DescentBB

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 6:28 pm**

A person walking through the woods comes across this little wild baby animal crying no other creature is around. Feeling sorry for the creature the person picks it up and takes it home. The person cares for this animal until they feel it's old enough to take care of it's self and sets it free where they found it. What happens to that creature? Well not being taught how to take care of it's self the creature dies.

So now put this in human terms. Handing things to people without teaching them how to take care of themselves you will get the same results. How many people now days know how to grow a garden to feed themselves? How many people know how to raise a animal and kill it and dress it for consumption? How many people know how to can the food they grow for a winter when food doesn't grow? If the government ever falls the poor will be in very poor shape.

Helping the poor is a good thing? Doing every thing for the poor is a very bad thing.

I'm open for attacks now.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:07 pm**

I think the current administration would prefer we are all reduced to the same (read:equally fucked) level of dependency on government and they could rule from their royal perch to make sure we are at least productive enough to keep fueling their private jets and expense accounts. It's the least we can do to repay them for their providing our path to those woods you talk about where they set us \"free\"....

When the representatives of the free citizens are exempt from the laws they create and enforce then the citizens are not free and they are not representatives.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:00 pm**

But, the new survival technique is playing the system.

New world, new skill sets.

Maybe, I should take those subsidies…hummm

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:43 pm**

Insurrectionist wrote:How many people now days know how to grow a garden to feed themselves? How many people know how to raise a animal and kill it and dress it for consumption? How many people know how to can the food they grow for a winter when food doesn't grow?

Me.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:47 pm**

Congratulations for understanding what it means to be a US conservative.

However, weaning the dependent would cause economic problems. Also, some do take advantage of the system, but many actually need the support.
If you want a simple solution: Make higher education required for those who lack the skills needed for the modern job market. Important part: Many will fail so allow them to continue even after failing repeatedly.

I feel like I'm a bit younger than most here and probably less educated. I'm sure I'm less intelligent. So the thing I don't get is, how does being conservative keep you from arriving at the correct solution on these issues? It amazes me.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:53 pm**

Insurrectionist wrote:So now put this in human terms. Handing things to people without teaching them how to take care of themselves you will get the same results. How many people now days know how to grow a garden to feed themselves? How many people know how to raise a animal and kill it and dress it for consumption? How many people know how to can the food they grow for a winter when food doesn't grow? If the government ever falls the poor will be in very poor shape.

We evolved a little thing called "civilization" which allows us to exchange money for goods and services like these. It's a cool concept; you should try it sometime.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:55 pm**

Yea, why don’t we just mandate everything…you liberals are just such freedom loving people, sex, drugs, rock & roll, and mandatory tertiary education for all….weeeeeeee

Somebody kill me please.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:59 pm**

Yes, let's not try to connect one problem to the other, or anything.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:04 pm**

See you missed the point…there are better ways to do things than to just mandate something.

You made a comment about conservatives, let me ask you…are there ever solutions that “don’t” involve the government?

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:08 pm**

Just tell people to go make money after their care is taken away?

Spidey wrote:You made a comment about conservatives, let me ask you…are there ever solutions that “don’t” involve the government?

Yes, but not this issue. Education will solve most of our problems and allow capitalism to take over in the long run. Another words, why give support to the poor if they stay that way? We shouldn't. Give support that promotes a better life for a more active economy.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:19 pm**

Helping the poor is a good thing? Doing every thing for the poor is a very bad thing.

Exactly. I'm for welfare, I am against unlimited welfare.

Doing everything for the poor is just as bad as doing nothing. Going to your \"baby animal\" analogy, if I have to chose between the two evils, I'd say its better that the animal got to live, then to have been left to die.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:30 pm**

While I certainly understand the importance of education, it’s not the most important factor in a good economy. I would have to place motivation above education, along with a healthy environment for “capitalism” to thrive.

I have a formal education, but I chose to build a business outside of my primary education skills.

What this country needs is more “tough love” if you asked me.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:50 pm**

a group of Generalists are less productive than a group of Specialists. Together, a group of specialists gets more done than a group of generalists. Individuals concentrating their efforts on singular subjects - will excel in those subjects better than anyone else, and thus if the collective time is pooled, then collectively that society has more time freed up to do other things.

