View Full Version : Now THIS is what I'd like to see in the future
Man, if anyone can help stimulate this movement, it's Bill Gates.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/toshiba-and-bill-gates-backed-terrapower-discussing-small-scale/
check out the video.
Homeland security will figure a way to make it illegal.
ronaldrwl
03-23-2010, 14:24
Would be nice
Homeland security will figure a way to make it illegal.
+1
looks like pretty cool technology though
Man, if anyone can help stimulate this movement, it's Bill Gates.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/23/toshiba-and-bill-gates-backed-terrapower-discussing-small-scale/
check out the video.
Best way,get him to run for President. He doesn't need the money.
Always wished Lee Iacocco kept running instead of bowing out.
I don't know that I want Gates for President. I just want him to throw his money around to influence the acceptance of something that I support. Call me selfish.
This presentation was from TED, I strongly recommend watching videos from there, they have some really neat stuff.
http://ted.com
All free!
Be even cooler if it had a concealed pocket.
Troublco
03-24-2010, 11:02
You could put a cabin ANYWHERE with one of these bad boys, and if you set it up with LED lights, you wouldn't have to worry about having lights for years.
Best way,get him to run for President. He doesn't need the money.
Always wished Lee Iacocco kept running instead of bowing out.
No I don't want him a president. or Warren Buffet. no thanks.
I wish they would develop a miniature nuclear reactor for cars and trucks. something that is surrounded with the strength of a black box from an airplane that could easily survive all crashes so there isn't a chance of nuclear waste.
but on the upper hand, if a aircraft carrier can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, what is to say you couldn't have a car that would be powered for 20+ years as well. then we could truly throw up a huge middle finger to the middle east and never buy gas again. (at least for cars)
Troublco
03-24-2010, 11:08
I wish they would develop a miniature nuclear reactor for cars and trucks. something that is surrounded with the strength of a black box from an airplane that could easily survive all crashes so there isn't a chance of nuclear waste.
but on the upper hand, if a aircraft carrier can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, what is to say you couldn't have a car that would be powered for 20+ years as well. then we could truly throw up a huge middle finger to the middle east and never buy gas again. (at least for cars)
I'd settle for someone figuring out how to make a fuel cell that uses water to generate hydrogen and oxygen and uses them to generate power. You could use one of those in lots of things, homes included.
My guess is that the oil companies will find a way to keep either from happening, if someone ever figured out how.
I'd settle for someone figuring out how to make a fuel cell that uses water to generate hydrogen and oxygen and uses them to generate power. You could use one of those in lots of things, homes included.
My guess is that the oil companies will find a way to keep either from happening, if someone ever figured out how.
I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.
you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.
I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.
Troublco
03-24-2010, 11:49
I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.
you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.
I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.
Remember that Honda CRx's that got 50 mpg? Those lasted about 2 years, and they disappeared.
I've heard a couple stories (not too many, oddly enough...) over the years about one or two individuals who came up with super-efficient carburetors and that sort of thing. Don't really know how much truth there is to them. At some point you get to where the energy required to operate the engine and put out the required power is dependent on the engine's efficiency. You can do things to increase that efficiency, like the power recovery turbines used on the R-3350 engines used on certain large WWII aircraft like the B-29 that used the otherwise wasted energy going out the tailpipe to physically put more power to the crankshaft. And of course turbochargers. But I have run across interesting technologies that were used at certain times that have almost completely disappeared, even most of the info on them.
For example, about 12 +/- years ago I found a reference to a "wood-gas generator" to enable a tractor to be able to run on the combustible gas from wood. I actually found the plans for it online after some digging. I printed them out, and have them somewhere. It was sort of a clunky looking device, but from what I found it worked. They used them to run tractors during WWII.
Don't hear about that sort of stuff, do you?
I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.
you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.
I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.
