|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again..
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793313] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 10:29 |
|
>> Well if Washington can't provide competent governanace, then California
>> will.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> That's funny.
Pathetic is more like it.
But such is the pathetic state of the dying AmeriKKKan state. The
entire world smells the rotting flesh of the AmeriKKKan carcas.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> What's your actual goal? To reduce the consumption of fossil fuels?
> That's actually a goal that I can understand and agree with. How do you
> do it? Raise taxes on fossil fuels. NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK. Any other
> "solution" will only result in lots of unintended consequences, loopholes,
> workarounds, etc. and will not have the desired result.
When all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like it can be
solved with a hammer.
Please explain to us how increasing gas prices will reduce highway speeds
and thereby improve fuel consumption efficiency.
Ahahahahahahahah.........
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793351 ] |
Wed, 06 February 2008 22:08 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> Well if Washington can't provide competent governanace, then California
>>>will.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>That's funny.
>
>
> Pathetic is more like it.
>
> But such is the pathetic state of the dying AmeriKKKan state. The
> entire world smells the rotting flesh of the AmeriKKKan carcas.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>What's your actual goal? To reduce the consumption of fossil fuels?
>>That's actually a goal that I can understand and agree with. How do you
>>do it? Raise taxes on fossil fuels. NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK. Any other
>>"solution" will only result in lots of unintended consequences, loopholes,
>>workarounds, etc. and will not have the desired result.
>
>
> When all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like it can be
> solved with a hammer.
>
> Please explain to us how increasing gas prices will reduce highway speeds
> and thereby improve fuel consumption efficiency.
>
> Ahahahahahahahah.........
>
Actually, that's pretty easy.
When people *individually* are paying more for fuel, they will modify
their behavior in such a way that the cost/benefit works out for them.
That means that they may choose to bike around town instead of drive,
and reserve the car for long trips. They may select a speed on the
highway to maximize economy instead of solely time efficiency and
maximum safe sleed. They may choose to not buy a new car and repair
their old car instead as the energy cost of a new vehicle is very high.
In short, the incentive will be spread around to everyone to use less
energy, rather than simply mandating that manufacturers produce cars
that theoretically get better efficiency under controlled conditions and
as a result actual fuel use will be reduced more dramatically than
anything CAFE could ever hope (and fail) to accomplish.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793384 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 03:56 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> Please explain to us how increasing gas prices will reduce highway
>> speeds and thereby improve fuel consumption efficiency.
>>
>> Ahahahahahahahah.........
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Actually, that's pretty easy.
>
> When people *individually* are paying more for fuel, they will modify
> their behavior in such a way that the cost/benefit works out for them.
So they will drive 40mph on a 60mph highway.
Of course, it happens every day.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> That means that they may choose to bike around town instead of drive, and
> reserve the car for long trips.
And how does that reduce highway speeds? That was the question Moron.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> They may select a speed on the highway to maximize economy instead of
> solely time
> efficiency and maximum safe sleed.
Ah, so they may decide to impeed the flow of traffic and break the law by
driving 40 mph in a 60 mph highway.
Right... Happens every day.
Nate = MOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force but by
accceleration.
Aahahahahahahahahahaha....
Mooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793421 ] |
Thu, 07 February 2008 12:15 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>
>>> Please explain to us how increasing gas prices will reduce highway
>>>speeds and thereby improve fuel consumption efficiency.
>>>
>>> Ahahahahahahahah.........
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Actually, that's pretty easy.
>>
>>When people *individually* are paying more for fuel, they will modify
>>their behavior in such a way that the cost/benefit works out for them.
>
>
> So they will drive 40mph on a 60mph highway.
>
> Of course, it happens every day.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>That means that they may choose to bike around town instead of drive, and
>>reserve the car for long trips.
>
>
> And how does that reduce highway speeds? That was the question Moron.
>
No the question was how does this save fuel.
Reducing highway speeds isn't a desirable goal in and of itself. saving
fuel *is.*
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>They may select a speed on the highway to maximize economy instead of
>>solely time
>>efficiency and maximum safe sleed.
>
>
> Ah, so they may decide to impeed the flow of traffic and break the law by
> driving 40 mph in a 60 mph highway.
>
> Right... Happens every day.
>
> Nate = MOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
>
> Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force but by
> accceleration.
Wow, you're really dumb.
go learn the difference between force and acceleration.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793483 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 00:34 |
|
>> And how does that reduce highway speeds? That was the question Moron.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> No the question was how does this save fuel.
No, the question was how does it reduce highway speeds.. That was the
question Moron.
Now answer it.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Reducing highway speeds isn't a desirable goal in and of itself. saving
> fuel *is.*
The ultimate goal is to improve the living standards of the human
population without damaging the biosphere.
Now answer the question Mother Fucker. How does it reduce highway speeds
and thereby save fuel?
>> Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force but by
>> accceleration.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Wow, you're really dumb.
So you are refusing to answr that question as well.
Why not just go back and slip into bed with your Mama and she can read you
a fairy story. You don't seem capable of dealing with the outside world.
Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force, but by
acceleration.