Caveman example:
If i spent 4 hours a day collecting food for myself, and 2 hours a day cleaning my home. (total 6 hours spent)
But my friend spent 2 hours a day collecting food for herself, and 4 hours a day cleaning her home. (total 6 hours spent)
And we've both done the same quality job, we just take different amounts of time to do it, we're worse at some things and better at others. Together we've collectively spent 12 hours collecting enough food for 2 people and cleaning 2 homes.
Our time would be used more effectively if i cleaned both my and her home, taking 4 hours total. And she collected food for herself and myself, also taking 4 hours total. This way we would have collectively spent only 8 hours, but have still fed 2 people and cleaned 2 homes. Specialisation has just saved us both 2 hours each that we will now use to do other things. Maybe we'll use the time to experiment with written language.

The problem i see is that OP seems to be implying that rural people are not specialists. This is incorrect, in general they are specialist food producers (farmers). And they are reliant on other Specialists to do things they need like: make their farm equipment, collect and disseminate farming knowledge and practice (ie: the education system), make their guns, create and apply medicines and medical procedures, research and create infrastructure required to communicate with the surrounding society, etcetc.
The farmer does not need to know howto do all of these things. However if he did try to spend time gaining and maintaining this knowledge - he likely wouldn't have as much time to produce food, he would have lowered production.

If the farmer had to make his own guns, most farmers would have terrible quality guns. And if that tribe is ever attacked by a neighbouring tribe (who specialise and thus have much better quality guns), the tribe of generalists will be whiped out by the tribe of specialists. This form of natural selection (on a tribal vs tribe scale) is one reason that most people around today are specialists - societies of generalists are lame ducks that get whiped out coz they suck at everything.

OP, if the amount of available farming land on Earth was infinite then you would have a point - but that's not the case. We have limited resources (eg: limited farming land), and thus we trust farming specialists to make the best and most efficient use of their respective resource (farming land).

Through increasingly more productive and effective technology, production increases more and more and requires less and less resources and manpower. We will eventually approach a utopia level when our technology provides everyone with all the material possessions and materials they want/need, for practically zero cost.
This type of society is referred to as \"post-scarcity\". As scarcity of materials and resources decreases (or just decreased need for those resources), money becomes increasingly meaningless, until it is no longer required at all.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:59 pm**

Very nice post, roid.

Spidey wrote:While I certainly understand the importance of education, it’s not the most important factor in a good economy. I would have to place motivation above education, along with a healthy environment for “capitalism” to thrive.

I have a formal education, but I chose to build a business outside of my primary education skills.

What this country needs is more “tough love” if you asked me.

Sorry. I didn't mean to make it sound like it was the most important. And I have to agree with you that, your education subject might not reflect what jobs you get. But I don't think you're a fair comparison with the people we're talking about. What I mean is, if you lost everything today and had to start over you'd have a plan to fix your situation. How do you do that for millions of people who don't know how the world works?

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:17 pm**

A good solution to that would be to have a lot of low skill jobs available in the marketplace, and therefore provide a place to start over again.

Not to say that you should have all low skill jobs, but they do serve a good purpose for young people and those who have to start over, and many people who just don’t have what it takes to do any better.

And, I would never want to under value education, it’s very important, and should be available to everyone. (just not mandated)

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:29 pm**

\"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.\" -Terry Pratchett

Seriously though. Roid has a point, that civilization evolves around specialization. But I think that is missing two important factors of the issue.

First: Insurrectionist's post wasn't so much about rural vs industrial as it was about teaching vs supporting. Give someone cash and they become your slave because they are dependent upon your continuing welfare. Give someone an education in how to earn a living and they have a chance of being independent.

Note I said \"how to earn a living\" not \"a specific trade\". There is a difference. Education in a specific trade is good, but a person must also know how to move on if that trade dries up.

