Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Srontgorrth]

Holy crap, do those "ticket blitz" things happen often in other states?

Either way when I drive to Cali on Sunday I'm going to be going 70 the whole time, don't want another fucking $222 ticket.

 

[Dak]

Virginia has the most Nazi-like traffic laws/enforcement in the country from my experience + what I have read. This is just SOP for that state.

 

[Badbird]

When I was in the car on the way driving to Florida,I seen lot of this bullshit.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Virginia has the most Nazi-like traffic laws/enforcement in the country from my experience + what I have read. This is just SOP for that state.

That may be true, it seems like I see people get pulled over more often than not when I drive to work and back, and virtually every time I go between Richmond and C'ville. I still have yet to get pulled over or ticketed for going more than 10 MPH over though (not that it would never happen). I can say that I'm very cautious when I speed on the highway - I almost always stay under 75 when passing by the "Authorized Vehicles Only" spots, and I frequently search the surrounding traffic for anything that looks like it could be an undercover cop car. I've gotten three speeding tickets so far, ranging between 11 and 19 over.

The reckless driving law is pretty ridiculous. I think they can charge you with it if you drive either 80 MPH or 20 over the limit, whichever is lower. Somehow 80+ speeds are still common on I-95 despite that.

Oh btw, I'm pretty sure I've never seen a vehicle like the one they have in the photo of that article.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

House rejects Kucinich's Afghan withdrawal measure

The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and a group of mainly liberal members who argue the war cannot be won, was defeated 356 to 65, with only five Republicans and 60 Democrats backing it.

By this summer, when the troop surge is scheduled to be complete, about 100,000 U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan.

KILL DEM TURRISTS OBAMA!!

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

I received this email yesterday:

About 6 months ago, the writer was watching a news program on oil and one of the Forbes Bros. was the guest. The host said to Forbes, "I am going to ask you a direct question and I would like a direct answer; how much oil does the U.S. have in the ground?" Forbes did not miss a beat, he said, "more than all the Middle East put together." Please read below.




The U. S. Geological Service issued a report in April 2008 that only scientists and oil men knew was coming, but man was it big. It was a revised report (hadn't been updated since 1995) on how much oil was in this area of the western 2/3 of North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme eastern Montana ..... check THIS out:




The Bakken is the largest domestic oil discovery since Alaska 's Prudhoe Bay , and has the potential to eliminate all American dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates it at 503 billion barrels. Even if just 10% of the oil is recoverable... at $107 a barrel, we're looking at a resource base worth more than $5..3 trillion..




"When I first briefed legislators on this, you could practically see their jaws hit the floor. They had no idea.." says Terry Johnson, the Montana Legislature's financial analyst.





"This sizable find is now the highest-producing onshore oil field found in the past 56 years," reports The Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's a formation known as the Williston Basin , but is more commonly referred to as the 'Bakken.' It stretches from Northern Montana, through North Dakota and into Canada . For years, U. S. oil exploration has been considered a dead end. Even the 'Big Oil' companies gave up searching for major oil wells decades ago. However, a recent technological breakthrough has opened up the Bakken's massive reserves..... and we now have access of up to 500 billion barrels. And because this is light, sweet oil, those billions of barrels will cost Americans just $16 PER BARREL!





That's enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 2041 years straight. And if THAT didn't throw you on the floor, then this next one should - because it's from 2006!


U. S. Oil Discovery- Largest Reserve in the World




Stansberry Report Online - 4/20/2006




Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. On August 8, 2005 President Bush mandated its extraction. In three and a half years of high oil prices none has been extracted. With this motherload of oil why are we still fighting over off-shore drilling?




They reported this stunning news: We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.. Here are the official estimates:



- 8-times as much oil as Saudi Arabia




- 18-times as much oil as Iraq




-21-times as much oil as Kuwait



- 22-times as much oil as Iran




- 500-times as much oil as Yemen




- and it's all right here in the Western United States .




HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this? Because the environmentalists and others have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate our lives and our economy.....WHY?



James Bartis, lead researcher with the study says we've got more oil in this very compact area than the entire Middle East -more than 2 TRILLION barrels untapped. That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today, reports The Denver Post.