You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now. Keep mind that the standard for power output of a 4dr sedan about 5yrs ago became higher than that of the Corvette of only a couple generations ago. American's wanted bigger and faster and didn't care about price or fuel economy. So, now that we've grown accustomed to a certain level of performance lots of people have a hard time 'down grading' to save on fuel. Some don't. So, while the numbers have only increased ever so slightly they are doing so with much larger vehicles that make a lot more power so just looking at mpg isn't a fair assessment. My in-laws tout how their 4cyl Accord gets almost as good of fuel economy as our Hybrid Camry and saved them a couple grand but I don't have the heart to point out that that car doesn't have enough power to get out of it's own way. The Camry Hybrid gets 40mpg and runs circles around their Accord in acceleration too. That's the key here is to create vehicles that are still drivable AND increase fuel economy.
I know this doesn't lend to a conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it's supply v demand at it's root in action here. Manufacturer's designed and built what people bought... why would you waste money developing vehicles that the buying public isn't asking for with their buying dollar? Makes no sense if your objective is to profit. Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles. As more and more consumers downsize to smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles the drive for manufacturer's to compete in this arena will grow and cars will get better at what consumers demand. In the end the old adage 'follow the money' holds true.
I'd settle for someone figuring out how to make a fuel cell that uses water to generate hydrogen and oxygen and uses them to generate power. You could use one of those in lots of things, homes included.
Hydrolysis (splitting H2O into 2H + O) requires energy. A hydrogen fuel cell is the opposite of this process, it takes 2H as fuel and O from atmosphere and produces H2O + voltage.
So you aren't going to get a fuel cell that does both, it'd violate the laws of thermodynamics -- a perpetual motion machine, over-unity, whatever you want to call it.
What you can do is use a fuel cell as a power source that takes H as fuel, and use a mixture of Solar/Wind to produce hydrogen from tap water, and then feed it through the fuel cell on demand. The tricky bit is storing hydrogen, it's very small and will escape from many pressure vessels that hold larger molecules, like propane.
Remember that Honda CRx's that got 50 mpg? Those lasted about 2 years, and they disappeared.
I've heard a couple stories (not too many, oddly enough...) over the years about one or two individuals who came up with super-efficient carburetors and that sort of thing. Don't really know how much truth there is to them. At some point you get to where the energy required to operate the engine and put out the required power is dependent on the engine's efficiency. But I have run across interesting technologies that were used at certain times that have almost completely disappeared, even most of the info on them.
For example, about 12 +/- years ago I found a reference to a "wood-gas generator" to enable a tractor to be able to run on the combustible gas from wood. I actually found the plans for it online after some digging. I printed them out, and have them somewhere. It was sort of a clunky looking device, but from what I found it worked. They used them to run tractors during WWII.
Don't hear about that sort of stuff, do you?
Even if that worked the problems that would arise from all internal combustion engines burning trees to gain power would be substantially worse than what we face now.
The CRX stopped production because they weren't selling enough to be profitable anymore. Car manufactures don't just stop building cars that sell to quell some sort of better technology. Their primary objective is to build vehicles that sell at a profit... the more the better. Supply and demand determines this and each and every one of us has a say based on what we buy. If you think there should be more fuel efficient vehicles then stop buying 4x4 trucks and SUVs for driving around cities. Cracks me up when people think they need huge trucks and don't own a trailer to pull, haul nothing and live in a paved jungle. I know people who NEED trucks and actually use them for what they were designed for and to the it's a must... not a fashion statement.
ronaldrwl
03-24-2010, 11:55
One reason MPG hasn't gotten much better is Emissions Control (power sucking) and Safety Regulations (more weight).
Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles.
You, of all people, know that vehicles aren't very likely to get much lighter.
You, of all people, know that vehicles aren't very likely to get much lighter.
They can, will and are getting lighter as the consumers demand a more fuel efficient car since it's hard to sell vehicles to Americans with less power now that they've grown to be accustomed to the current levels of power. The technology to make vehicles substantially lighter are available, just not made at an affordable price. Look at exotic vehicles to see where exotic materials are made to lighten vehicles significantly. Vehicles can, and are, getting lighter either through use if different materials or manufacturers are making smaller vehicles using the same materials. Like most things, innovation is expensive at first.
Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.
Troublco
03-24-2010, 12:22
Even if that worked the problems that would arise from all internal combustion engines burning trees to gain power would be substantially worse than what we face now.