Second: The current state of our specialization frightens me. We have become SO specialized that our system is very fragile. Knock out our infrastructure, and no one has the skills needed to rebuild it. Even a large group of people would have a difficult time. Mechanics no longer know how to repair the vehicles they work on without help from special computers. Doctors don't know how to compound their own medicine, but are very dependent upon drugs produced by very expensive and complicated machinery. Most people in manufacturing would be at a complete loss if their machines broke down. Even farmers are vulnerable. A large percentage would be helpless without chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And the seeds they plant are hybridized. You can't save them for next years crop because they don't breed true.

I love high tech, and I love the advantages of civilization. But it's a house of cards. If a major meteor had hit the earth in the late 1800's, the survivors would have had the knowledge and skill to rebuild back to their previous technology level pretty quickly. But today, we'd be back to throwing rocks and we'd probably stay there for a long time.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:54 pm**

Maybe…but I think as soon as you were able to restore electricity, things would recover quickly.

We may be specialized, but there is not one job in my business that I can’t do, and my skill sets go way beyond that. Just because we choose to do only one or two things to earn a living, doesn’t mean we can’t do a lot of things….

I would give you a list of my skills, but you would think I was bragging. And I believe that many people also have many skills, or like the OP says…they should.

Posted: **Wed Mar 31, 2010 11:23 pm**

Roid your caveman example kind of falls apart when you consider a person with food will survive in a dirty cave where a clean cave can't feed it's inhabitant.

So the natural tendency is for the food gatherer to hire the cave cleaner for a fraction of the food he gathers, not share it equally since food has more value than cleaning labor.

Then the cave cleaner becomes unhappy with his meager existence compared to the gatherers well stocked AND clean cave and the leader of the tribe takes advantage of the cleaners feelings, introduces the concept of \"fairness\" to the cleaners and offers to confiscate food from the gatherers and give it to the cleaners in return for their supporting him as chief...and of course he'll need to keep a large percentage of the food for himself...and require free cleaning labor for life....and exemption from the laws he creates. The cleaners don't care that the chief is taking advantage and making himself King because they want to get even with the more talented gatherers because it isn't fair to be a cleaner.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:19 am**

Gooberman wrote:
Helping the poor is a good thing? Doing every thing for the poor is a very bad thing.

Exactly. I'm for welfare, I am against unlimited welfare.

Doing everything for the poor is just as bad as doing nothing. Going to your "baby animal" analogy, if I have to chose between the two evils, I'd say its better that the animal got to live, then to have been left to die.

i'm actually on welfare right now. yup, lost my job because the employer shut down shop due to low sales and high lease rates (the highest rates in town). thanks to this wonderful economy that resulted due to the bankers partying like there was no tomorrow.

Here, they provide a leisure pass, food vouchers, emergency supplements and bus tickets. But on the flipside they also give you the means to take education PROVIDED that the market you're aiming for is creating jobs or has more openings than workers. They also request that you keep a log of the search you have conducted otherwise the funds are cut off.

So, if done right, welfare can be a benefit to the poor and a hell of a motivator to get yourself into a better position than you're in at that point in time.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 4:44 am**

Ferno wrote:So, if done right, welfare can be a benefit to the poor and a hell of a motivator to get yourself into a better position than you're in at that point in time.

I agree with this one hundred percent but some have been working the system to the point of collapsing the system. As roid points out there is skill sets out there and one of them is how to work the system. If the system isn't around to work what happens then? People don't think our civilizations will not collapse but take a look at the ancient Maya, Mesopotamia, the Anasazi, and the medieval African empires of Mali and Songhai they collapsed.

Historians have offered various explanations for the fall of the Angkor civilization that stretched across much of Southeast Asia between the 9th and 14th centuries. But the scientists said their new findings offer the strongest evidence yet that two severe droughts, punctuated by bouts of heavy rainfall, may have weakened the empire by shrinking water supplies for drinking and agriculture, and damaging Angkor's vast irrigation system, which was central to its economy.

"Angkor at that time faced a number of problems -- social, political and cultural," Buckley said. "Environmental change pushed the ancient Khmers to the limit and they weren't able to adapt. I wouldn't say climate caused the collapse, but a 30-year drought had to have had an impact."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/03 ... 270057898/

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:56 am**

roid wrote:OP, if the amount of available farming land on Earth was infinite then you would have a point - but that's not the case. We have limited resources (eg: limited farming land), and thus we trust farming specialists to make the best and most efficient use of their respective resource (farming land).