Don't think 'OPEC' will drop its price - even with this find? Think again! It's all about the competitive marketplace, - it has to. Think OPEC just might be funding the environmentalists?

I'm not sure how accurate the information within it is and I have not verified the sources listed, but I do know that it has been proven that there are large oil deposits in the northern plains and Alaska, as mentioned in this text. I'm quite certain that these figures are inflated (as this came from a chain email).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

drill, baby, drill!

 

[Matt]

As much as I hate the idea, it's probably for the best. It might also destroy the economies of those countries which would probably be a good thing for us.

 

[Pessimism]

Yeah, who gives a shit about what would happen to the planet if it were sapped of... how much thick fluid exactly?

Fuck it, leave the environment alone, and get to fucking work on alternative energy; I men fuck, electric cars? We need to find a way to coerce business' into changing or it will never be done. A business' goal is profit - nothing more, it's our jobs as responsible people to fix what is wrong with our conception of reality - this is the first step - getting away from oil as a whole.

 

[Matt]

^Yeah, it would be great if we could do that - electric cars seem to the best alternative at this point.

 

[Dak]

There are a ton of problems with electric cars. How to create enough electricity to support them, lack of engine power, lack of driving distance between charges, recharging time, etc.

The oil field in the Dakotas/Montana/Canada is old news, but it is being pretty much kept under wraps because it's use doesn't meet the current political agenda(s).

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I men fuck

Is that what they're calling it these days...

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

Oil oil oil until something else can work.

 

[Pessimism]

There are a ton of problems with electric cars. How to create enough electricity to support them, lack of engine power, lack of driving distance between charges, recharging time, etc.

The oil field in the Dakotas/Montana/Canada is old news, but it is being pretty much kept under wraps because it's use doesn't meet the current political agenda(s).

All your points can be proved invalid even with this wikipedia link.

And it's really not about a political agenda, unless that agenda is not utterly destroying the lone pieces of wilderness we have left in order to make profit off of it.

The only argument against electric cars is the damage to the environment (even though this is really targeted at Hybrids). That's right, read it again: damage to the environment.The material cost to make the batteries combined with what happens at the end of the battery's life (and how it is disposed of) is what is terrible. Electric batteries however typically don't suffer the same association (link).

This is the kind of stuff that pisses me off, inaction rooted in flawed intelligence. There is no reason to dredge the earth for oil when there are alternatives already in existence that completely eradicate the problem at hand. Foreign oil? It's a scapegoat because business' do not want to make a radical switch to a new product in a market that they think will not be receptive. Profit is still greater than anything, and that is why we the people need to force out government to stop the general capitalist bullshit so something can finally be done. That last line sounds kind of like it stems from tinfoil-hattery, but you know it's true.


EAT SHIT AND DIE DETROIT CAR COMPANIES

 

[Dak]

All your points can be proved invalid even with this wikipedia link.

And it's really not about a political agenda, unless that agenda is not utterly destroying the lone pieces of wilderness we have left in order to make profit off of it.

The only argument against electric cars is the damage to the environment (even though this is really targeted at Hybrids). That's right, read it again: damage to the environment.The material cost to make the batteries combined with what happens at the end of the battery's life (and how it is disposed of) is what is terrible. Electric batteries however typically don't suffer the same association (link).

This is the kind of stuff that pisses me off, inaction rooted in flawed intelligence. There is no reason to dredge the earth for oil when there are alternatives already in existence that completely eradicate the problem at hand. Foreign oil? It's a scapegoat because business' do not want to make a radical switch to a new product in a market that they think will not be receptive. Profit is still greater than anything, and that is why we the people need to force out government to stop the general capitalist bullshit so something can finally be done. That last line sounds kind of like it stems from tinfoil-hattery, but you know it's true.


EAT SHIT AND DIE DETROIT CAR COMPANIES

Nice try, but you left out or glossed over important stuff, or what is important to me is not to you.

#1: The power requirements + charge times are all based off of light-as-shit basic transportation death-traps. While maybe down the road they can create a realistic heavy duty towing engine, it isn't something being pursued right now. I will never own, as a primary vehicle, some piece of shit that looks like a smartminiprius.