Ahahahahahaha...... You fucking ignorant Moron.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793484 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 00:39 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> And how does that reduce highway speeds? That was the question Moron.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>No the question was how does this save fuel.
>
>
> No, the question was how does it reduce highway speeds.. That was the
> question Moron.
>
> Now answer it.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Reducing highway speeds isn't a desirable goal in and of itself. saving
>>fuel *is.*
>
>
> The ultimate goal is to improve the living standards of the human
> population without damaging the biosphere.
>
> Now answer the question Mother Fucker. How does it reduce highway speeds
> and thereby save fuel?
I refuse, because it is a bullshit question.
>
>>> Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force but by
>>>accceleration.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Wow, you're really dumb.
>
>
> So you are refusing to answr that question as well.
>
> Why not just go back and slip into bed with your Mama and she can read you
> a fairy story. You don't seem capable of dealing with the outside world.
>
> Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force, but by
> acceleration.
>
> Ahahahahahaha...... You fucking ignorant Moron.
I'm not bothering to answer the question because a) I already did and b)
you're a fuckwit. Now die screaming in a fire.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793487 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 01:26 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> The ultimate goal is to improve the living standards of the human
>> population without damaging the biosphere.
>>
>> Now answer the question Mother Fucker. How does it reduce highway
>> speeds and thereby save fuel?
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I refuse, because it is a bullshit question.
You refuse because the question exposes you as the FUCKING MORON you are.
Reducing driving speeds reduces drag which increases fuel economy and
thereby saves fuel and reduces CO2 emissions.
Redicing highway speeds from 60mph to 40mph would more than half fuel
consumption.
Now I ask you again, how your plan to increase fuel prices will translate
to lower highway speeds rather than trapping people in a situation where
they are forced to drive at high speed (wasting fuel) in order to comply
with the law and not impeed highway traffic which is similarly constrained
to drive faster than is rational.
>> Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force, but
>> by acceleration.
>>
>> Ahahahahahaha...... You fucking ignorant Moron.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I'm not bothering to answer the question because a) I already did
Sorry, you have done nothing of the kind. A simple reiteration of your
claim that acceleration is more important than force is simply a reiteration
of your ignorance.
Newtonian mechanics can help here. Several hundred years ago, Newton
discovered the equation F = m*a. An equation that relates force to mass and
acceleration. Your claim is that force doesn't matter, acceleration does.
But according to the laws of motiton, acceleration is not possible without
an unbalanced implied force.
Force is the thing that drive action. Your claim that force is
unimportant and that acceleration is, a childishly ignorant confusion of
cause (force) with effect (acceleration).
You are ignorant of even the most fundamental grade school level
appreciation of rudimentary physics.
And on top of that you are a LYING MOTHER FUCKER.
GIven your vast ignorance, and your dishonesty, it is hardly shocking
that you would take the KKKonservative position that altering road
regulation (driving speeds) could save fuel.
I have never met a KKKonservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual
liar.
You are no exception.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793513 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 05:18 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>
>>> The ultimate goal is to improve the living standards of the human
>>>population without damaging the biosphere.
>>>
>>> Now answer the question Mother Fucker. How does it reduce highway
>>>speeds and thereby save fuel?
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>I refuse, because it is a bullshit question.
>
>
> You refuse because the question exposes you as the FUCKING MORON you are.
>
> Reducing driving speeds reduces drag which increases fuel economy and
> thereby saves fuel and reduces CO2 emissions.
>
> Redicing highway speeds from 60mph to 40mph would more than half fuel
> consumption.
>
> Now I ask you again, how your plan to increase fuel prices will translate
> to lower highway speeds rather than trapping people in a situation where
> they are forced to drive at high speed (wasting fuel) in order to comply
> with the law and not impeed highway traffic which is similarly constrained
> to drive faster than is rational.
>
I ask you again why you insist that we MUST legislate lower travel
speeds rather than simply saying "let's save fuel."
>
>>> Now tell us again how collision damage isn't determined by force, but
>>>by acceleration.
>>>
>>> Ahahahahahaha...... You fucking ignorant Moron.
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>I'm not bothering to answer the question because a) I already did
>
>
> Sorry, you have done nothing of the kind. A simple reiteration of your
> claim that acceleration is more important than force is simply a reiteration
> of your ignorance.
>
> Newtonian mechanics can help here. Several hundred years ago, Newton
> discovered the equation F = m*a. An equation that relates force to mass and
> acceleration. Your claim is that force doesn't matter, acceleration does.
> But according to the laws of motiton, acceleration is not possible without
> an unbalanced implied force.
>
> Force is the thing that drive action. Your claim that force is
> unimportant and that acceleration is, a childishly ignorant confusion of
> cause (force) with effect (acceleration).
>
> You are ignorant of even the most fundamental grade school level
> appreciation of rudimentary physics.
>
> And on top of that you are a LYING MOTHER FUCKER.
>
> GIven your vast ignorance, and your dishonesty, it is hardly shocking
> that you would take the KKKonservative position that altering road
> regulation (driving speeds) could save fuel.
