earle@oblio.DEC (Mr. SPPR) (01/13/86)
Sometimes I wish all the good'ole-day-boys would just look at their parents. I'm sure there was some 'techno goodie that their parents didn't like either 'cause it was so different than what they had in their day. You learned to deal with it didn't you? It was easier because you were born right into it -- grew up with it; to you it was like chewing bubble gum. All the little kids nowadays with computers all around them will look at them as just another tool that slow daddy's and mommy's will get upset about. You all should just look in the mirror and say: When did I stop looking into the future? I hope to god that I won't wake up one day and just stop looking at the future. What do you think cars will be like in 1990 or 2000 or 2010? Even though those numbers seem far away they aren't. It's a little kid's teenage hood. 1960 was 25 years ago. Doesn't seem that long huh. In 25 years it will be 2010. Remember the movie 2010? It ain't some future to far away. Just because you can't strip down a car like you used to be able to doesn't mean its too complicated -- it means you ain't learned nothin' in all the time the manufactures did. Do you really think people put stuff together without making sure it will work under harsh conditions? Don't compare personal computers to what are put into cars. They are just not built the same. Get off your soapbox and read a little. End of sermon. George Earle DECVAX!DECWRL!RHEA!OBLIO!EARLE disclaimer...disclaimer...disclaimer...
jimmy@scgvaxd.UUCP (JA Raisanen) (01/15/86)
In article <404@decwrl.DEC.COM> earle@oblio.DEC (Mr. SPPR) writes: > > > Sometimes I wish all the good'ole-day-boys would just look at their >parents. I'm sure there was some 'techno goodie that their parents didn't >like either 'cause it was so different than what they had in their day. You >learned to deal with it didn't you? It was easier because you were born right >into it -- grew up with it; to you it was like chewing bubble gum. All the >little kids nowadays with computers all around them will look at them as just >another tool that slow daddy's and mommy's will get upset about. You all should >just look in the mirror and say: When did I stop looking into the future? I >hope to god that I won't wake up one day and just stop looking at the future. > > What do you think cars will be like in 1990 or 2000 or 2010? Even >though those numbers seem far away they aren't. It's a little kid's teenage >hood. 1960 was 25 years ago. Doesn't seem that long huh. In 25 years it will >be 2010. Remember the movie 2010? It ain't some future to far away. Just >because you can't strip down a car like you used to be able to doesn't mean >its too complicated -- it means you ain't learned nothin' in all the time >the manufactures did. Do you really think people put stuff together without >making sure it will work under harsh conditions? Don't compare personal >computers to what are put into cars. They are just not built the same. Get >off your soapbox and read a little. > >End of sermon. > > > George Earle > DECVAX!DECWRL!RHEA!OBLIO!EARLE > >disclaimer...disclaimer...disclaimer... Well, no matter what's under the hood, the design is the most important thing to me. Today's aerodynamic boxes just do not have the gusto of the cars that were built before. There's no heart or soul in most of them. Give me a 50's T-Bird, a 60's Corvette, Mustang or Charger, or a 1973 Challenger (my personal fav!) or a Hillman, etc. over an 80's Mustang, Laser or Corvette or any of those so-called Japanese `sports' cars any day!! And this is posted by one who was born in `59 so I don't think I qualify as a "good-ol day boy" either! My indulgence is my own! Jim Raisanen {jimmy @ scgvaxd}
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (01/17/86)
> Sometimes I wish all the good'ole-day-boys would just look at their > parents. I'm sure there was some 'techno goodie that their parents didn't Speaking of Parents, mine bought me a 72 LTD for my first car (that is to say I paid them back) (anyway) since then I've owned a 74 caddy Sedan de Ville, 78 chevy Monza, 79 ford Pick-up, 77 buick LeSabre, and an 85 buick Skylark. I realize that gas economy is still a big factor on most peoples minds, but the car companies down-sizing everything this year really ticks me off! I can't understand why, with everyone soooooo safety conscience, they continue to make these death traps such as the chevette, civic, and other small cars. (nothing personal) Ive been happiest, most comfortable relaxed and safest in the 72,74,77.(see above) And when I'm in my truck and I see a really small car well, God help the guy if we should get in an accident. What do the rest of you think? Should they still make "FULL-SIZED" cars? I think that with the technology, even my old caddy if rebuilt today could easily muster 25 mpg. Dave Scott ihnp4!ihlpa!ibyf Great! I'm about to get killed a million miles from no where with a gung-ho iguana telling me to relax!
belanger@ulowell.UUCP (Jonathan D. Belanger) (02/19/86)
[ Munch, Munch, Munch, ...] In response to the question about Gas prices.... In Mass. there was a news article about falling gas prices. A Texico station , I believe, had regular (LEADED) gas prices at 99.9 cents/gallon. The gas station owner mentioned something about prices getting down to the 70's or 80's cents/gallon.
neal@weitek.UUCP (Neal Bedard) (02/20/86)
In article <205@ulowell.UUCP>, belanger@ulowell.UUCP (Jonathan D. Belanger) writes: > In response to the question about Gas prices.... > > In Mass. there was a news article about falling gas prices. A Texaco station, > I believe, had regular (LEADED) gas prices at 99.9 cents/gallon. This morning I paid 99.9 cents/gal for regular UNLEADED at an Arco (Northern CA, eastbay.) Last week it was something like 1.05/gal. Given that spot prices fell below $15/bbl. yesterday, I'd expect prices to fall even more. -Neal -- "If I owned half of that dog, I'd shoot my half." -Pudd'nhead Wilson UUCP: {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!neal