The CRX stopped production because they weren't selling enough to be profitable anymore. Car manufactures don't just stop building cars that sell to quell some sort of better technology. Their primary objective is to build vehicles that sell at a profit... the more the better. Supply and demand determines this and each and every one of us has a say based on what we buy. If you think there should be more fuel efficient vehicles then stop buying 4x4 trucks and SUVs for driving around cities. Cracks me up when people think they need huge trucks and don't own a trailer to pull, haul nothing and live in a paved jungle. I know people who NEED trucks and actually use them for what they were designed for and to the it's a must... not a fashion statement.
Actually, if I remember correctly to make the car that fuel efficient they had to make it very light, so it wasn't meeting safety standards at some point. Otherwise, car manufacturers make what sells. Period.
And I wasn't trying to say that everyone should rush out and make their vehicles run on wood. Those that are really concerned about it buy a Toyota Yaris, or something similar. Everyone else buys what they want, or what they can afford.
Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.
I don't agree that safety regulations are a bit strict at times but the idea that eliminating seat belts, air bags and ABS modules for the idea of shaving weight to get better MPG is a good move is debatable.
ronaldrwl
03-24-2010, 12:41
I don't agree that safety regulations are a bit strict at times but the idea that eliminating seat belts, air bags and ABS modules for the idea of shaving weight to get better MPG is a good move is debatable.
Side impact, crash regulations, they're good but makes it hard to have both good MPG and total safety
You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now. Keep mind that the standard for power output of a 4dr sedan about 5yrs ago became higher than that of the Corvette of only a couple generations ago. American's wanted bigger and faster and didn't care about price or fuel economy. So, now that we've grown accustomed to a certain level of performance lots of people have a hard time 'down grading' to save on fuel. Some don't. So, while the numbers have only increased ever so slightly they are doing so with much larger vehicles that make a lot more power so just looking at mpg isn't a fair assessment. My in-laws tout how their 4cyl Accord gets almost as good of fuel economy as our Hybrid Camry and saved them a couple grand but I don't have the heart to point out that that car doesn't have enough power to get out of it's own way. The Camry Hybrid gets 40mpg and runs circles around their Accord in acceleration too. That's the key here is to create vehicles that are still drivable AND increase fuel economy.
I know this doesn't lend to a conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it's supply v demand at it's root in action here. Manufacturer's designed and built what people bought... why would you waste money developing vehicles that the buying public isn't asking for with their buying dollar? Makes no sense if your objective is to profit. Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles. As more and more consumers downsize to smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles the drive for manufacturer's to compete in this arena will grow and cars will get better at what consumers demand. In the end the old adage 'follow the money' holds true.
please don't assume that I fail to grasp anything as that isn't the case.
Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.
not sure i can agree with this one as there are already enough injuries and death related to car accidents...I know you can't save everyone or fix anything but reducing the safety regulations isn't the answer IMO.
But, I say that a law requiring a driver to wear a seatbelt is bullshit. if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt that is their own choice and they are not hurting anyone else if they don't wear it.
One of my good friends dad has been saved both ways. He would have died in one accident had he been wearing his seatbelt (in a semi), and he rolled his truck last year and probably would have died or had severe brain damage if he had not been wearing his seatbelt. he just got lucky he picked the right times.
It was a comment to address why the CRX HF got such good gas mileage and Civics now can't match it. The CRX HF weighed like 1,800lbs. Civics now weigh nearly twice as much.
please don't assume that I fail to grasp anything as that isn't the case.
Your statement was absolute and devoid of the facts I mentioned. I'm only operated based on the things you say here.
If I get a car much smaller, lighter, etc... I won't fit in it!
If I get a car much smaller, lighter, etc... I won't fit in it!
I downsized and while at first it seemed like a tight fit I found that it's not as bad as I first thought. I'm a decent size fella and I don't 'need' an SUV as transportation to get from place to place.
GreenScoutII
03-24-2010, 13:15
No I don't want him a president. or Warren Buffet. no thanks.
Amen!