>
> I have never met a KKKonservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual
> liar.
>
> You are no exception.
>
>
Wow, you foam almost as well as Bartlo.
The fact remains that you're an idiot, and your specious, made-up
premises have no bearing on the real world.
Maybe by the time you've graduated high school you'll have learned the
difference between force and acceleration, and the significance of each.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793515 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 06:28 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> Now I ask you again, how your plan to increase fuel prices will
>> translate to lower highway speeds rather than trapping people in a
>> situation where they are forced to drive at high speed (wasting fuel) in
>> order to comply with the law and not impeed highway traffic which is
>> similarly constrained to drive faster than is rational.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> I ask you again why you insist that we MUST legislate lower travel speeds
> rather than simply saying "let's save fuel."
The answer is obvious.to any thinking person.
For precisely the same reason that we must legislate current trevle speeds
in order to
prevent chaos on the roads.
>> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>>>I'm not bothering to answer the question because a) I already did
>>
>>
>> Sorry, you have done nothing of the kind. A simple reiteration of your
>> claim that acceleration is more important than force is simply a
>> reiteration of your ignorance.
>>
>> Newtonian mechanics can help here. Several hundred years ago, Newton
>> discovered the equation F = m*a. An equation that relates force to mass
>> and acceleration. Your claim is that force doesn't matter, acceleration
>> does.
>> But according to the laws of motiton, acceleration is not possible
>> without an unbalanced implied force.
>>
>> Force is the thing that drive action. Your claim that force is
>> unimportant and that acceleration is, a childishly ignorant confusion of
>> cause (force) with effect (acceleration).
>>
>> You are ignorant of even the most fundamental grade school level
>> appreciation of rudimentary physics.
>>
>> And on top of that you are a LYING MOTHER FUCKER.
>>
>> GIven your vast ignorance, and your dishonesty, it is hardly shocking
>> that you would take the KKKonservative position that altering road
>> regulation (driving speeds) could save fuel.
>>
>> I have never met a KKKonservative who wasn't a congenital and
>> perpetual liar.
>>
>> You are no exception.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Wow, you foam almost as well as Bartlo.
And you have proven yourself ignorant of grade school level science.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> The fact remains that you're an idiot, and your specious, made-up premises
> have no bearing on the real world.
Children like you often attempt to insult their betters.
That's why you are being publicly spanked.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Maybe by the time you've graduated high school you'll have learned the
> difference between force and acceleration, and the significance of each.
Newtonian mechanics can help here. Several hundred years ago, Newton
discovered the equation F = m*a. An equation of which you remain
blissfully
ignorant, and one that relates force to mass and acceleration. Your claim
is that
force doesn't matter, acceleration does. But according to the laws of
motiton,
acceleration is not possible without an unbalanced implied force.
Force is the thing that drive action. Your claim that force is
unimportant and that acceleration is, a childishly ignorant confusion of
cause (force) with effect (acceleration).
You are ignorant of even the most fundamental grade school level
appreciation of rudimentary physics.
And on top of that you are a LYING MOTHER FUCKER.
GIven your vast ignorance, and your dishonesty, it is hardly shocking
that you would take the KKKonservative position that altering road
regulation (driving speeds) could save fuel.
I have never met a KKKonservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual
liar.
You are no exception.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793525 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 12:49 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>
>>> Now I ask you again, how your plan to increase fuel prices will
>>>translate to lower highway speeds rather than trapping people in a
>>>situation where they are forced to drive at high speed (wasting fuel) in
>>>order to comply with the law and not impeed highway traffic which is
>>>similarly constrained to drive faster than is rational.
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>I ask you again why you insist that we MUST legislate lower travel speeds
>>rather than simply saying "let's save fuel."
>
>
> The answer is obvious.to any thinking person.
>
> For precisely the same reason that we must legislate current trevle speeds
> in order to
> prevent chaos on the roads.
Really? Got a cite for that?
Hint: speed limits are entirely unnecessary given competent drivers;
otherwise why would fatality rates be LOWER on the Autobahnen than on US
Interstates?
>>>"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>I'm not bothering to answer the question because a) I already did
>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, you have done nothing of the kind. A simple reiteration of your
>>>claim that acceleration is more important than force is simply a
>>>reiteration of your ignorance.
>>>
>>> Newtonian mechanics can help here. Several hundred years ago, Newton
>>>discovered the equation F = m*a. An equation that relates force to mass
>>>and acceleration. Your claim is that force doesn't matter, acceleration
>>>does.
>>>But according to the laws of motiton, acceleration is not possible
>>>without an unbalanced implied force.
>>>
>>> Force is the thing that drive action. Your claim that force is
>>>unimportant and that acceleration is, a childishly ignorant confusion of
>>>cause (force) with effect (acceleration).
>>>
>>> You are ignorant of even the most fundamental grade school level
>>>appreciation of rudimentary physics.
>>>
>>> And on top of that you are a LYING MOTHER FUCKER.
>>>
>>> GIven your vast ignorance, and your dishonesty, it is hardly shocking
>>>that you would take the KKKonservative position that altering road
>>>regulation (driving speeds) could save fuel.