#2: More energy required means even longer charges, and even if the current "best times" (for little pieces of shit cars) are an hour every 200-300 miles, that still isn't as good as 10 minutes or less at the gas station.

#3: What I meant by "agenda" is keeping money flowing into the middle east to prop up the "bogeyman" we need to expand our military presence around the world.

 

[Matt]

We won't switch from oil until we absolutely have to, i.e completely running out.

 

[Cythraul]

We won't switch from oil until we absolutely have to, i.e completely running out.

I'm not sure that's true, unless you were exaggerating. As the supply of oil decreases its price will rise, perhaps even to the point where it's prohibitively expensive for some. As alternative technologies improve and become ever more efficient (which I'm confident they will), producers of such technology will be able to outcompete. I think there is the potential for this to happen quicker than we think. Oil doesn't need to be depleted in order for alternatives to be attractive. It also might help for the federal government not to subsidize oil companies. Stop giving waste a competitive advantage.

You see, here's one of the problems with government: Its policies are generally not in the people's interest, and are not very likely to become so. There are deep and interesting reasons for this state of affairs. I don't trust government to make wise choices or to rationally craft policy. There is a knowledge problem here. There is almost no way to calculate the cost of not pursuing foregone alternatives. Government simply does not have a way of rationally calculating cost and benefit for the complex systems it lords over. I know this will come as a shock to those indoctrinated into the technocratic liberal worldview, but government policy is almost entirely arbitrary tinkering.

That last paragraph was going off on a tangent and has almost nothing to do with what you said. You can safely ignore my convoluted musings.

 

[Pessimism]

Nice try, but you left out or glossed over important stuff, or what is important to me is not to you.

#1: The power requirements + charge times are all based off of light-as-shit basic transportation death-traps. While maybe down the road they can create a realistic heavy duty towing engine, it isn't something being pursued right now. I will never own, as a primary vehicle, some piece of shit that looks like a smartminiprius.

#2: More energy required means even longer charges, and even if the current "best times" (for little pieces of shit cars) are an hour every 200-300 miles, that still isn't as good as 10 minutes or less at the gas station.

#3: What I meant by "agenda" is keeping money flowing into the middle east to prop up the "bogeyman" we need to expand our military presence around the world.

Please, leave the ad hominem's to a minimum; I could easily call any gas guzzler on the road a deathtrap and have it be a valid point. There is nothing wrong with the structural design of electric cars.

Now

#1
Power req's? What, like where the actual electricity would stem from? There are many sources, including local plants (from what I remember 25 being built this year alone), and the wind industry is racking up zones and being used quite frequently. Oh, you were talking about where to do it on the road? Well shit, I wouldn't suppose with the increase in electrics on the road, the government wouldn't bother to subsidize a few fueling stations for the commuters... oh wait they have before. Hell, they even built stations for the hydrogen cars over here in Ca, the most notable one being in Irvine. Also, these "heavy duty engine's" already exist, see below:

#2
While you are technically correct in this instance, you yourself are leaving out many variables.
1. How much does the average American drive per day - I drive extensively, and even then I don't break 150miles for my total driving.
2. If you have to fill up once a day just to get from place to place, there are two reasons:
a. You live too far away
b. you have shit for gas mileage with your current auto
c. some combination of the above.
No single person really needs to drive over 200 miles a day to get where they are going. And here is the kicker, if you have to, you can either move (which is unlikely for most), or you can take public transportation - trains run everywhere in this country.
Of course, as time goes on and technology improves even further, charge times will reduce. Currently, Tesla's Roadster (stats below) is specified as:

Engine: Output 288 peak horsepower (215kW) and 295 lb-ft (400 Nm) of torque. Redline at 14,000 rpm.
Chassis: Resin-bonded and riveted extruded aluminum monocoque. Four-wheel independent suspension featuring upper and lower unequal length wishbones and co-axial coil spring telescopic dampers.
Acceleration: 0 to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds
Top Speed: 125 mph (limited by governor chip)
Range: 236 miles

Recharge time: About 3.5 hours using the Tesla Motors Home Connector at 240 Volts and 70 amps.

