Welcome to Laser Pointer Forums - discuss green laser pointers, blue laser pointers, and all types of lasers

Buy Site Supporter Role (remove some ads) | LPF Donations

Links below open in new window

FrozenGate by Avery

FAIL THREAD!!!!






What a jackass. While I agree it's annoying when people brake for no reason... just maintain distance.

I will note, personally, it always seems to me like truck/SUV drivers tailgate more versus sedan drivers.

To any would be tailgaters... just consider that if you do crash into someone else from the rear, its your fault 100%. Your insurance will go up, YOU will pay for the other person's car repairs, rental, and possibly have a lawsuit on your hands. I know if someone rear ends me, especially because of tailgating, I will not hesitate to make their life as miserable as possible.

Edit: Here's a fail:

http://www.fasttech.com/products/1/...-bike-3-mode-5-led-red-safety-tail-light-w-2-

The company is very good, ships quickly, and communicative. Doesn't mean they don't sell tons of crap too though.
 
Last edited:
The lasers aren't even parallel. I can see a rider getting sued because the laser beam bounced off some water and hit somebody in the eye. They may not be powerful or do any damage but a-holes do exist.
 
Spectre Gadget said:
Funny how the EPA instantly approved a new fuel that destroys emission control hardware!
Click to expand...

Dont always believe what you read. Alcohol is clean burning...and at some point there wont be a need for emission control. It takes very little to convert the system to alcohol. As soon as alcohol becomes more mainstream the car builders will follow suit. The more alcohol we use the less we depend on oil...the more money that stays in the country. Of course the people that are invested into the oil industry want you to think alcohol is bad...and I suspect are funding those new tests. As it clearly says the industry prefers pure fuel. Of course it does. Pure means nothing changes. Alcohol is a good thing...not a bad. I've never seen alcohol gel...only gas. The article is pure BS.
 
I'd take an ugly *** Prius before driving a vehicle that runs on ethanol. The fuel economy sucks and they don't make as much power. It may run cleaner but I bet produces the same or more pollutants during production. Couple more things. I'd rather not run something that is made from food. There's plenty of people that could use the food outside the US even though there are some within the US that need it too. Otherwise we are too fat. Taking away from the food supply also drives the cost up at the store. What if there is a serious drought?

Pure gasoline won't as many problems as thopse with 10% ethonal when it sits for long periods. Even biodiesel has problems if it doesn't get used right away.
 
Dr_Evil said:
they don't make as much power
Click to expand...

Tell that to this guy. :tinfoil:


Its a simple distillation process...nothing compared to what it takes to produce gas. This includes both financial, and global impact. If...and when they go into full production it will be its own entity because it will be produced for fuel...and not food. Do you really think they would use food crops to provide fuel for the country? Food crops could never produce enough. They are already engineering modified crops, and techniques to produce a large quantities of sustainable resources. Its going to be big business...and is going to happen if you like it or not.

I do agree with you about freshness but there are already products on the market to stabilize ethanol based fuels for a year+.

Once autos are produce to take full advantage of alcohol you will get better power...fuel economy...and way lower emissions than gas.
 
HippyHop said:
Once autos are produce to take full advantage of alcohol you will get better power...fuel economy...and way lower emissions than gas.
Click to expand...

In the mean time, lets all keep feeding this crap to engines that weren't designed for it. That sounds like a good idea.....

I hate half-assed work-arounds. Either make engines that run on ethanol, or a blend, or give us a choice. It used to be gas stations would tell you if they had ethanol in their fuel how much they had. Now, they just say Contains Ethanol.
 
Let's also not forget that we're kind of in an old boom right now, that is likely to ramp up over the next 2-3 decades.

To me environmentalists who proudly drive Priuses are a fail... if you get the car to be less dependent on gas prices... that's a win. If you got it to be more "green"... you failed. The total environmental impact from a prius is far worse than it is from a small fuel efficient car, that gets 30mpg+
 
HippyHop said:
Dont always believe what you read. Alcohol is clean burning...and at some point there wont be a need for emission control. It takes very little to convert the system to alcohol. As soon as alcohol becomes more mainstream the car builders will follow suit. The more alcohol we use the less we depend on oil...the more money that stays in the country. Of course the people that are invested into the oil industry want you to think alcohol is bad...and I suspect are funding those new tests. As it clearly says the industry prefers pure fuel. Of course it does. Pure means nothing changes. Alcohol is a good thing...not a bad. I've never seen alcohol gel...only gas. The article is pure BS.
Click to expand...