>>>
>>> I have never met a KKKonservative who wasn't a congenital and
>>>perpetual liar.
>>>
>>> You are no exception.
>
>
>
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Wow, you foam almost as well as Bartlo.
>
>
> And you have proven yourself ignorant of grade school level science.
>
That's why I have an engineering degree and you don't.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>The fact remains that you're an idiot, and your specious, made-up premises
>>have no bearing on the real world.
>
>
> Children like you often attempt to insult their betters.
Adults like me often make isparaging comments about pesky insects that
won't go away.
> That's why you are being publicly spanked.
>
Oh my god your delusions of adequacy are funny stuff.
>
> "Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
>
>>Maybe by the time you've graduated high school you'll have learned the
>>difference between force and acceleration, and the significance of each.
>
>
> Newtonian mechanics can help here. Several hundred years ago, Newton
> discovered the equation F = m*a. An equation of which you remain
> blissfully
> ignorant, and one that relates force to mass and acceleration. Your claim
> is that
> force doesn't matter, acceleration does. But according to the laws of
> motiton,
> acceleration is not possible without an unbalanced implied force.
>
> Force is the thing that drive action. Your claim that force is
> unimportant and that acceleration is, a childishly ignorant confusion of
> cause (force) with effect (acceleration).
>
> You are ignorant of even the most fundamental grade school level
> appreciation of rudimentary physics.
>
> And on top of that you are a LYING MOTHER FUCKER.
>
> GIven your vast ignorance, and your dishonesty, it is hardly shocking
> that you would take the KKKonservative position that altering road
> regulation (driving speeds) could save fuel.
>
> I have never met a KKKonservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual
> liar.
>
> You are no exception.
Holy shit you are dumb.
Hint: you can't cause acceleration without force, but you can most
certainly apply force without causing any acceleration at all.
For all your babbling about "newtonian mechanics" you still remain
dangerously ignorant of them, an also their applications re: dangers to
human and other animal physiology.
Now run along and shoot yourself in the face, there's a good fuckwit.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793564 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 19:26 |
|
Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> For precisely the same reason that we must legislate current trevle speeds
>> in order to
>> prevent chaos on the roads.
>
>Really? Got a cite for that?
>
>Hint: speed limits are entirely unnecessary given competent drivers;
>otherwise why would fatality rates be LOWER on the Autobahnen than on US
>Interstates?
Europeans drivers tend to be more skilled than American ones. Anybody
stuck behind an SUV doing 65 in the fast lane with a phone in one hand
and their coffee in the other knows this.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793574 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 21:50 |
|
In article <gAMqj.5105$612.1440 [at] read1.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
> The ultimate goal is to improve the living standards of the human
>population without damaging the biosphere.
>
> Now answer the question Mother Fucker. How does it reduce highway speeds
>and thereby save fuel?
You can't do that, village idiot. Reducing highway speeds directly
results in a decreased standard of living. You know this to be true,
as all your gloating over the golf carts you claim will be the future
of automobiles is glee over the hardship such a situation would cause.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793575 ] |
Fri, 08 February 2008 21:54 |
|
In article <8l7pq31de43lvulr99ghruckctnjhue7a2 [at] 4ax.com>,
Governor Swill <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net> used a stick in the sand to babble
> >> For precisely the same reason that we must legislate current trevle
> >> speeds
> >> in order to
> >> prevent chaos on the roads.
> >
> >Really? Got a cite for that?
> >
> >Hint: speed limits are entirely unnecessary given competent drivers;
> >otherwise why would fatality rates be LOWER on the Autobahnen than on US
> >Interstates?
>
> Europeans drivers tend to be more skilled than American ones.
BS. Anyone who thinks that needs to be reminded of Patton's drive
across France in 1944.
-john-
--
============================================================ ==========
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john [at] johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
============================================================ ==========
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793616 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 06:48 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> You can't do that, village idiot. Reducing highway speeds directly
> results in a decreased standard of living.
It's either an amazing coincidence that exactly 60 mph produces the
optimal standard of living or that highway speeds of > 60 mph must produce
an even higher standard of living.
So what is the optimal standard lf living speed? My Ignorant Little
KKKonservative Mother Fucker?
10,000 mph? 100,000 MPH?
Ahahahahahahahaha. You are too stupid to be permitted to breathe.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793636 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:45 |
|
"John A. Weeks III" <john [at] johnweeks.com> used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> Europeans drivers tend to be more skilled than American ones.
>
>BS. Anyone who thinks that needs to be reminded of Patton's drive
>across France in 1944.
*plonk*
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793637 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:47 |
|
"V-for-Vendicar" <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> used a stick in
the sand to babble
> It's either an amazing coincidence that exactly 60 mph produces the
>optimal standard of living or that highway speeds of > 60 mph must produce
>an even higher standard of living.
>
> So what is the optimal standard lf living speed?