GreenScoutII
03-24-2010, 13:16
I wish they would develop a miniature nuclear reactor for cars and trucks. something that is surrounded with the strength of a black box from an airplane that could easily survive all crashes so there isn't a chance of nuclear waste.
but on the upper hand, if a aircraft carrier can be powered for 20 years by a reactor, what is to say you couldn't have a car that would be powered for 20+ years as well. then we could truly throw up a huge middle finger to the middle east and never buy gas again. (at least for cars)
And amen again...[Beer]
Your statement was absolute and devoid of the facts I mentioned. I'm only operated based on the things you say here.
I also own a new truck so I KNOW the amount of extra power they produce. I did mention that other factors were in there such as weight, emissions and safety etc.
to say I fail to grasp a concept is a very bold statement.
either way, no need to be condescending to someone on here. I expect a little respect
either way, no need to be condescending...
I wasn't condescending at all. If that's how you read it then that's how you read it but no reason to lash out at me for a factual and non emotional reply.
I don't like that he's pushing "cap and tax" or that he's refering to Al Gore than someone other than a fraud.
I wasn't condescending at all. If that's how you read it then that's how you read it but no reason to lash out at me for a factual and non emotional reply.
When you say something like this:
You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now.
that is condescending.
either way, no feelings hurt, just no need to talk down to someone, even if it is on the internet.
I don't like that he's pushing "cap and tax" or that he's refering to Al Gore than someone other than a fraud.
Al Gore should be kicked out of the country for spouting soo much bullshit.
I also own a new truck so I KNOW the amount of extra power they produce. I did mention that other factors were in there such as weight, emissions and safety etc.
to say I fail to grasp a concept is a very bold statement.
either way, no need to be condescending to someone on here. I expect a little respect
Now you've edited your post to include some new information since I've posted to your unedited post so I will address the new items you have added.
For starters, it's not me but YOU who is trying to stir a pot that isn't even there. I was pretty sure we were having an adult conversation so I spoke factually and directly w/o any emotion. I wasn't aware we were in some sort of Internet battle when I made the post that you are referring to. You CHOSE to take offense to what I said and read into words that weren't even there. Several times now you have said that I stated you didn't grasp something... at what point did I say you 'failed to grasp a concept' aside from this post? Please don't put words into my mouth to spur some sort of childish Internet battle because you have low self esteem and chose to find offense to anything that I have stated. I don't think anyone else read what I typed as malicious or directed towards you in a negative matter the required some sort of retaliation to save face.
You are taking this thread WAY off topic for no reason what-so-ever.
When you say something like this:
that is condescending.
either way, no feelings hurt, just no need to talk down to someone, even if it is on the internet.
Talking down? At no point in your statement did you even mention one of the single most important factors that affects fuel economy. You made assumptions about the fuel economy not changing at all and I brought up a factor that you failed to mention which is the driving factor behind the continued rate of fuel consumption. I factually brought up that point and you take offense now? What the hell is your problem? I've tried to be polite but now allow me to say something that maybe you can understand: If you were offended or if I hurt your feelings then you need to grow up and be an adult. You CHOSE to take offense and read between the lines so that's on you. To continue to drive this thread off topic is all you...
Now you've edited your post to include some new information since I've posted to your unedited post so I will address the new items you have added.
For starters, it's not me but YOU who is trying to stir a pot that isn't even there. I was pretty sure we were having an adult conversation so I spoke factually and directly w/o any emotion. I wasn't aware we were in some sort of Internet battle when I made the post that you are referring to. You CHOSE to take offense to what I said and read into words that weren't even there. Several times now you have said that I stated you didn't grasp something... at what point did I say you 'failed to grasp a concept' aside from this post? Please don't put words into my mouth to spur some sort of childish Internet battle because you have low self esteem and chose to find offense to anything that I have stated. I don't think anyone else read what I typed as malicious or directed towards you in a negative matter the required some sort of retaliation to save face.
You are taking this thread WAY off topic for no reason what-so-ever.
be careful what you say...I have not edited my original post. go compare it to the one you initially quoted. maybe you looked over a few of the points I made.
YOU pointed my out directly by saying that I, like most people FAIL at understanding a concept. that is a direct accusation, your words and were not put into your mouth by myself.
