rare instance that a child is directly behind your bumper, but does NOT show you the cross-traffic (or child running behind the car) which is the accident more likely to happen.
 
2014-08-21 02:47:54 PM  

LazyMedia: dittybopper: So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.

No, you can assume all the consumer-preferred goodies and much larger engine cost that much. An '89 Geo Metro got fantastic mileage because it had a 3-cylinder, 1.0-liter engine that got pushed 50 hp, plus hand-cranked windows, manual steering, 4-speed manual gearbox, no air conditioning, etc. The standard Hyundai Accent today has power everything, AC, cruise control, CD player, etc., and a 138-hp engine. You can't BUY the equivalent of a Geo Metro today, because people don't want cars that are that bare bones. The closest equivalent in '89 to a 2014 Accent would be a loaded Toyota Corolla, which cost about $15 grand then.


You know what, you're right.

I bought a 2010 Hyundai Accent about, well, 4 years ago.  It wasn't even the dirt cheap no AC manual transmission "Blue" model, and it has manual roll-up windows, and didn't have a radio or tilt-steering or height adjusting seats.

Now, the *BASE* model comes with power windows, tilt-wheel steering, AC is standard, and so is the AM/FM/CD/SiriusXM/MP3/WTF/BBQ sound system with 6 speakers.

I paid about $11,500 for mine back in 2010, so an equivalent car would cost $12,570 today.

So the extra $2,000 is the cost of that extra gimcrackery that I could have gotten prior but opted not to because I wasn't going to use it or didn't think I needed it.

Guess when it's time to replace the hedgehog, I'll have to shop around.  Too bad.  Hyundai got me as a customer because they made good quality cars for less money.  Maybe a Chevy Spark next time for my commuter car.
 
2014-08-21 03:21:29 PM  

Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.


Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?
 
2014-08-21 03:24:21 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?


You already trust it with your engine.
 
2014-08-21 03:27:23 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: If you can get my 1974 F150 to text ...


I'd love to year what a 1974 F-150 would have to say, if it could text.  Oh wait.  I wouldn't.

///probably would go on and on about how Smokin' in the Boys Room was really a better song than The Joker....
 
2014-08-21 03:28:53 PM  

Smeggy Smurf: fark


Came for the Carlin reference, leaving satisfied.
 
2014-08-21 03:30:35 PM  

dittybopper: LazyMedia: dittybopper: So you can assume that the mandatory safety improvements cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000 extra in 2014 dollars.

No, you can assume all the consumer-preferred goodies and much larger engine cost that much. An '89 Geo Metro got fantastic mileage because it had a 3-cylinder, 1.0-liter engine that got pushed 50 hp, plus hand-cranked windows, manual steering, 4-speed manual gearbox, no air conditioning, etc. The standard Hyundai Accent today has power everything, AC, cruise control, CD player, etc., and a 138-hp engine. You can't BUY the equivalent of a Geo Metro today, because people don't want cars that are that bare bones. The closest equivalent in '89 to a 2014 Accent would be a loaded Toyota Corolla, which cost about $15 grand then.

You know what, you're right.

I bought a 2010 Hyundai Accent about, well, 4 years ago.  It wasn't even the dirt cheap no AC manual transmission "Blue" model, and it has manual roll-up windows, and didn't have a radio or tilt-steering or height adjusting seats.

Now, the *BASE* model comes with power windows, tilt-wheel steering, AC is standard, and so is the AM/FM/CD/SiriusXM/MP3/WTF/BBQ sound system with 6 speakers.

I paid about $11,500 for mine back in 2010, so an equivalent car would cost $12,570 today.

So the extra $2,000 is the cost of that extra gimcrackery that I could have gotten prior but opted not to because I wasn't going to use it or didn't think I needed it.

Guess when it's time to replace the hedgehog, I'll have to shop around.  Too bad.  Hyundai got me as a customer because they made good quality cars for less money.  Maybe a Chevy Spark next time for my commuter car.


Have your sunvisors fallen off yet?  No snark -- mine did within a few months, both of them.
 
2014-08-21 03:33:44 PM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.


Well I like having *some* gap so I am not dicking the tailpipe of the guy in front of me. Not 6 car lengths, but I like to be far enough back that I can see his tires. (in slow and stop and go speeds) It's not leaving a small gap that's the problem. It's the guy who , much like gandbang porn, thinks every gap must be completely filled. If this guy sees you have so much as half a car length in front of you, is gonna do his damndest to get in to it. And it's usualy contagious, because people keep doing it. It doesn't get them any further ahead, it just pushes me back.
 