For me it would be 90 mph. My car drives quite safely at that speed
and it would greatly reduce my travel time and thus increase the
quality of my life and therefore my standard of living. But as long
as the speed limit remains 70, I'll have to content myself with
driving 80.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793655 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 10:03 |
|
>> For precisely the same reason that we must legislate current trevle
>> speeds
>> in order to
>> prevent chaos on the roads.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Really? Got a cite for that?
When you get old enough to drive, you will find it in your drivers
handbook.
"Nate Nagel" <njnagel [at] roosters.net> wrote
> Hint: speed limits are entirely unnecessary given competent drivers;
You have just proved yourself to be incompetent.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #793657 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 10:28 |
|
>> So what is the optimal standard lf living speed?
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> For me it would be 90 mph. My car drives quite safely at that speed
> and it would greatly reduce my travel time and thus increase the
> quality of my life and therefore my standard of living. But as long
> as the speed limit remains 70, I'll have to content myself with
> driving 80.
|
|
|
| Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #793658 ] |
Sat, 09 February 2008 10:51 |
|
>> So what is the optimal standard lf living speed?
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> For me it would be 90 mph. My car drives quite safely at that speed
> and it would greatly reduce my travel time and thus increase the
> quality of my life and therefore my standard of living. But as long
> as the speed limit remains 70, I'll have to content myself with
> driving 80.
So your standard of living will be had by driving down the highway, weaving
in and out of traffic at a speed that is 1.5 times highway speeds, and 3
times the speed limit in the city.
Ahahahahahahaah........ Tell that to the police officer who arrests you and
confiscates your drivers lisence.
You had best hope it isn't me who stops you cause I would not only make your
car unroad-worthy, but you as well.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794043 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 21:48 |
|
In article <V8brj.8139$612.6528 [at] read1.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>> You can't do that, village idiot. Reducing highway speeds directly
>> results in a decreased standard of living.
>
> It's either an amazing coincidence that exactly 60 mph produces the
>optimal standard of living or that highway speeds of > 60 mph must produce
>an even higher standard of living.
>
> So what is the optimal standard lf living speed?
The faster the better, V-for-village-idiot.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794046 ] |
Tue, 12 February 2008 21:55 |
|
In article <pIerj.15324$dA2.13835 [at] read2.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>Ahahahahahahaah........ Tell that to the police officer who arrests you and
>confiscates your drivers lisence.
>
>You had best hope it isn't me who stops you cause I would not only make your
>car unroad-worthy, but you as well.
You're no cop, V-for-village-idiot. They have low standards, but they
DO have standards.
Hell, even the rent-a-cop companies probably have enough standards to
exclude you.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794131 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 14:12 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> You're no cop, V-for-village-idiot. They have low standards, but they
> DO have standards.
You don't have to be a cop to make a citizen's arrest, and I have made
several.
Coming home last night I was amused to see two cars coming down the road.
One following another 15 feet behind. Their speed - approx 30 MPH.
Too close on a clearly lit clean road.
But it was dark, with 4 inches of unplowed snow on the unsalted, unsanded
road.
I immediatly thought of you.
You had best hope it isn't me who stops you cause I would not only make your
car unroad-worthy, but you as well.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794133 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 14:16 |
|
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> The faster the better, V-for-village-idiot.
That's only true for your wife and daughter Russotto.
The smart fortwo city car will become available in electric form later this
year, after making its first appearance at the British International Motor
Show. The smart ev does away with the usual turbocharged three-cylinder
engine and instead gets a 30kW electric motor
Top speed is just 70mph, but the 0-30mph time is actually better than that
of the petrol fortwo at 6.5 seconds. The expected range is 72 Miles, and the
car is exempt from both Vehicle Excise Duty and congestion charges.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794135 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 14:43 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> > The faster the better, V-for-village-idiot.
>
> That's only true for your wife and daughter Russotto.
>
> The smart fortwo city car will become available in electric form later this
> year, after making its first appearance at the British International Motor
> Show. The smart ev does away with the usual turbocharged three-cylinder
> engine and instead gets a 30kW electric motor
>
> Top speed is just 70mph,
It says 60 mph here.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/12/24/first-electric-smart -fortwo-goes-to-coventry-city-council/
And it says they're only making 100 (at least for the UK trials).
> but the 0-30mph time is actually better than that
> of the petrol fortwo at 6.5 seconds. The expected range is 72 Miles, and the
> car is exempt from both Vehicle Excise Duty and congestion charges.
It says 65 miles here.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/25/field-testing-of-ele ctric-smart-fortwo-to-start-in-london-mid-de/
" Daimler plans to launch the electric Smart commercially as soon as 2010."
NOT later this year.
Graham
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794156 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 17:37 |
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:12:23 -0800, "V-for-Vendicar"
<Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>> You're no cop, V-for-village-idiot. They have low standards, but they
>> DO have standards.
>
> You don't have to be a cop to make a citizen's arrest, and I have made
>several.
>
> Coming home last night I was amused to see two cars coming down the road.
>One following another 15 feet behind. Their speed - approx 30 MPH.
>
> Too close on a clearly lit clean road.
>
> But it was dark, with 4 inches of unplowed snow on the unsalted, unsanded
>road.
