2007 Accord Features?

TeGGeR® wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
>
>>Herpster1966 wrote:
>>
>>>>But Chevy's NEED OnStar since they break down a lot more than Hondas.
>>>>:-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Any car would benefit from having OnStar. I went and added a roady
>>>xt, xm radio unit to my accord for a total instalation and product
>>>cost of 120.00. Thats a far cry from Hondas installed XM for 725.00.
>>>Thats another welcome addition that should be offered for a
>>>reasonable price. Other good additions would be the active head
>>>restraints, and stability control, maybe traction control offered on
>>>the 4 cyl models.
>>>
>>>Al
>>>
>>
>>holy carp, you should work for a detroit auto marketing consultancy.
>>or maybe you already do.
>>
>>onstar is expensive, intrusive and unnecessary. and have you ever
>>heard those onstar radio ads? sheesh, they're just criminal. a
>>company using such material would not be above paying trolls to
>>pollute usenet.
>>
>
>
>
>
> I know it's all well-intended and all, but I find it rather alarming that a
> car could "phone home" whenever it wants, tattling on you. I'd make a
> mention of Eric Arthur Blair's writings here, but I won't.
>
> You can, however, be 100% certain that GM would be 5,000 miles away from
> this stuff if they weren't being pushed towards it by government, tort, and
> the environut activists. When will Honda start doing this?
>
> I am so glad I have an ancient 1991 vehicle. Too bad the Ontario government
> is actively trying to push the old ones off the road. *******s.
>
i don't see an environut angle to this, but there sure are a lot of law
enforcement conveniences. ecu data retention is bad enough, but coupled
with gps? big brother indeed.

but that said, the /really/ crazy thing is getting you to pay /twice/
for all this stuff. onstar is basically a cell phone with a couple of
adornments. since i already have a cell phone, why do i need to pay for
a second one? because i lost my key? because i break down? because i
can't remember where i parked my car??? that's what aaa is for [and for
a /lot/ less money]. assuming non-senility that is.

and regarding law enforcement, it's already possible to track location
to within a couple of hundred meters on a non-gps cell phone, and worse,
it's already possible to give you a speeding ticket using your cell
phone too. it was tried in one of the scandanavian countries for a
while. norway or sweden? i forget which. unsurprisingly, it proved to
be very unpopular so it's been quietly disregarded, but imagine the
possibilities for enforcement zealots over here... i know there was a
scandanavian bank robber intercepted because he was seen using a cell
phone while robbing a bank. his call was id'd and he was tracked &
intercepted on the freeway. yes, he got a speeding ticket, iirc.

and just to take all this lunacy a step further, you could also issue
speeding tickets based on the time elapsed between gas station refills.
you know the distance between them and you know the time between
transactions... the french used to do something like this on toll roads
between toll booths. you had to take a ticket, and hand your ticket in
on the way out. if you arrived at the second toll station "too soon",
you'd be fined on the spot.

license plate readers on the freeway? that's being done in the uk. the
whole thing's all rather scary.

TeGGeR® wrote:
> You can, however, be 100% certain that GM would be 5,000 miles away from
> this stuff if they weren't being pushed towards it by government, tort, and
> the environut activists.

GM owns onstar. they want everyone to sign up for their silly "service".
they get paid when people do.

jim beam wrote:
> but that said, the /really/ crazy thing is getting you to pay /twice/
> for all this stuff. onstar is basically a cell phone with a couple of
> adornments. since i already have a cell phone, why do i need to pay for
> a second one? because i lost my key? because i break down? because i
> can't remember where i parked my car???

how hard would it be for an automaker to do some kinda bluetooth thing
with the SRS computer, so it sends a signal for your personal cellphone
to dial 911?

SoCalMike wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> but that said, the /really/ crazy thing is getting you to pay /twice/
>> for all this stuff. onstar is basically a cell phone with a couple of
>> adornments. since i already have a cell phone, why do i need to pay
>> for a second one? because i lost my key? because i break down?
>> because i can't remember where i parked my car???
>
>
> how hard would it be for an automaker to do some kinda bluetooth thing
> with the SRS computer, so it sends a signal for your personal cellphone
> to dial 911?

absolute piece of cake. as a consumer you'd pay through the nose of
course, but built-in, in quantity, it would be less than $10 a piece.

SoCalMike wrote:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
>> You can, however, be 100% certain that GM would be 5,000 miles away
>> from this stuff if they weren't being pushed towards it by government,
>> tort, and the environut activists.
>
>
> GM owns onstar. they want everyone to sign up for their silly "service".
> they get paid when people do.

which kinda makes me think of potential for lobbying dollars at work.
but that would never happen...

TeGGeR® wrote:

<snip>

> I know it's all well-intended and all, but I find it rather alarming that a
> car could "phone home" whenever it wants, tattling on you.

This is considered malware/spyware when it's on our computers. How can
we know all that's being sent and what about after a couple of software
updates?

jim beam wrote:

<snip>

> and just to take all this lunacy a step further, you could also issue
> speeding tickets based on the time elapsed between gas station refills.
> you know the distance between them and you know the time between
> transactions... the french used to do something like this on toll roads
> between toll booths. you had to take a ticket, and hand your ticket in
> on the way out. if you arrived at the second toll station "too soon",
> you'd be fined on the spot.

NJ used to do this on the Turnpike in the 50's-60's until someone
challenged it and the court told them to cease & desist. If you don't
have a 5th Amendment (against self incrimination), you're probably out
of luck.

Fot tech types, the NJTP used Univac computers at the time which used
the 90 column punched card with round holes. They disappeared decades
ago. Now EZPass is the way to go and it creates a record of every toll
you pay.

Seth wrote:

> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>>Herpster1966 wrote:
>>
>>>>The things you describe would not happen in 2007. 2008 at the earliest,
>>>>with the new model, maybe. Maybe. But Honda has some weird ideas about
>>>>the line between Honda and Acura models. In their minds, some things
>>>>are Acura only, period--and end up that way for a long, long time.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes I noticed that about Honda not wanting certain things to cross
>>>over, such as the HID lights which would be great. Toyota Prius offers
>>>them, but Honda Civic Hybrid doesn't, go figure??!
>>>
>>>I think Honda is almost there as far as having total safety, but things
>>>like Stability Control and Active Head Restraints and OnStar would be
>>>the icing on the cake.
>>>
>>>Al
>>>
>>
>>what does onstar offer that a cell phone can't?
>
>
> Automatically calls emergency services if the air bags deploy and they can't
> speak to you.

Too bad OnStar can't call the cops when your airbags are being stolen.

I've heard that HIDs are a high theft item because of their high cost.

Also, my 2004 Accord has very good headlights or maybe my old *&%@!!!
Intrepid's were so bad that anything looks good in comparison. Why would
you want HIDs anyway, or is it to just look cool and annoy the people in
front of and coming at you?


> wrote in message
ups.com...
> the HID lights which would be great. Toyota Prius offers
>> them, but Honda Civic Hybrid doesn't, go figure??!
>
>
> HID is not entirely reliable. If it were, then Honda Care's extended
> warranty would cover it (in Acuras). It doesn't.
>
> As much as an Acura owner would scream about a $900 HID light
> replacement, can you imagine how a CIvic/Accord owner would act?
>

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> TeGGeR® wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I know it's all well-intended and all, but I find it rather alarming
>> that a car could "phone home" whenever it wants, tattling on you.
>
>
> This is considered malware/spyware when it's on our computers. How can
> we know all that's being sent and what about after a couple of software
> updates?
>
and we have a winner folks! sparky gets the grand prize!