Tell you the truth, it's hard to believe anything anymore. I haven't voted in over 10 years because it seems like our 'leaders' can't produce someone better.

The biggest FAIL I've seen is when Obama got elected. He was the best of the three, don't get me wrong, but the election was like a reality TV show:

1) First black president.
2) First woman president.
3) Some old guy that wouldn't get elected if he were the only candidate, because the American public won't vote for an old guy.

I think that one was rigged. Anyway, that was my rant for the year.
 
HippyHop said:
Tell that to this guy. :tinfoil:



Its a simple distillation process...nothing compared to what it takes to produce gas. This includes both financial, and global impact. If...and when they go into full production it will be its own entity because it will be produced for fuel...and not food. Do you really think they would use food crops to provide fuel for the country? Food crops could never produce enough. They are already engineering modified crops, and techniques to produce a large quantities of sustainable resources. Its going to be big business...and is going to happen if you like it or not.

I do agree with you about freshness but there are already products on the market to stabilize ethanol based fuels for a year+.

Once autos are produce to take full advantage of alcohol you will get better power...fuel economy...and way lower emissions than gas.
Click to expand...

That guy has a vehicle designed to run on ethanol. He also doesn't emission systems in place robbing power. I know drag racing isn't about fuel economy. It would most likely be worse though if emission systems were in place.

Corn is one product used to produce ethanol. You're telling me that isn't a food product? We are already running out of space to grow food. Where do you think we'll get the space to grow crops for ethanol? Droughts affect crops more than hurricanes affect oil drilling.

I don't buy into the ethanol or any of that hybrid/electric vehicle junk. As IE said, the environmental impact is just as bad, if not worse. Those batteries don't last forever. First you have the production which produces all kinds of waste. Then you have to dispose of them. A lot of the neodymium used in hybrid and electric cars comes from China. I don't hate China but they have some of the worst work ethics. Manufacturing pollutants are also pretty high there.

Back on topic...

tumblrmgx3si8sff1qdlh1io1500.gif
 
Dr_Evil said:
As IE said, the environmental impact is just as bad, if not worse. Those batteries don't last forever. First you have the production which produces all kinds of waste. Then you have to dispose of them. A lot of the neodymium used in hybrid and electric cars comes from China. I don't hate China but they have some of the worst work ethics. Manufacturing pollutants are also pretty high there.
Click to expand...

No, no, the environmental impact of a hybrid is not just as bad, it is worse, than that of a comparable sized car with decent fuel mileage.

The whole idea of targeting cars for environmental protection purposes is absurd to me.

Yes cards pollute. That much is true.

What many fail to realize though, is there are much worse sources of pollution out there than cars. Your average dog for example, is ultimately more detrimental to the environment than an large SUV. Cats are responsible the extinction of countless species.

Last I checked no one has been trumpeting a call to kill of cats and dogs to protect the environment.

As far as man made global warming is concerned, certainly there can be no debate that there is climate change.

To have the hubris though to believe that we are wholly responsible for it, is absurd.

There have been climate changes before, and there will be again.

[/rant]
 
InfinitusEquitas said:
As far as man made global warming is concerned, certainly there can be no debate that there is climate change.

To have the hubris though to believe that we are wholly responsible for it, is absurd.

There have been climate changes before, and there will be again.

[/rant]
Click to expand...

Our influence has simply accelerated the time frame

To paraphrase Joe Turkel in "The Blade Runner" . . .

The light that burns twice as bright, burns twice as fast
And (we humans) have burned so very, very, brightly

Other life forms have poisoned their environment and failed
Humans have just done it so very, very quickly

Peace,
dave
 
daguin said:
Our influence has simply accelerated the time frame

To paraphrase Joe Turkel in "The Blade Runner" . . .