>
> I immediatly thought of you.
>
>You had best hope it isn't me who stops you cause I would not only make your
>car unroad-worthy, but you as well. <snip>
CAs for traffic infractions are generally frowned upon by many police
agencies and highway patrols, unless they snag a bigger fish in the
perp's car, such as dope or paraphernalia, open container, no reg,
suspended license, and so on. My experience has generally been,
though, that an asshole who believes that "speeding is my
Constitutional right" will generally have several other ticketable (or
arrestable) offenses obvious, if just a cursory search is taken, and a
couple I nabbed had bench warrants.
The problem of safety, though, is evident in arresting these louts and
then trying to get a unit to respond timely. Many of the
above-described violaters are also gun nuts of one persuasion or
another, and usually have a sidearm under the front seat. I know of
one DUI who blasted through a security check point at 65 MPH at a
military hardware plant, and the in-house security detail detained and
cuffed him. The officers who nabbed him estimated his BAC to be at
least a 2.0, maybe higher. The responding sheriff said he wouldn't
take the arrest, and after insistence from the security office's
captain, he finally did, threw the perp in the car, got him off the
plants property, and turned him loose again! The deputy also
chastised the security officer (who is peace officer qualified and
armed) about "false arrest."
The reason? "I have other, more important things to do!" The perp
simply stumbled back onto government property, fell into his car and
peeled off back onto public roadways while giving the finger to the
security cops. Follow-ups showed that the deputy had no disciplinary
action taken, despite complaints.
My pet peeve in California: drunken boaters or dirt bikers on
freeways pulling a loaded trailer going 75+ MPH with no CHP ever
pulling them over. Ditto for gypsy truckers. Complaints usually
result in heavy coverage on a particular beat for about two weeks, and
the average speed slows down on the road in that beat by around 20
MPH. Two weeks later, it's back to "as fast as I want to go," which
in most places on good freeway is 80-85 MPH. The CHP recently tagged
AVERAGE freeway speeds on Southern California freeways outside of rush
hour at 83 MPH. A crackdown ensued, and monitoring systems showed the
average dropped to 71 in two weeks. Then, $3+ gas showed up, and,
especially with GenYers who don't know how a vehicle works anyway took
a long time to figure out that driving 65 saves a lot of gasoline.
Now, average out-of-rush-hour speeds are around 73, an improvement,
but not good enough.
One officer told me, "After Bush chopped off our extra manpower
funding, we simply do not have the manpower on any shift to get the
more minor offenders. We're wrapped around the axle just doing
accidents and criminal pursuits!" Way to go, Bush Bird! On top of
that, AHHHHNuld Schwarzenegger, in another display of non-existant
brilliance, decides to abolish the California State Police and throw
all their "ceremonial" and politician-guarding duties onto the CHP.
Republicans are evidently "crime-friendly."
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794158 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 17:52 |
|
In article <v666r3949db8n7cf76bb1mol4qcut6ndl5 [at] 4ax.com>, DeserTBoB wrote:
> My pet peeve in California: drunken boaters or dirt bikers on
> freeways pulling a loaded trailer going 75+ MPH with no CHP ever
> pulling them over. Ditto for gypsy truckers. Complaints usually
> result in heavy coverage on a particular beat for about two weeks, and
> the average speed slows down on the road in that beat by around 20
> MPH. Two weeks later, it's back to "as fast as I want to go," which
> in most places on good freeway is 80-85 MPH. The CHP recently tagged
> AVERAGE freeway speeds on Southern California freeways outside of rush
> hour at 83 MPH. A crackdown ensued, and monitoring systems showed the
> average dropped to 71 in two weeks. Then, $3+ gas showed up, and,
> especially with GenYers who don't know how a vehicle works anyway took
> a long time to figure out that driving 65 saves a lot of gasoline.
> Now, average out-of-rush-hour speeds are around 73, an improvement,
> but not good enough.
>
> One officer told me, "After Bush chopped off our extra manpower
> funding, we simply do not have the manpower on any shift to get the
> more minor offenders. We're wrapped around the axle just doing
> accidents and criminal pursuits!" Way to go, Bush Bird! On top of
> that, AHHHHNuld Schwarzenegger, in another display of non-existant
> brilliance, decides to abolish the California State Police and throw
> all their "ceremonial" and politician-guarding duties onto the CHP.
>
> Republicans are evidently "crime-friendly."
I am going ignore your apparent team based politics and other nonsense
and make one point.
Why should the federal government be funding local and state police
departments anyway? There is no obligation to do so, in fact, there is an
obligation NOT TO if we are to believe in the original scheme of things.
We are not supposed to have centralized government dealing with such
things. Especially centralized police. When the funding comes from the
federal government it comes with various strings attached that
centralize what ever is being funded to one degree or another.
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794159 ] |
Wed, 13 February 2008 18:08 |
|
In article <T0Csj.14742$612.3077 [at] read1.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
>> You're no cop, V-for-village-idiot. They have low standards, but they
>> DO have standards.
>
> You don't have to be a cop to make a citizen's arrest, and I have made
>several.