2014-08-21 03:37:27 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?

You already trust it with your engine.


"Trust" would be overstating it.  I've had to spend more on malfunctioning OBC and other electronic stuff than on anything mechanical, not to mention the malfunctions that are so sporadic that no one can diagnose or fix them.  It's time for a "new" car soon, and I'm seriously considering looking around for a pre-digital vehicle just because of this kind of garbage.  Like, for instance, having my sunroof start randomly opening while I'm driving (in winter, 40 degrees F, in the rain) for two days and then never doing it again.  Or having interior lights suddenly refuse to turn off no matter what I do.  Or having the OBC just decide to shut the engine down for undiscernable reasons.  If the same level of quality design and workmanship went into a computer that actually made driving decisions, I'd be dead by now.
 
2014-08-21 03:40:35 PM  

MythDragon: DROxINxTHExWIND: MythDragon: "Traffic is moving at 8mph. ALL of it. There is no secret fast lane. And you managed to get in front of me by cutting off that guy in the middle lane, and then swooping back in front of me, forcing me to slam my brakes. Congratulations. You're ahead of me. Now what?"


This seems to be a common problem. I've got some one ass raping my car because he wants to get by, but never stops to think that maybe *I'm* not moving any faster is because there is no where to go. The reason *I* don't pass the slow guy in front of me, is because there is a slow guy in front of *him* and so on. But this guy will swerve to the middle accelerate like crazy, only to find that I am now parallel to the guy in the middle lane, and then have to slow down and get back on my ass. he doesn't seem to realise that I'm not zipping around like he's trying to do, because I can see by the time I get around the guy in front of me, the gap ahead will have already closed.


STOP ALLOWING A GAP! If you and 40 other assholes all drive 6 car lengths behind the car in front of you, at varying intevals along the road, it slows EVERYBODY. Maybe if you were traveling behind at a safe distance and reasonable speed, we'd ALL be able to get past whatever is slowing us down ahead without our speed being reduced to a crawl.

Extra points for the dickheads who think traffic is the perfect time to update their Facebook statuses. Nothing like finally getting past him/her only to find out that the reason they're driving 6 car lengths back is that they want to give themselves enough space to text without rear ending someone.

Well I like having *some* gap so I am not dicking the tailpipe of the guy in front of me. Not 6 car lengths, but I like to be far enough back that I can see his tires. (in slow and stop and go speeds) It's not leaving a small gap that's the problem. It's the guy who , much like gandbang porn, thinks every gap must be completely filled. If this guy sees you have so much ...


LOL. I agree with you just for this line, alone.

/I'll slow down
 
2014-08-21 04:35:37 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Tobin_Lam: Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?

You already trust it with your engine.

"Trust" would be overstating it.  I've had to spend more on malfunctioning OBC and other electronic stuff than on anything mechanical, not to mention the malfunctions that are so sporadic that no one can diagnose or fix them.  It's time for a "new" car soon, and I'm seriously considering looking around for a pre-digital vehicle just because of this kind of garbage.  Like, for instance, having my sunroof start randomly opening while I'm driving (in winter, 40 degrees F, in the rain) for two days and then never doing it again.  Or having interior lights suddenly refuse to turn off no matter what I do.  Or having the OBC just decide to shut the engine down for undiscernable reasons.  If the same level of quality design and workmanship went into a computer that actually made driving decisions, I'd be dead by now.


Ok, maybe you don't trust your engine computer but I bet you trust everyone else's.
 
2014-08-21 05:24:11 PM  

Tobin_Lam: Raoul Eaton: Rwa2play: I'm loving how the government wants to track cars but pays no farking attention that hackers can and would do worse if they hack the gov'ts servers.

Assholes.

Never mind the hackers.  I've been driving for 40 years and my car hasn't crashed once.  I've been using computers for 30 years and they've crashed more times than I can possibly count.  Why would I want a computer to be in charge of driving my car?

You already trust it with your engine.


If the engine dies, I can still steer and brake.

All the engine controller does is basically replicate processes that were done mechanically before:  Replacing points in the ignition system, controlling fuel and air flow, things like that.

It's not driving the damned car, which is orders of magnitude harder, and more dangerous.
 
2014-08-21 06:55:31 PM  
Plan.

cnet3.cbsistatic.com

What will probably happen.

Yeah, I keed.
 
2014-08-21 06:56:50 PM  
Drat.

This was supposed to be there.

crazycrashes.files.wordpress.com

Preview.

Preview good.
 
Displayed 42 of 142 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report