Talk about a "ball-less" vehicle, am I right

Here is an example of driving cost:
A full tank for a 50mpg Prius will give you about 450-470 miles depending on your driving habits. Likewise a 1999 Chevy Tahoe should give you about 30 gallons worth of fuel (at 13mpg) which equates to 390 miles total.

Now let's look at the cost. Most people don't drive hybrids, most do drive gas guzzlers though. So with California's current rates, a full tank of gas will cost $90 to fill up the tank; we'll take away about $20 on average to even it out with the cars that have slightly larger tanks and slightly better gas mileage.

Now, I can list the kilo rating and show you all the math, but honestly... instead of me doing all that so someone could not bother to look it over before calling me wrong, I will link another article that has already done the work and handles the question of "where will the power come from to power these cars?"
Scientific American article HOOOOO!!!
Hell, they even cover what I already stated, hazaa!
By these facts, there is no need to complain about the charge time because frankly, no one is driving that much anyway. On top of that, you charge it when you are asleep, or have down time. So yeah, no need to pull over for ten minutes and fill up your vehicle, because your vehicle will be charging while you are busy either sleeping or doing things that don't require driving.

The point of this portion is though that no one should need to go so long as to have to fill up. Unless you plan on driving across country or up and down the entirety of the state every day, then this isn't an issue that needs to really be talked about. Even so, if it is an issue, there are hundreds of options dealing with public transportation/system.


#3
The ancient and "time-honored" unspoken imperialist agenda of the United States has nothing to do with electric cars. The only thing that can be linked is conspiracy theorizing of "keeping the rich richer through elevated prices", "we're keeping a watchful eye on the chess pieces of the world in order to capitalize on our placement" argument or the "governments are shifty and certainly don't have other reasons to be doing these things BUT THEY DO THEM!!!" argument; all of these however ultimately stem from epistemic faults in acquiring legitimate data on the issue.



All in all, I highly suggest you cease ignoring the original links I provided (specifically the Tesla motors site) as they have all the car specs and math at the ready to invalidate your arguments, or at least the ones focused on electrics being "prissy mini-prius powerless pieces of shit".

 

[Dak]

Please, leave the ad hominem's to a minimum; I could easily call any gas guzzler on the road a deathtrap and have it be a valid point. There is nothing wrong with the structural design of electric cars.

The first part is correct. My wife's vehicle (IE: I didn't buy it) is a Honda Element. I think of it as a death trap,especially since it is lacking a what I believe is called the "b" column.

#1
Power req's? What, like where the actual electricity would stem from? There are many sources, including local plants (from what I remember 25 being built this year alone), and the wind industry is racking up zones and being used quite frequently. Oh, you were talking about where to do it on the road? Well shit, I wouldn't suppose with the increase in electrics on the road, the government wouldn't bother to subsidize a few fueling stations for the commuters... oh wait they have before. Hell, they even built stations for the hydrogen cars over here in Ca, the most notable one being in Irvine.

Based off your tone you are getting way to personally worked up over this, and creating massive amounts of strawman arguements in the process. Fueling stations, as well as power load on the grid aren't issues I brought up.

My issue is distance on a charge, charging times, and corresponding output power.

Also, these "heavy duty engine's" already exist, see below:


#2
While you are technically correct in this instance, you yourself are leaving out many variables.
1. How much does the average American drive per day - I drive extensively, and even then I don't break 150miles for my total driving.
2. If you have to fill up once a day just to get from place to place, there are two reasons:
a. You live too far away
b. you have shit for gas mileage with your current auto
c. some combination of the above.
No single person really needs to drive over 200 miles a day to get where they are going. And here is the kicker, if you have to, you can either move (which is unlikely for most), or you can take public transportation - trains run everywhere in this country.
Of course, as time goes on and technology improves even further, charge times will reduce. Currently, Tesla's Roadster (stats below) is specified as:



Talk about a "ball-less" vehicle, am I right

Yes. What I said was "heavy duty towing". When Tesla Motors makes something equivalent to Ram 2500/3500, or Ford F250/350/450, etc. I will be interested.