If you would read a few posts up I said "no feelings hurt". you should have left it at that instead of making yourself look like a fool attacking someone on the internet.
now you again attack saying I have a low self esteem...please tell my how I have in any way said anything that would lead anyone to believe that. please take your malicious comments and shove them up your ass.
I simple said do not be condescending...you do know what that word means correct?
here is the definition: Assuming a tone of superiority or a patronizing attitude
when you call someone out directly and they they fail to grasp something I surely hope you have something to back it up.
"fool" now comes to mind when I see something you type out.
Talking down? At no point in your statement did you even mention one of the single most important factors that affects fuel economy. You made assumptions about the fuel economy not changing at all and I brought up a factor that you failed to mention which is the driving factor behind the continued rate of fuel consumption. I factually brought up that point and you take offense now? What the hell is your problem? I've tried to be polite but now allow me to say something that maybe you can understand: If you were offended or if I hurt your feelings then you need to grow up and be an adult. You CHOSE to take offense and read between the lines so that's on you. To continue to drive this thread off topic is all you...
polite? you have FAILED at being polite. I said no feelings hurt and that there was no point at being condescending to someone on here...especially on here, and especially to someone that has been here as long as I have.
So please, take a minute, get yourself a new tampon and come back when you can not lash out at someone.
It snows a few inches for a few hours and this is the bickering the site is reduced to?
I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.
you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.
I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.
you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.
I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.
------------------------------------------------
I am sure the technology is out there or at least close.
you honestly can't tell me that cars have not been able to truly increase gas mileage over the past 40 years...VW diesel bugs still get just as good of gas mileage as the new Jetta TDI.
I know more factors go into it such as emissions and weight and size of the vehicle but still. A truck from the 80's can still get damn near the same MPG as a new truck today.
You would think by now all cars would be getting in the 30+ range and trucks that got under 20 MPG would be few and far between.
I think a lot of it has to do with the oil companies paying the manufacturers or buying into them to keep MPG down so the oil companies make more money. Pretty simple concept: you sell 1 vehicle to a person on average every 7 years, but you sell them 2000 gallons of gas in that same time with a lot higher profit margin.
__________________________________________________ __
JER...the first one is my original post, the second is where toubleco quoted me and the third is where you quoted me.
you say I edited my post after you said I failed. read all three again and tell me where that was.
your failure to read everything and then attacking me was uncalled for.
you can apologize now.
It snows a few inches for a few hours and this is the bickering the site is reduced to?
No, I tried to let it go, I said no feelings hurt even after being attacked, said my piece then he calls me out, calls me a liar and continues down a poor path.
I patiently wait an apology since he was dead WRONG.
be careful what you say...I have not edited my original post. go compare it to the one you initially quoted. maybe you looked over a few of the points I made.
YOU pointed my out directly by saying that I, like most people FAIL at understanding a concept. that is a direct accusation, your words and were not put into your mouth by myself.
If you would read a few posts up I said "no feelings hurt". you should have left it at that instead of making yourself look like a fool attacking someone on the internet.
now you again attack saying I have a low self esteem...please tell my how I have in any way said anything that would lead anyone to believe that. please take your malicious comments and shove them up your ass.
I simple said do not be condescending...you do know what that word means correct?
here is the definition: Assuming a tone of superiority or a patronizing attitude
when you call someone out directly and they they fail to grasp something I surely hope you have something to back it up.
"fool" now comes to mind when I see something you type out.
Holy crap.. here we go with even more made up information. The post you edited was the one I quoted. You can clearly see the original reply which I quoted and then you edited that reply and I quoted it again. It's plain as day to see what I'm talking about. I didn't once accuse you of editing another post to change you statements. You added information to the post I quoted and I even noted that you added info and quoted it again to address what you added. Ugh.
I never said you fail at understanding anything. You did agree fail to NOTE it though... didn't you? Of course you did because you didn't mention it once. How in the hell was I attacking you? I pointed out that you failed to note it. Wow.... SO offensive, right?