You're lying, of course.
> Coming home last night I was amused to see two cars coming down the road.
>One following another 15 feet behind. Their speed - approx 30 MPH.
I'd wager you are incapable of accurately estimating their speed OR
their separation.
> Too close on a clearly lit clean road.
>
> But it was dark, with 4 inches of unplowed snow on the unsalted, unsanded
>road.
>
> I immediatly thought of you.
Might have been me; there was granular ice on the ground last night, and a few
idiots tailgating me. I wasn't too worried; after all, there was
little to no chance I was going to stop suddenly for any reason.
>You had best hope it isn't me who stops you cause I would not only make your
>car unroad-worthy, but you as well.
You already admitted to not being a cop, V-for-Village-Idiot. You
going to make a citizens traffic stop? Oh, wait, there is no such
thing.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794175 ] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 00:00 |
|
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:52:16 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
(Brent P) wrote:
>I am going ignore your apparent team based politics and other nonsense
>and make one point. <snip>
Oooh...someone got his feelers bent!
>Why should the federal government be funding local and state police
>departments anyway? There is no obligation to do so, in fact, there is an
>obligation NOT TO if we are to believe in the original scheme of things. <snip>
Then beam yourself down to 1787 with the "ronbots" and other kOOks.
Your myopic vision of the US isn't needed at this time.
Be sure to pack a powdered wig!
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794176 ] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 00:15 |
|
In article <ght6r317n24351uddr8ujl82otbcdo9sq7 [at] 4ax.com>, DeserTBoB wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 10:52:16 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>I am going ignore your apparent team based politics and other nonsense
>>and make one point. <snip>
>
> Oooh...someone got his feelers bent!
Not at all, you've displayed what you displayed.
>>Why should the federal government be funding local and state police
>>departments anyway? There is no obligation to do so, in fact, there is an
>>obligation NOT TO if we are to believe in the original scheme of things. <snip>
> Then beam yourself down to 1787 with the "ronbots" and other kOOks.
> Your myopic vision of the US isn't needed at this time.
> Be sure to pack a powdered wig!
I see, you're another statist control freak. Well, I hope you enjoy the
growing police state, don't cry to me when you become the next victim of
a tasering because some steriod raged cop couldn't keep himself under
control at a federally funded checkpoint. Also don't cry to me when a
federal informant gives the DEA the wrong address and your door gets
busted down and you or members of your family are shot.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794202 ] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 05:57 |
|
>> Top speed is just 70mph,
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> It says 60 mph here.
> It says 65 miles here.
Doesn't matter. It's not a highway vehicle. But the manufacturer can
simplyboost the speed by either stepping the motor fastor (if it's a
perminant magnet motor, or by upping th volage if it's just a plain DC.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> " Daimler plans to launch the electric Smart commercially as soon as
> 2010."
> NOT later this year.
You planning on being out of recession later this year?
A small Prototype fleet is already on the road. There really isn't
anything to engineer, as you just replace the engine with a battery operated
motor, and add a charging system and regenerative breaking - all pretty much
canned parts.
The batteries used though are the Zebra type - molton salt - and they need
a temperature several tens of degrese F above that of boiling water to work.
Below that the electrolyte solidifies and requires considerable time (if
cooled to room temp), to get the elctrolyte re-melted and back into shape.
But batteries are batteries for the most part, so you can expect that they
will be reaplaced by LIOn or NMIh type.
Back to gas consumption for the moment.
On a long journey of 1,000 km the Italian car magazine "Quattroruote"
measured the fuel consumption of the smart fortwo cdi and confirmed the
standard consumption of 3.3 litres per 100 kilometres.
The current December issue of the magazine carries a report of the test
drive. The smart travelled 1,000 kilometres from Rome to Salzburgon a single
tank of fuel to see whether the stated standard consumption of just 3.3
litres per 100 kilometres could really be achieved.
The route chosen largely consisted of motorways, but there were also detours
and traffic jams because of roadworks, long uphill stretches and city
traffic in Rome, Bolzano and Salzburg.
The result: the smart fortwo cdi travelled the 1,000 km on a single tank of
fuel. This corresponds to average consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100
kilometres i.e. the standard consumption. According to "Quattroruote" this
makes the smart fortwo cdi the vehicle with the lowest average consumption
that the magazine has ever tested in the history of its road tests.
With standard consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100 kilometres and CO2
emissions of just 88 grams per kilometre the smart fortwo cdi is the
production vehicle with the lowest consumption and the lowest carbon dioxide
emissions. For customers this means that at present there is no more
economical and climate-friendly car than the smart fortwo cdi.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794235 ] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 17:08 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> >> Top speed is just 70mph,
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> > It says 60 mph here.
> > It says 65 miles here.
>
> Doesn't matter. It's not a highway vehicle.
Yes it IS a 'highway vehicle' you nitwit.
Graham
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794236 ] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 17:09 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> The batteries used though [ in the Smart EV } are the Zebra type - molton
> salt
No they are NOT !
They're NiMH.