You mean like the government paying farmers not to grow crops to bolster commodity prices? Instead of growing as much as you can so prices will be lower there for helping the poor afford food is that what you meant? Less crops grown causes the price for meat to go up because it cost more to feed the animals.

Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.

Some of them collect hundreds of thousands of dollars without planting a seed. Mary Anna Hudson, 87, from the River Oaks neighborhood in Houston, has received $191,000 over the past decade. For Houston surgeon Jimmy Frank Howell, the total was $490,709.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00962.html

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:32 am**

Benjamin Franklin wrote:I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:43 am**

When the system crashes Montana'll be alright. Thus the forums sees the full circle of my insane desire for my state to leave the union. All of you in cities with no real applications'll probably make it a few weeks.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:46 am**

Spidey wrote:I think as soon as you were able to restore electricity, things would recover quickly.

Depends on how quickly you could get it back up. If it takes to long, chaos takes over.
For example, lets take a somewhat crazy but not entirely impossible scenario. Suppose Iran, instead of trying to build an atomic weapon, pushes for a peaceful space program. One day the send up several large launches, but instead of being what we thought they were, they are a "Thor" style space weapon. This is basically a big bundle of smart crowbars in orbit. Send the signal and the crowbars fall, with great precision, each impact having the force of a good sized bomb.

There are not that many power plants in the US. Iran gets the gps coordinate for each, and drops a few crowbars on each and every one. A few hours later, the nation is without power. Almost every single power plant needs to be rebuilt. The question is, without the infrastructure that is supported by the power plants, can we get a new power grid in place before the country descends into anarchy?

Yeah, it's a crazy scenario, but I think it is an illustration of a very real problem. We are very VERY dependent upon a huge infrastructure that is pretty fragile. Moving to a system where every home had their own small power plant would be MUCH less vulnerable.

Spidey wrote:there is not one job in my business that I can’t do

That is GOOD! But rare. I'm a computer programmer. I know quite a few different languages and environments, and I pick up new programming languages quickly. BUT, I'm lousy with hardware, I'm weak on networking, and there are countless things being done by people sitting right next to me that I don't understand, and I simply don't have the time to learn. Trying to learn EVERYTHING about computers is impossible, one person can't do it. At least not with a brain my size.

I think the same is true of a LOT of jobs now. People who run machines rarely understand how the machine actually works, and certainly don't have the skills to build them. Most people who live in cities are utterly dependent upon the network for basic survival. They have NO access to food or power without the infrastructure working.

I love technology and civilization, but it IS vulnerable.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:38 pm**

Google makes a genius out of everybody.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 2:47 pm**

*SilverFJ wrote:When the system crashes Montana'll be alright. Thus the forums sees the full circle of my insane desire for my state to leave the union. All of you in cities with no real applications'll probably make it a few weeks.

I'm glad the 17th century is working out so well for you. The rest of us are quite happy in the 21st.

As for the general theme of this thread...does it really matter? I don't see any real purpose in fretting about humankind's reliance on technology, as that's an unavoidable consequence of progressing as a society. Sure, maybe some out-of-left-field catastrophe pops up tomorrow and sends us all back to the Stone Age, but if there's nothing we can do about it anyway, why bother worrying? Live for today, enjoy the wonder that is the Internets, and worry about issues of actual consequence, like what's for dinner tonight.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 3:59 pm**

Kilarin, every home having its own power generator is a great hedge against the apocalypse…but the loss of economy of scale, would have a profound affect on the environment and the price you pay for that power.

Now, if you are talking about “Mr. Fusion”….

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:15 pm**

Ferno wrote: I'm actually on welfare right now. yup, lost my job because the employer shut down shop due to low sales and high lease rates (the highest rates in town). thanks to this wonderful economy that resulted due to the bankers partying like there was no tomorrow.

Here, they provide a leisure pass, food vouchers, emergency supplements and bus tickets. But on the flipside they also give you the means to take education PROVIDED that the market you're aiming for is creating jobs or has more openings than workers. They also request that you keep a log of the search you have conducted otherwise the funds are cut off.