Now you try to put the definition of a word when it's clear to anyone with a 5th grade reading comprehension that it is YOU who has a hard time understanding what words are typed which started this all anyway.
Accusing someone of something and saying to leave it alone in the same breath is passive aggressive and will most certainly NOT serve to dissolve a situation. But you knew all that right?
Seriously, grow up. Even if I was personally attacking you (which is apparent to anyone else who's reading this that I wasn't) you need to not be such a pansy and take offense to all that is said and feel the need to defend your internet honor.
Fool comes to mind because I brought up a pretty important point you failed to note in your rant? Fair enough. Please think me a fool and block my posts and never read what I have to say or address anything that I type. That would prove me wrong. Please, do just that.
ronaldrwl
03-24-2010, 14:23
It snows a few inches for a few hours and this is the bickering the site is reduced to?
I try to put in my 2 cents knowing it will not be popular in this GI Joe club. And I'll usually leave it and not respond to the onslaught of flames.
polite? you have FAILED at being polite. I said no feelings hurt and that there was no point at being condescending to someone on here...especially on here, and especially to someone that has been here as long as I have.
So please, take a minute, get yourself a new tampon and come back when you can not lash out at someone.
You did so after you posted several things I was addressing. So to say you posted everything was cool after lashing out while I was addressing those is awfully childish. In fact, I'm going to wait a minute before I post this... then create a post saying everything is fine and when your post goes public I will try to act like it was I who was the bigger man here and you are clearly just dragging it out... since that what you've done to me.
The fact that, even though I've clearly stated which post I'm talking about, you think I'm talking about you editing THAT post is clearly a sign that you are in WAY over your head here and have zero idea what this conversation is even about. Post #35 is the one you edited and you can clearly see in my quotes what you added and what I commented on. Again, you chose to assume I was attacking you and all I did was quote the edited post to address the points you added. How is that attacking again?
And he wants an apology? Wow.
It's all good. We'll just agree to disagree and let it go.
I try to put in my 2 cents knowing it will not be popular in this GI Joe club. And I'll usually leave it and not respond to the onslaught of flames.
Lesson learned. I won't add my two cents to a conversation anymore for fear that someone will take offense and lash out at me in retaliation. Eesh.
I agree that in some/many cases we could do with less safety regs!
Personally I don't want/need Traction control, Stability control, this crap that crap and on some vehicles I don't even want ABS. Or at least give me the option to disable it completely. There are cases/environments/conditions where I want to control the car, not the car controlling me. We as a soceity need to stop fixing problems with rules or technology bandaids and correct the problem at the source. LIke making people better fucking drivers! we don't need to put in new stop light turn signal variations like they did outside my neighborhood. Its Retarded!
I don't have a problem with having technological feats and features as an options but having them become law or regulations is bullshit IMO.n
Addiontionally as a generic comment for any topic; We could do with less regulations! Period! the end.
ronaldrwl
03-24-2010, 14:35
It is getting ridiculous. Sings warning that a sign is up ahead. We must be a rich nation just looking for ways to spend our extra money.
You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now.
here is where you were condescending and called me out personally attaching me to a group of ill informed consumers
please don't assume that I fail to grasp anything as that isn't the case.
my reaction
Your statement was absolute and devoid of the facts I mentioned. I'm only operated based on the things you say here.
you never read my full initial post as I said there were other factors
I also own a new truck so I KNOW the amount of extra power they produce. I did mention that other factors were in there such as weight, emissions and safety etc.
to say I fail to grasp a concept is a very bold statement.
either way, no need to be condescending to someone on here. I expect a little respect
I let it go here, made my point to not be such a dick to people on this site.
I wasn't condescending at all. If that's how you read it then that's how you read it but no reason to lash out at me for a factual and non emotional reply.
there was no reason for you to say I fail to factor something in....
still awaiting that apology.
I agree that in some/many cases we could do with less safety regs!
Personally I don't want/need Traction control, Stability control, this crap that crap and on some vehicles I don't even want ABS. Or at least give me the option to disable it completely. There are cases/environments/conditions where I want to control the car, not the car controlling me. We as a soceity need to stop fixing problems with rules or technology bandaids and correct the problem at the source. LIke making people better fucking drivers! we don't need to put in new stop light turn signal variations like they did outside my neighborhood. Its Retarded!