Graham
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794237 ] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 17:10 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> The result: the smart fortwo cdi travelled the 1,000 km on a single tank of
> fuel. This corresponds to average consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100
> kilometres
So really there's no need for silly clown car EVs.
Graham
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794261 ] |
Thu, 14 February 2008 21:16 |
|
In article <aTPsj.14777$612.14388 [at] read1.cgocable.net>,
V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
> A small Prototype fleet is already on the road. There really isn't
>anything to engineer, as you just replace the engine with a battery operated
>motor, and add a charging system and regenerative breaking - all pretty much
>canned parts.
ROTFL. You really ain't too bright, are you.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794359 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 09:02 |
|
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the
sand to babble
>> The result: the smart fortwo cdi travelled the 1,000 km on a single tank of
>> fuel. This corresponds to average consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100
>> kilometres
>
>So really there's no need for silly clown car EVs.
>
>Graham
http://www.teslamotors.com/
220 mile range. Two cents per mile electric cost. 0-60 in under
5seconds, body based on Lotus Elise, uses laptop batteries. Favorably
reviewed in this month's Automobile. Two of their editors wrung out
prototypes number 19 and 20. Should be on sale to the general public
in a year but at 110K a pop isn't likely to find a spot in every
garage.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794366 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 13:33 |
|
>> Doesn't matter. It's not a highway vehicle.
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Yes it IS a 'highway vehicle' you nitwit.
Lets be clear about this. Smart can be driven on a highway, most
certainly. But that's not its target utilization. Urban commuting is.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794367 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 13:35 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> The batteries used though [ in the Smart EV } are the Zebra type -
>> molton
>> salt
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> No they are NOT !
> They're NiMH.
Zebra battery technologies for all electric smart car
O'Sullivan, T.M. Bingham, C.M. Clark, R.E.
This paper appears in: Power Electronics, Electrical Drives,
Automation and Motion, 2006. SPEEDAM 2006. International Symposium on
Publication Date: May, 23rd - 26th, 2006
ISBN: 1-4244-0193-3
Posted online: 2006-07-05 09:00:11.0
Smart Car goes electric, uses Zebra battery
by Tyler on Sun 16 Jul 2006 11:48 PM EDT | Permanent Link | Cosmos
http://tyler.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/7/16/2130125.h tml
The Green Car Congress reports that DaimlerChrysler will release a Smart
fortwo electric vehicle this November as part of a commercial trial in the
U.K. that will be limited to corporate customers. The car will only be
available for lease, unfortunately, and only 200 vehicles will be delivered
for the trial.
The car will be powered by a Zebra sodium nickel chloride battery, the same
energy-storage system being used in the Halton Hills Hydro load-shifting
demonstration that I posted about last week. The battery will have a 30
kilowatt output and the car will be able to reach a top speed of 120
kilometres per hour. The range on full charge is 116 kilometres and the
battery can charge from 20 per cent to 80 per cent in four hours. Full
recharge takes eight hours.
Seems interest is growing for the Zebra battery. If volume production is the
only thing keeping this technology from being economical, perhaps it is a
good idea to open up a North American manufacturing facility with
100,000-unit-a-year capacity, as the folks at Halton Hills Hydro would like
to do.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794368 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 13:38 |
|
V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> The result: the smart fortwo cdi travelled the 1,000 km on a single tank
>> of
>> fuel. This corresponds to average consumption of just 3.3 litres per 100
>> kilometres
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> So really there's no need for silly clown car EVs.
Well, you ain't gonna lower your CO2 emissons levels by the required 90%
without them.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794371 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 14:01 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>> A small Prototype fleet is already on the road. There really isn't
>>anything to engineer, as you just replace the engine with a battery
>>operated
>>motor, and add a charging system and regenerative breaking - all pretty
>>much
>>canned parts.
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> ROTFL. You really ain't too bright, are you.
Bright enough to know that you don't fully engineer a prototype until you
are one step away from going into production.
|
|
|
| Re: Speeding is my constitituonal right. [message #794380 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 14:19 |
|
> V-for-Vendicar <Justice [at] ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>> You don't have to be a cop to make a citizen's arrest, and I have made
>>several.
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> You're lying, of course.
Drunk Drivers.
>> Coming home last night I was amused to see two cars coming down the
>> road.
>>One following another 15 feet behind. Their speed - approx 30 MPH.
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> I'd wager you are incapable of accurately estimating their speed OR
> their separation.
Around 2.5 car lengths behind.
>> Too close on a clearly lit clean road.
>>
>> But it was dark, with 4 inches of unplowed snow on the unsalted,
>> unsanded
>>road.
>>
>> I immediatly thought of you.
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> Might have been me;
You are lucky you survived.
>>You had best hope it isn't me who stops you cause I would not only make
>>your
>>car unroad-worthy, but you as well.
"Matthew T. Russotto" <russotto [at] grace.speakeasy.net> wrote
> You already admitted to not being a cop, V-for-Village-Idiot. You
> going to make a citizens traffic stop?
With a baseball bat if needed.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 11:38:59 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.21097 Sekunden |