Here is an example of driving cost:
A full tank for a 50mpg Prius will give you about 450-470 miles depending on your driving habits. Likewise a 1999 Chevy Tahoe should give you about 30 gallons worth of fuel (at 13mpg) which equates to 390 miles total.

Now let's look at the cost. Most people don't drive hybrids, most do drive gas guzzlers though. So with California's current rates, a full tank of gas will cost $90 to fill up the tank; we'll take away about $20 on average to even it out with the cars that have slightly larger tanks and slightly better gas mileage.

Now, I can list the kilo rating and show you all the math, but honestly... instead of me doing all that so someone could not bother to look it over before calling me wrong, I will link another article that has already done the work and handles the question of "where will the power come from to power these cars?"
Scientific American article HOOOOO!!!
Hell, they even cover what I already stated, hazaa!
By these facts, there is no need to complain about the charge time because frankly, no one is driving that much anyway. On top of that, you charge it when you are asleep, or have down time. So yeah, no need to pull over for ten minutes and fill up your vehicle, because your vehicle will be charging while you are busy either sleeping or doing things that don't require driving.

The point of this portion is though that no one should need to go so long as to have to fill up. Unless you plan on driving across country or up and down the entirety of the state every day, then this isn't an issue that needs to really be talked about. Even so, if it is an issue, there are hundreds of options dealing with public transportation/system.

Incidentally I was mainly referring to the what if's of crossing the country/state. Not only have a I had to crisscross the country several times due to my military time, I live in the SW, and it is roughly 200 miles to the nearest big city in any direction. So that would be 400 miles roundtrip not counting the mileage from driving around in the city. Granted it isn't a daily occurance, but it happens enough for me to bring it up.

There are plenty of people in the US is similar situations. Not everyone is megatropolis urbanite.

#3
The ancient and "time-honored" unspoken imperialist agenda of the United States has nothing to do with electric cars. The only thing that can be linked is conspiracy theorizing of "keeping the rich richer through elevated prices", "we're keeping a watchful eye on the chess pieces of the world in order to capitalize on our placement" argument or the "governments are shifty and certainly don't have other reasons to be doing these things BUT THEY DO THEM!!!" argument; all of these however ultimately stem from epistemic faults in acquiring legitimate data on the issue.

If you deny we have regionalistic motivations in the oil trade arena you obviously have been acquiring no data on the issue, "legitimate" or otherwise.

All in all, I highly suggest you cease ignoring the original links I provided (specifically the Tesla motors site) as they have all the car specs and math at the ready to invalidate your arguments, or at least the ones focused on electrics being "prissy mini-prius powerless pieces of shit".

You did some "cost to drive" number crunching, but there is something else called "cost to own", which I am sure you are aware of. This incorperates cost to drive with cost to buy and cost to maintain. Right now the Tesla Roadster scores way outside what the large majority of the world can afford to own (just going off the monthly payment average, since I couldn't find any cost of ownership chart on their site). But then, most people who can buy $100,000 cars aren't doing it because of the fuel savings, or because they are trying to save the planet. They are trying to be "edgy" or "chic", or hell, in Cali you get to be a single person carpool lane user. Cheap convenience for someone with extra cash.

When I can get a good 4x4 towing vehicle used for under 20k that is purely electric and then doesn't require me to take 1-3 hour breaks every 2-300 miles, I will be interested.

 

[Pessimism]

The first part is correct. My wife's vehicle (IE: I didn't buy it) is a Honda Element. I think of it as a death trap,especially since it is lacking a what I believe is called the "b" column.

You can think what you want, but if every safety organization says this:

The Element comes with impressive active safety systems for a compact SUV. The federal government gives it five out of five stars for front impact crashes and side impact crashes. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety gives the 2010 Element a "Good" rating, the highest possible, in frontal offset tests, side impact and rear crash protection testing -- and awards it a "Top Safety Pick" distinction. The Element is also one of the few models tested for roof strength that receives a top score of "Good."
The 2010 Honda Element comes with dual-stage front air bags for both front-seat passengers, and standard side air bags to front and rear passengers. Rollover sensing head curtain air bags are now standard whereas in previous years they were an option. Because there is no B-pillar between the Element's front and rear doors, the SUV is reinforced with special side-impact beams as part of the structural safety cage.
Other standard safety features for the Element include electronic stability control, traction control, four-wheel anti-lock brakes and Brake Assist.