I don't have a problem with having technological feats and features as an options but having them become law or regulations is bullshit IMO.n
Addiontionally as a generic comment for any topic; We could do with less regulations! Period! the end.
I tend to agree with this statement as a whole. Laws to protect people from themselves only serves to see to it that the less intelligent have the ability to further cloud the gene pool and dumb down society even further. I always told the wife if we have kids we're having no less than seven because I plan to child proof nothing. Let the dumb ones weed themselves out and by adulthood the surviving offspring will be the smartest and strongest... that's doing our part for society. [ROFL1]
It is getting ridiculous. Sings warning that a sign is up ahead. We must be a rich nation just looking for ways to spend our extra money.
I think we are more in a downward spiral. a lot of warnings are developed in CA. you go there and you see warning signs posted on everything. especially about products that contain materials that have been know to cause cancer and birth defects.
every gun store I have even been to in CA had at least one large sign saying that.
Someone has/had a signature line here that says something along the effect of taking away all the warning signs and letting mother nature take its course.
ronaldrwl
03-24-2010, 14:42
I think we are more in a downward spiral. a lot of warnings are developed in CA. you go there and you see warning signs posted on everything. especially about products that contain materials that have been know to cause cancer and birth defects.
every gun store I have even been to in CA had at least one large sign saying that.
Someone has/had a signature line here that says something along the effect of taking away all the warning signs and letting mother nature take its course.
That is reminds me. The last time I was in Calif a restaurant we were eating at had a sign that said something about cancer and chemicals. I asked the staff about the sign and nobody knew what the warning was for. They just like to post signs in Calif.
Has anyone ever wondered exactly how many toddlers have drown in a 5 gallon bucket before that warning sticker got put on there?
Has anyone ever wondered exactly how many toddlers have drown in a 5 gallon bucket before that warning sticker got put on there?
that and how many actually have been tangled in blinds and eventually chocked to death.
I let it go and you just keep on going....
(see how I did that? Just like you supposedly let it go too)
I let it go here, made my point to not be such a dick to people on this site.
You falsely called me a dick and wanted me to let it go? Really?!? Would you just let it go if I called you something you weren't? I highly doubt that. It's passive aggressive to say you're letting it go while backhanding me in the same statements.
there was no reason for you to say I fail to factor something in....
Since this appears to be the antithesis of your argument and where you state this began going wrong would you be satisfied in letting this all go to know that if this was wrong your entire rant is for not? My statement is that you failed to factor in power increases in your claim that the oil companies were paying off the manufacturers to keep the fuel economy down you failed to factor in increased power over the years. So, if you did indeed fail to factor this in (still waiting for you to quote where you did factor that in to prove me wrong) then how was I wrong again? Where did you factor this in?
If you're going to spout some bullshit conspiracy theory you better be prepared to back it up with fact when someone calls you out on your far fetched parroted information.
still awaiting that apology.
You'll be waiting a while and in fact I think it's you who owes this forum and all if it's members an apology for running this thread so far off track because you can't accept that I stated you failed to mention something... which you clearly did. If you feel that offended that you require an apology I suggest you quit the world wide web. It's not for you.
With that, I am done with this whole thing. Anyone who reads at the elementary level can see for themselves what occurred here so I have no desire to waste any more time on it.
In reply to Stu and Sniper about kid warnings
Sadly the mentality and habbit is 'it only takes one'
Has anyone ever wondered exactly how many toddlers have drown in a 5 gallon bucket before that warning sticker got put on there?
Don't even get me started on school zones. We have not one, not two but EIGHT between our house and I25.
School zones should only exist for elementary schools and younger. Although, I have been pushed out into traffic by a friend before. Some friend huh? I've also seen kids run out into traffic, but they were old enough to know better.
School zones should only exist for elementary schools and younger.
+1
With that, I am done with this whole thing.
sounds good fat boy
WillysWagon
03-24-2010, 18:31
Lets get this thread back on track guys..
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.