The light that burns twice as bright, burns twice as fast
And (we humans) have burned so very, very, brightly

Other life forms have poisoned their environment and failed
Humans have just done it so very, very quickly

Peace,
dave
Click to expand...

The environment can, and will recover. Even the worst polluted areas in the world, will for the most part revert to nature just fine within several decades, and certainly within centuries.

Take a look at Chernobyl for instance. While it's true that long term exposure for us is problematic to say the least, both flora and fauna are thriving there now. Interestingly enough, in a lot of ways it's now the perfect nature preserve.

Yes I'm sure that there are effects from the radiation, and that they are detrimental... but for the most part, even that area, that place, has not been sterilized.

So the question is not whether the environment would survive, but rather, would we survive in the new environment.

With that consideration out of the way though, still, our impact is not nearly as severe as we would like to think.

Natural processes, the gulf stream, volcanic eruptions, sunspot activity, all of these can, and do affect the environment more than we can. We are quite literally scratching the earth's surface.

So while I certainly agree, we should all try to be more environmentally friendly, conserve energy, try to produce less trash, etc, I don't think we should fool ourselves into foolhardy ultimately wasteful endeavours like the dozens of failed companies our government paid for to develop "clean, renewable energy" nor panic over climate change clamoring for change, for the sake of change alone.

Considering where this conversation started, (ethanol, oil,) I think it is a great failure that instead of investing in further efficiency for things like the power supply grid, power production, and working on cars that are already on the road, our government instead pushes "green" cars green companies, subsidizing things like the chevy volt, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, per car.
 
Last edited:
InfinitusEquitas said:
The environment can, and will recover. Even the worst polluted areas in the world, will for the most part revert to nature just fine within several decades, and certainly within centuries.

Take a look at Chernobyl for instance. While it's true that long term exposure for us is problematic to say the least, both flora and fauna are thriving there now. Interestingly enough, in a lot of ways it's now the perfect nature preserve.

Yes I'm sure that there are effects from the radiation, and that they are detrimental... but for the most part, even that area, that place, has not been sterilized.

So the question is not whether the environment would survive, but rather, would we survive in the new environment.

With that consideration out of the way though, still, our impact is not nearly as severe as we would like to think.

Natural processes, the gulf stream, volcanic eruptions, sunspot activity, all of these can, and do affect the environment more than we can. We are quite literally scratching the earth's surface.

So while I certainly agree, we should all try to be more environmentally friendly, conserve energy, try to produce less trash, etc, I don't think we should fool ourselves into foolhardy ultimately wasteful endeavours like the dozens of failed companies our government paid for to develop "clean, renewable energy" nor panic over climate change clamoring for change, for the sake of change alone.

Considering where this conversation started, (ethanol, oil,) I think it is a great failure that instead of investing in further efficiency for things like the power supply grid, power production, and working on cars that are already on the road, our government instead pushes "green" cars green companies, subsidizing things like the chevy volt, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, per car.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with humans are insignificant vs. some of the potential "natural" causes for our demise, but that was really my main point.
The "cycles" are normal and natural.
We've just sped one up.
Certainly NOT to the level of one of the potential natural disasters.
One large enough asteroid or comet striking the earth or one of the active supervolcanoes having a major eruption and it would all be over in a year (or two)

The secondary point implied in the above is more fatalistic.
I do NOT believe that humans will survive the extreme end of next cycle.

Also, there is very little that we can do about it.
Many of the more "natural" causes of global warming have already begun to accelerate.
These processes are far too immense for ANY action, taken by humans, to effect.
They are "out of our hands"
If we stopped ALL of our greenhouse gas production tomorrow, the process would continue

The warming that has already occurred is enough.
Fires and desertification will continue.
The increased temperature will lessen the effectiveness of the oceans to "hold" carbon.
The temperature will continue to rise until enough of the ice at the poles melts that the influx of cool, fresh water will cause the trade winds to change.
That change (along with the less dense fresh water "floating" on top of the more dense salt water) will cause the oceanic gyres to fail
Once that happens the next ice age will occur.

And the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round
Just like they did before we arrived and just like they will after we're gone

Make hay while the sun shines :)

Peace,
dave
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.





Back
Top