So, if done right, welfare can be a benefit to the poor and a hell of a motivator to get yourself into a better position than you're in at that point in time.

i'm actually on welfare right now. yup, lost my job because the employer shut down shop due to low sales and high lease rates (the highest rates in town). thanks to this wonderful economy that resulted due to the bankers partying like there was no tomorrow.

Here, they provide a leisure pass, food vouchers, emergency supplements and bus tickets. But on the flipside they also give you the means to take education PROVIDED that the market you're aiming for is creating jobs or has more openings than workers. They also request that you keep a log of the search you have conducted otherwise the funds are cut off.

So, if done right, welfare can be a benefit to the poor and a hell of a motivator to get yourself into a better position than you're in at that point in time.[/quote]

Well put Ferno. Sorry to hear you're in a bind. It's never fun. Years ago my wife and I were on food stamps and when we were able to get off them we called up and asked them to cancel our account. They were like.."What? no one has ever asked to do that." They were glad to hear it, they were just in a bit of shock.

welfare was originally intended to be just what you described: a stop-gap emergency measure; not the economic draining I.V. that it's become.

Posted: **Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:14 pm**

Spidey wrote:Now, if you are talking about “Mr. Fusion”….

Wind generators are still a bit pricey, but coming down. Solar efficiency is really improving by leaps and bounds. If some of the recent advances in solar pan out, we could soon be putting solar shingles on our houses.

Solar and wind wouldn't replace the grid, but they would strengthen it, and reduce our dependence upon it. If the grid goes down, you would still have independent power occasionally. You can do a lot with occasional power.

BUT, really, what I find an inspiring possibility is the Bloom Box

It's a very promising technology because we know its not vapor ware. There are bloom boxes in USE. We just don't know if they can really scale down the costs the way they are projecting. If they COULD scale it down, then a $3,000 dollar generator and a propane tank could power your house. In a bind, any source of hydrogen (including methane) would be able to power the bloom box. VERY promising.

Top Gun wrote: I don't see any real purpose in fretting about humankind's reliance on technology, as that's an unavoidable consequence of progressing as a society. Sure, maybe some out-of-left-field catastrophe pops up tomorrow and sends us all back to the Stone Age, but if there's nothing we can do about it anyway, why bother worrying?

It's just that I think there ARE things we could do about it. Break away from the grid. Produce more of our own food. Even in the city people could be producing some of their own food. <this> is a fascinating little experiment in window farms. It wouldn't feed the city, but just like solar panels, it would provide a LITTLE bit of independence for people. Improve the idea and take it a bit further and you might reach the point where people in the city could provide enough of their own food to make a difference if outside food sources were cut off for a while.

We don't have to give up technology to move away from a system where we are completely dependent upon the infrastructure and towards a system that has more Independence, and therefore more resilience.

And we don't have to give up high tech gadgets just to keep around the knowledge of lower level technology that is easier to understand and reproduce. Modern high pressure running water is great! But it's good to know how an Archimedes Screw or hydraulic ram works, because they are much easier to build.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:29 am**

Duper wrote:welfare was originally intended to be just what you described: a stop-gap emergency measure; not the economic draining I.V. that it's become.

Well if anyone needs ideas to fix the US welfare system, look no further than Canada.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:05 am**

Kilarin wrote:Second: The current state of our specialization frightens me. We have become SO specialized that our system is very fragile. Knock out our infrastructure, and no one has the skills needed to rebuild it. Even a large group of people would have a difficult time. Mechanics no longer know how to repair the vehicles they work on without help from special computers. Doctors don't know how to compound their own medicine, but are very dependent upon drugs produced by very expensive and complicated machinery. Most people in manufacturing would be at a complete loss if their machines broke down. Even farmers are vulnerable. A large percentage would be helpless without chemical fertilizers and pesticides. And the seeds they plant are hybridized. You can't save them for next years crop because they don't breed true.

I love high tech, and I love the advantages of civilization. But it's a house of cards. If a major meteor had hit the earth in the late 1800's, the survivors would have had the knowledge and skill to rebuild back to their previous technology level pretty quickly. But today, we'd be back to throwing rocks and we'd probably stay there for a long time.