Then it really isn't a grounded factual opinion.

Based off your tone you are getting way to personally worked up over this, and creating massive amounts of strawman arguements in the process. Fueling stations, as well as power load on the grid aren't issues I brought up.

Again, this not only has nothing to do with the argument & it's just not true; no strawmen were created or injured in the process of my posting. I stated I wasn't sure what you meant by power requirements, so I brought up an additional two examples that I thought it might have referred too and answered them one by one.

My issue is distance on a charge, charging times, and corresponding output power.

If this is what you were originally referring to when talking about power, I already answered this with stats.

Yes. What I said was "heavy duty towing". When Tesla Motors makes something equivalent to Ram 2500/3500, or Ford F250/350/450, etc. I will be interested.

In time, I have no doubt an engine will be made, it all just depends on the group who is working on it and what kind of funding. I showed that they do have powerful engines, but yes, currently I haven't seen anything electric that would have the towing capacity of a diesel truck.

Incidentally I was mainly referring to the what if's of crossing the country/state. Not only have a I had to crisscross the country several times due to my military time, I live in the SW, and it is roughly 200 miles to the nearest big city in any direction. So that would be 400 miles roundtrip not counting the mileage from driving around in the city. Granted it isn't a daily occurance, but it happens enough for me to bring it up.

There are plenty of people in the US is similar situations. Not everyone is megatropolis urbanite.

Stop assuming every "urbanite" as you put it has the ability to travel as they please - they don't, and this is one of a few main reasons public transportation exists. The fact of the matter is that they have trains that cross the country in most areas, and as I stated, if you live very far away, there are some things that should definitely be reconsidered about either the living location or work situation - I'm not arguing the point that people are stupid for living far away from urban sprawls or that they shouldn't, but for someone whose goal is to save more money than they spend... well, variables need to be gone over. As a side note, they already have better batteries, but a few major auto companies have the rights and are refusing to make them right now... such a shame.

And when we talk about military grade, it's not like they can't gather a few engineer's and create a vehicle capable of holding one or more batteries (which in turn would greatly increase the drive time of the vehicle) - of course though if they need a heavy duty diesel, well there are no alternatives, but if it is a moderate sized vehicle that doesn't require the ability to tow a big rig, then there shouldn't be a problem (specially if it is just for crossing American soil, combat situations are vastly different so there is always room to argue for or against a certain type of vehicle).

If you deny we have regionalistic motivations in the oil trade arena you obviously have been acquiring no data on the issue, "legitimate" or otherwise.

I said that doesn't matter to the situation with electric cars; the only degree that exists between the electric car and the middle east is America's auto companies not wanting to switch product. Oil prices will ultimately rise as the planet runs out though.

You did some "cost to drive" number crunching, but there is something else called "cost to own", which I am sure you are aware of. This incorperates cost to drive with cost to buy and cost to maintain. Right now the Tesla Roadster scores way outside what the large majority of the world can afford to own (just going off the monthly payment average, since I couldn't find any cost of ownership chart on their site). But then, most people who can buy $100,000 cars aren't doing it because of the fuel savings, or because they are trying to save the planet. They are trying to be "edgy" or "chic", or hell, in Cali you get to be a single person carpool lane user. Cheap convenience for someone with extra cash.

Ignoring the post about what people are trying to be (fallacious and not on point), the cost of ownership for a Tesla car balances out (ignore the roadster). Yes, their cars are ludicrously expensive (starting at 50/60k!), but fueling costs 1/4th as much as it does with a gas auto. It balances out, and even saves a lot of money for the lower end luxury and sedan models. Not everyone who buys 50k cars are rich, just good at balancing their expenses. Anyone who can purchase a roadster anyway can afford what they want, my example of the roadster was merely that of power output for an electric engine, they have many other cars though.

When I can get a good 4x4 towing vehicle used for under 20k that is purely electric and then doesn't require me to take 1-3 hour breaks every 2-300 miles, I will be interested.

Would be cool, I would give it time though.