Month: August 2021

Automotive Control

Drive Time, Gummint, Nannies

Over the past couple years, I’ve taken a lot of guff from people when I’ve stated my implacable hostility towards the Internet Of Things [spit]  intruding on my private life, and specifically when it comes to my car.

“Oh but Kim,”  the response comes, “think of the convenience of not having to drive!” , etc. etc.  My retort to giving up control of one’s vehicle is usually, “Giving up control to whom, exactly?”

Well, here’s a little example of what I could see was coming down the pike:

The bipartisan infrastructure bill includes a provision that would require auto manufacturers to equip “advanced alcohol monitoring systems” in all new cars.
Buried in the massive proposal—which is already longer than 2,700 pages—is a section titled, “ADVANCED IMPAIRED DRIVING TECHNOLOGY,” which mandates new vehicles include “a system that … passively and accurately detect[s] whether the blood alcohol concentration of a driver of a motor vehicle is equal to or greater than the blood alcohol concentration” of .08, in which case the system would “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation.” Automobile manufacturers would have a three-year grace period to comply with the regulation.

Here’s another prognosis to this already-ghastly invasion of our privacy:  it won’t stop at “prevent or limit motor vehicle operation”.   Given the all-pervasive network of operations from Skynet, what is to stop the government (federal, state, local or a combination thereof) from levying a fine for drunken driving (to be deducted automatically from your bank account), as well as sending your car’s GPS coordinates to Officer Friendly at Hometown P.D.?

Tell me I’m exaggerating or overstating the thing, I dare you.

But it’s all for our own good, isn’t it?  So why would I be so upset about this?  After all, seatbelt mandates have saved countless lives, so why not apply the same rationale for car immobilization and punishment for intoxicated driving?

By all means, let’s all get upset when the government suggests implanting computer chips into guns so that they can be controlled by law enforcement during times of emergency — “That’s like totally beyond the pale, dude.”

This car nonsense is precisely the same thing, being suggested for all the same reasons.

I foresee a rush towards the purchase of older cars which don’t contain computers of any description — until, of course, the government outlaws ownership thereof.

Once again:  tell me I’m exaggerating or overstating the thing, I dare you.

Before Chips

Drive Time

Inspired by the post above, let’s assume that you could get your hands on three mint-condition (as-new, restored or even resto-modded) cars which were made without an onboard computer (say, for the sake of argument, before 1986), which three vehicles would you choose?  (Ignore price and maintenance costs for the sake of the exercise.)

You can have a truck, car, SUV, or any combination (two cars, one truck;  truck, car and SUV;  three trucks, etc.).

Mine:

1.)  1984 Mercedes 300 D Geländewagen W460

With a towbar and a/c, that’s my go-to truck/SUV combination.

2.)  1962 Jaguar E-type 3.8 Fixed Head Coupé

‘Nuff said.  And for a luxury, effortless drive:

3.)  1975 Mercedes 350SE W116

All day, baby.

Your choices (with reasons, if wanted) in Comments.

Oh, Why Not?

Business, Men & Women

Executive Summary:  Single mother of four young kids has two jobs (barmaid and elder-care worker), but can’t keep her head above water financially.  Then she quits both, starts her own work-from-home business, and makes literally thousands per week.

Here’s the story.  I have no problem with this, but no doubt somebody will.

This is the lady in question:

This kinda follows on from my long-ago post about changing my position on prostitution.  If all she has are those outstanding attributes, and guys are willing to pay to look at them, then why not?

I just hope that she’s putting money away for the future, because as fine as those attributes are, they are very much a depreciating asset.

Kein Zweiter Änderungsantrag

Mocking Furriners, The Gun Thing

…which means that the Krauts don’t have a Second Amendment, as witnessed by this sad tale:

Granted, there’s a law in Germanland called the “War Weapons Control Act” which says you can’t own, for example, a Pzkw Mark V (Panther) — I assume it means a working tank;   otherwise, it’s nothing more than a museum piece…

…which old Klaus-Dieter’s clearly is.

And in any event, the old buzzard is eighty-four years old;  he’s hardly likely to launch a blitzkrieg on the local municipal offices, is he?

On the other hand:  70 assault rifles?  That’s impressive, even by Texas standards, although the alleged ammo stash (2,000 rounds) is woefully inadequate — assuming they’re the Stg-44’s 7.62x33mm Kurz cartridges, that’s less than one 30-round magazine per gun.

Also not enough to launch a decent assault on the local Ampt.

Now, the anti-tank “cannon” (seriously?) — even if it’s the teeny Pak 36 with its 37mm gun — would be kinda fun to take up to Boomershoot or to use in times of, shall we say, civic fun and games.  Had it been the fearsome 88mm KwK 36…well, now we’d be talking turkey.  But unlike the Pak 36, you can’t tow it behind your Ram — it’s way too heavy, even for the 5.7-liter engine.

But whatever the actual gun, there’s no mention of any ammo for the thing, which makes it all the more ridiculous that Klaus-Dieter’s been fined a quarter-million euros for owning it and the other decommissioned items.

Final note:  he kept it all in his basement.  Some basement.

And I’d love to get my hands on one of those Stg-44s, assuming they haven’t been wrecked.