This Second problem you mentioned, i think is more a problem of the corporatisation and privitisation of arenas that were previously public - such as information, and particularly Science.
Research gets done, and it no longer benefits mankind as a whole - instead it benefits companys. There are even anti-hacking laws in USA that blanketly state that it's illegal to try to crack codes (DMCA act i believe, or was it the patriot act), and by extension even modifying digital products is now legally questionable. Manufacturers seem to love locking users out of their products.

This problem also touches psychology (...or was it psychiatry?), where psychologists are hired to do research for individual advertising firms (marketing is basically just applied psychology). But they must sign NDAs, and any insights gained are just kept within the company, it is frightening as the insights gained are typically about howto manipulate minds.

I think the fictional TV Show FRINGE is dealing with this topic a fair bit - private companies un-altruistically hoarding knowledge, information and insight for themselves. To the detriment of humanity as a whole, who find themselves powerless on the new playing field.
It's just a TV show, but i point it out because pop art tends to be a window into the mind of the public and what people are concerned about.

At the end of the day there's no reason we can't interface our phones or laptops to the computers in our cars. Car computers use proprietary connectors, why not use USB? Coz if our needs change we're not ment to modify our car into something that better fits our needs, no we're supposed to buy another new car that fits our new needs.
We're only ment to open our mouths to change corporate nipples.
Bah i'm ranting.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:23 am**

re: power supplies
Maybe we can develop something like these mini reactors to use all that nuclear waste material no one wants buried in their state that way we create a bunch of independent grids and have a place to put the waste.

I'm no nuclear physicist but maybe something like removing the fuel rods from the big reactors a little earlier than usual so the \"waste\" can still power these mini reactors for a decent life span and once they are spent they are already in their 'coffins' to be dealt with.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:19 pm**

I'd rather do away with it.

it was meant to be temporary.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:02 pm**

Mechanics no longer know how to repair the vehicles they work on without help from special computers.

Not quite true Kil. Mechanics do have the skillset to repair most cars on the road, but modern day cars have automated diagnosis software that the mechanic can view and fix what the problem is right away. They can still troubleshoot without it, but it would take a lot longer to do so. Of course the tools required to do one facet of work on modern day cars are a lot more specialized, but other than that, you can still use your tools you bought from NAPA or Pep boys.

How do I know this? I've done it.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:11 pm**

Ummm...comp. don't replace water pumps, alternators or starters. Good Mech. use the diagnostic tools a comp. offers but they still have to know how to physically replace something.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:35 pm**

woodchip wrote:Ummm...comp. don't replace water pumps, alternators or starters. Good Mech. use the diagnostic tools a comp. offers but they still have to know how to physically replace something.

If the car isn't totaled then give me the spare parts, the tools necessary, the service/repair manual and I can fix any mechanical problem with your car regardless of when or where it was made. Just like your mechanic could. Physically replacing parts is seriously not that complicated.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:10 pm**

A Check Engine, SRS, TCM, ABS, PCM, or any other dashlight cannot be diagnosed WITHOUT the interface diagnostic computer. I do this for a living. if you want to R+R parts all day long in hopes of getting lucky and finding the problem have at it. it is time consuming and expensive. even IF you strike it lucky and find the part thats bad you CANNOT reset the module with out the interface.

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:49 pm**

Mechnerds 4tw

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:33 pm**

Hell Woody you cant even get a key cut for your new car with out a PGM to program it. key will turn but car no worky

Posted: **Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:33 pm**

Top Gun wrote:
*SilverFJ wrote:When the system crashes Montana'll be alright. Thus the forums sees the full circle of my insane desire for my state to leave the union. All of you in cities with no real applications'll probably make it a few weeks.
I'm glad the 17th century is working out so well for you. The rest of us are quite happy in the 21st.

Life's gunna suck with no bailers, hydrabeds, combines, hydraulic cattle chutes, electric field pivots, etc., but it won't take too long to convert over. But it would give a lot more guys work, I'll tell ya. Even down to the manure spreader, which would be replaced by a couple shovels in front of the plow.

Damn.

DescentBB

Over simplification

Over simplification

Re: Over simplification

Re: Over simplification

Re: Over simplification

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: